Legislation to reauthorize Federal Aviation Administration programs now moving through Congress would provide considerable funding to pay for the FAA's part in upgrading management of the national air space to the satellite-based NextGen system. However, the costs to aircraft operators of adopting the necessary technology are significant, and NextGen cannot provide the full benefits it promises of a safer, more efficient and environmentally friendly system if only some operators are properly equipped.
The FAA's current NextGen implementation plan calls for giving air space priority to the "best-equipped, best-served" operators as an incentive to spur early adoption of NextGen avionics. Is this the best approach? Or should the airlines and other aviation system users get funding assistance from the government, or greater freedom to raise their own revenues, to fund the cost they will need to bear?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: Marion C. Blakey, Greg Cohen, Lisa Caruso, Anthony E. Shorris, Ron Kuhlmann, Craig L. Fuller
As climate change legislation moves from the House to the Senate, the transportation sector -- which contributed 28 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2007, according to EPA's latest inventory -- is being called upon to provide a substantial share of the reductions needed to meet the goal of slashing carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 80 percent (compared to 2005 levels) by 2050.
Many environmental advocates say that in addition to making vehicles more fuel-efficient and developing alternatives to carbon-based fuels, we need to reduce the number of vehicle-miles that people drive by expanding public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle networks and by adopting land use policies that reduce the need for vehicle travel and reduce the length of vehicle trips.
Can improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and alternative fuels, combined with measures to reduce congestion and make the transportation system operate more efficiently, bring about the necessary emissions reductions? Or will we also need to pursue policies to reduce how much Americans drive? And where should the funds to pay for these policies come from?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
21 responses: Michael A. Replogle, Deron Lovaas, Colin F. Peppard, Robin Chase, Bill Graves, Steve Van Beek, Ken Orski, Deron Lovaas, Jack Kinstlinger, Greg Cohen, Robin Chase, Lisa Caruso, Steve Van Beek, Colin F. Peppard, Jon Martz, Greg Principato, Deron Lovaas, Todd Litman, Steve Winkelman, Ken Orski, Greg Cohen
The state of Pennsylvania has renewed its bid to gain approval from the Federal Highway Administration to collect tolls on Interstate 80 after having its first attempt thwarted in late 2007. Transportation law generally prohibits tolling on interstate roads built with federal funds, such as I-80, but there are some exceptions, which require FHWA approval.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said that he does not support tolling existing interstate highways, although he is open to the idea of tolling new lanes. And as far as most drivers are concerned, they have already paid for the interstate highway system and it should remain "free" (although it is not, since all motorists pay fuel taxes to maintain and improve it).
Yet the cost of bringing the nation's roads and bridges into a state of good repair far exceeds the revenue raised by the Highway Trust Fund -- a gap of up to $240 billion annually through 2020, according to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. Especially in this era of tight federal and state budgets, should states be given greater leeway to toll existing federal-aid interstate highways? What about just tolling new capacity? Or should tolling federal roads continue to be restricted since the public already pays for them with their fuel taxes?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
20 responses: Lisa Caruso, Jeff Rosen, Steve Van Beek, Steve Van Beek, Ken Orski, Patrick D. Jones, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Michael A. Replogle, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Robin Chase, Bill Graves, Paul Yarossi, Geoffrey S. Yarema, Mortimer L. Downey, Steve Van Beek, Greg Cohen, Emil H. Frankel, Robert Puentes, Robert L. Crandall, D.J. Gribbin
A survey of infrastructure business leaders released last week by KPMG International and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that more than three-quarters (76 percent) of American executives named "government effectiveness" as the greatest challenge they face to planning, delivering and managing infrastructure projects.
"The Changing Face of Infrastructure" surveyed 455 infrastructure executives worldwide, including 118 Americans, and while the sample may be small, the results were telling: Almost half (47 percent) of U.S. respondents cited excessive bureaucracy as the reason for government ineffectiveness, while a little more than one-third (34 percent) blamed a short-term planning horizon and another third (33 percent) attributed it to neglecting long-term maintenance.
How can government at all levels do a more effective job of delivering infrastructure projects? What needs to change about the public sector's current approach, and what is the appropriate role for the private sector to play in improving the process?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
10 responses: Michael A. Replogle, Lisa Caruso, Paul Yarossi, Geraldine Knatz, Gabriel Roth, Bill Graves, Greg Cohen, Jack Kinstlinger, Greg Principato, Richard Lee
The Urban Land Institute and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials released reports last week outlining ways for the transportation sector to pursue a wide range of approaches to reduce vehicle travel and make the system more fuel-efficient. The previous week, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood emphasized to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee the importance of cutting the number of miles that Americans drive and creating "livable communities" that give people alternatives to driving, such as public transit and pedestrian and bike paths that link to transit hubs.
But strategies that aim to get people out of their cars and off the roads also mean less revenue for the ailing Highway Trust Fund, which last week needed a $7 billion transfer from the general fund (on top of the $8 billion it got last September) to meet its funding commitments for the current fiscal year. Are strategies to cut carbon emissions from transportation harmful to the long-term viability of the Highway Trust Fund? How can we achieve the goals of cutting transportation emissions and increasing trust fund revenue?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Mortimer L. Downey, Richard Mudge, Jon Martz, Bill Graves, John Horsley, Steve Van Beek, William Millar, Gabriel Roth, Gabriel Roth, James Corless, Jack Kinstlinger, Deron Lovaas, William Millar, Jim Burnley
