America’s freight railroads have worked long and hard to become the nation’s premier mode of freight transportation in terms of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and productivity. And it is our significant investment in our network – 40 cents out of every revenue dollar – that is responsible for these achievements. These investments - an estimated $460 billion over the last 30 years – have paid dividends to the nation in the form lower prices for consumers, cleaner air and reduced highway congestion.

As we look to develop a world class passenger rail system on par with our world class freight rail system, a sustained commitment to investment will be required. Vice President Biden recently compared President Obama’s vision for high speed rail to that of President Eisenhower’s vision for the Interstate highway system. However, our initial down payment, the $8 billion set aside for the nation’s high speed rail program, pales in comparison to the hundreds of billions of dollars that are spent each year on our nation’s highway system.

America’s freight railroads support the President’s visionary approach to saving energy and reducing congestion and pollution by moving our more people and freight by rail. Recent agreements in key corridors around the country are evidence of our commitment to the Administration’s goal of developing a world class high speed rail system. However, if the Administration, Congress and the states are interested in building a successful system, significant long-term investment will be required.

Updated at 4:17 p.m. on October 15

Fawn Johnson has framed this week’s question correctly when she asked if the government can support the growth of new passenger rail systems "in a way that won’t bankrupt the federal treasury or leave states high and dry." Most of my colleagues seemed to avoid answering the question. They emphasized instead the undisputed virtues of rail transportation and its contribution to job creation, mobility, congestion reduction and energy independence, as if implying that these benefits are so compelling and the need for funding is so obvious as to require no answer.

The reaction of various advocacy groups to President Obama’s recent call for a $50 billion stimulus spending plan for transportation infrastructure has been similar. The benefits of the investment, they were suggesting, are so undisputable and so overwhelming that they leave us no choice but to find the money. And where should the funds come from? "Stay tuned, we’ll let you know," was the answer of one top Administration official.

But convincing the next Congress of the need to act, whether to fund an infrastructure "down payment" of $50 billion or to authorize a proposed $500 billion multi-year surface transportation program, will not be easy. Most of the congressional lawmakers do not perceive infrastructure as an urgent priority. They see no signs of a popular outcry about the stalled transportation reauthorization, nor do they perceive a groundswell of grassroots support for massive transportation investments.

Indeed, what they see is just the opposite. They note New Jersey voters strongly approving Governor Chris Christie’s decision to cancel work on the long-planned rail tunnel under the Hudson River on the grounds that "the state simply doesn’t have the money" to pay for overruns in the potential $11-14 billion project. They also see Republican candidates for governor in California (Meg Whitman), Florida (Rick Scott), Ohio (John Kasich) and Wisconsin (Scott Walker) pledging to cancel high-speed rail projects in their states if elected — and running ahead of their Democratic opponents who unanimously support President Obama’s $8 billion high-speed rail initiative. They see a bold and visionary Amtrak proposal to link Boston and Washington with a dedicated high-speed rail line greeted in Congress with a yawn. And they read in a much noticed Sunday Times Magazine article "Education of a President," that the President himself thinks "there’s no such thing as ‘shovel-ready projects’ when it comes to public works."

More evidence of public opposition to higher infrastructure spending comes from the findings of a new October 2010 survey by the Pew Center on the States and the Public Institute of California titled "Facing the Facts: Public Attitudes and Fiscal Realities in Five Stressed States." By a large margin, respondents in five states (California, Arizona, Florida, Illinois and New York) showed a strong unwillingness to support additional transportation funding and offered to put transportation on the chopping block when asked which of their state's biggest expenses they would least protect from budget cuts.

It may be impolitic to say it, but warnings about our infrastructure falling apart seem to come largely from organized interests — stakeholders and advocacy groups. That is not to say that America does not need better roads or transit systems. Bur rightly or wrongly, elected officials often discount cries about "crumbling infrastructure" as self-serving demands for more government money. Moreover, many lawmakers come from rural districts that experience little traffic congestion, whose roads are well maintained and which never hope to benefit from high-speed rail service. And, as Rep. John Mica (R-FL), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the potential future T&I Committee chairman in the 112th Congress likes to point out, more than 60 percent of the stimulus infrastructure dollars still remain unspent. All this adds weight to the legislative inertia of tackling a major infrastructure spending bill any time soon

As one of my colleagues, a sincere and lifelong transportation advocate, put it, "the transportation community is mostly talking to itself and living in a state of denial about the changing political mood." That mood—in the nation at large as well as in the next Congress— is becoming increasingly conservative and concerned with mounting budget deficits and out-of-control spending. Congress will be questioning costly new federal initiatives no matter how well intentioned, several congressional aides told us. And who knows, the new mood may even infect the White House. As one senior White House adviser, quoted in the Sunday Times Magazine story put it, "there's going to be very little incentive for big things over the next two years unless there's some sort of crisis." And by this he did not mean an "infrastructure crisis."

