As my fellow commentators have said, the President’s Labor Day announcement and his vision of a world-class infrastructure system are encouraging.

I applaud the President’s call to enact a new, six-year surface transportation authorization bill which expands public transit systems, dedicates significant new funds to the New Starts program, and commits to building on the previously announced investments in high-speed and intercity passenger rail. The proposed up-front investment of $50 billion will jumpstart job creation and is a good first step toward addressing our country’s high unemployment.

It should be a clarion call for Congress and the Administration to work in earnest as this legislation can’t happen fast enough to get our country moving again.

A few thoughts:

• For every $1 billion invested in U.S. public transportation, 36,000 jobs are supported and created. A six-year surface transportation bill with $123 billion for public transit and $50 billion for high speed passenger rail, as APTA has proposed, would support and create 6.2 million jobs.

• We need to both rehabilitate our deteriorating facilities and vehicles at rail and bus systems, and build for the future. According to a recent Federal Transit Administration report, $77.7 billion is needed to bring the infrastructure and vehicles of rail and bus systems up to a state of good repair.

• Public transportation investment can be deployed rapidly. A survey of U.S. transit systems found that more than $15 billion worth of capital projects including construction and rehabilitation activities are stalled solely because of funding constraints.

• Our transportation system remains incomplete without world-class high-speed and intercity passenger rail services. Its development will be a key component of American’s economic future, spurring a new U.S. domestic rail industry and providing hundreds of thousands of forward-looking high-paying jobs.

The President’s announcement, coupled with the work of Chairman Jim Oberstar’s House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, paves the way for the drafting of a comprehensive bill and figuring out the funding mechanisms. Transportation is the economic backbone of our country, and Congress and the Administration should work to enact this in the earliest possible timeframe.

Living with failing infrastructure affects us all, and yet it rarely rates the top spot on anyone’s list of policy concerns. So, hearing that the President of the United States is talking about this problem and proposing solutions, is a welcome change.

There are a lot of things to like about the President’s proposal. He’s right to say that improving infrastructure will create jobs now. He’s also right to say that it will lead to longer-term economic growth and competiveness thorough things like the Research and Development Tax Credit. However, a one-time injection of money will not solve the problem.

One of the long term solutions to these issues is through a full six-year authorization of the surface transportation system with increased revenue streams and reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. Unfortunately, that legislation, which could really help get the transportation sector moving, is stalled in Congress with no hope in sight. Other infrastructure legislation, such as the Water Resources Development Act and reauthorization of the Clean and Safe Drinking Water Acts, which could also begin to improve infrastructure immediately and put people to work for many years, are past due as well.

We need to improve our economy and our infrastructure – there’s no debating that fact. And ultimately, the President’s proposal is on the right track—as long as it remains the first step in passing a surface transportation authorization. However, as we begin to move forward, success hinges on our ability to build and fund that infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

The $50 billion proposal has several interesting characteristics. First, it represents yet another use of general fund money rather than user fees. Congress has already approved more than $60 billion for surface transportation, including the stimulus program. Question: is this a viable solution? $110 billion every three years or so is not a small sum.

Second, unlike the earlier rounds of general fund monies, this one would be funded by cutting tax expenditures. Many will come from reducing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, so in a sense this proposal would continue to fund transportation from petroleum-based fees. But, how often can this be done? If the general fund were to be a major long-term source of transportation monies, we should consider a dedicated stream of funds, in part in order to continue to allow contract authority for the Highway Trust Fund. Given transportation’s role in supporting economic growth perhaps we should consider dedicating a percentage of the corporate income tax to transportation.

Third, the proposal calls for investments with long-term value, rather than a focus on shovel ready projects as was a key part of the transportation portion of the stimulus package (maybe a country can have too many guard rails). This is a positive step towards helping to encourage long-term growth while also providing short-term construction jobs. But, a key factor in generating economic productivity gains is the addition of new capacity across the network. I commend the proposal for getting a start on the NextGen air traffic control system, but it sounds like most of the highway money will go to repairs – for example, there is no mention of adding new highway capacity.

Fourth, no details have been provided on how projects will be selected. This is the Achilles Heel. How likely is it that Congress will give the Administration (even if they are from the same party) control over the amount of spending? Will modal funds be segregated? Or will selection be made competitively across modes? This latter approach is analytically interesting, but some modes are likely to do better than others and this will create political problems.

While one hesitates to rain on such a splendid parade, I find it difficult to praise Obama’s “Infrastructure Plan”. And why should government officials determine the amounts to be spent on roads, railroads, airport runways and air traffic control?

