We've come a long way very quickly to put together a solid economic recovery proposal

The idea that public investments in infrastructure, including transportation, are a method of promoting economic recovery and providing jobs is great progress from where the debate was last year (where we were overly fixated on public-private-partnerships and many were discussing a much more limited role for the federal support for transportation infrastructure). Now, in a dramatic change, leaders are talking seriously about the importance of transportation to our communities, national wealth and prosperity; not only that but they are putting tens of billions of dollars of new money for highways, transit, rail, airports, bridges and alternative fuel technologies behind their words. I say hooray.

In reality, a careful review of the proposals reveals that the set of principles and programs offered by the President-Elect, Chairman Oberstar and the Appropriations Committee are close. The balance of projects and priorities was undoubtedly set by: (1) existing statutes, regulations and policy (2) what policymakers thought could be effectively spent quickly; and (3) an absolute determination that the program be transparent and promote accountability. Having discussed the criteria with several people involved in the process, I honestly believe that the balance was not determined by an attempt to favor one mode or set of interests over another but by a desire to make good investments that promoted job creation and economic growth.

Given these realities, I think they have hit the mark and have provided a good beginning to the bicameral and interbranch negotiations to come. After the economic recovery program is passed, we can all turn to reordering our priorities as we discuss the surface authorization and other major policy decisions to come (developing a consensus on major policy decisions is not likely to be a quick process). The state of our economy and the loss of jobs are too serious to hold up these good economic recovery efforts in search of perfection. Economic recovery now, transportation reform next. Let's go on with it!

Steve Van Beek

There is little doubt that the stimulus proposal that emerged yesterday was a victim of the extraordinarily high expectations that have been put on it. It is a sad reflection of the tremendous economic pressures many are facing that the difference between success and failure for many businesses will be determined by the final figures in the stimulus package. So it is easy to understand the desire for even more funds that many, including our members, are expressing.

That being said, the proposal includes significant measures designed to ensure that these new investments will be immediate, transparent and effective. The success of these provisions is, simply put, essential. The public and media will be paying very close attention to how these funds are invested over the coming months, and any perceived waste or delay will undermine America’s confidence in our ability to make sound infrastructure investments. If that happens, there will be little political appetite for making needed infrastructure investments in many of the pending reauthorization bills.

Many of the details of the stimulus package will inevitably change over the coming weeks. As that happens, we have to keep our commitment to speed, transparency and sound investments. There should be no room for compromise when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the stimulus package. If we give an inch on that now, we will suffer a mile later.

The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment proposal coming out of the House Appropriations Committee today fails to move America forward in reducing our oil dependency, creating opportunity for all Americans, and making us competitive for the 21st Century economy.

The House Appropriations has two key shortcomings, especially in comparison to the superior proposal put forward last week by Congressman Oberstar, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:

First, the proposal only pays lip service to ensuring that the recovery bill puts Americans back to work by maintaining and repairing our crumbling roads and bridges. Without explicit language prioritizing a fix-it-first approach to infrastructure investment written into the legislation, federal funds could be wasted adding new highways to a system the House bill describes as “crumbling”. This would have the effect of digging ourselves a deeper hole of oil dependence, even as we invest stimulus money elsewhere in the hope of finding a way out.

Second, the House Appropriations proposal does nothing to provide immediate help for America’s transit systems, which employ thousands of hard working Americans and transport millions more to their jobs every day. Even as ridership has surged over the last year, transit providers have been hit by falling local revenues and volatile fuel prices. Without federal funds to keep our existing public transportation operating, transit agencies in towns and cities across the country will be forced to institute massive layoffs, service cuts and fare increases for the American workers who are already struggling the most to make ends meet. If the federal government can provide billions of dollars in operating assistance to our banks and financial institutions on Wall Street, then it should be able to provide operating assistance to a transit system used by Main Street Americans.

President-elect Obama’s nominee for transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, can see this firsthand: The transit system in his home town of Peoria, IL just this week announced possible deep service cuts and higher fares in the face of a potential $3 million budget shortfall. These jobs and services can be saved with an investment that is modest in the scheme of the recovery package. The significantly superior stimulus proposal by Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, would solve these issues with a $2 billion assistance fund.

In fact, Transportation for America finds the Oberstar bill to be far more likely to provide a meaningful stimulus while guiding investment to areas of greatest need and productivity. As Oberstar designed it, the measure would ensure the job creation we need immediately without slowing the process down with a lot of red tape.

Below is an analysis showing the differences between the House Appropriations proposal and Congressman Oberstar’s forward-thinking approach:

*Updated analysis as of 1.16.09 3:00PM

We are very disappointed that the House missed a real opportunity to make the necessary investments in air and ground infrastructure to create jobs and better serve our passengers. This critical investment not only would create new jobs, but also would promote clean energy technology, enhance safety and security capabilities, improve operational performance and reduce FAA operating costs to help stimulate our ailing economy. We will continue to encourage Congress to make the investment in the modernization of our nation’s air traffic control system to jump start these significantly important programs and their benefits.

Not Bold Change for the Future

The transportation part of the proposal would take a small step in the right direction where bold strides are needed. Money included to modernize and expand public transportation networks will put thousands to work while reducing our nation’s dependence on oil, traffic congestion, and global warming pollution. Three times as much money is allocated to highways. The question that remains is whether this money will prioritize much-needed repair of crumbling roads and bridges or be squandered on wasteful superhighways and lane expansions.

