In response to the question “What DOT programs or projects should be axed?”, Emil seems to respond that none should be, until and unless they are shown to be inconsistent with “clearly articulated national transportation goals and [a redefined] federal interest.”

Might it not be more logical to wind down most of the existing federal programs, and the taxes that finance them, and to make new arrangements (which may not even require federal funding) to achieve generally acceptable “goals”, which the Bipartisan Policy Center or others may articulate?

 In response to the question “What DOT programs or projects should be axed?”, Emil seems to respond that none should be, until and unless they are shown to be inconsistent with “clearly articulated national transportation goals and [a redefined] federal interest.”

Might it not be more logical to wind down most of the existing federal programs, and the taxes that finance them, and to make new arrangements (which may not even require federal funding) to achieve generally acceptable “goals”, which the Bipartisan Policy Center or others may articulate?

As the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (the Policy Commission) noted in its report a year ago, the problem in this area is that there has been a proliferation of narrow categorical programs (over one hundred), not to mention the thousands of earmarks and "special projects" in both authorizing and appropriating legislation.  Often these programs and projects have little connection to national transportation goals, and grantees are neither held to performance standards, nor held accountable for the manner in which they use federal funds.  As former US DOT Secretary Mary Peters commented (and the Policy Commission recommended), these narrow and unfocused programs should be consolidated into a simpler federal prgrammatic framework, shaped around clearly articulated national transportation goals and around a redefinition of the federal interest.  An important beginning was made in this regard in the area of highway safety in SAFETEA-LU, and this pattern should be extended to other areas of surface transportation policy.  Within such a framework, states and localities (and/or combinations of them) should have broad discretion to shape their own programs, to which federal funds could be applied, as long as national goals are pursued, and measurable progress is achieved, in meeting those federal interests.

Collapse

 Steve might wish to consider an additional “circumstance” which makes “2009 an opportune time [to settle] the mission and priorities for a national transportation program”:

7. The development of technology to enable the costs of road use (taking account of distance, time and place of travel) to be charged directly to road users, and the revenues to be credited directly to road providers.

Roles, Missions, and Goals Then Programs: The 2009 Opportunity

Mort Downey is exactly right: it makes little sense to get into a program by program review before settling on the mission and priorities for a national transportation program.  What makes 2009 an opportune time to conduct this review are the following set of circumstances:

1. The prevailing sense of crisis, which in the past has led to historic change and a changing role for government (e.g., 1800, 1832, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1964, 1980).
2. The saliency of transportation as a potential contributor to important public priorities such as climate change, energy use, and traditional transportation concerns such as mobility and congestion.
3. The well-founded belief that our transportation policy architecture is broken.
4. The nearly bankrupt Highway Trust Fund and Airport and Airway Trust Fund as well as inadequate funding for the maritime and freight sectors.
5. The disjointed and incremental nature of our transportation policy, which thwarts national goals and results in suboptimal investments in infrastructure.
6. The possibility of a new governing coalition spanning the executive and legislative branches and including state and local governments.

Together the elements of this context create the possibility to engage in the kind of priority setting that Mort Downey identifies.  In this period of "policy realignment" we should eschew the old ways, and put away the old arguments, which are less and less relevant to the task at hand.  The test, as others have identified, is whether or not this is truly an "authorization" for not just the surface bill, but for the others as well.  That and whether or not we put our transportation policies on more sustainable paths (in every sense of the word) will determine our level of success.

Steve Van Beek (for more see enotrans.com). 

Collapse

Like many others, I'm going to take the easy route of restating the question.  Deciding who to vote off the island might  be fun, but we really should devote more effort to who gets there in the first place.

All of us know how hard it is to put an end to any program or project once it develops a life and a constituency of its own.  I'm reminded of our efforts at Zero Based Budgeting at the beginning of the Carter Adminstration.  With considerable work and much generation of paper, we identified,priced and ranked every program in the department, with many programs subdivided into packages and then drew the line as to what could be eliminated.  What fell below the line was a single program, Coast Guard Boating Safety, and it was proposed for the axe not because it wasn't a valid safety concern, but that it probably belonged more with state and local government than mixed in with the rest of the Coast Guard mission.  This was, in fact, one of the very few eliminations proposed anywhere in government.  What happened?  To no one's great surprise, Congress not only disagreed with the termination--it doubled the program's size and gave it an allocation of permanent funding outside the normal budget process!