The United States has a long “user pays” tradition, whereby transportation costs are paid for by users. Even the federally sponsored Highway Trust Fund was based on the principle that roads should be financed by road users. The President now proposes to abandon this principle, and to fund even airport runways and air traffic control. Are airport users so poor that they have to be subsidized by other taxpayers?

How right Emil is to remind us that

“It is more important than ever that we invest transportation dollars wisely, efficiently, and in a way that holds funding recipients accountable for results.”

Is the federal government really better equipped than users to determine, and pay for, transportation improvements? Would it not be better for it to be working on arrangements to enable transportation users themselves to fund the improvements they are prepared to pay for?

Although the President's proposals face an uncertain future, they will unquestionably alter the political dynamics and the policy environment surrounding the authorization of the federal surface transportation programs. Perhaps the most important thing is that the President has weighed-in on the principles and values that should characterize transportation legislation and has called for a fundamental reformation of the way that the federal government invests in transportation.

With unemployment in the construction sector approximately 20 percent, there is obviously a need to increase investment in the nation's infrastructure. But, as the President has noted, these investments can and must play an important role in building the foundation for long-term economic recovery and growth. Any investments to modernize and repair the nation's transportation system should extend beyond short-term "shovel-ready" projects and should be aimed at creating sustained job growth. Federal funds should be targeted to those programs that generate the greatest economic, energy, environmental, and safety benefits.

It is unclear whether the $50 billion that the President proposed for transportation investment would be a "stand-alone" program (similar to last year's stimulus or economic recovery bill) or a first-year "down-payment" on a multi-year authorization bill. Will the $50 billion represent funding for transportation in lieu of, or in addition to, the $35 to $40 billion of revenues that current levels of motor fuels taxes and related revenues produce for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF)?

Whatever the level or the form of this funding, it can be an important element, in addressing the need for investment in the preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the nation's transportation infrastructure. Clearly, this level of funding is not sufficient to meet current and projected needs, but we face a period of constrained resources, and we cannot expect all the funding that is necessary. We must make the most of the resources that will be available. That is why the reform part of the President's message is so important.

It is encouraging that the President has committed to working with Congress "to fully pay for the plan," but what will be the source of funding for the $50 billion that the President has recommended? While the President's proposals lack detail in that connection, he has suggested that we will make these investments without adding to the deficit. Transportation investments can be made fiscally sustainable by funding transportation primarily from user-based revenues.

Given the nation's severe fiscal situation, a ballooning national debt, and an HTF that cannot meet current program levels without resort to transfers from the General Fund, it is more important than ever that we invest transportation dollars wisely, efficiently, and in a way that holds funding recipients accountable for results.

In its June 2009 report, "Performance Driven," the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) recommended that the grantees of federal transporation funds should be held accountable for demonstrating progress against specific metrics in the areas of economic growth, metropolitan accessibility, national connectivity, energy security, environmental protection, and safety. It is important that the new resources for which the President has called should be made available through programs that implement these principles.

The President's announcemnt on Labor Day marks a significant turn of events in the infrastructure debate. It may not be the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. Congress, at least in terms of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar, and now the Administration, importantly in the voice of the President, have laid down markers on where we should go. There are, of course, multiple Commission reports and countless advocacy pieces from all quarters but what really matters is what the principals in the process want to achieve. Now that is coming clearer, the real debate can begin, and each step forward can be put in the contexts of eventual outcomes.

What the President has put forward, and what Secretary LaHood and Departmental officials have amplified a bit, represents a serious structural proposal to implement the policy directions embodied in the Administration's campaign and governance documents. A lot more needs to be known, and surely will emerge as budget and legislative deadlines force additional action. But we can see the broad policy outlines. Transportation is viewed intermodally--even to the extent of making aviation an integral component instead of a separate cylinder of excellence (a.k.a. silo) and the explicit recognition that a robust highway network is key to success. Passenger and freight needs are recognized. The proposal for greater program consolidation will be another way to keep focused on key goals rather than multiple objectives, and the emphasis on rehabilitation of existing systems--the "state of good repair" component is important and timely.

The proposal suggests strongly that outcomes are what matters, hopefully to be fleshed out with explicit strategies as to how they will be achieved and performance goals for measurement of success. It builds on the learnining experiences and the success of the Recovery Act investments. While many minimize that success, I think there's no argument that a program currently employing 45,000 or so Americans on productive projects isn't a good thing. Looking to the future, the Administration is ready to adjust the balance, from the emphasis on jobs-first under ARRA to investments that will produce jobs but will also lay the foundation for future growth. This has been the driving force behind high speed and intercity rail as well as the DOT's TIGER programs, and the mix of visionary goals with carefully measured analysis of competitive projects is something the plan will emphasize.