President Obama’s announcement and accompanying report this week should reassure those who worry investing in our nation’s infrastructure might come at the expense of controlling the deficit. As the White House Council of Economic Advisers’ report points out, well-planned and strategic investment in roads, bridges, rail and transit systems has the dual effect of putting people to work today and boosting the economy tomorrow. Statehouses are facing tight budgets to be sure, but allowing our nation to accumulate an infrastructure deficit will only make the trade-offs more painful – the resources more finite – down the road.

Transportation for America noted some of the trade-offs and challenges of infrastructure in a letter to Governor Christie about the ARC tunnel project last week. We agree with President Obama on the need to “focus less on wasteful earmarks, outdated formulas” and we support bringing real benchmarks and accountability to every federal transportation dollar. But we stressed the numerous costs of inaction as well. Projects like the ARC tunnel that ease commuting, increase transportation options and facilitate economic growth are precisely the kind of investment worthy of bipartisan support.

Congressman Blumenauer is right: resources are becoming more limited, and it’s important that we spend wisely. The President’s CEA report echoes what the Economic Policy Institute and others have already found: a federal dollar spent both on catching up with our 20th century infrastructure needs while building a new 21st century multimodal transportation system is one of the best job creators around. And we have every reason to invest now, with resources cheaper and interest rates low.

Getting the balance right will require a continued partnership between federal, state and local governments. Large-scale initiatives like high-speed rail cannot move without the federal government being a fiscal partner but, in general, Washington should couple sustained investments with concrete benchmarks, while allowing states and municipalities to make their own decisions within that framework. The enormously popular TIGER program, which awards merit-based funding to communities that develop their own blueprints, is a good starting point.

Why can an efficient high-speed rail system be operating in Europe, Japan and China but not in the U.S.? States know that their future job growth and economic health depends upon their ability to offer their citizens a balanced set of transportation options – including high-speed and intercity passenger rail – that will alleviate congestion, create faster travel times for consumers and freight, offer people choices on their modes of travel, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil in an environmentally friendly manner.

That’s why the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is recommending that Congress authorize $50 billion over six years for high-speed and intercity passenger rail grants. We are urging Congress to create an Intercity Passenger Rail Account, funded from a diversified portfolio of new revenue that will provide dedicated, guaranteed funding similar to the current Highway Trust Fund that will help states meet their needs for capital improvements.

The states are clearly excited about bringing passenger rail to their neighborhoods. Using the $8 billion included in the Recovery Act for high-speed rail projects, 31 states are forging ahead on significant projects. California has put up $9 billion of its own state revenues; the Florida legislature established the Florida Rail Enterprise fund to supplement federal funds, private investment and fares for their corridor projects.

And the momentum continues. This summer, the Federal Railroad Administration received 77 applications from 25 states for the most recent round of passenger rail grant funding, with proposed projects totaling $8.5 billion for the $2.345 billion available in FY 2010.

The public is clearly engaged. The new Lynchburg, Va., to Washington, D.C., line drew 126,072 passengers in its first year of operation. Amtrak has seen a 6% increase in ridership between FY 2009 and FY 2010.

In Florida, contractors are boring holes along I-4, testing soils and surveying property in anticipation of the Tampa-to-Orlando high-speed rail line expected by 2015. In Illinois, a $98 million project is underway to upgrade 39 miles of Union pacific railroad track for high-speed service between Alton and Lincoln. Maine is replacing 30 miles of track between Portland and Brunswick in anticipation of a Boston-to-Brunswick line with new stations in Freeport and New Brunswick. This week, Rhode Island is announcing a new commuter rail service from Warwick, RI to Boston.