After a quick look at the draft bill, a few things strike me as a bit odd. I will not get into the allocation of funds since this seems to reflect political decisions more than even-handed analysis.

There is no mention of technology as part of transportation investment. This seems odd given the emphasis on investments for the 21st Century and given the technology emphasis in other parts of the program – for example; “We need to put scientists to work looking for the next great discovery, creating jobs in cutting-edge-technologies, and making smart investments.” Maybe this lack of attention for transportation comes from over use of the phrase “shovel ready.” The telecommunications proposal mentions returns of ten to one for broadband investment. This is impressive, to be sure, but there are many examples from surface transportation that offer results as good or better. Traffic signal coordination, for example, has returns of 40 to 1 (ITE) and spending a few billion dollars on this would reduce traffic congestion, reduce energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are substantial funds for water, most of which will go through state revolving loan funds so that the amount of funding will be leveraged – a logical proposal. But no funds are provided for the federal loan fund (TIFIA) or state infrastructure banks – demand for TIFIA currently exceeds its available funds, thus discouraging private investment in infrastructure. A few hundred million dollars here would leverage significant private and public funds.

There is some new bureaucracy, with “all announcements of contract and grant competitions and awards, and formula grant allocations must be posted on a special website created by the President” and all projects require a general justification and a specific justification for why stimulus funds should be used. Additional funds are provided to GAO and Inspector Generals to oversee the programs. I wonder what this will do to the goal of getting projects underway quickly.

Chairman Oberstar set the bar for judging any proposal with his package unveiled a month ago. The highway level remains the same, although the accountability and transparency provisions do provide some assurance that it is less likely to be wasted. But by cutting transit by 25%, including zeroing out operating assistance for struggling agencies, and slashing rail by 78%, the proposal fails to clear the bar. The House, and the nation, deserve better.

Any step forward is progress, but the level of investment in House economic recovery proposal falls far short of needs and fails to fully take advantage of the opportunity to put America back to work building the essential and long neglected basics of our country. It falls short of the opportunity to invest in a way that can revive our economy and leave behind tangible assets and a positive legacy for generations to come.

“This is consistent with what we’ve been hearing the past couple of months. There are no real surprises. The stimulus numbers are representative of shovel-ready projects.

This package should not interfere with the reauthorization of federal transportation funding this fall. The caution – funded projects must demonstrate a win-win-win – creating American jobs, using American products, providing economic benefit globally, but especially in the geographic regions where they are built.

Every project must be judged on its own merit.”

Since we're talking about the stimulus this week and it was just released, I thought I'd post links to the text of the bill, the text of the accompanying report, and a summary of the bill. Here you go:

Bill text: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf

Report: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf

Summary: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf

These links are from the House Appropriations Committee Web site, since the Appropriations Committee wrote and introduced the bill. Now we have some specifics to discuss, so have at it everyone!

While we have not yet seen a bill from the President-elect and the 111th Congress, Members of Congress are discussing the broad parameters of an economic recovery and reinvestment bill. Some have focused on what the bill should not include – specifically, Appropriations Committee Chairs, Representative David Obey and Senator Daniel Inouye, have weighed in to say that earmarks should not be part of this legislation. So the question turns on how the money will be spent and who will spend it.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair, Representative Jim Oberstar, has put forth a proposal to address this question. Fundamentally, the Chairman’s proposal outlines an approach with the following elements: state DOTs will receive highway and transit funds through existing federal formulas, with some percentage of funds going to metropolitan areas. Airport funds and passenger, freight and commuter rail funds will follow an administrative discretionary approach that is based on current planning requirements associated with those projects. All stimulus projects must follow federal laws and regulations – including being part of a State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and or a metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) – and whoever receives the money – the states, the local governments, or Amtrak – will need to adhere to strict reporting and accountability requirements.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has prepared an outline of transportation projects that could be funded in the stimulus. The proposed projects are multimodal, including significant requests for passenger rail, freight rail, harbors and airports – along with highways, bridges and transit. Notwithstanding reports from other national groups, Wisconsin’s proposed highway projects are split 84 percent on preservation and 16 percent on capacity. The projects are part of our state’s STIP – which means that the projects have been vetted through an extensive public information process and the larger projects have completed environmental reviews and alternatives analyses. States do not spend transportation funds recklessly – the federal and state requirements are extensive, as is the opportunity for input on our projects.

As importantly, all states have finite resources – especially in the current environment of dwindling gas tax revenues. States direct both federal and state funds to transportation projects that will improve the state’s economic position and the quality of life of its citizens. Most of Wisconsin's state and federal highway dollars are targeted for our "backbone" system, consisting of key routes, many of which are part of the National Highway System and are critical to the mobility needs of our citizens and our economy. We work extensively with our local transit providers to target transit funds.

Wisconsin is a leader in multimodal investment. We have been innovative in our use of funds for rural transit, and we fund transit more extensively than many other states. We have long been a leader in advocating for passenger rail expansion. We have a robust airport system. We have worked to save freight rail lines and have tried to increase freight rail service where we can. We are not humble about our stewardship of our transportation system. I believe all states have similar stories to tell.

