April 2010 Archives

Over the last year, states such as Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine and Vermont have shuttered their state-run highway rest areas to help close budget deficits. Virginia closed 19 rest stops in 2009 under then-Gov. Tim Kaine (D) but has reopened them since Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) took office in January.

Kaine also worked with the state's congressional delegation in a failed attempt to allow Virginia to commercialize its rest stops. The current surface transportation law bans interstate rest areas built after 1960 from offering commercial services like food and fuel. In February, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urging that the commercialization ban be dropped. Other states, including Georgia and New Jersey, have also been pushing the idea recently.

States argue that commercializing rest stops would allow them to raise revenues while keeping open rest areas that drivers and long-haul truckers depend on. Communities and businesses located off the interstate that serve highway motorists respond that food and fuel operations at rest stops constitute unfair competition and would cause them significant economic losses.

As part of the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization, should the law be amended to allow states to offer commercial services at highway rest areas? Which approach -- current law or commercialization -- best serves highway users?

6 responses: Lisa Mullings, Gabriel Roth, Lisa Mullings, Geoffrey S. Yarema, Gabriel Roth, Lisa Mullings

In the United States, transportation infrastructure is lagging significantly behind the commercial and residential building sectors in environmental sustainability. Although we have an internationally recognized standard for determining that a building was designed and built and is being maintained according to various measures of sustainability (LEED green building certification), there is no universally accepted method for transportation infrastructure.

With the 40th anniversary of Earth Day on April 22 and the Obama administration committed to a more environmentally friendly transportation policy, this is a good time to discuss how the transportation industry can meet the challenge of creating a greener infrastructure. Yet political pressures and powerful interests often can stifle the formation, implementation and funding for such initiatives.

Does the transportation industry have the appetite to create a system for measuring the sustainability of transportation infrastructure? What might it measure? And how would the climate change debate and the administration's livability initiative factor into the development of such a system?

9 responses: Keith Laughlin, Steve Sandherr, Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., John Horsley, Bill Graves, Laura Barrett, Colin F. Peppard, Greg Principato, Paul Yarossi

As Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., work toward their goal of introducing climate change legislation by Earth Day (April 22), transportation groups are petitioning the trio to invest revenues raised from a carbon fee that would increase the cost of gas and diesel fuel back into transportation.

A coalition of 27 groups led by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the American Public Transportation Association, and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, wrote in their April 1 letter, "New fees placed on transportation fuels should be dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund and invested along with other surface transportation funds under a multi-year highway and transit authorization bill." They warned that enacting a reauthorization bill "will be very difficult, if not impossible, should Congress approve legislation that diverts revenue from carbon-based fees from motor fuels away from the transportation investment." The signatories also included unions and groups representing engineers, local governments and cyclists.

Transportation for America, a coalition of alternative transportation, public health, housing and environmental groups, spearheaded a second letter to the senators that was signed by 40 organizations, including passenger and high-speed rail interests, planning groups and cycling advocates. The April 5 letter expressed "deep concerns about proposals to deposit funds from sales of carbon permits in the Highway Trust Fund without additional policies to direct those funds towards transportation projects that advance our climate and energy goals." They also called for the eventual bill to include requirements to ensure that states and regions develop transportation plans that reduce oil use and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

Which approach do you favor? How do you think revenues raised from a carbon fee on transportation fuels -- which, although it would raise the price of gas and diesel at the pump, would not be an excise tax on motor fuel per se -- should be allocated?

14 responses: Keith Laughlin, Deron Lovaas, Jim Burnley, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Steve Van Beek, Keith Laughlin, Bill Graves, Lisa Caruso, Steve Van Beek, Parris N. Glendening, John Horsley, James Corless, Keith Laughlin, Deron Lovaas

Two national polls on voters' attitudes toward transportation policy point to potential usefulness -- and constraints -- of using survey data to inform policy decisions.

The more recent poll was conducted by Transportation for America, a coalition of environmental, smart growth, alternative transportation and public health groups. It found that two-thirds of voters wanted more options besides driving and that 58 percent favor spending more on public transportation services. In fact, 51 percent were willing to have their taxes increased to improve mass transit. The telephone survey contacted 800 registered voters between Feb. 27 and March 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

The other poll was released in April 2008 by the American Highway Users Alliance, which represents motorists, truckers and other groups whose business depends on highways. It found that 93 percent considered it important that their elected representatives support dedicating fuel taxes and other highway user fees solely to road and bridge improvements, and 57 percent supported some increase in fuel taxes to fund highway and bridge projects. That figure rose to 71 percent after respondents heard the economic and safety arguments for an increase. The online survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted April 4-6, 2008, with an error margin of plus or minus 3.1 percent.

Yet respondents to the T4 America poll listed roads second to rail as being neglected in federal spending -- and they put sidewalks and bike paths last. Similarly, roughly 80 percent of respondents to the Highway Users' poll considered bike and pedestrian paths a local government responsibility and major highways and bridges a federal responsibility (although a majority said funding urban light rail and trolley transit is the states' job). And both polls clearly indicate that voters will pay more for a transportation system that better meets their needs.

While polls of voter attitudes like these can give lawmakers valuable information in writing the next surface transportation law, they can also present a confusing and even contradictory picture. What kinds of policy reforms might this polling data suggest be considered in the reauthorization debate? How helpful can polls be in the policy-making process, if they belong there at all? What other public opinion polls about transportation are out there that you think would add to the debate?

16 responses: Deron Lovaas, Steve Van Beek, Parris N. Glendening, Andy Clarke, Laura Barrett, James Corless, Bill Graves, Lisa Caruso, Steve Van Beek, Greg Cohen, Keith Laughlin, Greg Cohen, Keith Laughlin, Mortimer L. Downey, Geoff Anderson, Greg Cohen