A guest post from DOT Under Secretary for Policy Roy Kienitz:

On behalf of USDOT, I also want to say how much we will miss Lisa Caruso’s work at the National Journal. We in the transportation community have been fortunate indeed to have a journalist as thoughtful, knowledgeable, provocative and engaging as Lisa. We fervently hope she continues to work in the transportation field in some capacity in the future.

We also want to thank all the commentators who have offered their recommendations for our Strategic Plan both in this blog, on our website, and in conversations with USDOT officials. Your suggestions are immensely helpful and we intend to incorporate many of them into the final draft.

The agency-wide Strategic Plan process is long and complex, involving input from dozens of people from every mode and department within USDOT. Much of this draft was crafted in mid- to late 2009, with months of subsequent review and refinement.

During this time the Federal surface transportation debate has continued to evolve at a fast pace. There is growing alarm among many transportation stakeholders about the size and predictability of the program in future years, given the lack of political consensus on revenue solutions. And many are concerned about what this means for our nation’s future economic growth, which has historically been fueled in good measure by transportation investments in all modes.

The final version of the Strategic Plan will better reflect that reality.

We also understand that in this context of great fiscal uncertainty it is challenging to propose a more accountable, outcome-based, multimodal approach to transportation investment and a focus on more controversial concepts like livability and complete streets. This Strategic Plan is a big departure from its predecessors, but much of what it proposes is already being successfully achieved in communities all across the U.S.

We firmly believe that the American people support these new approaches – they want a transportation system that creates jobs and economic growth but that also provides them with choices and enhances their neighborhoods. We also believe that without their support we will not be able to build the political momentum needed to address the program’s long term fiscal outlook.

We look forward to continuing this debate in the coming months.

Thank you, Lisa, for creating and maintaining this excellent forum. It fosters informed discussion, which is a most valuable commodity. May transportation continue to benefit from your talents in your new position.

Energy Policy.

Though not the purview of the Department of Transportation, this plan needs, and prior plans have suffered from the lack of, a well-informed U.S. energy policy. As much as – perhaps more than – any other policy, energy policy affects the transportation system. Not having a policy is also a policy, however, and transportation has suffered the effects of our default policy. Uncertainty about future national energy policy inhibits effective planning and technology development.

We need an energy policy first for national security, which relates directly to economic security. And we need it for environmental reasons. Our energy sources need not be independent of other countries (Canada, the largest source of U.S. energy imports, is not a threat to our national security), but they must be secure. A comprehensive and economically sound energy policy would do wonders for our nation and our transportation system.

The Federal Role.

As observed by some of the other commentators, a clear picture of the future federal role and the sources and uses of the funding associated with it would be of help. In essence, without clear roles and responsibilities, the funding is incoherent.

Financing Transportation.

Transportation is treated too often in fact, despite lip service to the contrary, as a discretionary expenditure. Failure to increase the federal gasoline tax is a stellar example. This treatment gives rise to problems that are clearly demonstrated by Peter Rogoff’s recent remarks indicating the high level of deferred maintenance on American urban transportation systems ($78 billion), and particularly on the legacy rail systems of seven large American cities ($50 billion of the $78 billion).

Looking at our transportation systems more as utilities, with commensurate financial statements, including sources and uses of funds, would help us understand which are the better and which are the poorer choices as we plan, build, finance, operate, and maintain the system. One academic exercise that examined the sources and uses of funds for ########

Amtrak, too, with significant impacts on its service quality and reliability, has relied on the U.S. government to cover its renewal costs for track and equipment, despite the fact that little or no funds have traditionally been appropriated for that purpose.

It is thus encouraging that DOT’s plan suggests that the costs of maintaining assets in a state of good repair should be borne by states and metropolitan areas. If that had been a clear policy in the past, then it is likely that capital planning for new systems or system expansions in many urban areas might have taken a different course. In summary, the sources of funding for the transportation system are unclear, as are the amounts that will be needed.

Optimizing the Operation of the Transportation System.

Congestion costs the U.S. an estimated $200 billion a year in time loss, plus higher levels of toxic emissions and greenhouse gases. But the plan pays scant attention to excellent policy research done at DOT over the period from the mid-1990s forward, under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. The aim is to use technology and pricing to improve the flow of traffic on congested roads during peak periods. Not to move forward on this research is to waste vital and expensive transport capacity, as well as to ignore an important source of revenue. Failing to deal with congestion is a particularly wasteful way to implement TDM.

Institutional Reform.

The plan focuses its institutional elements on the organization and function of U.S. DOT, which is necessary and laudable, but far from sufficient. It might well address U.S. experience over the last decade or more that clearly indicates that the institutional framework for transportation planning, decision-making, funding, and implementation is inadequate. These are only a few of the symptoms of that problem:

Lack of integrated planning. Integrated planning is, in general, much better planning. When, as all too often is the case, each mode is planned by a separate agency, and separately competes for limited funds, often within the framework of a regional plan, then there are often incentives for each competing agency to pad their case. The Plan does refer to a concept of the transportation problem that is consistent with an interesting organizational structure for the transportation problem, structuring it into metropolitan, intercity and international organizations. It was set forth in a 2006 report to the U.K. government, which recommended dealing transport as an economic issue, not a modal choice issue, and organizing it into agencies that had total responsibility, respectively, for metropolitan, intercity, and international transportation. The agencies’ authority would be coterminous with the territory involved in the transport problem.

Inadequate project evaluation. In evaluating projects, it is important to look at a full input-output analysis of the energy and materials (and the energy that goes into the materials) needed to construct major new systems. The rationale for this approach is demonstrated by an analysis of a recently chosen urban rail project indicating that as many as 50 years the system’s projected energy savings (and associated emissions reductions) would actually be used in building the system. At the local level, planning is too often split between mode-specific agencies, with overall regional planning in yet another agency.

Congressional earmarks. While clearly outside the purview of the Executive branch, earmarks are not an insignificant drain on the productivity of the federal program structure. The plan does point out an analogous situation, however, which is that, in examining the list of project types eligible for funding with Federal Surface Transportation Program funds, the states are not required to select projects that would most improve the operation of the system. Earmarks clearly have the same effect. To the extent that the final report points the way toward a performance-driven system, it should be recognized that earmarks definitely erode the economic productivity of the Surface Transportation Program.

Favored modes. The plan advocates transferring more of our freight and passenger traffic to the energy-efficient and environmentally less damaging modes of freight rail, passenger rail, and water. There are good reasons that these modes have the market shares they do. North American freight railroads, an integrated system of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican partner railroads, comprise likely the most effective freight rail system in the world; it is a freight rail system whose market share and reliability the European Union would love to have. Current system operations are optimized to take the most freight off the roads over the longest hauls. As for a major expansion of the network of intercity passenger rail services, has there been a thorough economic analysis? If so, what is the best institutional structure for implementing it? And how do we finance its capital, operating, and renewal costs? As for short-sea-shipping opportunities, can we modernize our nearly century-old maritime laws to make that mode economic?

Conclusion. Though the plan provides food for thought, it is missing some vital ingredients.

At the outset, I would like to join my colleagues, in thanking Lisa Caruso for the great leadership that she has provided to this blog. She has been perceptive, in developing issues, and persistent, in soliciting comments. In these ways, Lisa has contributed greatly to the national transportation policy discussion.

In evaluating this draft strategic plan, it should be noted that US DOT, for the most part, is a grant-making agency. Generally, it does not directly own or manage transportation facilities and systems, and it primarily influences the transportation sector through the "power of the purse" (a not inconsiderable power, to be sure). US DOT's strategic priorities are often a function of what others -- the President, other federal agencies, and Congress -- have directed or allowed it to do. That is why it is so difficult to assess and evaluate US DOT's strategic objectives in the absence of an Administration proposal -- or even a statement of principles and goals -- for a new surface transportation authorization act. It is in such a proposal or statement, I believe, that DOT and the Administration would most clearly articulate its strategic goals and priorities.

One would presume that the five strategic goals that DOT has articulated in this draft strategic plan would be those contained in such a legislative proposal, if and when it is presented. I believe that this strategic plan should acknowledge that these goals, and the wide array of Department activities and programs, will have to be carried out in the next several years in an environment of constrained public resources. Within these goals, priorities must be established and scarce public resources invested wisely and efficiently, in order to maximize the reach and impact of what is spent. Moreover, it will, no doubt, be necessary to reconsider the definition of the national interest in transportation and the scope of federal transportation programs. The Administration and the Department should lead that effort, and it should be an important element of US DOT's strategic plan.