Suffice to say, I believe the states will spend the funds wisely, but any legislation passed by Congress must provide states with flexibility to spend the 90- to 120- day funds. Because these projects must address all federal and state requirements, the state will need to focus on those projects in the program that truly are ready to go. This goal will not conflict with any other because states remain subject to all federal and state laws and regulations that apply to federal-aid funding. For any longer-term stimulus funds, we will have more opportunity to address other policy goals laid down in the legislation.

The states are the right institutional level to spend stimulus dollars effectively and efficiently. Will we work with other units of government? Certainly. Should we be held accountable for how we spend the money, including jobs created? Absolutely. I am confident that if transportation stimulus dollars are sent to us, we will put them to good use and will be able to account for what we accomplished.

I take President-elect Obama at his word that the goal of the recovery package is to create jobs and get the U.S. economy back on track. So let’s get to it and stop pondering our navels. The transportation construction industry lost a record-setting 26,000 jobs in November, the most recent reporting period. These workers join 1.4 million unemployed construction workers nationwide.

Let’s not over-complicate the process by trying to define every possible eventuality, concept, project type and regulation from Washington—that’s a recipe for gridlock and red tape, and not for success.

The overarching criteria for funds provided in a recovery package should be maximizing economic impact—period.

What we don’t need is a bunch of national advocacy groups trying to define to the infinite detail the nature of every project and type funded by the stimulus.

Unfortunately, we are seeing too many lobbyists trying to “moonlight” as economic development activists or trying to use the “stimulus” legislation to achieve other policy goals. Let’s allow the project owners to make these decisions. If a project is planned, approved and awaiting only funding, the economic impact will be there.

Oversight, accountability, and transparency will be far more effective than too much over-thinking. Congress should task the Government Accountability Office to work with the Department of Transportation Inspector General to research and publish a list of projects, and ensure efficient funding. If states have overarching budget or cash flow problems, the funds should be advanced prior to project starts. Congress must require that funds be put to work by clear timeframes or have them given to someone else who can use them. Congress must then conduct oversight to ensure everyone is doing their utter best to deliver.

We all share a simple goal: stimulating the economy and creating real jobs. It’s now time to empower state, regional and local authorities to let contracts, commence work and jump start the engine of economic growth. The way we respond is a test of our collective credibility. Let’s not drop the ball!

Lisa’s question highlights a genuine dilemma. To be effective in getting the economy moving again, it’s essential that the stimulus funds be put to work as quickly as possible. But the need for speed means that Congress will spread the surface transportation money across the country like peanut butter in the only way they know how: using the existing FHWA formula. Steve Van Beek is right: projects aren’t likely to get funded unless they have met some basic benefit-cost test. But Bob Poole is also right: the formula approach means we can’t possibly maximize the economic leverage we get from this massive investment even if Congress enforces the no-earmarks rule strictly. Simply put, a national ranking of the most productive transportation investments would look very different from the aggregation of fifty state wish lists that we’re going to fund. Nevertheless, it’s just unrealistic to think that Congress is going to unleash this unprecedented torrent of federal transportation spending in keeping with some new and unproven approach.

All of which merely underscores the importance of the reauthorization of our surface and aviation programs that must take place this year. “Reauthorization” should be a misnomer in this cycle; “reinvention” would be a better description of what’s needed. Let’s not squander a lot of time at the federal level trying to figure out which stimulus-funded projects are the country’s most worthy; instead, let’s give our state authorities some credit for knowing what works. Truth is, the early stimulus grants will engender plenty of economic benefit even if they aren’t all as highly leveraged as we might have hoped.

What’s essential is that the Obama Administration and Congress cooperate closely in exploiting the historic opportunity that reauthorization presents to put our federal transportation programs on a transformational path to the future. We need fresh and more effective approaches to ensure that our transportation system doesn’t merely accommodate the country’s future economic growth, but actually drives America’s competitiveness and prosperity to new levels.

I think Ken Orski is correct that there a strong desire for reform in the reauthorization from the incoming Obama administration and some Members of Congress, but the economic recovery debate also demonstrates the current limits of that sentiment in a time of deep economic crisis.

Along with the national survey of registered voters that we commissioned last month:

http://www.investininfrastructure.org/newsroom/press.html

we also conducted focus groups to test reactions to some of the key phrases used in the debate. We discovered that participants did not respond well to speed or the popular phrase “shovels in the ground.” To most Americans, speed means spending, and spending means government waste. And, although they cared about job creation, it was not the top reason they supported infrastructure investment.

Instead the respondents responded well to accountability, transparency, setting priorities and measuring outcomes that make a difference in the quality of people’s lives.

So far we seem to have made progress on the issues of transparency and after-the-fact accountability, but it appears increasingly unlikely that the economic recovery bill will tackle setting priorities and measuring outcomes for transportation. Likewise, it appears we may not do what Rich Sarles and many others have been arguing for – fully funding the backlog in New Starts projects, which have been through a rigorous competition and evaluation process – because it won’t happen quickly enough to meet an as-yet-undefined timetable for completion. So the political process may be producing a result which at odds with what the public supports.