It is time for the United States to provide a robust intercity passenger rail network that provides competitive, reliable and frequent passenger service. As part of its public mission, federal, state and local governments have always supported the construction and maintenance of roads, airports, ports and waterways, and transit systems. Like our interstate system, high-speed and intercity passenger rail networks are not designed to be for-profit operations. And like the interstate, our collection of national parks, our space missions, they are highly visionary in nature – and they all took time and patience to construct and become operational. The United States has an opportunity to build a transportation system for the 21st century. The time is now. States believe in it and states are doing their part to make it happen.

Policy First: In order to support the much-needed growth of new passenger rail systems, we must relook at the entire infrastructure investment process. Travel patterns, economic needs and development have changed and it may be that maintaining every asset ever built is no longer sustainable. It is time to right size our transportation system so that it makes sense for each region in the nation and is financially stable.

We also need to relook at project development processes and environmental clearance. There is so much red tape that even the best project is often choked in paperwork resulting in budget and cost overruns. Any federal transportation program must support the overall development of a national economic policy with core productivity and competitiveness goals. This program would identify key corridors for competitive advantage and develop the infrastructure goals needed to connect markets. States, regions and locals working with the federal government need to jointly develop the regional and local mobility needs through their own set of performance objectives. Key corridors that are identified as necessary for connecting people and markets will have the highest priority in the national interest. The performance goals should be focused on safety, energy efficiency (pollution reduction) and travel time reliability to maintain market competiveness.

Funding Follows Policy: A new federal transportation policy would drive a funding system that would be simplified based on the national corridor goals and regional corridor performance objectives. Once these corridors are determined, the financing needs to be developed with local, regional, state, federal and private capital. The federal government can develop these national funding goals and provide up to 50% of the funds with new travel fees or taxes but either way they will not be enough to build, operate and maintain the whole system. States and regions will need to develop the objectives and means to achieve those goals and identify the remaining 50% mix of public and private capital and operating funds for the local-regional-state travel needs above and beyond the federal mainlines. Self-help regions with private capital and operating partnerships would receive the highest priority for passenger systems funding, while the federal government would focus unique federal/private partnerships resources for freight trade corridors that are in the nation’s economic interest.

With the right sizing of infrastructure based on actual needs and the funding streamlined to get to those needs without border divisions but based on national productivity and economic competitiveness, we will see more integrated and sustainable transportation solutions to urban, regional and national travel needs.

Posted by ABA President & CEO Peter Pantuso, 10/12/2010 to the National Journal blog

Why spend more money on intercity passenger rail when a transportation solution that connects travel modes, fills in gaps in the transportation system, and provides hassle-free mobility so inexpensively already exists today and is ready to go anywhere there’s pavement?

The bus is already booming, as consumers are leaving overpriced rail service, and the frustrations of short-hop air travel. Clearly, travelers understand the bus is back, as ridership has soared to 762 million passenger trips annually. Independently owned and operated bus companies move more people than the domestic airlines in some years, and more people in two weeks than Amtrak does all year!

Buses can be routed to meet unexpected or emergency traveler demand at a moment’s notice. Motorcoaches can go anywhere pavement exists – without additional federal operating funds being spent.

The question is not whether rail (“high speed” or otherwise) can be developed. The question is why the intercity bus industry is not further supported even in corridors where it makes economic, environmental and policy sense to do so. For instance several bus lines compete successfully in the market for customers traveling within the northeast corridor of the United States. They do so at a fraction of the price of an Amtrak ticket and with times that compare favorably with the rail carrier. So why is high speed rail necessary in this corridor – especially when each bus can potentially take 55 cars off of the road?

One projection has more than a billion dollars as necessary to get the track on the northeast corridor into condition to support high speed rail. That amount is in addition to the $1.2 billion dollars Amtrak already receives from the federal government. Another study has the projected high speed rail corridor from Milwaukee to Minneapolis as needing untold millions in subsidies after it is completed for the foreseeable future. One can duplicate those scenarios in many places around the country. The cost of buying the right of way, laying the track, and subsidizing the passenger operations will be prohibitive.

As well, motorcoaches are the greenest way to travel. The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report that concludes that whether you travel alone or with a family, if you are traveling between one hundred and one thousand miles, your best environmental choice is a motorcoach and it is not a close call.