This draft strategic plan is to be commended for a greater emphasis on a performance-driven approach. Such an approach will enable the greater transparency and accountability fundamental to building broad public support for transportation infrastructure investment. One assumes that these values, present in the Strategic Plan, will be central to US DOT's principles and proposals for a new multi-year surface transportation authorization bill.

Setting a strategic national goal of economic competitiveness is perhaps challenging to measure, yet critically important. We must continue to find the means to invest adequately in the nation's infrastructure, in order to build a foundation for long-term economic recovery and growth, but also must identify sustainable revenue streams, so that transportation investment is not a contributor to persistent annual general fund deficits and a ballooning national debt.

As Mort Downey has noted, a strategic goal of safety is an area where data-driven policy development is ready to happen. This is also true of asset management (or "state of good repair," as it is described in the Strategic Plan). These two areas present the most immediate opportunities for designing a performance framework for the federal transportation program. States already collect data, and in many cases already measure performance, in these two areas. A federal call for performance measurement in these areas would complement the ever-increasing recognition that maintaining the safety and condition of the nation's critical infrastructure is an essential public purpose.

One final thought: As Secretary LaHood has pointed out, federal transportation policy can ". . . no longer promote one form of transportation over another." The report of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) called attention to that fact that transportation policies and programs have long been characterized by modal "stove-pipes" and competing interests. Despite efforts to reconcile these varying interests and to introduce flexibility in the use of funding streams, many transportation policy discussions continue to be dominated by endless debates wbout which mode or modes are more subsidized or disadvantaged. Ideally, federal funding should support a range of policies and investments across modes, agencies, and jurisdictions.

This "mode-neutral" approach would seem to align with the intentions and values of US DOT's draft strategic plan. States and local communities should have the flexibility and discretion to develop broad and comprehensive strategic programs that advance national goals. I am confident that this approach will characterize the Department's strategic plan and legislative proposals.

To begin, I must echo everything that has been said about Lisa. You’ve created a great forum here and we will miss you.

As for the strategy, -I would like to commend Secretary LaHood for his leadership in fostering a necessary “sea change” at US DOT. The current surface transportation program is badly broken. Devised in 1956, it is now dysfunctional, failing to address the needs of a 21st century nation. This draft strategic plan is an important step in redefining our nation’s transportation policy for a new century. I strongly support the new direction represented by the five strategic goals.

But the report also notes that “Federal surface transportation programs…face unprecedented fiscal challenges with current dedicated revenue sources no longer adequate to sustain current Federal spending levels.”

If I were to find fault with the strategic plan, it would be that in several key areas it is understandably vague because the lack of any politically feasible way to address the insolvency of the trust fund has prevented the administration from presenting a detailed outline of its own policy priorities for reauthorization. Absent a fully vetted administration policy on reauthorization, there is only so far that US DOT can go in explicitly addressing some of the missing pieces that others have noted.

But, reading between the lines, it is clear that this strategic plan implicitly acknowledges one hard truth that must be at core of the next US DOT strategy: Our national transportation policy must be smart enough to cost-effectively contribute to American prosperity in an era of constraint.

Fiscal constraint will be the defining factor in federal transportation policy until there is (a) a broad bipartisan consensus to raise taxes or (b) the federal deficit is sufficiently brought under control to permit a massive infusion of general revenues into the trust fund. I don’t expect either to happen in the next couple years.

In such an environment, the State of Good Repair Strategic Goal must be an essential element of DOT’s strategy. It is imperative that we invest in maintaining the infrastructure that we have already built. While some new highway capacity may be needed, the bar should be set very high for such projects because we simply cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on every conceivable outer beltway.

Likewise, the Livable Communities Strategic Goal is smart policy in an era of fiscal constraint. For relatively few dollars, investments in active transportation can produce significant returns through improvements to local economic health, environmental health and public health. For the cost of a major highway interchange, you can dramatically improve active transportation systems in communities across America. And elected officials at all levels understand that these are by far the most politically popular transportation projects. In an era of fiscal constraint, livability is both good policy and good politics.

At the heart of the Environmental Sustainability Strategic Goal is the fact that we will be living in a carbon-constrained environment for the foreseeable future. To forestall the threat of global climate change, we must shift transportation investment toward no- and low-carbon transportation modes, such as walking, biking and public transportation.

In conclusion, I agree with Steve Van Beek in saying that this is a good first draft. It's definitely on the right track and I am confident that the strategy will only improve as the process moves forward.

The goals that USDOT has endorsed in its new strategic plan should be very encouraging to us all. Improving safety and system performance and promoting sustainable development will put us on the road to building the infrastructure systems of the 21st century. However, they have left one key point out of this inspirational new plan: How are we going to fund these needed infrastructure investments?

The plan’s laudable goals—meeting the needs of all Americans while at the same time reducing our dependence on fossil fuels—have the ability to not only improve our quality of life and economy, but to also improve the environment. But, without strong leadership and serious, sustained investment, they are completely unattainable.

Despite the emphasis on infrastructure in ARRA, the administration has consistently dodged the investment question. They tout their commitment to infrastructure by pointing out examples such as TIGER grants and the high speed rail grants. And, while these were important programs, the one-time grants don’t come anywhere close to meeting the overall investment needs. ARRA set aside $1.5 billion for TIGER, on top of approximately $70 billion in annual surface transportation spending, but we estimate the need to be more in the range of $186 billion a year.

It’s understandable that the administration is hesitant to raise the motor fuels user fee in a recession, but it’s entirely at odds with the transformational approach to transportation policy the USDOT’s strategic plan lays out. Opposing innovative revenue funding streams, such as the vehicle miles traveled fee, just does not make sense. We cannot have the transportation system envisioned in this strategic plan using the revenue available today- the commitment to properly funding the nation’s infrastructure must be adopted at all levels of government.

If the Obama administration really wants to transform infrastructure in this country, it needs to transform and improve how we pay for it.

Peter Samuel, editor of TOLLROADSnews (www.tollroadsnews.com), lives and works in Frederick, Md. He submitted these comments:

Coming out of a national agency supposedly committed to supporting and improving transportation this "Strategic Plan 2010-2015" is a thorough disgrace.

First is its sheer incoherence. It starts with the point that we face "unprecedented fiscal challenges with current dedicated revenue sources no longer adequate to sustain current federal spending levels." (3rd paragraph p1) Yet in the subsequent 72 pages of this "plan" there is not even the most cursory discussion of funding. The words "toll," "user fee", "vehicle mile charge" appear nowhere.

What kind of a strategic plan is it that doesn't have anything at all on financing - the issue that most worries operators, legislators, and many members of the public?

Any strategic plan for a federal government agency also must present some view of the role of the federal government and its relationship with state and local agencies and investor-owned companies or P3s as it is fashionable to call them now. Again nothing at all beyond vague platitudes about 'planning' and 'partnering.'

If the federal government faces fiscal "challenges" you might expect some discussion of priorities and what USDOT does NOT need to do - of what could be left to lower levels of government and the private sector and the market. Nothing except ominously the hint that the federal government should get more deeply involved in operations and management.

A "state of good repair" of all kinds of transport facilities is described as a federal strategic goal. Just how this goal might be pursued by the feds is left to the imagination. Is the federal government to get involved in the repair needs of every highway, street, road, railroad, canal etc all over America? Or should we dismiss that statement as idle political puffery? The plan gives us not a clue.

CORRECTION: the plan does have one new suggestion on financing - an "I-Fund" the fuller name being National Infrastructure Innovation Finance Fund. The plan says it will rely on "grants, loans, load guarantees and access to tax-exempt funding."

Everything but user fees, notice.

Being loan and grant-based, and having no linkage to user fees, the I-Fund is surely destined to be yet another political "pork" dispenser - exactly what we do NOT need at a time of fiscal challenges, or for that matter, any time.

Lipservice is given too in the strategic plan to the goal of "economic competitiveness."