Secretary Porcari and others are quite right that eliminating our repair backlog (which could productively soak up as much as $1 trillion, as Geoff Anderson points out) is job 1. Unfortunately, simply prohibiting earmarks in the package is far from a guarantee that taxpayer money will be spent first and foremost on this priority. A tremendous amount of "free money" simply relayed to states and localities, with no strings attached, isn't a recipe for smart targeting of taxpayer funds. Some will spend wisely, but as publicly available wish lists make clear, many will not. The package needs to be written to guarantee public benefits in exchange for public money.

And remember -- this is not federal gas tax revenue. It is not subject to the same rules that we will revisit during the reauthorization debate. It is perfectly reasonable to require that beneficiaries of this windfall in federal assistance spend it wisely, i.e., based on national priorities like "fixing it first" and tackling our energy and climate challenges. The canvas is quite blank in terms of conditions for expenditure of general funds on transportation infrastructure.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is additive federal assistance. It is not the sum total of capital investment in transportation. As such, targeting it to repairs and a more balanced ratio between highways and transit in new capacity doesn't dictate against new highway construction. It simply targets an additional injection of funding, based on 21st-century national priorities.

Last but not least, I think we need consider that it may be possible to de-link economic growth and VMT growth, as has been done successfully with energy use. Energy use per $ of GDP has dropped steadily since 1970. California, meanwhile, has demonstrated that de-linking is possible in the electricity sector. Electricity use per capita has flatlined in California since 1976, even as it has continued rising nationally. Looking at the web site of one state with a reputation for innovating in transportation policy (Oregon), I see that VMT actually dropped slightly between 2002 and 2006. Gross State Product, meanwhile, grew 12 percent. I wonder what a state-by-state analysis would reveal?

Contributors to this blog will be pleased to know that their views and opinions are being heard---if not necessarily followed. In my reportorial rounds, at think tanks, on Capitol Hill and among incoming administration officials I have heard references more than once to the National Journal's Transportation Blog.

That said, the desire to get the stimulus money out the door and spent quickly, using existing allocation and project selection mechanisms, is powerful enough, I think, to overcome the reservations, such as have been expressed by some participants in this blog. However, I sense within the Obama administration and in Congress an equally strong desire for a longer-term program of infrastructure investments based on sound criteria of cost-effectiveness and national significance, Fortunately, the upcoming reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program later this year (or more likely in 2010) , with its opportunity for a more deliberative process, will offer a logical forum for development of a true national strategy for infrastructure for the 21st century.

Those posting before me have given an accurate assessment of the situation (shovel-ready does not mean a “good” use of funds) and excellent advice (rational and transparent guidelines for projects that actually further national goals of CO2 reduction, energy independence, economic development).

It is not every day that you get to spend a fast-tracked $800-odd billion dollars. Therefore, I offer up a few points.

-- Money is one of the few tools the federal government has to goad states to follow its national goals. [Regulation and taxes are the other dominant, and less pleasant, tools.] Let’s not squander these many billion opportunities to bring our country closer to where we want it to be.

-- Infrastructure is destiny. Building any amount of infrastructure that does not get us closer to reduced VMTs (aka reduced congestion, reduced CO2 emissions, reduced deaths and morbidity), means that we will have just sent those affected geographies (residents and businesses) down the wrong path for the next 40+ years.

-- Wrong projects muck up financing and goodwill for future right projects. Think about how many of us are feeling about the first $350 billion spent under TARP. Those blank checks don’t sit well, and make us feel very differently about the second $350 billion. If we spend this money poorly, we’ll see even more pushback against necessary increased gas taxes, road taxes, or congestion pricing.

I think we can create jobs and use this money wisely. Fix-it-first, as has been noted, creates jobs. Let’s do that right away. In order to be eligible for later (i.e. after the first 6 months) money, projects have to meet and compete on a transparent to-be-established criteria that maximizes the benefits per dollar spent. There are so many many unfunded projects across the US, we are not going to empty the pipeline. Let’s finance projects that are in the queue and meet new national priorities.

Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Clinton and Schumer wrote a letter to Congressional leaders on January 7, 2009, co-signed by 11 of their colleagues from the New Jersey and New York house delegations. In this letter, the Senators pointed out that the funding pot for transit capital projects (called "New Starts") is almost completely empty. As many of us are aware, New Starts is one of the few funding streams that requires a cost benefit analysis and a long, some say too long, multi-year review process. The Senators, along with their colleagues have asked that this pot, which funds the most meritorious projects in the nation, be replenished as part of the upcoming stimulus bill.

I highlight this letter because I believe it gets to the heart of Lisa's question -- how should the Federal Government invest in the types of projects that provide the long-term public benefits we expect while at the same time ensuring our taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively? As Chairman Oberstar has diligently pointed out , the quickest way to get money on the street is through the traditional formula funding process which funnels money directly to State DOT's and public transit agencies. Inevitably then, the Federal Government will have to rely, to a large extent, on the spending priorities of the individual States. Altering these formulas is simply too great a task in advance of the economic recovery package and the needed changes likely will have to wait for SAFETEA-Lu reauthorization. That said, there are ways to target investments to projects that will provide jobs, protect the environment and improve mobility without opening the issue of earmarks.