WIth greater information, it will be easier to understand the relationships of the $50 billion jumpstart with the ongoing investment program and exactly how the infrastructure bank fits into the picture, but there's strong positive reasons to look at both. Another round of needed incremental investment over the next two years will help the transition into recovery. Using the leverage of an infrastructure bank can also help multiple projects based on sound economics to advance concurrently. An early infusion of funding for credit support could help turn the shelf of TIFIA projects into solid work, but we also need the stability of a long-term program structure to replenish that shelf and support meaningful multi-year investments.

Of course, we would all like to know how this plan will be paid for, and the answer to that question will influence a lot of thinking about the nature of the plan and its relevance to specific stakeholders. The White House has indicated a willingness to work with the Congress and hasn't explicitly ruled out any means of paying the bill. We hope that the Congress will take up the invitation and get to work quickly on this initiative.

It’s good to hear transportation discussed in the context of the national agenda again. It deserves to be a top priority and the President’s recent remarks provided a brief glimmer of hope that progress could be made toward a federal transportation authorization bill at some point in the not too distant future. Unfortunately, the brief euphoria has given way to reality….so few details are known about the President’s plan that it’s impossible to assess it.

On the funding side, the plan to create a new infrastructure bank may prove useful in tackling large, regional projects on a competitive basis, but it doesn’t address how we will fund all of the other traffic safety, maintenance and construction priorities of any future transportation program. The investment gap we’ve created due to years of under-investment can’t be filled with an infrastructure bank. We continue to view the federal gas tax as the most viable funding option for the bulk of the program. And keeping the surface transportation program user-funded is especially important in the face of expected future federal deficit pressures.

Unless stakeholders begin see more specifics about proposed reforms and how the program will be funded over the long term, it will be difficult to sustain momentum in the near term. We’re hopeful, as Ken Orski surmises in his blog posting, that US DOT officials will view the announcement as a reason to redouble their efforts in drafting a comprehensive bill for early next year.

The White House’s $50 billion vision for renewed and expanded infrastructure will successfully create jobs —in the short-term, and for generations to come. The inclusion of high-speed rail in the multimodal mix is particularly exciting as it increases the plan’s overall effectiveness, and its potential for changing the way Americans travel for work and play.

As new rails are built, along with new roads and runways, many industries will see immediate and significant job creation such as construction, planning, design and other positions which are linked to the early stages of infrastructure implementation. As projects are completed, permanent positions will be created in operation and maintenance of these systems. And let’s not overlook the jobs created indirectly from the creation of new rail and transit infrastructure thanks to transit-oriented development and improved transportation between jobs and housing.

Does this new approach come with challenges? Certainly—and one of the biggest challenges is to ensure there is sustainable investment by the government in these programs over the long term. Much like earlier investment in the country’s interstate highway system, a renewed and expanded infrastructure vision needs a 20- to 50-year investment to achieve its full potential.

The Administration’s vision is an important first step that deserves the applause of a nation, and the support of Congress.

The President’s announcement that the Administration intends to propose a major new long-term transportation infrastructure plan with an initial jumpstart of $50 billion is to be applauded. With the most recent extension of current federal transportation law expiring at the end of this year, it is critical that Congress move ahead as quickly as possible to pass a multi-year authorization program so that transportation officials across the U.S. can have the predictability and funding commitments that are essential to advancing key projects.

Building on the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Administration’s proposal would fund critical infrastructure projects and create good-paying, local jobs. The proposal recognizes that infrastructure investment remains a key component to getting the economy back on track. There is a pipeline of projects across all modes—transit, roads, bicycle and pedestrian improvements—that stand ready to go, focused on both state of good repair needs as well as strategic expansion. And we know that for every dollar invested in transportation, we see the results in the roads and streets that get us to work and school, we see it in the trains and buses that take our citizens to medical appointments and jobs. It is these results that will sustain mobility in cities across the U.S. and deliver the nation’s economy out of the current downturn.

Tough decisions are ahead, including the question of how any frontloaded funds will be distributed and how a more robust federal transportation program will be paid for. In the meantime, the Administration’s proposal is a welcome first step to getting this urgent conversation moving forward.

With nearly 1 in 10 Americans still out of work and midterm elections fast approaching, it's little wonder that President Obama has made job creation his No. 1 priority. His announcement of a $50 billion transit stimulus proposal is a very good start. Here's why.