Competition, we are told "benefits the economy" (p32) but there is no suggestion that monopoly state DOTs be broken up or operations outsourced to allow competing road service providers. And everywhere in this document the emphasis is not on allowing competition to determine investments, but on various National Plans, to be drawn up no doubt by different branches of USDOT, but of course also coordinated for seamless intermodal operations.

For USDOT competition and competitiveness seem to be positive words you are obliged to mouth for PR reasons. But you must never let competition get in the way of a good "Plan."

Economic competitiveness is usually advanced by ensuring that your investments get a positive return - that their benefits exceed their costs, that they are profitable in the sense of generating revenues in excess of both operating and capital service costs. Such a basic principle is nowhere recognized in this USDOT screed. Despite fine words about the need to be "data driven" it displays no interest in data comparing costs with benefits.

It might even rank as a strategic goal to encourage development of a transportation system that would everywhere seek benefits in excess of costs.

The strategic plan would stress that transportation should provide the capacity and the modes of travel that customers want as indicated by the streams of use fees (fares and tolls) that customers show they are prepared to pay. That kind of a customer-oriented, market-driven system would place emphasis on speed and reliability of transport of persons and goods - taking advantage of technological innovation to enhance service, minimizing delays and costs of congestion, and facilitating provision of extra capacity and service where there is demand, as measured by willingness to pay.

We normally measure organizations' benefit/cost ratio by having them raise their capital and pay their operating costs out of revenues paid by users. We expect them to expand capacity or face competitors providing such capacity when there is strong demand, and to otherwise be forced to contract.

We see this principle in action, albeit imperfectly, with self-sufficient toll road operations, that I follow. And airlines, and freight railroads, and taxicab services. A srategic plan worth its name would ask how this principle might be extended only non-toll roads and into transit.

The plan document places USDOT in opposition to any expanded road capacity explained thus in the strategic plan: "Recent history indicates that expansions and improvements in system capacity are eventually consumed by increased demand for road travel." (p29)

We can't build now everything that might ever be needed - USDOT says - so it is pointless building for the interim, they say of roads. But only of roads.

Second the strategic plan isn't really about transportation at all. It's about how transportation policy might be reshaped so as to serve a radical environmentalist agenda. It is a plan not to move America but to green it.

The Strategic Plan informs us: "President Obama has recognized the vital role that DOT can play in reducing carbon emissions, improving energy efficiency, and combating climate change."

The real core of the USDOT strategic plan is in redeploying transportation funds and regulations to advance a "livable communities" strategic goal. Not many of us are interested in promoting UNlivable communities, but this vague lovey-dovey, rah-rah term has become the new code word for 'smart growth' (denser development) and diverting highway funds to loss-making 'transit.'

This is preposterous logic.

We regularly build what makes sense for the next couple of decades, and is affordable.

It is difficult enough to predict what is needed ten or 20 years off but no one has any idea what might "eventually" be needed because that is dependent on so many complete unpredictables.

In any case what we build has a finite life, and will need to be rebuilt in 30, 40 or 80 years, so there is no need to size infrastructure for what might "eventually" be needed. This is sophomoric stuff.

But how are carbon dioxide emissions harmful?

The great global warming scare about CO2 is by now thoroughly discredited as science, and indeed there has been no global warming in recent years. This is implicitly conceded by the environmentalists' scare-word shift away from "global warming" to the term "climate change."

There isn't any global warming out there to combat any more, so the new bogyman is "climate change."

But the climate is always changing and we'll just have to adapt as humanity always has adapted. We've been doing that most successfully since we came out of caves.

Somehow great far-seeing planners at USDOT are going to "coordinate" transport infrastructure investments with housing and commercial development and get everything in beautiful balance.

The USDOT plan states: "Fostering livable communities – places where transportation, housing and commercial development investments have been coordinated so that people have access to adequate, affordable, and environmentally sustainable travel options – is a transformational policy shift for DOT." (p45)

It sure is transformational because it is nothing to do with transportation. It is national land use planning and administration on behalf of a left/green agenda. This stuff won't go anywhere in this US Congress, let alone the one likely to emerge in November.

Safety is always a safe "strategic goal" to have and of course USDOT lists it first. But large federal bureaucracies are notoriously poor at actually achieving any safety, as we are reminded every evening now by the BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico - federal waters. The systems to be regulated are technically complex, diverse and remote from the federal regulators. What rules might help anyway is unclear, short of shutting everything down and starving us of affordable energy?

But hope springs eternal, or at least it is an excuse for federal officials to seek more power and resources.

The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Draft Strategic Plan (DSP), released for comment on April 15, 2010, is an excellent example of transparency in government planning. Although there are several commendable safety initiatives in the DSP, including strategies for addressing distracted driving and drunk driving, many are vague statements showing good intentions but little in the way of specific strategies to achieve the major goals of significant and steady reductions in the unacceptable highway mortality and morbidity toll. While we have experienced a decline in motor vehicle deaths and injuries these past two years it is largely due to the economic downturn. History shows that once the economy bounces back so will motor vehicle deaths and injuries.

One of the positive initiatives in the DSP is a strong emphasis on the enhanced safety protection of the rapidly growing older population of travelers in the U.S., especially to reduce the vulnerability of older pedestrians to motor vehicle trauma. Unfortunately, the U.S. DOT response to the serious, unaddressed problem of pedestrians struck by motor vehicles is to embrace an extraordinarily weak European globally harmonized standard that falls far short of what is needed. The global technical standard referenced in the DSP has been severely criticized by motor vehicle safety advocates and trauma experts as inadequate.

The DSP is replete with performance goals for the several transportation modes, including a specific goal for reducing motor vehicle deaths. However, no specific numerical goal is established for reducing annual commercial motor vehicle deaths and injuries, including the fatality rate. This is not an acceptable policy stance for reducing the enormously disproportionate death toll inflicted by heavy trucks on everyone sharing the road with large trucks. Furthermore, the stated primary challenge of ensuring a “safety culture” in the industry will not come from “partnerships and education” but rather from tougher safety rules, stronger enforcement and effective penalties.

The need to dramatically reduce the unacceptable annual toll of deaths from motorcycle crashes is accorded little space in the DSP. NHTSA’s reports on effective safety countermeasures as well as countless studies have shown the benefits of all-rider motorcycle helmet laws. However, there is absolutely no mention of a renewed push to achieve all-rider, universal helmet laws in the states or risk the loss of federal funds. The only initiative is a vague consideration of improved motorcycle training. This is not the answer to protecting motorcyclists against the severe trauma of head and neck injuries and a political evasion by U.S. DOT of a successful strategy for reducing motorcycle deaths and injuries.

Safety advocates welcome the candid acknowledgement in the DSP that bridges and roads are being disproportionately damaged by heavy trucks hauling freight. We applaud and fully support the clear policy statement of the DSP that increased volumes of freight must be accommodated in a way that prevents more rapid and extensive deterioration of our highways and bridges. U.S. DOT is right that this predicted surge in the amount of freight hauled by truck must be offset by curtailing the excessive, abusive use of special overweight permits that have accelerated bridge and pavement deterioration to the point where the heavy vehicle use fee, woefully inadequate for more than a quarter-century, is now a charade. In large measure, the Highway Trust Fund has a severe shortfall in revenue for repairing and upgrading our badly damaged system of roads and bridges because large, heavy trucks have been dramatically underpaying their fair share for the use and destruction of our road system for decades. This is strongly emphasized repeatedly in the December 2007 release of the Congressionally-mandated report, Transportation for Tomorrow. The final version of the DSP should openly endorse solutions to heavy truck highway fee underpayment to reinvigorate our road funding.

In connection with more efficient freight transportation, the concept of increasing the free flow of motor carrier freight movement by facilitating more remote, electronic monitoring of trucks verifying their adherence to safety regulations and size and weight limits is a worthy technological goal, but not if it means less direct oversight and enforcement of truck compliance with safety and weight requirements. It is also especially noteworthy that no specific technical means of determining compliance with major motor carrier safety requirements, such as verifying hours of service limits by requiring every truck and motorcoach to be equipped with electronic on-board recorders, is mentioned. Safety does not bring up the rear in large truck operations – the more efficient movement of freight goes hand-in-hand with fewer deaths and injuries.