That is why I was so impressed with the leadership of the New Jersey and New York delegations for highlighting the New Starts competitive grant process. As Mr. Anderson and Mr. Baxandall point out, there are public transit projects across the country totaling almost $20 billion that are ready to go within the next year and $5 billion of projects that are ready to go in four months. If the Obama administration and Congress heed the advice of our regional delegation, $5 billion in New Starts funding could be used to fund projects across the country that as I have said before, have been found worthy from a planning, environmental and public benefit standpoint, because they have already completed the federal NEPA process and they have passed the rigorous reviews necessary to obtain local funding. In a sense, many of these projects have already passed their "background checks," and are cleared to go to work. If the New Starts pot is not replenished, new transit capital projects, that will create thousands of construction jobs and already have very significant State and local funding in place, will sit idle for a year or more.

I should add that the federal agencies responsible for implementing this potentially huge influx of funding should be prepared to expedite processes. In my experience with New Starts, the federal process requires a large local funding commitment relative to highway projects, yet the governing agency requires that the local project sponsor go through an extraordinary review process, when the federal government is the minority funding partner. Put simply, to ensure the most efficient and effective allocation of taxpayer dollars I strongly urge the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders to review the New Starts process. Transit projects should not be penalized nor forced to play on such an uneven playing field. This does not mean abdicating the federal responsibility of ensuring projects protect the environment and are cost-effective. However, there are many States and mature transit agencies that have long, proven records of successful, efficient delivery of federal projects. Consideration should be given to allowing those States and transit agencies to expedite plans and processes, particularly when a State's regulatory structure is similar to the federal process.

State and local projects

To reply to Bob Poole, the overwhelming majority of projects that I have been involved with have gone through a fairly strict project approval process, including benefit-cost analyses. While many of these are major projects, some have not been. This includes both federal grant programs and even PFC applications for airports (that are federally authorized but are local money). Obviously there are exceptions, but the FAA Office of Airports, as well as many states and localities have fairly stringent processes, particularly when projects require environmental review.

Perhaps some of our contributors can inform us of their experience.

Steve Van Beek

Pork Is Baked into the Cake

The problem with current transportation infrastructure spending goes far beyond formal earmarks. The underlying problem is that the centralized-grant approach—at both federal and state levels—substitutes political priorities for economic priorities. Since transportation funding is always limited, every low-performing project takes funds that could have produced greater transportation benefits if spent on a high-performing project.

For the transportation infrastructure portion of the stimulus, the goal of getting the money spent quickly means it will almost certainly be allocated using the existing funding formulas in the highway, transit, and airport-grant programs. Those formulas are designed to redistribute funding, in two ways. First, they collect the largest sums from large urban areas (gas taxes from drivers in major, congested urban areas and airline ticket taxes from passengers departing large/medium hub airports). Then the formulas redistribute those monies disproportionately to rural and low-growth states and to non-hub airports. It’s almost as if the tax-and-grant system were designed to shift funds away from where the greatest transportation needs are.

Second, the funding formulas also divide things up so that every congressional district gets its “fair share”—again, whether they have high-performance projects or not. The same political imperative drives the distribution of funds at the state level, as well. Once again, this process tends to make it difficult to fund those large “lumpy” projects that could make a big difference: rebuilding a complex freeway interchange that is a massive bottleneck, adding a runway that would dramatically reduce airline delays, etc.

Because preserving these political imperatives is so important, Congress and state legislatures have never seriously considered making transportation infrastructure projects pass even a simple test that benefits exceed costs—let alone more complex measures of performance such as the amount of congestion reduction (e.g., in vehicle hours of travel) per million dollars spent.

To be sure, if the over-riding aim of the stimulus bill is to get dollars flowing quickly, using existing funding formulas and lists of “shovel-ready” projects is probably the fastest way forward. But don’t mistake these expenditures for meaningful “investments” in our transportation infrastructure that will make the economy work better by reducing transportation costs. For that, we need to shift to a truly performance-based method of deciding on transportation investments. That should be a major focus of the forthcoming reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program.

Earmarks are actually a sideshow in this debate. In a positive sign of how much the reform agenda has taken hold in the public eye, it seems clear that Congress never had any intention of including Member earmarks in the economic recovery legislation. Furthermore, all the spending will be far more transparent than ever before, allowing the public for the first time to really see how federal dollars are spent in their states and localities.

But it also appears that we have not yet achieved the more challenging assignment – targeting the funds to solely address key priorities like job creation and economic competitiveness, bringing our existing infrastructure into a state of good repair, achieving energy independence and reducing carbon emissions.

Most of us agree that “shovel-ready” is not a sufficient criteria for funding projects. And the American public agrees. In a poll Building America’s Future recently commissioned by Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research, the responses showed that Americans are far more concerned about spending infrastructure funds effectively and accountably than they are about merely spending them quickly.

Surely, as we have at other key moments in our nation’s history, the U.S. can spend the economic recovery funding quickly and wisely to address national goals. If we fail to do so, we may discover that states and localities are just as capable of pursuing meritless projects as Members. And such an outcome would clearly hurt the longer-term cause of building public support for greater infrastructure investment.

To maximize public support and effectiveness, spending in the stimulus plan should be transparent and subject to oversight. Funds should be dispersed for projects based on a combination of factors such as the capacity to create jobs, public need and long term goals that prepare our transportation system for the next century.