This is not a plea to defund Amtrak or a plea for more money for buses. It is a plea for including the motorcoach industry in transportation planning. The industry needs MPOs, RPOs, States and the federal government to allow it to take part in the vital discussion of the nation’s transportation future. All too often the industry, and what we accomplish daily on a shoestring, is ignored in the rush to the expensive, and not altogether achievable, dream of high speed rail.

The question for decision is how can the States and federal government support high speed rail? The answer is that in many places they don’t have to – and don’t need to, until the corridor is more fully developed with buses. The transportation future can be less expensive, cheaper, certainly more efficient and cleaner than we will even get with high speed rail. It is called a bus.

The discussion about rail projects and their costs is short-sighted. The focus should be on the long-term value. Simply, America can’t afford not to invest in public transit options. These investments will provide benefits that have a lasting impact on our local communities for many decades. We cannot underestimate the value of safe and efficient mobility choices. As Ms. Rao pointed out in her post we have statistics that prove when you build public transportation options you create increased economic revenue and jobs. In addition to the economic returns mentioned by Ms. Rao, every $1 billion invested in public transportation capital and operations supports an average of 36,000 jobs and every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation can return up to $30 million in business sales alone.

Strong public transportation systems, including passenger rail, maximizes the capacity and efficiency of the nation’s overall transportation network and allows regions supporting transit systems increased economic growth, as well as, environmental and health benefits.

Adequate transportation options cannot be sustained without long-term funding. Specifically, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is calling on Congress to provide a multi-year bill that more than doubles investment in public transit to $123 billion over a six year period and invests an additional $50 billion in high-speed and intercity rail systems. Congress, the Administration, state and local governments must address the large and growing gap between capital needs and available resources. This is an issue we face not only for new passenger rail options, but also for existing infrastructure including bus, rail, air transportation and highways.

APTA is advocating for the four following funding opportunities, our Four-Point Advocacy Agenda for the Finance of Intercity and High-Speed Rail.

1. Full Funding for the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008: Signed into law October 16, 2008, this act authorizes to be appropriated $13.6 billion over 5 years for passenger rail service.

2. Tax-Credit Bonds: We support legislation to establish tax-credit bonds as one of the funding sources for intercity and high-speed rail projects.

3. Revenues Generated through Climate Strategies: We support funding through revenues generated by cap-and-trade mechanisms, carbon taxes, auctions, and other measures.

4. Pursue Additional Funding Opportunities: APTA will pursue additional funding opportunities in economic stimulus legislation, and also through a Passenger Rail title added to the upcoming authorization of federal surface transportation programs.

Together, this represents a new, forward-looking vision for 21st century transportation enabling choice, mobility options, connectivity and economic growth. An increased investment in public transportation creates jobs and stimulates economic growth.

When Abraham Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad at the height of the Civil War, he was living out a radical faith in the idea of America as “one nation, indivisible,” even while it was at war with itself. Transportation was central to Lincoln’s vision of how to make our nation whole. It’s central to TEN’s vision too.

The push for more passenger rail is just one example of the energy building in Washington around the country for serious new investments in transportation infrastructure—and not a minute too soon. Just days after Secretary LaHood flew into NJ to convince Gov. Christie to reconsider axing the NJ-NY commuter rail tunnel, the White House released the infrastructure study that echoes much of what TEN and our national allies have been saying for months: investing in transportation infrastructure—especially public transit—is essential to our economic recovery.

As the White House report illustrates, our elected representatives need to be looking at transit investments both in terms of short-term job creation and longer-term economic development. Gov. Christie's attacks on the Hudson River tunnel project were short-sighted for a number reasons. For one, the project would put thousands of New Jersey residents back to work at a time when nearly 1 in 10 is unemployed. The project would also raise home values in northern New Jersey to the tune of $18 billion.

High-speed rail is even more forward-looking at a time when China alone is at work on a $300 billion high-speed rail network of its own. As the presidential report notes, “reducing intercity travel times, with trains reaching top speeds of 220 mph, could transform how and where Americans live and work, revitalizing regions and supporting new jobs.”

But whether it’s high-speed rail, traditional transit, or highway work, our transportation infrastructure investments have to include guarantees of fair access for workers and businesses that have struggled for generations to get a fair shake. That means extending the USDOT’s current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, and implementing Community Benefits Agreements and workforce development programs like TEN’s Green Construction Careers model on all federally funded projects.