Finally, safety advocates strongly support the governing concept of creating livable communities throughout the U.S. that are not as heavily and adversely impacted by transportation as they are at the present time. The DSF makes it clear from start to finish that every choice of highway, aviation, rail, and commercial freight movement improves the daily quality of life of all U.S. residents in every basic respect. For too long families have been victim to transportation decisions that actually decrease their safety and quality of life rather than enhance it.

I am a fan of the strategic plan’s goal regarding economic competitiveness. There are a lot of good words in this section: “Economic competitiveness means maximizing the contribution of the transportation system to economic growth …’ and “promote new technologies and operating procedures…” and “develop a set of performance measures focused on strategic national infrastructure needs…” among many others.

Economic competitiveness goes beyond improving the efficiency with which we move freight – although I have no real quarrel with those who argue that improving the reliability and efficiency of our freight networks should be job one regarding economic competitiveness.

Transportation plays a vital role in improving general economic productivity. There are a series of applied research studies that show a strong connection between business access to labor (and individual’s access to jobs) and the economic productivity of the economy as a whole. This calls for policies that focus on improving accessibility. A report by the Bi-Partisan Policy Center discusses these issues: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/research/performance-metrics-evaluation-transportation-programs. Better management of congestion is part of this, but we also need to increase the effective capacity of our transportation network. The key point here is that if we focus on travel time delays as the major cost of congestion, then we grossly under estimate the economic and social importance of improved accessibility. Accessibility is an important concept here since it does not limit how we solve this problem to a particular mode or to a particular strategy (new physical capacity, improved operations, demand management, pricing, shifts in land use etc.). As pointed out by others here, the Administration seems happy to promote most of these options with the exception of adding highway capacity. There must be some place in the country where adding a lane or two would make good economic sense.

Along with improving freight reliability and labor accessibility, I think it would be good to mention energy independence. The purchase of petroleum accounts for most of our nation’s negative balance of payments. Our need to fund these purchases by selling Treasury bonds abroad creates risks for our financial structure. The strategic plan calls for many policies that support this goal (although it may not be labeled this way). It would be good to highlight them for their positive economic impacts as well.

Finally, here are a few side comments on specific proposals. The second performance measure is listed as “increase travel time reliability in freight significant corridors.” This is good, but shouldn’t this be listed as number one? Access to 511 is listed as number three – I am not against this, but why is this listed above more direct actions such as improving overall travel time reliability (number 4 on the hit parade). I like the mention of improving rail freight speed. This is an important sign of a general deterioration in the overall effectiveness of our intercity transportation system (aviation travel times have dropped as well). I like the mention of airport capacity numbers as a target. The debate over high speed rail is interesting and important, but I did not see a description of how this relates to an improvement in economic competiveness.

In sum, this is an excellent goal for our nation’s transportation system.

The DOT’s draft Strategic Plan largely overlooks the nation’s dire need for repair, operational improvements, and expansion where necessary throughout the National Highway System. The plan mentions the possibility of “targeted investments” in our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks, but it never commits to this important strategy for cutting carbon emissions and maintaining an efficient supply chain. Nothing is mentioned about the great strain congestion places on motorists. In fact, the plan even suggests more cities tear down damaged or under-utilized infrastructure in urban areas.

Much of the 72-page draft is devoted to Livability and Environmental Sustainability. The draft says that “a comprehensive strategy that promotes livability and reduced the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers.” The draft presents zero evidence to support this claim. As Bob Poole said, the draft makes other unsubstantiated claims, such as: “Creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas.” Nowhere does the plan mention how taxpayers will feel once they’re subjected to the tremendous costs associated with these unnecessary programs. Choosing where and how to live are important personal decisions that must be made by the American people – not our government.

The trucking industry takes issue with the Administration’s claims that they will “reduce the carbon footprint and pollutants emitted by the freight transportation system … expanding opportunities for shifting freight from less fuel-efficient modes to more fuel-efficient modes—air to trucks, trucks to rail, and rail to water.” The Administration’s modal choices ignore market forces and reflect personal preference and a strong bias against highway transportation. No two modes provide a direct substitution for another. Each mode serves a unique role in our transportation mix and freight traditionally carried by truck cannot easily be shifted to rail.

Trucking companies are among the railroads’ best customers, and place freight on railroads whenever the distance of travel and nature of the cargo make an intermodal rail-truck freight movement economically viable. However, these opportunities are extremely limited and make up less than 2 percent of the freight market. The market does a good job determining the most efficient mode for the type of freight service required. Our nation’s shippers choose trucks for the fast, efficient movement of lower density, higher value goods like food, clothing and electronics. Railroads are ideal for moving heavy, bulk commodities, like stone, coal and grain that are not time-sensitive.

DOT’s draft plan is very ambitious, but many of their aspirations have little to do with transportation and instead focus on social engineering, which DOT admits in their plan will require the help of several government agencies outside of DOT. Ultimately, the ability to enact any policy changes comes down to funding and public acceptance. We hope revenue from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will not be targeted to pay for these initiatives. The trucking industry cannot support a plan that diverts more revenue from the HTF to non-highway purposes, let alone non-transportation purposes. Already, 20 percent of HTF revenue is diverted to transit, which is part of the livability equation. Because the draft plan extends far beyond transportation, the General Fund is the most appropriate funding source.

By ignoring the market forces driving our economy and the critical needs of our nation’s supply chain, the draft also fails to consider the welfare of the American public. About 80 percent of U.S. communities rely solely on trucks to deliver essential items like food, medicine, clothing and fuel. If this draft is a reflection of the upcoming reauthorization bill, then we implore Congress to develop alternatives.

First of all, AAA adds our voice in appreciation for Lisa’s work in spearheading the National Journal Transportation Blog. Lisa, your topic selections were timely and informative and provided a great forum for stakeholder perspective on a wide range of issues. We wish you all the best as you pursue new opportunities.

AAA appreciates the work that has gone into developing the US DOT strategic plan, as well as the opportunity to offer our perspective and contribute to the final product. While the strategic plan does a good job of making clear the many challenges ahead, it falls short in some areas.

On the one hand, underscoring the safety of transportation users as the top priority in the department is indeed welcomed. The high number of crashes, injuries and deaths on the nation’s roadways poses a serious challenge that must be addressed. A significant commitment to safety is needed so that better data collection systems and road improvements are funded and to encourage the use of evidence-based strategies to change the culture of complacency about transportation safety. We need to ensure that legislation and regulation result in funding for the countermeasures that have the greatest impact on reducing crashes and saving lives.

On the other hand, I am concerned by the plan’s lack of recognition that capacity expansion will be needed to address projected population growth, freight growth and congestion. The nation needs a robust intermodal transportation system that can meet both the commercial and personal mobility demands of the future. The plan places strong emphasis on ‘livability’, a laudable, yet hard to define goal. Expanding capacity is about improving the efficiency of transportation – which is consistent with livability goals - and neither approach should be ignored for the sake of the other.

AAA does not diminish the importance of providing transportation options to meet community needs. A comprehensive approach to community planning and development, including integrated transportation strategies, is a key to successfully achieving realistic livability goals. These strategies must consider individual lifestyle decisions and employment opportunities and should be balanced with state and local needs and resources. AAA agrees with the US DOT philosophy that creating livable communities must encompass all levels of planning officials. But each community must be able to define its own livability agenda based on its own community – not a one-size-fits-all approach. What US DOT may define as “livable” for one community may not work as well in another. The true definition of livability likely resides in the eye of the beholder.

The goals outlined in the strategic plan provide the framework for making US DOT more responsive to meeting the nation’s transportation needs. But there are still significant challenges that need to be addressed. The combination of a growing population, vibrant economy, years of underinvestment and reluctance to boost federal transportation funding are putting the transportation system – and the nation’s economic vitality – at risk. Without sufficient and reliable investment in transportation, plans for reducing congestion, making roads safer and improving freight capacity and creating livability choices cannot be achieved. The Administration must address the real funding challenge that the nation faces if any of the US DOT goals are going to be achieved.

We need an honest plan from US DOT that strikes the right balance between the ideal transportation system of the future – and the critical improvements needed to facilitate trade and mobility. One cannot be at the expense of the other. We won’t be able to have everything we want – we will have to balance, prioritize, be pragmatic, and not stray from evidenced-based decision-making in planning to achieve goals – which may include reducing dependence on foreign oil; improved air quality; better functioning, more efficient trade corridors; highway safety.