If funds are spent unwisely without transparency and oversight we will miss the important short and long term potential of the stimulus package. Projects that are unnecessary or fail to produce jobs will lose public support and not accomplish the job creation goals of the stimulus. In the short term, public works programs, which we know are the most effective means of jumpstarting an ailing economy, will be deemed unworthy of support by a public that must be growing skeptical of government solutions after a $700 billion Wall Street bailout that has produced little positive impact.

In the long term, unwise stimulus spending will greatly damage the image of building America. America has been neglecting its basics for a long time and there is a lot of work to be done to build the roads, bridges, mass transit, schools and energy systems we need --- significantly more than what will be allocated in the stimulus package. Smart spending in the stimulus can demonstrate the many benefits – job creation, economic mobility, safety, quality of life and innovative solutions for 21st Century transportation needs – of building America. Wasteful spending will do the opposite and increase the likelihood that we continue ignoring the basics for another generation.

Looking at some posts from our environmentally minded friends at U.S. PIRG and Smart Growth America, there seems to be a developing dichotomy where traditional transportation projects (new highways, roads and bridges) are deemed inferior to modern/alternative transportation projects (mass transit, rail, walkways and bike paths). This seems to be an overly simplistic way to categorize our transportation needs. As a labor organization, LIUNA stands second to none in its support for building America green by investing in new energies and environmentally friendly means of transportation. But that does not mean we should be blind to our overcrowded highway system. The average driver spends over $1,000 dollars per year in wasted fuel while sitting in traffic. Alleviating that congestion by building news roads and highways will decrease fuel consumption by moving vehicles more quickly and efficiently --- that’s green. When Americans transition to fuel efficient and alternative energy vehicles, they will still depend on our highway system to get around. In fact, they will probably drive more given the increase in cost effectiveness and the decrease in environmental impact.

Smart spending in the stimulus plan can include fixing what we have, building what we need and investing in the future --- all with the goal of creating jobs and addressing the full scope of our transportation needs.

Finally, we should not limit our stimulus spending only to projects that are “"shovel-ready within 90 days." By the Obama Transition Team’s estimates, even with the recovery program, unemployment will remain above 6% until the start of 2012 and above 5% until the end of 2013. That means we need to create jobs quickly, but also for the long term. There is a backlog of worthy projects that can begin quickly, but due to years of underfunding and neglect, there is an even bigger backlog of projects that can be fast-tracked to begin within the next two years. To make sure that jobs created in the stimulus plan are sustainable, we should begin with the shovel-ready projects and continue with other important projects to build America.

Earmarks, Political Power and Consensus-Building

Lisa's question and a couple of the answers suggest concern about the obvious pork-oriented earmarks that are indefensible using any calculus. If only the issue were that easy. Earmarks, whether they be statutory or "soft," can be justified when the executive branch is unwilling to fund a project or when legislators want to ensure a good project receives support. Far more important is whether a project has been part of a project review process (with the consideration of alternatives and a measure of cost-effectiveness), can withstand scrutiny of performance measures, and is transparent so all can clearly understand what is being funded and why. Just as one illustration, the legislative branch exerts influence not just through bills they pass but in the grant-making process itself within the executive branch (authorizers and appropriators both exert influence). Suffice it to say that this process is not always 99.44% pure but is part of the greater legislative-executive relationship. This returns us to John Porcari's thoughtful comments and a focus on performance and accountability.

Clearly the process has gone too far and the littany of earmarks has reduced USDOT's ability to fund projects through competitive selection. So, the President-Elect is exactly right to insist on a clean bill to help restore credibility to the whole enterprise. This will help reassure the public that decisions are being made with reference to to mobility and other important criteria (such as per capita energy use and greenhouse gas emissions which other commentators and I have identified as important for the new bill), and not just naked political power. In the long run, however, performance and accountability are far more important and will be the key determinants of whether investments made for economic recovery and according to criteria in transportation grant programs will be optimized.

For more see our December issue of Eno Brief available at enotrans.com.

Steve Van Beek

The best way to move both quickly and wisely on economic recovery projects is to make system preservation the priority for at least the first wave of projects. These "fix it first" projects on our transit, highway, rail, port and aviation systems show that we have our priorities right. Most jurisdictions have an ample backlog of these projects that are ready to go-- and were put on the shelf by the national recession. Conversely, anyone that does not have a long list of planned, designed and permitted repair and reconstruction projects is revealing more about their priorities than they intend to.

Emphasizing system preservation also opens the door to performance measures in the economic recovery package. When we show the reduction in percentage of deficient bridges, improvement in pavement indexes and younger (and CNG-powered or hybrid) fleet of transit vehicles, our citizens can readily see the improvements they are getting for their hard-earned tax dollars.

As for earmarks, here's a not-so-secret: if you privately polled transportation professionals, most don't like them. Sure, they can come in very handy for a specific project. But they are generally too small to make a difference, distort priorities, often come with onerous strings, and create expectations that we can't satisfy. Until the surface transportation program becomres an earmark-free zone, however, none of us are going to unilaterally disarm.

I hope we don't make a fetish of the phrase "shovel ready within X days" in forthcoming congressional action on the economic recovery program. While we certainly want to move promptly in spending any new infrastructure funding, our economic troubles won't be over in 90 or 180 days.

Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area (where I live) continue to rely every day on major infrastructure projects built during the Great Depression, such as the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges. Neither of these massive structures was "shovel ready" when the stock market crashed. Yet these 1930's investments helped make possible the unprecedented economic expansion that followed for decades to come.

I believe the economic recovery program should have a dual focus: (1) short-term "quick hitter" projects that can be put out to bid this summer and create jobs in the beleaguered construction industry; and (2) longer-term "game changing" investment strategies that can jump start a new direction for federal transportation policy in the 21st Century.

In any sensible environment, the first step in implementing a construction based stimulus plan would be creation of (1) A national transportation plan and (2) A national energy plan.

A country that mobilized for war as rapidly as ours in the 1940’s, and is as blessed as we are with imaginative and entrepreneurial minds, could certainly create cohesive, sensible plans in less than the years normally allocated to such undertakings. The President Elect and the Congress should create, empower, and act in accordance with the recommendations of a high powered, respected panel of transporation and energy experts to guide the allocation of short and long term funds.

We now know that this recession will be both deep and long, and that we will spend many trillions of dollars, in several traunches, to ameliorate its impact. Unless we spend those dollars on the right things (which requires a plan) and efficiently (which requires non political, iron handed oversight) we will waste many of the dollars we spend, and will fail to create the infrastructure needed to support an economy vigorous enough to repay the dollars we are spending.

President-Elect Obama is on the right track by sticking to a simple earmark ban. He has wisely avoided the trap of attempting to turn this bill into a mini-transportation authorization bill with special restrictions, mandates, and complex goals unrelated to the economy and jobs.

Although motorists care deeply about the effectiveness of our transportation programs, it is imperative to the economy that a stimulus bill be enacted quickly, without micromanagement from special interest groups.

Right now, the focus needs to be limited to jobs and the economy. But this is just the first of a one-two punch. The second punch, the multi-year highway and transit bill, will be the appropriate place for policy changes. Congress will have to make major changes to "TEA"-era programs and policies to improve the cost-effectiveness, transparency, and outcomes of highway and transit investments. Nothing less will be expected by those motorists paying the user fees that support these programs.

But for the stimulus to be effective in the short-term, we need to get shovels into the ground right now. And the economic benefits of the stimulus will multiply in the long-term since many transportation improvements will save time & money by moving people and goods safely and efficiently. The tight historic correlation of travel and GDP indicates that our economy will grow in direct proportion to the amount people are traveling – today’s investments in surface transportation will help make that happen.

In reaction to the previous posters, I recommend that they consider the following: As part of his campaign to Restore America's Promise, President-Elect Obama has focused on several policy areas. Just as he has proposed environmental progress, Obama has also emphasized the need to build new highways. He apparently does not see a contradiction and neither do the American people. There is no need for divisiveness between professional environmentalists and highway supporters.

Transportation extends across state and local government borders, but currently the planning process does not. Attempts by Congress to focus on national highway priorities frequently get lost in the battle for greater state apportionments and earmarks for local projects. Transportation funding in the economic stimulus package needs to focus on a national vision that will make highway travel and freight movement safer and more efficient.

Prioritizing stimulus infrastructure projects in harmony with recommendations made by the National Surface Infrastructure Policy and Revenue Study Commission is a good place to start. These recommendations were designed to ensure that investments improve system condition and performance by addressing congestion and improving the movement of freight.

That a project is "shovel ready" does not mean it will contribute to a national strategy or make our infrastructure system more efficient.

Some of the most valuable goals in the commission’s December 2007 report included: rebuilding infrastructure, enhancing freight transportation, congestion relief, improving safety, increasing access to smaller cities and rural areas, environmental stewardship, energy security and a coherent transportation research program for the nation.

Furthermore, federal infrastructure stimulus money should not replace state’s transportation funds. Current revenue streams are failing to keep pace with infrastructure needs. To fix this problem, we need increased investment coupled with systematic reforms as to how funds are allocated. In addition, if federal infrastructure funds merely substitute for state funds, there will be no net funding increase to stimulate the economy.

Geoff Anderson is right that “shovel-ready” need not mean shoveling tax dollars without paying attention to results. With all the ready-to-go opportunities to support 21st century transportation, it is distressing how many states are stuck in the1950s in terms of spending priorities. Unless Congress stipulates that money be spent to reduce oil consumption and repair crumbling infrastructure, billions will be spent on unneeded new highways.

This isn’t just speculation. A look at state stimulus wish lists spells out the best available picture of where dollars would go in the absence of federal guidance. As part of developing a stimulus plan, states have been asked to develop “ready to go” lists of transportation projects on which funds could be spent if made available. These lists have been collected by the T4America coalition of transportation reform groups. We have obtained lists for analysis for: Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. Together, these states constitute 56 percent of the U.S. population.

The findings and conclusions of U.S. PIRG’s analysis of the lists are troubling. In almost every state, there is a yawning gap between the kind of projects the states have queued up for stimulus money and the most-urgent priorities for bringing the nation’s transportation into the 21st century.