Just four days before the president's Milwaukee announcement, TEN released a study called More Transit = More Jobs. The study found that shifting funds from highways toward public transit could create hundreds of thousands of new, long-term jobs at all skill levels. Over the weekend, economist Robert Frank wrote in the New York Times of the need for serious infrastructure re-investment, and its potential to drive the recovery.

Economists understand that transit creates more jobs than new highway construction. TEN's study went a few steps further. We looked at 20 metropolitan areas across the US and the impact of a 50% funding shift from highways to public transit. Each city in the study stands to gain thousands of jobs by giving priority to public transit. Hopefully, the final proposal put to Congress follows these priorities.

Politics have gotten in the way of a new federal transportation law -- it's been nearly a year since the last Transportation Authorization Act expired -- but the president's proposal is a way to move us toward it. It’s hard to say when Congress will consider the President’s proposal but most seem to think it won’t happen for quite some time. The White House’s opponents certainly don’t want to give them any major victories before the midterms.

In terms of allocation, it's a good sign that the president's proposal focuses on transit and highway repair, rather than new construction, since both are more effective job creators than new construction. We at TEN would like to see as much of the $50 billion as possible go to transit, with the remainder devoted to repairing our crumbling infrastructure. With a staggering 25 percent of the nation’s bridges structurally deficient, it would be negligent to put off repairs while spending more on new highways.

$50 billion would just be a start, to be sure. And whatever the final distribution of transit and non-transit investments, all our infrastructure investments need to include strong workforce equity requirements to make sure that those who have been hit hardest by the recession -- especially low-income people, people of color, and women -- have a fair shot at the jobs that the new investment creates.

Ultimately, there's no shortage of good arguments for investing in our transportation infrastructure immediately and in a big way -- especially transit. More transit means more jobs, plus expanded access to work, education, health care, and opportunity. All of those are things we need now more than ever. If our members of Congress truly care about our futures -- as well as their own -- they should show it by following the president's lead.

The benefits of an appropriately-funded modernized ATC system are nothing short of tremendous; they include job creation, plus safety, environmental, operational and customer-service improvements. What’s not to like? Customers would see reduced flight times, airlines would burn less fuel and emissions and the United States would wisely be investing in a major economic engine that generates more than $1.2 trillion in economic activity and almost 11 million jobs.

According to the FAA Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, "Aviation boosts local economies and creates new markets at home and abroad. From the business trips and vacations we take, to the products and services we enjoy, aviation makes it all happen. Civil aviation promotes and relies upon technological innovation. Jobs in this sector tend to require high skill sets that foster intellectual and human capital formation, benefiting the entire economy."

We have long been on record advocating prudent government investment in NextGen, and we remain very interested in any proposals that would advance those types of investments.

We enthusiastically welcome meeting with government officials to better understand the details of this infrastructure investment proposal.

We were excited to see the White House embrace the argument we’ve been making for months – the best way to get our economy moving again is to tackle one of the biggest problems facing our country: our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, runways and other basic infrastructure. By building America, we can create good jobs right now, ensure our long-term economic future, and leave real assets behind for taxpayers and future generations.

Of course, while the President’s proposal will create jobs and make some necessary improvements, it’s only one promising step forward. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our basic needs require $2.2 trillion in investment to catch up to where they need to be – and that problem gets $150 billion more expensive every year we delay taking action.

That’s why we’re also encouraged by the White House’s evolution in thinking on the passage of a front-loaded, six-year surface transportation bill. This legislation could be the biggest job creator in our nation’s history and would give America the first-class roads and bridges it needs to remain an economic leader in the 21st century. With countries like China and India investing nearly 10 percent of their GDP into superhighways and bullet trains, we can’t afford further delay on this bill. We simply have no choice.

We’re confident that Congress will act soon to get us on the right track – and we’re going to continue our efforts to make sure they do, regardless of what happens in November. Our interstate highway system – the envy of the world when it was built – was spearheaded by a Republican president, and there isn’t a single state or district that doesn’t benefit from good roads, safe bridges, efficient water systems and modern school facilities. Aside from a few fringe tea partiers, everyone believes providing these things is the government’s responsibility and duty to taxpayers.

Our country is going to remain in desperate need of jobs no matter who controls Congress next year. In the construction industry alone, 1.5 million men and women are looking for work – 17 percent are unemployed. Whoever gets sent to Washington in November will need to be serious about job creation, and investing in our country’s basics is the best way to do it.