When Secretary LaHood met with TEN in September, he agreed to take action to ensure that minorities and women workers are included on the new high speed rail system. That’s the kind of leadership we need more of.

I am very excited that RailVolution will be returning to the city where it began as a Regional Rail Summit for Portland residents in 1991. RailVolution 2010 will showcase why the Portland area has become a national model for transportation planning, regional partnerships, transit-oriented development, bike infrastructure and walkable neighborhoods. This conference is a great opportunity for planners, elected officials, engineers, community advocates and business leaders to discuss what has made some of America’s most livable and thriving cities successful – transportation infrastructure.

Why do we need a RailVolution? First, streetcars, light rail lines, and rapid bus service help spur redevelopment in central city areas by encouraging foot traffic, drawing in new businesses, and connecting neighborhoods that have been separated by highways or sprawling development patterns. Second, dollar for dollar, investing in transportation infrastructure is one of the best ways to create new, good-paying American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Here in the Portland region, Oregon Iron Works is building the first American-made streetcar in nearly 60 years thanks to the jump-start provided by federal grants and the growing interest in streetcars from communities across the nation. And third, investing in public transportation cuts down on our need to import oil from hostile countries.

The Portland model shows how economically successful light rail projects can be. Since 1998, we have added or extended 8 light rail and streetcar lines; in 2001, both the Airport MAX and the original Portland Streetcar line connecting residential neighborhoods to the downtown were built without federal transit dollars. Instead, local and private financing quickly paid off, as the region quickly realized the value of these transportation investments to our economy, our environment and our neighborhood.

In today’s tough economy, we have to make rational choices about where we spend our limited resources. Businesses in need of customers and workers in need of jobs cannot afford to see the federal government back away from the significant investments that must be made to keep our transportation system effective and efficient. I hope that members of both parties will support President Obama’s plan to invest $50 billion in infrastructure over the next few years.

I am chair of the Congressional Livable Communities Task Force. Learn more by clicking here.

While track space may not be unlimited, America’s rail network has room to grow. Expanding interstate rail capacity would move more passengers and freight more efficiently, create good, green jobs to support a rebounding American economy and reduce pollution from the transportation sector. More capacity would benefit passenger and freight operations simultaneously, by improving operations on this shared network.

Rail improvements, unlike other infrastructure investments, are largely accomplished with private capital, so government could incentivize investment without busting federal and state budgets.

Tax credits reduce the cost of private investment, helping economically viable projects get built sooner and accelerating employment creation and public benefits. By targeting specific outcomes - such as generating levels of employment or expanding transportation system capabilities - policymakers can limit the scope and duration of tax credits to achieve the intended effect. Furthermore, tying investments to outcomes would help remove much of the risk of wasting incentives on economically unjustified projects.

While tax incentives may offset government revenues, U.S. Department of Commerce data suggest that every $1 of rail infrastructure investment generates more than $3 in economic output. Such tax credits could be targeted to support rail capacity expansion specifically, which in recent years represents about 25 percent of total rail capital investment. BlueGreen Alliance published a report in May 2010 titled “Full Speed Ahead: Creating Jobs Through Freight Rail Expansion” which estimated nearly 8,000 ‘green’ jobs and a total impact of 12,000 and 26,000 jobs are generated or sustained per billion dollars of capital investment.

Right now, Congress is considering two bills that would provide tax incentives for rail investment: H.R. 1806 would stimulate national rail expansion and H.R. 1132 would benefit short line and regional rail improvements. Hundreds of bi-partisan representatives have co-sponsored both of these bills, which would create jobs and strengthen our economy. Congress should move beyond election year politics and pass this legislation with prevailing wage provisions in order to create good jobs, and move more freight while reducing our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and pollution.

In addition to tax credits, public-private partnerships can greatly expand rail investment with responsibility shared between two entities - government paying only for public benefits, and railroads paying for the business benefits they gain from improvements to the rail network.

For example, some projects might deliver public benefits such as decreasing highway congestion by taking trucks off the road, or foster higher and high-speed intercity passenger rail (increasing travel options and contributing to a lower carbon transportation system), as well as private benefits for passenger and freight rail by enabling faster, more reliable train operations.