More emphasis on addressing our need for capacity expansion is required going forward. Ignoring this issue simply won’t make it go away; it will just make meeting the challenge that much harder to accomplish down the road.

Finally, we recognize that US DOT is considering a number of very valid priorities addressing a wide-range of crucial system needs. While tough choices are required to meet our shared goal of a 21st Century transportation system, AAA urges US DOT to understand that the challenge is to balance these priorities. The negative effects and potential trade-offs for doing otherwise are simply too risky.

"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." - Wayne Gretzky

While the plan needs some work, directionally I think it is on-target. The five overarching "external" goals make sense, and so does the "internal" one of organizational excellence (always a challenge in big bureaucracies). Let's start with the goal that seems to get most under the skin of some on this list: Livable communities. This is the most heavily footnoted of the sections; DOT must feel it needs to marshall the most evidence to back up this part of the plan, in fact I think this is also the only section that includes "resistance to change" as a risk factor. But this is also one of the most important components of the plan, since de facto it entails a serious and overdue focus on metropolitan mobility. The top 100 metros alone host two-thirds of the U.S. population, three-quarters of GDP, 78 percent of VMT, 92 percent of air travel, 93 percent of Amtrak traffic and all subway, commuter and light rail traffic. And the metropolitanization trend continues. Making these areas one focus of policy is far-sighted, as are some of the elements in this section, such as developing "broad, universal performance measures" to help track effectiveness of federal investments, adopting strategies that would break down silos between federal agencies providing financial support and technical assistance for regions working towards improved metro area mobility, and improving the public transportation services in those areas.

The latter is especially important, as I learned at a Mobility Choice roundtable in D.C. on Tuesday. Utah's transit agency is engaged in a variety of industry-leading practices, including creating and installing screens that tell bus operators regularly whether or not they off-schedule. Over time, the simple capacity to track performance actually boosted it substantially as drivers competed to improve. That kind of technology should be the norm, not the exception, and DOT should help make it so. Items in this part of the plan such as improved capacity via GIS to track performance metrics such as greenhouse gas emissions and travel time reliability in the 40 largest metro areas, as well as improving pubnlic transportation in rural areas, are praiseworthy too. Two criticisms I have about this section are that, as Mort notes, the performance measures need to be more carefully defined as outcome-, not activity-, based. And I do wish DOT would drop the term "livability." It's an unnecessary lightning rod, since its meaning is inscrutable and therefore skeptics can define it as they choose. Better to define it, even if that gets wordy, in other terms such as metropolitan mobility choices, improved quality of life, consumer savings, etc.

The economic competitiveness section rates investments based on their cost-effectiveness writ large. And it rightly starts with freight, with three laudable objectives of improving "performance, reliability, safety and...environmental sustainability," targeting investments to boost competitiveness and generate jobs and reducing freight's negative effects. Then the plan details 11 steps that add up to...drum roll...a real national freight strategy that would address needed investments, multi-jurisdictional planning and research, as well as better performance in areas including efficiency, safety, environment and energy. Efficiency in particular would be furthered via new public-private partnerships, a new rail plan, reduced congestion via targeted investments in highway capacity expansion as well as "strategies to shift travel demand to other modes." ITS is also mentioned as a way to boost efficiency of goods movement. Aviation gets similar robust treatment. The auto and truck congestion section targets metro areas and focusses on better capacity management via road pricing, ridesharing, ITS, incident management as well as better transit services (omission of highway capacity expansion is, in my opinion, an example of skating where the puck will be given factors such as unrelenting fiscal constraints, repair and maintenance needs, and energy challenges).

Last but not least is the portion of the plan dealing with environmental sustainability. This section correctly notes the adept use of a tool provided in the 2007 energy bill that will improve fleetwide fuel economy performance for the first time in decades, saving two million barrels of oil a day by 2030. It includes mention of the national rail plan and the HSR downpayment (begging the question, as Mort notes the entire plan does, about resource constraints). It also commits to working with DOE towards an infrastructure that supports vehicle electrification. The aviation elements are solid, with the possible exception of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). This little-known program used to be heavily influenced by corporations interested in liquefying coal for use as a transportation fuel; if that is still the case it should be re-purposed to focus exclusively on low-carbon fuel alternatives. Also of note are the plans get DOT's own house in order vis-a-vis sustainability, applying lifecycle analysis to products and processes in transportation and -- often overlooked -- researching ways to "make the highway infrastructure more environmentally friendly" (I've been wondering if there's some way to make a highway carbon-neutral, for example).

The plan still needs some work, as others here have noted. But it has a number of praiseworthy, far-sighted components. The one big thing lacking, as Mort correctly noted, is a discussion of means to address the resource question, other than passing mention of the "I-Fund" in the economic competitiveness section, a clever but lonely idea on this front.

Thank you for sharing, Mr. Secretary. And thanks, Lisa, for all of your amazing work to start and manage this blog, and for your consistently top-notch NJ reporting. Best of luck in future endeavors.

First, I want to wholeheartedly agree with the previous remarks on Lisa’s work here at the National Journal. Lisa, you’ve done a terrific job bringing together a diverse set of transportation voices around the issues of the day.

As for this week’s topic, Secretary LaHood put it well: it’s about the users and giving them real choices. It is not, as Bob Poole suggested, about forcing communities to add bike lanes to every street or imposing a top-down definition of livability. It’s time for some outside the box thinking and openness from traditional transportation interests that improving mobility and enhancing livability can be two sides of the same coin.

I managed a Transportation for Livable Communities program in the San Francisco Bay Area for five years and saw first-hand the dramatic improvements to neighborhood connectivity, safety and accessibility that relatively modest transportation investments can bring. Many of these transportation projects were tied to new housing developments that allowed people to live in affordable homes close to jobs, retail and public transportation. The ribbon cuttings were widely attended events due in part to the involvement of citizens and merchants in redesigning their streets, enhancing safety and making their cities and towns better places to live and do business. This enthusiasm has spilled over into local transportation tax measures where voters have demanded a more balanced set of investments, including livable community projects along with more traditional transit, rail and highway expansion.

But you don’t need to take my word for it that people want change, or Secretary LaHood’s either. Look at the popularity of the TIGER program. A diverse set of communities – urban and rural, large and small – applied for a relatively small pot of merit-based grant money, which was awarded to projects integrating transportation with jobs, housing and economic development. Look at the bipartisan demand for a share of the $8 billion high-speed rail fund. Americans are looking for a transportation policy that moves in a new direction. This strategic plan outlines a path to get there.

USDOT has already taken strong steps toward increased transportation options, greater safety and merit-based funding, but we need Congressional authority to achieve lasting change. The focus on livable communities and economic competitiveness is indeed a major shift for the DOT and one that needs to be thoughtfully articulated in the next surface transportation bill. While the thrust of the strategic plan is there, we need to make sure the specifics come together, and the input of local and regional transportation officials is critical. We look forward to working with DOT in more detail to make sure we get this right, and thanks to Secretary LaHood for kicking off the conversation.

Lisa, I will miss you! I can only hope that your next venture will keep you involved in reporting and commentary on hot issues in transportation. You have been a fantastic moderator and champion for getting the transportation community to have an honest exchange of views.

I am in agreement with much of what’s already posted. I’ve dusted off my old 2006-2011 strategic plan to see what has changed in the draft. And frankly, some of the best elements of the draft plan were already part of the old plan. For example, setting quantitative goals for reducing the death and injury rates are commendable. We strongly support these goals and add that they could be enhanced with another quantitative goal to lay out a path “Toward Zero Deaths” – an idea supported by most transportation orgs.

To best understand the changing priorities of USDOT, the key is to focus on the changes to the 2006 plan. By in large, these are disturbing for those who care about safe and efficient highways of national interest, improved personal and freight mobility, and congestion relief.

Looking again at the safety section, what has changed? As I mentioned, the 2006 plan called for reducing fatalities and injuries. The goals are quantitative, project-neutral, and apply to all users. The 2006 desired-outcomes offer wide flexibility for States and local governments to meet the goals.