So we need to take a more sophisticated approach.  Recognize that programs and projects aren't on the agenda through a process of self-generation, at least in most cases.  They are there  because they have a degree of support and some form of connection with agreed-upon departmental missions.

If we have the time and energy to spend (and we should devote that energy as good stewards of public funds) we need to define and refine the missions first.  The DOT Strategic Plan is a good starting point for that process.  Do we have agreement on what the missions are, what the expected outcomes are, and how we will measure success through defined performance goals.  Going a step further, we need to define the strategies that offer best opportunities to achieve those performance goals. 

Congress needs to take a greater interest in this process, contributing views on what DOT should be doing in a more holistic way rather than in unconnected legislative and appropriations actions. If there is agreement on goals and strategies, it becomes more apparent as to what activities and what projects do and don't contribute to success.  Recent efforts by the Bush Admistration to understand program performance, particularly through the PART process, show that it is possible to evaluate at least at some aggregated level of detail, and it is noteworthy that DOT programs, for the most part, ranked well in this process.  In effect, it is possible to show that results are both predictable and achievable.

Finally, the budget should be conformed, both within the Administration and with the Congress, to match with the strategic and performance plans.  Axing unproductive programs isn't easy, but putting them in a context that demonstrates the reasons why.  There's also room to look at overlapping and competing programs and decide that the better ones deserve more funding rather than the weaker ones.  And maybe in a more perfect world, even the projects would stand out in terms of whether they contributed to agreed-on goals or merely met narrower interests.

Collapse

Mr. Roth,

As proposed by the former DOT secretary, slot auctions would, on their face, add to customer costs and not reduce congestion. Because of the complex historic financial relationships between airlines, airports and the federal government, we see no other outcome.

As a constructive alternative, we did suggest reliance upon well established Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines (used to allocate slots globally, except in the United States), but DOT rejected those in favor testing its auction theory. As I noted initially, in our view, this experiment belongs in the regulatory scrapheap.

Current federal transportation law authorizes hundreds of separate programs, all of which the Congress enacted to serve a particular, often isolated, purpose. While the individual goals might be laudable, the proliferation of federally-funded transportation programs only serves to dilute the power of national transportation policy. Currently, our nation's transportation policy and programs serve too many masters in an attempt to cover every possible need.  The problem is that the federal transportation program should NOT serve every need.  It should focus on those truly national strategic functions that cannot be effectively handled by other levels of government or the private sector.

So, which programs should be cut or combined? As others have posted, first we must identify the true national focus of our federal transportation policy.  The Transportation Transformation Group argues for a long-term, goal-based vision for the future of transportation that transforms the current way of meeting America's needs. Congress should consolidate federal transportation funding categories and focus those limited programs on meeting broad national goals. We support dissolving discretionary programs and devoting not more than the current 2.5% of total federal authorizations for federal administration and research purposes. Furthermore, we support a federal transportation policy and funding approach that allows states and local governments to move financial resources among modes to provide the transportation solutions that best accomplish transportation goals.  Finally, whatever federal transportation programs the Congress chooses to enact should result in fewer, more streamlined, and harmonized processes to enable the delivery of new transportation solutions, not arrest their development

Collapse

I agree with Robin that our transportation policy should not focus on the needs of vehicles or infrastructure but rather on individuals and business.  Indeed, while I think the phrase “crumbling infrastructure” is a bit strong, the only reason we should care about correcting this situation is if it provides tangible net benefits to the traveling public. 

Given that our economy operates on a national scale and that we are under pressures to change due to global competition, new technologies, new priorities (energy conservation and reduced GHG) and shifts in demand, investment funds should emphasize those parts of the system that support this need for flexibility.   The highway network, whether serving cars, buses, or trucks remains a flexible, if sometimes under-appreciated system.   This system needs new capacity.  How we provide this should not be identical to what we have done in the past.  For example, we need continued integration with technology and telecommunications and should use variable pricing where appropriate.  The goal is not to please our vehicles, but to meet the demands of our citizens and economy.

Gabriel:  Many good points. Dollars available are always limited. All projects are not equal. We can find bad projects with political backing among transit projects just as easily as among highway ones.

 Over the next few years I’d prioritize new projects by financing those that give the largest reduction in CO2 emission per dollar spent. That reduction could be achieved any number of ways -- changing modes; changing fuels; changing vehicles; changing connectivity – with size of demand/impact of the project directly measurable through generation of the largest reductions in VMTs or gallons of fuel burned.