Accountability should ensure public financing is tied to public benefit outcomes, which includes creating quality American jobs. In order to maximize the economic benefit of these investments, taxpayer funding for freight rail investment should attach prevailing wage provisions to ensure new jobs maintain the rail industry’s relatively high level of pay, and expand these benefits to more workers. Policy should also incorporate domestic sourcing (“Buy America”) requirements to ensure these capital infusions benefit American workers, expand domestic clean energy manufacturing, and amplify multiplier effects for both employment and investment within the U.S. economy.

Rail’s potential to move passengers, deliver freight efficiently, create quality employment and reduce oil dependence and pollution is well established. Expanding capacity would move us towards the balanced, multi-modal, 21st century transportation network America needs move to a truly sustainable, clean energy economy. And it won’t break the bank.

How can the government support the growth of new passenger rail systems in a way that won’t bankrupt the federal treasury or leave states high and dry?

The government already has a transportation budget that is allocated each year, and how that is spent needs to be more balanced between modes. It has been heavily slanted against rail for more than 60 years. Additionally, we need to set up a new permanent funding source for HSR - a high speed rail trust fund or infrastructure bank of some sort. There is lots of international money floating around ready to invest in US HSR, but no mechanism set up to accept that investment. The infrastructure bank could be the vehicle to make this happen. It would be a shame to not take advantage of the investment money out there for HSR in America when we are tight on money for this program.

How can the competing needs of passengers and freight rail be balanced?

Trying to mix them together will compromise both systems as we have seen in the NEC. We have dual needs: we need the current freight capacity, plus a greatly expanded freight capacity over the next decade as oil prices will continue to go up as global supplies tighten. This will mean a lot more freight will transfer from trucks to rail. We also need a very high capacity passenger rail system throughout the nation for the same reason - as oil prices rise, flying and driving will become too expensive and more people will move to rail. A high capacity passenger rail system requires high speeds to meet the high capacity, and that can't work on the existing freight network for many reasons. Trying to put both an expanded passenger rail system together with an expanded freight system will not work. We have been promoting a seperate system for passenger rail as they are doing in Florida using the I4 median for the location for the new passenger rail system. The only way we are going to have a state-of-the-art high speed passenger system, while maintaining the excellent freight system we already have is to seperate the two in different track, which means seperate rights-of-way for the most part.

Who should be involved in these types of decisions?
Industry from both passenger and freight, transportation planning experts, high speed rail experts from around the world, business leaders, etc.

Government can support the growth of new passenger rail systems (mainly for the better off) by following the American "User pays" tradition and insisting that rail enthusiasts pay for the passenger services they choose to use.
However, if government wishes to have more passenger rail service than users are prepared to pay for, it can

a) As road users are both generous and submissive, get them to pay for rail services they do not use;

b) Give more federal tax dollars to jurisdictions using rail; and

c) Persuade planners to favour rail over bus service by, for example, selective re-zoning of land use (not available for busway projects), as in the rail extension to Dulles Airport, a landowners' enrichment project masquerading as a transit project.

Government does not lie, but it can be economical with the truth:

a) When comparing railway with busway projects, it can compare rail on its own right-of-way with buses in mixed traffic;

b) During the decision process, not revealing the full costs of potential rail projects (typically 40% over original estimates), and over-estimating rail ridership (typically by one third).

Why worry? It's only taxpayers' money!

This response is from Liz Rao, chair of public transit services for HNTB Corp.

Name one attribute America’s most successful cities have in common. The “it” factor often overlooked – but necessary for success – is transit. Successful cities all across the nation have made the choice to make public transit a priority – and that decision pays off.

According to the American Public Transit Association, for every $1 cities invest in public transportation, they generate $4 in economic returns. Economically viable cities make funding transit a priority because they can generate multiple, positive economic outcomes with a single investment:

Developers are attracted to transit areas.If a city wants to revitalize a blighted area or dictate where high-density growth and expansion occur, one of the smartest things it can do is invest in transit.

Properties near train stops have become the new beachfront property, selling for 20 percent to 25 percent more than comparable properties further away.

Business revenues and profits can be up to three times that of public sector investments.

Local and state tax revenues can increase 4 percent to 16 percent thanks to income and employment generated by transit investments.

The Obama Administration has set aside more money for transit development than any other administration in the past 20 years and progressive cities are taking advantage of the pro-transit climate. With strong local investment and the help of federal grants, cities that turn to transit to help solve their mobility issues and spur their economies today will be the successful, desirable places to live tomorrow.