Road and bridge repairs shortchanged in favor of lane widening, new roads – Of the fourteen states for which sufficient data were available to analyze the allocation of road project funding, only Massachusetts would completely prioritize road funds toward repair and maintenance projects. Colorado, in second place, still would divert almost 13 percent of road funds away from repair and maintenance. On average, states would allocate 56 percent of road funds away from repair and maintenance. Adding up total spending on state wish lists, funds for new or wider roads would be more than two and a half times greater than those for preserving existing assets. Florida, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin would spend less than a quarter of road funds on repair and maintenance.

Public transit and rail takes a back seat – For the nineteen states with available lists, the average state would spend more than 77 percent of funds on highways and only seventeen percent on public transit, intercity, or freight rail. In fact, seven states would allocate 1 percent or less toward these growing transportation modes, including four that would allocate nothing at all. Florida, with dozens of much-needed transit and intercity rail projects and more transit agencies than all but three states would allocate only 1 percent of funds to transit. These distributions represent a step backward from the already inadequate 20 percent share of funding in federal transportation laws since the 1970s. It also sharply contrasts with the long-term decline in automobile use and ridership records for transit and intercity rail.

Beyond what we see in these lists, it is troubling what we don’t see. There is no good reason why less than half of states’ lists have become available to the public. Since the public will ultimately be asked to pay for the billions in economic recovery spending, it is imperative that project lists from all 50 states be fully transparent and accessible.

Some state DOTs have responded that they just don’t operate transit or aren’t familiar with it. This is part of the problem and reinforces the point that a portion of funds must be suballocated directly to metro areas, the way that the Surface Transportation Program does under current law. States should be required to spend down their lists of projects that would reduce restore infrastructure to good repair or reduce oil dependency before building or widening new roads.

Smart investments also create more jobs. Evidence suggests that public transit generates 19 percent more jobs than spending the same money on highway expansion. Road repair and maintenance generates 9 percent more jobs than constructing new highways. This makes sense for the same reason that rehabbing a house is more labor-intensive than constructing new homes: workers deal with existing structures rather laying down larger quantities of (often imported) concrete and steel. Road expansion projects may be even less efficient job creators than these studies indicate. Estimates of job creation fail to consider that nearly ten percent of new road costs are diverted to purchases of land and rights of way that generate few jobs. Likewise, the more-sprawling forms of development that tend to accompany new highways are themselves typically less labor-intensive to construct.

In short, Congress need not simply shovel out money to find “shovel-ready” projects. Smart transportation investments are available, ready to go, will create more jobs, and make sense for future prosperity.

President-elect Barack Obama recently unveiled his vision for rebuilding our economy through his “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” which he had previously vowed would help deliver “a new infrastructure that is necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st Century.”

The President-elect has emphasized accountability in a generalized way, ruling out “earmarks” and calling for speedy action. Several recent news stories have seized on apparent contradictions within these impulses and raised critical questions: Can we spend this money both quickly and wisely? Can the existing transportation apparatus, geared as it is toward highway-building, deliver on the incoming administration’s promises that these investments will lay the groundwork for a green recovery and a post-oil dependent economy?

We believe the answer to both these questions is an emphatic “yes” – but not if Congress merely shovels money to the states without guidance as to how it should be spent. That approach could lead to an embarrassing mess, based on the proposed project lists from the 20 states that have made their “ready-to-go” lists public. Our analysis shows that while some states, such as Massachusetts, would spend most or all of the money on fixing what they have and expanding public transportation, most intend to resurrect highway projects that have gone unfunded precisely because they are of questionable utility. Spending on these new-capacity projects necessarily would come at the expense of repair and maintenance, while missing the opportunity to expand energy-saving, community building options, such as public transportation and safe walking and biking. And some of those projects inevitably will be ridiculed as the next “bridge to nowhere”. It makes little sense to allow a handful of such large highway expansions, which can take years to complete, gobble up near-term ‘stimulus’ money while existing highways and bridges are allowed to crumble.

Congress can avoid these embarrassments by setting criteria to ensure that stimulus funds are only allocated for projects that will create jobs and stimulate the economy in a manner that matches our longer term energy and sustainability priorities. These
criteria should ensure that the recovery package’s transportation infrastructure investment will go towards preserving America’s existing highway and transit networks, while giving our growing nation more options for getting around, in turn allowing Americans to use less gasoline. If we spend this money the right way, we should get a three-for-one-return on our investment: A revitalized economy positioned for long-term health; less dependence on oil; and a reduction in climate-damaging emissions.

There certainly is no shortage of “ready-to-go” projects of this nature. The DOTs themselves have reported a backlog of more than $1 trillion in repair, maintenance and rehabilitation projects. If, as expected, this is a two-year package, the first segment should be focused on such fix-it-first projects that can be under way within 120 days. It should also provide resources to transit agencies to preserve existing transit jobs and service; there are ample needs here, as well. Over the following 18 months, any remaining stimulus funds should be directed toward the 65 ready-to-go projects within the next year identified by Transportation for America, requiring over $17 billion in funding to get going.

More irresponsible then not responding to the economic crisis is distributing money without a plan for a long-term overhaul of our systems. We agree that states and localities are the best sources to identify the needs of their communities, and we are not advocating that we stall allocating financial support for infrastructure projects. Considering that the plan will likely not go to Obama before mid-February, there is plenty of time to review and outline an economically viable and innovative plan for future infrastructure spending.

Updated at 11:44 a.m. on Jan. 12, 2009.