Modeling demand is unfortunately an art, which makes it difficult to reliably predict future demand and project impact. Reducing volatility in the price of gas, perhaps by creating a price floor, would make estimating demand and project prioritization much easier.
 

 Robin:

Your criteria for projects “deserving of national financing” seem broad enough to include any project that is “environmentally sustainable”, whatever that may mean. You do not mention financial viability, nor willingness of those who benefit to pay. Is any “enhancing quality of life” project, whatever the cost to taxpayers, “deserving of national financing”?

How would you justify the $5 billion Dulles Airport rail extension which:

·      Offers slower door-to-door service than a busway solution;

·      Would be almost entirely financed by people who would never use it;

·      Would be inconvenient for airport travelers with luggage; and

·      Would overstrain the capacity of the Metro system it would be connected to?

And there is a $5 billion rail project planned for Honolulu which some experts consider to be even weaker than the extension to Dulles airport.

Agreed that those who use cars should pay for the costs arising out of their choices, but why do you not apply this criterion to other modes? In a free society, should not travelers pay for the modes they choose to use, and get the facilities they are prepared to pay for? Then American contractors could build them without recourse to federal financing.

Gabriel

Collapse

One of the reasons Americans have been hesitant to make greater investments in transportation is because they see so much of the money they currently pay going to fund niche programs and special interest projects that do little to improve commutes, cut shipping times or stimulate new economic growth. The answer is to return to the roots of the modern federal transportation program. Instead of 108 different goals, the original focus was to better connect the American people and their economic activity. It was a goal that was as effective as it was focused. 

Within the span of a few short years, American families could easily drive from one city to the next, commuters could easily reach downtown jobs and suburban homes, and shippers could move goods from coast to coast at low cost and high reliability. Because they saw the benefits, Americans were ready to make the needed investments, and for decades, transportation funding remained in balance. 

That focus has regrettably devolved into a “be-all-things-for-all-special-interests” federal approach that spreads money into countless programs that do little to help most commuters and shippers. It is no coincidence that many Americans are now reluctant to invest more in transportation. Those flowers on the side of the road are nice, but nobody likes having to stare at them while they’re stuck in traffic every morning and evening. They want results, not roses. 

So the answer to the question is simple. Refocus on core national transportation needs – maintaining and improving the interstate highway network, battling urban congestion, and getting freight and commuters moving again. This will put money where it is most needed, fixing crumbling roads and aging bridges, unclogging congested corridors and communities and getting America moving again.

Collapse

The Department of Transportation, like all parts of government, is the result of decades of program accretion, and very little program dissolution. It is clear that there are too many special and small interests that have outlived the logic of their creation.

With the next Reauthorization Bill at hand, a new administration in the Whitehouse, a crumbling transportation infrastructure that demands reinvestment, and an economy and real estate market in shambles, it does appear that we are at a moment for evaluation and realignment.

We all agree that transportation is central to all economic activity, and affects both our daily lives as well as our potential as a nation. In many respects, infrastructure is destiny. We reap what we sow.

The disagreement among us is which transportation investments will result in a safer, healthier, and most robust economic future.

Money is better spent when goals are clear and incentives are aligned with those goals. Every project and program has a clear lens for evaluation. Staff within the DOT, and people outside of the DOT would understand these goals. People, projects, and money would be aligned.

Our goals (many of which are achieved only through international, national or regional coordination and therefore deserving of national financing) should be:

•    Ensuring and improving the safety, security, and resilience of travel and travel networks
•    Providing transportation options that are affordable and accessible for individuals and families throughout their lives, enhancing quality of life.
•    Facilitate commerce (locally, nationally, internationally) and access to jobs
•    Are environmentally sustainable for future generations of Americans

Using this lens and given where we stand today, we shouldn’t fund projects that increase car dependency. 92% of Americans are using cars for 87% of their trips. This mono-modal system costs the lowest quintile 42% of their income, and the average American 18% -- and this amount without yet paying for necessary infrastructure repairs and maintenance, congestion, or CO2 emissions. Cars are by far the most dangerous  transportation mode choice. Cars contribute 20% of this country’s CO2 emissions (and the sector 33%). Our fossil fuel dependence sends billions of dollars overseas and destroys our balance of payment.  This doesn’t all boil down to no cars or no new highways ever, but we have excessively invested in the needs of cars rather than the needs of people and it is time to improve that mix.