But the new plan adds a subjective outcome and requires the construction of specific types of projects. The goal is to “improve the safety experience for all road users...”. Experience is subjective, of course. The proposed performance measure to meet this goal gets the federal government involved in micro-managing the eligibility of local plans and projects. Pressuring state and local governments to adopt “complete streets” policies should not be an outcome that is put on a par with reducing deaths and injuries! More importantly, singling out this policy for DOT measurement means that other more effective systemic safety policies could get short shrift and less money. Other less‑fashionable and well-proven safety policies (i.e. wider lanes and shoulders; median and roadside barriers; systemic sign, marking and friction improvements; rubble strips, etc.) are likely to be more effective for the majority of road-miles on the federal-aid highway system. Yet DOT’s plan seems obsessed with neighborhood-level community planning, ignoring the bigger safety picture.

Another major disappointment is the elimination of “congestion reduction” as a strategic goal. The traffic impact caused by the currently weak economy offers a rare opportunity to make up for lost time in addressing congestion. But throughout the draft, congestion relief garners minimal attention and support for new capacity seems evident only in very limited freight cases after other options have been thoroughly exhausted. The plan favors demand management and stewardship of existing critical assets as a way to reduce the use of resources for new capacity and even warns against “overexpansion”. Worries about overexpansion are laughable given the miniscule amount of new capacity (6% new lane miles for 100% more highway travel) that has actually been built in the past 25 years. And while demand management and stewardship of existing assets are good ideas, they don’t obviate the need to improve supply for a growing and more mobile population.

Finally, in an era of tight finances, the plan looks at sustainability only through the lens of the environment. True sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Environmental sustainability is only one piece of the pie. Financial and economic sustainability need to also be part of DOT’s agenda. But the plan goes in the opposite direction as it expands the government’s role -- increasing the federal involvement in micromanaging local project selections and influencing local or community-level planning. The draft plan also envisions requiring cash-strapped states and MPOs to spend even more time and money on more planning (as if plans and projects don’t already take long enough to complete) and even envisions federal geometric standards for local street design.

In Secretary LaHood’s post, he says, “We know that we can’t promote one form of transportation over another anymore.” Respectfully, the plan does promote non-highway modes over highway modes. For freight, the plan promotes rail and water over highway. For passengers, the plan promotes biking, walking, and transit over highways and uses misleading statistics for modal splits. For the record, 98% of person-miles of traveled are in motorized highway vehicles. Rail modes cover 0.9% of travel, walking serves 0.2% and biking 0.9%.

The modal bias against highways in the plan mean that USDOT plans to sharply reduce its support for operational improvements, particularly congestion relief projects and improvements to functionally obsolete bridges.

Secretary LaHood has some incredibly smart and thoughtful career and political staffers on his team. I appreciate their passion and hard work. But this plan is seriously flawed and the changing priorities are very problematic for many motorists. If this is the basis for the Administration’s reauthorization plan, it will be strongly opposed by The Highway Users and, I predict, many others. It’s time to go back to the drawing board. The comments from the bloggers here suggest that there’s a lot of willingness from folks to help with a new plan.

Lisa, thank you and great job. We will miss you.

Overall, the Strategic Plan is an interesting and important document. Its emphasis on a multimodal system, users, merit-based selection and sustainability,if ultimately addressed, would improve many of the shortcomings that have characterized our transportation policy architecture and system.

The Strategic Goals: Anyone following the USDOT over the last 16 months was probably not surprised at the five goals: (1) Safety, (2) State of Good Repair, (3) Economic Competitiveness, (4) Environmental Sustainability and (5) Livable Communities. To Secretary LaHood and the Department’s credit, these have been the priorities behind many of the programs and initiatives offered by the Obama Administration including economic recovery, freight policy, climate change, livability, and rail (among others).

If the five goals were expected, what was unexpected, at least by me, was the exclusion of a goal focused on mobility, capacity or congestion reduction. In one form or another, these have been included in the last four USDOT strategic plans. In response USDOT has said that the real issue is that transportation is not an end itself, but is a means of meeting other goals such as Economic Competitiveness or Environmental Sustainability.

Context is important. Imagine the reaction, if in the year 2000, when the nation was in the midst of an economic boom and was experiencing intolerable levels of congestion, a strategic plan had been released without an emphasis on new infrastructure or congestion reduction. In contrast, since 2008, transportation demand has fallen across all modes, alleviating some of the pressures on the nation’s highways, runways, rails and ports. While the economy appears to be slowly recovering from the severe recession, there is a debate between those who feel that demand across the modes will be returning to historic levels of growth, and those who believe the nation is entering in a “new normal” with lower rates of demand. The answer to that question will determine the level of investments in infrastructure required and the leadership role demanded of USDOT.

The answer is critical given that as the Secretary says “dedicated revenue sources” are no longer generating resources sufficient to fund all (Highway Trust Fund) or the vast majority (Airport and Airways Trust Fund) of current and future infrastructure needs. If the nation is projected not to need a great deal of new infrastructure this has significant implications for the level of funding, the level of taxes and fees to support that level, and the relative responsibilities of the Federal government, states and localities. While many on this blog have been wringing their hands over the lack of leadership in raising more revenues they believe are necessary, the task will be a great deal easier if we forecast that demand will be reduced and we do not require significant new investments in capacity. At least for now, the Obama Administration appears to be signaling that there will be lower demand, fewer big projects and a greater emphasis on operating and maintaining the system we have.

Other goals are new and widely supported in concept. Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff has been an articulate voice for enhancing and maintaining a State of Good Repair, trying to get policymakers and the public to appreciate the fact that many of our transit systems are ageing and require significant resources just to keep their services running and safe. The problem historically has been that it is easier to obtain funding for new projects, where ribbons are cut and services inaugurated. With many transit systems operating on 30-40% farebox recovery, however, building a lot of new systems while the older systems deteriorate for a lack of funding, is irresponsible. A similar array of issues faces the Federal Highway Administration with the deplorable state of the nation’s bridges and other infrastructure.

Livable Communities is a completely new goal. In the plan it is defined as “places where transportation, housing and commercial development investments have been coordinated so that people have access to adequate, affordable, and environmentally sustainable options.” USDOT notes rightly that this is a “transformational policy shift” from the past when decisions about land use, housing and the environment were considered separate policy domains and were often not effectively coordinated with transportation planning or decision-making. The USDOT, joined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency, intend to utilize the interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities to better integrate those decisions. One way USDOT will do so is to “modify its planning framework.” Presumably this could result in changes to state, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and airport planning through more inclusive benefit-cost criteria, alternatives analysis, and other mechanisms. A future challenge for USDOT will be to show how livable communities works across rural and metropolitan America, what models it has in mind for what is livable, and how it will strike the balance between a Federal vision and local discretion, including land use policies.

Environmental Sustainability is an updating of USDOT’s environment goals from the past focusing mainly on reducing the negative externalities or adverse impacts of the transportation sector. The outcomes for this goal include reduced emissions, less noise, and fewer air and water impacts. One way to achieve that is to reduce the use of fossil fuels in the powering of the transportation sector, a momentous challenge given the sector’s overwhelming dependence on fossil fuel combustion. The fact that you could promote this goal’s outcomes simply by reducing the movement of people and goods means that it only makes sense in tandem with the economic competitiveness goal or an absent mobility goal. Therefore, the strategic plan would be better if the goal were stated as enhancing the sustainable mobility of the transportation system. This better recognizes that the transportation sector’s primary challenge in the future will be to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels while increasing capacity and meeting demand.

In addition, the strategic plan occasionally betrays modal biases of its own. In several places rail and public transportation are cited as less carbon-intensive than other modes and, under the discussion of freight, the following is posited: “…by expanding opportunities for shifting freight from less fuel-efficient modes to more fuel-efficient modes—air to trucks, trucks to rail, and rail to water.” These statements are without foundation and are unnecessarily provocative. Instead, let’s stipulate that only analysis will determine for any one project or movement what mode or combination of modes is preferable, either from a narrow carbon or a more general sustainability standpoint. USDOT will be better off if stakeholders and users see it as “modally agnostic” and focused on the system and its complete life-cycle impacts, not with an anti-air or anti-highway bias.

These criticisms aside, the Strategic Plan represents a commendable effort by USDOT to engage the transportation community on its transportation policy and management approaches. Hopefully, we will all take Secretary LaHood up on his offer to offer constructive comments that will better the plan and ultimately improve transportation.