Lastly, and on a topic largely untouched in these conversations, our current investments and research efforts too are poorly aligned with these goals. There is an insularity that hasn’t connected our transportation future (and therefore research needs) with the reality of energy, climate change, demographic, and our work/housing patterns.  DOT needs to think and work much more collaboratively.

As an example, technology for transportation needs to be realigned to get back in sync with the rest of the wireless industry: internet protocols, open standards and networks; multi-purposed devices. We need to ensure that smart roads and the smart grid, together with our increasingly technology-enhanced daily lives have communication systems that naturally converge and are interoperable. Our current strategies in this arena inflate costs to individuals and companies and hinder this country’s ability to innovate.

Here is the link to the report from a DOT roundtable I participated in, May 2009, "Advanced Wireless Communication for the Transport Sector"
www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/rpt/wireless08/advanced_wireless.doc

I’ve written more on these two topics here:
http://networkmusings.blogspot.com/2009/01/where-do-cars-belong-in-21st-america.html
http://networkmusings.blogspot.com/2007/11/weird-world-of-its-vii-ivi.html
 

Collapse

 Mr. May: Yes, of course you are right. It is the cap on operations, not the lack of auctions, that controls congestion at airports.

But, if the available capacity were to be auctioned, the most urgent uses would tend to get priority, and the less urgent would shift to other times and/or other airports. And the revenues from the auctions could finance the improvements you so rightly call for, eliminating the need for taxpayer financing.

And could not the peak-period costs be shifted to the passengers, most of whom are not from the poorest segment of the population?

Furthermore, would not at least some of your members prefer a transparent auction system to the present slot allocation arrangements?

Mr. Roth, let’s be clear, the past administration’s claim that slot auctions would reduce congestion was a red herring – that does nothing for congestion reduction. It is the cap on operations (which forces the creation of slots) that controls congestion. Auctions are merely one way to reallocate slots.

The best way to reduce delays/fuel burn and help grow the economy is to modernize the air traffic control system. In 2006, U.S. commercial aviation contributed almost $700 billion to our GDP, directly and indirectly supporting 10.2 million U.S. jobs; in 2007, airlines and their passengers paid more than $12 billion in support of airports. The reality is that a healthy airline industry spreads jobs and growth – the right choice of investment in airline growth can and will speed our nation’s return to prosperity. Stimulus funds for NextGen remain a very wise investment. If we’re serious about reducing congestion and stimulating the economy, Congress must make the decisions that will steer the economy in the right direction. NextGen equipage is the right path to follow.

One program that I would drop is the “Equity Bonus Program.”  This is part of the federal highway program and guarantees that every state receives a minimum of 92 percent (up from 90.5 percent in TEA-21) of the highway funds collected in their state.  The program has a few other minimum guarantee provisions.   Funding for FY 2009 is about $9 billion.   Note:  because some expenditures are exempt from the minimum guarantee calculation, 92 percent is close to the maximum possible level.    

I see two problems with this program.  Most importantly it encourages the donor-donee issue that has dominated Congressional debate in recent years.  This debate diverts attention from national problems and national programs.  If the donor-donee debate had been around in the 1950s, we would never have built the Interstate Highway System.  Carried to its extreme, the donor-donee issue implies we should turn all surface transportation programs back to state and local governments.  This topic may be worthy of debate but it should be discussed directly.

Second, to the extent there is logic in the argument that each state should receive back from the feds the same level of funds that they provided, then what would happen if we applied this to other federal programs?   For example, this would mean the end of most of the federal mass transit program. 

While I am not a fan of this program, I would not drop the funds, but rather redirect them to focus on addressing problems of national significance – reducing traffic congestion, integrating transportation and technology, and implementing performance management systems are my personal favorites.

Collapse

The Transportation Department runs a program that is illegal, unsuccessful, dangerous and highly unpopular. President Obama should pull the plug on it immediately.

It’s called the cross-border truck pilot program. We call it the first step to opening the border to unsafe trucks from Mexico.

Bush Transportation Secretary Mary Peters opened our southern border in September 2007. She tried to do it quietly, and for good reason: It’s against the law.

The Transportation Department cannot legally open the Mexican border to trucks until it proves that highway safety won’t be compromised.

The Transportation Department failed. Mexican trucks don’t have to meet the same safety standards that U.S. trucks do. There’s little or no drug testing, safety training or enforcement in Mexico.

In 2007, Congress overwhelmingly passed a spending bill that included a ban on funds for the Mexican truck program. But the Bush administration kept the trucks rolling anyway.

Meanwhile, the Transportation Department showed it can’t review the safety records of Mexican carriers. Trinity Enterprises was approved as a participant in the program, despite more than 1,200 safety violations, or about 100 per truck. Many violations were serious.

Opinion polls have consistently shown that most American’s don’t want dangerous Mexican trucks on our highways. Opposition in Congress has been strong and overwhelming. Most Mexican truck drivers are against this program just as American truck drivers are. They believe that opening the border to American trucks will destroy their industry.

Nevertheless, the Transportation Department last year said it will extend the program until September 2010.

The ostensible reason for keeping the pilot program going? There’s a legal requirement that pilot programs have to demonstrate statistically valid results. But there were too few participants in the program for any analysis about its impact on safety to be valid. 

The Teamsters fought opening the border for many years, and will continue to do so. This fight is vital to our national security and to our highway safety, and the program must be stopped.

Collapse

Highway and auto safety programs have not been sufficiently funded for years. A lack of adequate resources is one of the reasons essential lifesaving vehicle safety standards languish at the agency for years and decades. Motor vehicle crashes cause 99% of non-fatal transportation injuries and 94% of transportation deaths yet the annual budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) represents about one per cent of the entire U.S. DOT budget.  Clearly, any budget savings my fellow bloggers identify and recommend should immediately be transferred to bolster the NHTSA budget, particularly the motor vehicle safety programs which have been starved. Here are some suggestions for cutting programs.

• Mexican Pilot Program: The Cross-Border Mexican Pilot Program for long-haul NAFTA trucks is a wasteful program that should be discontinued. It was set up as a one-year effort to prove that Mexican long-haul trucks could operate as safely throughout the United States as domestic truckers. The Pilot Program was a complete failure and proved nothing. It took the best trucking companies and drivers in Mexico and tried to compare them to the average companies and drivers in the U.S. However, hardly any Mexican companies, and only about 100 trucks were in the program and they rarely drove long distances. The program proved nothing but the Bush Administration decided to extend the Pilot Program for another 2 years. Congress wants the program shut down, safety groups want the program shut down, and the American public wants the program shut down. 
• Share the Road Safely Program: For years now, the FMCSA Share the Road Safely program has tried to educate car drivers about how to drive safely near and around a big truck. In the past, this program has included the “no zone” which actually told car drivers that they could not drive in front, in back, or in the lanes on either side of a big truck – essentially, just get off the road when a big rig is in the vicinity. The program now actually has state law enforcement officers ride shot gun in order to ticket offending car drivers. This program has been used as propaganda to blame passenger vehicle drivers for crashes involving trucks. Most important, there are no meaningful measures of effectiveness for the benefits of the program. In fact, no crash reduction benefits have ever been demonstrated. 
• Crash Causation Research: NHTSA is conducting passenger vehicle and motorcycle "causation" studies based on the same flawed methodology used by FMCSA in the original Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS).  Although a lot of crash reconstruction information is gathered, the information about the cause of the truck crash usually comes from surviving witnesses, most often the truck driver, and is subject to a high level of bias. These kinds of studies are essentially “junk” science with no capability of providing causal explanations for crashes. They are susceptible to most of the same criticisms from scientific and research bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board that plagued the LTCCS. Funding for such dubious research should be axed.

Collapse

Mr. Schenendorf set the appropriate tone for this conversation when he said, “there are a myriad of DOT programs, about 108 Federal surface transportation programs alone. Most of these programs were designed to address important transportation needs and have served us well in the past. But collectively they are not up to the challenges that face us today.”  It is not a simple issue of which program to keep and which program should go, but rather a need to re-vision the overall federal programmatic structure to meet a new set of desired federal outcomes.

This need to set a new federal paradigm must be the goal for the result to the successor to SAFETEA-LU.   The next federal transportation authorization should set a new course that not only alters federal policy to focus on optimizing existing infrastructure and managing demand first, but guides states, regional planning bodies, and local governments to follow a similar course.