Steve Van Beek

First, I want to pile on by also praising Lisa Caruso for her stewardship of this blog. She created it, administered it, came up with topics and relentlessly encouraged commenters. Additionally, she has done some of the most objective, thorough reporting on transportation issues I have seen in the last thirty years.

Second, I want to associate myself with the insights of Messrs. Downey, Orski and Poole. I agree with virtually all of their postings on this subject.

Third, I want to focus on a particular set of fast moving events that already makes obsolete DOT's vision for the Class I railroads. On p.26 of the Draft DOT Strategic Plan (hereafter the "Plan"), this sweeping declaration appears:

"Within its authorities, DOT will seek to strike an optimal balance between maximizing the diversion of freight traffic from less environmentally beneficial and energy-saving modes to rail, protecting the statutorily established rights of and safeguards for shippers, and assuring that the regulatory framework for railroads enables the industry to maintain their systems at the highest level of safety and continue to earn sufficient revenue to keep investing for safety and adding capacity."

That's quite a mouthful. As best I can translate it, DOT will continue its antitrucking campaign (the first time in its history it has waged war on a particular mode of transportation), pay lip service to shippers, tilt the playing field at the STB, insist on the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems and continue its recent hugh infusion of federal dollars into freight rail capital accounts.

As to the latter, on the very next page of the Plan, DOT adopts as its own the Association of American Railroad's estimate of its members' capital needs (i.e., $148 billion between 2007-2035), and it notes that even more will be needed "to allow additional passenger trains or higher speed passenger trains on freight-owned tracks or rights-of-way." It promises to issue this year a National Rail Plan that will include "the policies needed to enable rail companies to continue to maintain their infrastructure in a state of good repair." It also promises to "(m)anage its High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail and all other passenger grant programs in such a way as to bring the related infrastucture and equipment to a state of good repair and keep it that way."

In addition to the promise to keep the big bucks flowing to the Class I's, it also promises to "(p)rovide the Surface Transportation Board information that will enable railroads to continue to make investments in rail infrastructure, equipment, and human capacity needed to maintain a state of good repair." It's a sad day when the legions of able lawyers and economists employed by the Class I's to appear before the STB can't handle those issues any longer without DOT's substantial assistance.

But as expansive and ambitious as this agenda might appear to be, it fails to address the latest looming threat to the very existence of our major freight railroads. Earlier this very day, the President of AAR appeared before the Congressional Caucus on Coal. He noted in passing his members' continuing campaign for tens of billions of dollars in investment tax credits (in addition to the billions in subsidies promised and/or received from DOT), questioned the wisdom of the rule requiring installation of PTC systems and focused on this new threat. It's name is REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

You see, the railroads strongly support "clean" coal. But if that somehow doesn't work out, and the coal industry is thrown under the bus, then the rails are demanding an "insurance policy" of "contingent allowances" in a federal cap and trade system. These, of course, will translate into billions of dollars of new subsidies to guarantee the continued profitablity of AAR's members. Without them, they won't be able to slay the trucking industry dragon. Please don't take my word for it. As the AAR President said today:

"If coal markets remain robust, no contingent allowances would be needed. However, if coal use falls, it could result in billions of dollars in rail assets being left without any value or greatly reduced value. The loss of use of these assets and all or part of the revenue derived from coal transportation would significantly impede railroads' ability to meet the transportation needs of intermodal and other non-coal shippers throughout the country. If railroads cannot afford to renew and expand their capacity, more traffic will move by less efficient, less envirornmentally friendly, and already overcrowded highways."

As DOT revises its draft Plan, I'm certain the Class I's will urge it to incorporate their latest demand for massive additional federal subsidies. However, I hope the Department will also consider other factors. Does it really want to continue down the path of treating the Class I's as "too big to fail", at the very time the Obama Administration and Congress are declaring "never again" as to banking industry and Wall Street bailouts? Are such subsidies consistent with the President's repeated declarations that the federal deficit is the real threat to our economy and must be brought down? Is the Department's reputation for even handed treatment of all modes of transportation, hard won over its 43 year history, being put at risk?

At a time when it is increasingly acknowledged that the federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal course, you would think the first thing a cabinet agency’s new strategic plan would do is attempt to figure out which of its historical functions are truly federal and should be continued. But that sort of prioritization is entirely absent from the U.S. DOT’s draft Strategic Plan. Instead, we are given a vast array of poorly justified expansions of the federal role into every nook and cranny of how Americans and their goods should travel—as well as how and where we should live.

One prevailing theme is frustration that current law does not permit the DOT to exercise as much micromanagement as its leaders think they should be doing. For example, the plan laments the lack of federal authority to regulate the safety of mass transit, as well as the lack of federal control over which specific highway and bridge projects states spend their federal highway monies on (as opposed to the numerous programs into which the feds already divide up these funds). It even laments that “DOT’s Federal-aid roadway design standards are not enforceable on local streets,” so that unless the law is changed, the DOT can only “encourage” more states to adopt the “complete streets” model in which every street in America must be equipped with sidewalks and bike paths.

Another recurrent theme is performance measures—but they are selectively and inconsistently applied. For example, something as basic as a minimum benefit/cost ratio threshold (perhaps 1.5) would weed out numerous low-priority projects that sound nice but aren’t worth the money. The only instance in which such a standard is mentioned is with regard to possible airport expansion. It never comes up with DOT’s newly favored sectors: transit, streetcars, high-speed rail, the “marine highway,” etc. The phrase “data-driven” appears several times, but only in limited contexts such as multimodal safety problems—not to evaluate favored modes or favored themes (such as livability—no data needed there). The notion of a level playing field among transportation modes is mentioned several times—but the only cases where analysis is suggested are on fuel-use, safety, and environmental benefits. What about a level-playing field comparison of goods-movement modes on cost, delivery time, and reliability?

A major focus of the previous Administration’s DOT, under both Democrat Norm Mineta and Republican Mary Peters, was congestion reduction. This applied to both surface and air transportation, and included active promotion of market pricing in both areas (with no success in aviation, alas). Unfortunately, while the draft strategic plan gives lip service to reducing congestion, its approach to doing this in urban areas is to expand transit, promote ride-sharing and flextime, and support only the demand-management form of road pricing. Strangely, that reference to pricing occurs in the “State of Good Repair” chapter, which is mainly about asset management.

And that provides a clue to one of the major omissions from the Plan: capacity expansion. While it expresses limited support for expanding airport capacity, in highways its only concession is the possibility of “targeted investments” in “our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks.” But as far as motorists are concerned, there is not a word about adding capacity to cope with projected growth. In fact, the plan even suggests that more cities do as San Francisco did after its last earthquake and tear down urban freeways that may no longer be needed. And in its redefinition of “functionally obsolete” bridges, it refers to not having “adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances,” but makes no mention of not having enough lanes. It also uncritically accepts the “We can’t build our way out of congestion” mantra, despite extensive evidence to the contrary (especially with priced capacity).

Entire chapters are devoted to the Secretary’s two favorite topics: Livability and Environmental Sustainability. Both are notable for broad assertions presented without acknowledging considerable data and analysis calling them into question. For example: “A comprehensive strategy that promotes livability and reduced the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers.” (p. 30) That’s an astounding claim, accompanied by zero evidence. Transit and smart-growth advocacy groups typically argue that substituting transit for driving saves an individual money—but they ignore the large taxpayer cost of the highly subsidized transit alternative.

Then there is a tricky little game played with transportation data. The National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) did indeed find that 11.6% of all individual trips are made by walking of bicycling. Then p. 51 contrasts that figure with the less than 2% of annual Federal Aid Highway funds spent on walking and biking. First, this ignores the other NHTS finding that in terms of person-miles traveled, biking and walking together come to just 0.9% of the total. Second, federal highway funds are supposed to fund important federal highways, like the Interstates. There is also the factoid that 40% of all metro-area trips are two miles or less in length and therefore “could be taken on foot or bicycle”—if you ignore people’s value of time, the weather, the climate, etc.

Yet another assertion, presented with no attempt at substantiation, is that “Creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas.”