Whether six, 10, 20, or 50 programs, the result should meet the call of President Obama:  a government that works.  Six major goals stand out as national priorities around which the Federal program should be structured: metropolitan mobility, clean air, energy conservation, freight movement, rural connectivity, and safety.   Funding should be prioritized for the preservation and efficient operation of the existing highway and transit systems, mode-neutral support for metropolitan areas to address pressing congestion, environmental and social challenges, and multi-modal capacity expansion, which is both effective and efficient.

To that end, the authorization should consolidate certain parts of the current highway, transit, freight and passenger rail sections of law, including Federal-aid programs, into a coordinated surface transportation title that will support the development of multimodal planning, project development, and outcomes consistent with the six goals defined above.  The measurement of those outcomes should determine the success or failure, over time, of the federal transportation programs and determine which programs to keep moving forward a government that works.

Collapse

 Might James May elaborate his comment and explain why the Air Transport Association, while seeking public funding for airport infrastructure, objects to the auctioning of landing and take-off slots at airports?

Market pricing of these slots does indeed (contrary to his assertion) seem to “make sense as a tool to address congestion”, and the revenues generated could finance the expansion of airport facilities, reducing the need for public funding.

Air carriers use market pricing to sell their seats, and to purchase most of their necessities. Why should airports not apply the same principles to the allocation of scarce airport landing and take-off slots? 

A DOT program that we believe should be on the chopping block is New York slot auctions. We agree wholeheartedly with DOT Secretary LaHood that auctioning slots does not make sense as a tool to address congestion. We said from the beginning that FAA lacks the authority to issue these rules -- they should now be withdrawn to avoid further litigation expense for all parties.

We continue to fully support acceleration of NextGen funding as part of the economic stimulus bill – it an important infrastructure project that will generate 77,000 jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft by up to 12 percent by 2025 and help reduce frustrating passenger delays that have plagued the airspace system.

The Real Question Is: What Is the Federal Role in Transportation?

One of the oldest clichés in government reform is that we should root out “waste, fraud, and abuse.” I don’t doubt that there is a fair amount of all three in our federal government, including its expansive surface transportation program. But instead of asking which of the hundreds of federal highway and transit programs are ineffective, I think it’s far more useful to ask which of them truly represent national—as opposed to state or urban-regional—concerns. As the program is structured now, anything that a sufficient degree of interest-group effort puts forth as a “good thing” gets treated as an essential federal function.

Let’s look instead at the natural division of labor among (for simplicity) the federal government, state DOTs, and urban regions (represented for this discussion by our Metropolitan Planning Organizations). Obviously, urban/suburban transportation is of local/regional interest, while most inter-city highways are primarily of state interest. Long-haul, interstate goods-movement (and international trade), by contrast, is clearly a national (and hence federal government) interest.

If we were serious about “authorizing” anew the federal surface transportation program in 2009, rather than simply reauthorizing the very 20th-century program that has outlived its original purpose, that’s the kind of discussion we’d be having. And, in fact, it’s the kind of discussion begun by former DOT Secretary Mary Peters and her senior policy people, with their challenging report last summer, “Refocus, Reform, Renew.” Their basic premise was that it’s time to step back and take a more fundamental look at what the federal role should be—and that this should be done before attempting to decide how much the federal investment should be.

That’s the opposite of the approach taken last year by the Surface Transportation Policy & Revenue Commission. While purporting to simplify and streamline federal programs, that body actually proposed a greatly expanded federal role in surface transportation, adding expansive new programs in rural transit systems, intercity rail, energy, and environment (as part of DOT, mind you!)—as well as significantly increased federal spending on traditional highways and transit. So it’s no wonder their expanded agenda would have required a tripling of the federal fuel tax, which they proposed converting from a highway user-fee to an all-purpose transportation/energy/environment funding source.

The Mary Peters 3R report didn’t go as far as it might have, since its narrowed federal role included (besides the obvious safety and research) urban congestion relief in addition to the obvious candidate of long-haul interstate goods movement as key federal roles. And it proposed shifting only a portion of federal funding to a competitive, performance-based funding system, with the majority still doled out by a variant of the current redistributive formula. But at least it began by asking the right question: What aspects of transportation truly reflect what the federal government is best suited to do, as opposed to the state DOTs and the MPOs? And it proposed giving the DOTs and MPOs considerably increased freedom to do more of those things that are more properly in their purview.

Fortunately, at least some of the thinking that animated the 3R report seems likely to be advocated by some of the more innovative state DOTs, as they stake out their positions on the coming reauthorization. It’s long overdue for such questions to be asked—and answered.

Collapse

Transportation is the foundation of our economy and essential to our quality of life. If we want our economy to recover from the current downturn and prosper in the future, if we want our citizens to have convenient and reliable transportation choices, then we must modernize our transportation network to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We need seamless, multi-modal transportation systems--highway, freight rail, passenger rail, transit, air, water, and non-motorized--that can move people and goods efficiently, safely and in an environmentally-responsible way.

Currently there are a myriad of DOT programs, about 108 Federal surface transportation programs alone. Most of these programs were designed to address important transportation needs and have served us well in the past. But collectively they are not up to the challenges that face us today. The existing programs simply are not getting the job done. We must take significant, decisive action now to reform the way DOT does business.

In my view, therefore, the question is not whether any particular DOT program is wasteful, inefficient or obsolete and should be axed or cut. Instead, I believe we must mount a large-scale effort for change that starts from a "clean slate." All DOT programs should be on the table. We must refocus the programs to pursue objectives of genuine national interest. And we must make government accountable for achieving the intended results.

As an example, the bipartisan National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, on which I had the honor of serving as Vice Chair, recently recommended that the 108 existing surface transportation programs be replaced with 10 new performance-driven, outcome-based Federal programs. This is the kind of bold, fundamental reform that is needed.

Another example of innovative thinking is the new "competitive grants for transportation" program being proposed in the Senate economic recovery legislation. This program would provide for "competitive grants" to state and local governments to solve national, regional and metropolitan transportation problems. Having traveled around the country as part of my Commission duties, I can attest to the fact that there are dozens and dozens of major ready-to-go projects that could benefit from this type of program.

Before closing, I would like to note that while reform is essential, it is not sufficient in and of itself. We also need a substantial increase in investment to go along with it if we are to have the strong transportation system that is vital to the economic future of our nation and the well-being of our citizens.

In conclusion, my recommendation to President Obama is that his Administration move expeditiously to develop bold reform proposals for the surface transportation and aviation programs. Transformational reform initiatives, funded at levels adequate to get the job done, would have tremendous benefits:

• it would be a key element of the long-term economic recovery plan;

• it would create hundreds of thousands of new, good-paying jobs;

• it would build assets for America that would pay dividends for generations to come;

• it would improve our international competitiveness;

• it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil;

• it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

• it would save lives;

• it would improve the quality of life for all Americans; and

• it would be paid for by users of the system.

Not bad. There are very few, if any, federal initiatives where the benefits would be as great or as widespread. It is time to deliver to the people of this nation a simple but meaningful message: "Let's get moving. Together we can."

Collapse

I think that the most useful program for the President to cut would be the federal financing of state roads which, since the completion of the Interstate Highway System, can well be included in the list of "programs that no longer work". Of course, at the same time he should eliminate the federal taxes that finance this federal program.

Elimination of the federal program would require the states to take up the slack by raising their own taxes (or charges) to finance their highway programs. Substitution of state funding for federal funding would have the following advantages:

a) The states would exercise more care in spending their own funds than in using "free" federal money. They would, for example, look more carefully at improving the pricing of roads and at concessioning projects to the private sector. Successful innovations would be replicated in other states;

b) In the choice of projects, states would be more sensitive than the federal government to meeting the requirements of those who use their roads;

c) There would be real cost and time savings in eliminating federal regulations such as Davis-Bacon, and "Buy America", and federal Enviromental Impact Studies. There would also be substantial saving in administrative costs. Total cost savings would vary from state to state but could be of the order of 25 per cent.

d) Road users would no longer be forced to abide by federal mandates, such as 55 mph speed limits, nor to finance transit projects in other states;

e) The federal Congress would no longer be troubled by disputes about "Donor" and "Recipient" states, and could spend its valuable time more productively.

Some powers could still be left to the federal government, e.g. to ensure that the Interstate highways are properly maintained, and to finance research. Special arrangements could be made for Alaska and other states with special needs. But matters of standardization and coordination could well be left to such organizations as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

No legislation would seem to be needed to cut this program which, in its original 1956 legislation, was scheduled for elimination in 1972. All Congress need do now is to decline to re-authorize it ...

Collapse