Finally, in the chapter on sustainability, this data-driven, performance-based plan simply asserts that “to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efficiency, and reduce dependence on oil,” the nation must begin “development of a national network of high-speed rail corridors. A similarly vague justification is given for DOT to “strategically expand the marine highway system.” These mode choices are never presented as having emerged from a data-driven, mode-neutral benefit/cost analysis; they are simply assumed to be wise choices on which to expand billions of federal tax dollars.

This draft plan is clearly not ready for prime time. I hope the Administration will take these criticisms to heart in coming up with a revised version, as well as its proposal for reauthorizing the federal surface transportation program.

First, let me join Ken Orski and I’m sure others in thanking Lisa Caruso for getting this blog off the ground and continuing to make it a center of spirited discussion about the future of transportation policy. Lisa, you’ve done a great job with this, I’ve enjoyed participating and I hope that your successor can build on your accomplishments in herding the unruly crowd of transportation cats.

Now, to the question of DOT’s strategic plan. The nature of the question: “What Do You Think of DOT’s Draft Strategic Plan” gives me some latitude in my response. There are two aspects to the question—first, what do you think of the underlying policies driving the plan and second, how well does the Plan serve its purpose as a management tool in achieving those policies? I’m sure there will be a lot of comment regarding the first, both in response to the plan and as DOT and the Congress move forward to debating and implementing future policies. I do sympathize with the direction of the DOT’s policies, but I’m sure there will be many on the blog and elsewhere who hold contrary views, particularly with the treatment of surface transportation in primary terms of sustainability and community building. I’ll just note that DOT is pushing the debate beyond where it has been as it focuses more on where the transportation system is taking us rather than how well it performs on its own terms.

Turning, though, to the Strategic Plan as a tool, I note that DOT has for many years been a leader among government agencies in using its Plan to drive action by the department and its constituency. Over the past decade, DOT’s strategic and performance plan documents have consistently been rated among the three best in government. The pressure is on for the department to continue that record.

A lot of the Plan will meet that challenge. The treatment of the safety goal and its implementing strategies shows a consistent approach to what must be the department’s primary goal of saving lives and reducing injuries. A decade of setting goals, measuring results and modifying strategies to go after continued improvement has paid off in ever-improving performance across the modes. The challenge will be on, as the Plan notes, to stretch further in order to hold progress in what will be a time of economic recovery. This is an area where data-driven policy development can really work.

The Plan advances the ball in terms of economic competitiveness, particularly in recognizing the importance of freight movement and a strong aviation system in supporting the economic recovery we must achieve. The supporting strategies draw on the success of the TIGER program in establishing an important role for DOT as an investor in improvements needed to make the system work better such as the NextGen system for aviation and major projects selected on a discretionary basis for better freight movement. Again, the results in terms of a smooth functioning transport enterprise serving a growing economy should be apparent.

Turning to surface transportation, the Plan becomes more controversial, and DOT hasn’t fully turned the corner on how performance management will serve their goals. There is a rationale for the elimination of mobility as a primary goal, emphasizing that DOT, in conjunction with its other federal partners, cares for what the outcome of transportation investment will be on a broader spectrum of measures: greenhouse gases, energy change, improved community life, to name a few. There continues to be an emphasis on the overall system, notably in the elevated emphasis on State of Good Repair (SOGR) as an explicit goal. Most of the measures here relate to the condition of the system, and it is a top priority of almost all observers. It’s a measurable goal and DOT has a good history of providing such measurements. I would have thought, though, that a measure of system performance would go along with SOGR—it’s not just that the system is in good physical condition—the other measurement is how well it is operating and how well it will continue to operate in a time of growing population and strong economic performance. Without setting mobility as a goal in itself, it’s still important that we pay attention to something that is the primary concern of most system users whether for passenger and freight. Such measures and related strategies turn up in the plan with respect to aviation and freight, so why not for passenger movement?

In terms of the goals, the treatment of livable communities is at best deserving of a mid-level “needs improvement” type rating. If this is to be the DOT’s primary focus as it seems to be, it’s important to state the desired outcome more clearly and provide the measurements in a way that truly identifies performance. As currently drafted, the performance measures are primarily those that measure activity, not outcome. The logic goes that livable communities need good transit to flourish, therefore the measure is how much transit we are providing. In the spirit of good performance management, it would be better to describe the outcome—less demand for travel, less of family income devoted to transportation , reduction in childhood obesity, greater satisfaction with community life—and measure those. It’s not easy, but it would add to the credibility of the Plan. As with other investment-type strategies, the results will not be immediately apparent, but it’s important to start a measurement process so that progress can be sustained.

Finally, I applaud DOT for its consistent and realistic treatment of the barriers to achieving the plan. I think without exception, each goal is accompanied by a clear statement that performance is contingent on adequate resources, with the implicit understanding that today’s resource levels are not adequate with respect to either their amount or their consistent availability. Hopefully, the next step in the process will be a mega-strategy to achieve those resources and a debate as to how they best be applied to meet the Department’s goals and the goals of the stakeholder community.

Let me first say how much I will miss Lisa Caruso’s capable moderating of the National Journal’s Transportation blog. Thanks to her ability to persuade so many respected transportation professionals to participate in the blog, her always timely choice of the weekly discussion topic, and her frequent personal interaction with many of us, she has made the National Journal’s Transportation blog probably the most widely read and consulted discussion forum in the transportation community. Moreover, the blog has become a valuable contribution to the national debate on the future of transportation policy. I wish Lisa well in whatever she next chooses to do, but I shall not be surprised to see her continue as a valued contributor to the transportation dialogue.

As for the DOT's Draft Strategic Plan, my first reaction upon reading it was similar to that of many of my colleagues: why, at a time of a serious funding shortfall, growing metropolitan traffic congestion, a looming transportation infrastructure crisis and an urgent need to improve the national freight distribution system, does the U.S. Department of Transportation choose to single out "livability" and "sustainability" as two of its five strategic goals? Don’t the goals of "improved mobility," "adequate funding" and "congestion reduction" deserve being placed on at least an equal footing with those two vague rhetorical abstractions? Doesn’t the need for expanding highway capacity merit at least some acknowledgment as a strategic goal? Don’t the potential of tolling, consideration of future revenue options, desirability of greater private investment in transportation infrastructure and the need for a more focused federal program deserve a prominent place in a document that is intended to set out a strategic agenda for the Department of Transportation and the federal transportation program in the coming years?

Let me end on a positive note, however. Much of the content of the Strategic Plan in its "Safety," "State of Good Repair," and "Economic Competitiveness" chapters is sound and sensible. The staff has obviously put in much thought and effort into producing this document and Secretary Ray LaHood should be commended for seking public comment and reaching out to the participants in this forum to offer their thoughts. After being revised to take into account the stakeholders’ and public comments, the document should provide a sound basis for guiding the Department’s policies and programs in the years ahead.

(Note: You can find a fuller critique of the U.S. DOT "livability" policy in our latest NewsBrief at www.infrastructureusa.org/innovation-newbriefs-dots-strategic-plan and at www.newgeography.com/content/001580-livable-communities-and-dot.)

On May 4th, we unveiled the DOT’s strategic plan for 2010 through 2015. Our plan, Transportation for a New Generation, embodies the Department’s key priorities moving forward: to improve safety, maintain transportation infrastructure, promote economic competitiveness, foster livable communities, and advance environmentally sustainable policies. We know that we can’t promote one form of transportation over another anymore. It’s time to let people who use transportation systems decide what works best in their communities.

We’ve already had a lot of success with this approach over the last year. The Recovery Act allowed us to make an unprecedented investment in our national infrastructure, proving that transportation projects are a great way to boost the economy and put people back to work. We’ve also begun to lay the foundation for a 21st century transportation network, especially through the Obama Administration’s $8 billion down payment on high speed rail and $1.5 billion in TIGER grants to transportation projects that will promote livability and better integrate roadways, railways, transit, and ports across the country. And our enduring commitment to safety has led us to establish new protections to airline passengers and to raise awareness about the dangers of distracted driving.

We recently opened up our planning process for public comment, but I wanted to extend a personal invitation for all of you to weigh in with your thoughts on DOT's strategic priorities. This has long been an engaging forum for experts to discuss the latest news and trends in the transportation sector, and you represent the stakeholders we'll rely on as we implement our goals over the next five years. Your input and experience is invaluable to us.

So please: read the plan and share your insights. This is an opportunity to directly influence future transportation planning. We're listening.