In his remarks in Milwaukee last Monday, President Obama articulated a clear vision for America’s infrastructure that would increase transportation options and improve accountability for federal dollars.

President Obama’s proposal would bring merit to federal transportation policy through targeted investment in projects promoting energy security, safety, affordability, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness. A national infrastructure bank would invest in projects with broadly shared benefits on a competitive basis, rather than the current system of wasteful earmarks and outdated formulas. With Obama’s plan, we get more innovation and a better bang for our buck, and eliminating unnecessary subsidies for oil and gas companies is a sensible way to pay for it.

In addition to calling for an immediate down payment on infrastructure, the President also endorsed approval of a comprehensive reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. Congress has failed to pass a transportation bill for nearly a year, instead opting for quick fixes and band-aids. The President has shown real leadership by supporting a new bill that makes needed investments and provides long overdue certainty for workers, contractors and state and local officials.

At this point, we don’t know where the votes are in Congress or whether action is even possible before November, although key Republicans like Ohio Senator George Voinovich have expressed strong interest in action and transportation was one of the most popular components of the Recovery Act. Even in times of weariness about unemployment and spending, Americans want to see us building things and preparing for the future. The President’s plan helps us do just that.

I applaud the President for releasing an infrastructure investment proposal, and for recognizing the importance of including aviation, which is something that is not always done when discussing “infrastructure.” So, two cheers; the third will have to await the details. The Infrastructure Bank idea has gotten a lot of press, but there are also a lot of questions. This is an idea that was first proposed, as far as I can tell, during the Monroe Administration, so has been kicked around from time to time. To date, there are not a lot of details as to how the Bank would function or be financed. Our goal has been to give airports more freedom to finance needed projects and not have to rely so much on federal funding from Washington. If an Infrastructure Bank can be a complement to that when it is fleshed out, I think it could be a good thing for aviation.

What is clear is that these proposals have already become mired in the politics of the moment and so are not likely to advance any time soon. But there is a piece of legislation that is “shovel ready” NOW, the FAA Reauthorization Bill. It has been passed by both houses of Congress. If the House and Senate can agree, it will not only help turn NextGen into NowGen, but – assuming it includes the House proposal on the passenger facility charge user fee – will create 125,000 jobs each year, with absolutely no increase in the federal deficit.

Big plans and vision are great. But progress and results are necessary to get us there. Passing this “shovel ready” FAA Reauthorization bill, with the House-passed PFC provision, will improve our infrastructure, create tens of thousands of jobs and not increase the federal deficit. First things first.

Updated at 9:45 a.m.

Writing in last week’s Innovation NewsBrief we wondered if the intent behind the White House September 6 proposal to invest an extra $50 billion in transportation infrastructure was primarily a political gesture — to give the economy a short-term pre-election boost — or whether it was a belated but genuine change of heart about the need to act, and act convincingly, on a multi-year surface transportation program (www.infrastructureUSA.org). In conversations we held during the past week, we sensed that the transportation community, including senior officials of U.S. DOT, would clearly prefer the $50 billion to be part of a long-term reauthorization effort.

However, it’s not clear if the White House shares this feeling. President Obama’s promise that the money would create jobs "immediately" and his inclusion of airports and NextGen air traffic control systems (which have never been part of the surface transportation program but which are good job generators), would suggest that he meant the $50 billion to be used primarily as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy. The White House may try to seek congressional approval for the money in a stand-alone supplemental appropriation during the current congressional session. Whether Congress could be persuaded to go along is another matter. The bill would be perceived as a "stimulus" however it is portrayed, and would likely be opposed by a sizeable number of Democrats as well as Republicans. What is more, the proposed offset for the bill– eliminating existing incentives for the oil and gas industry and taxing firms on overseas profits– would almost certainly generate spirited opposition and a filibuster in the Senate.

Should the $50 billion be made an integral part of a multi-year transportation bill, the outlook becomes more promising. While little can be done to advance a long-term bill in the few weeks left before Congress adjourns for elections, the matter could be taken up in a lame duck session. Still, the odds of passing a complex piece of legislation in a lame duck session are small. Instead, Congress is likely to pass another six- or eight-month program extension (the current program authority expires on December 31). This time, however, there will be no need to vote more money since the Highway Trust Fund is projected to end FY 2010 with a healthy balance of $31.4 billion according to the latest Congressional Budget Office estimate. Indeed, the Trust Fund is projected to remain solvent for another two years, ending Fiscal Year 2012 with an estimated balance of $13.3 billion.

What will happen in the next Congress can only be a matter of conjecture. Should the Republicans take control of the House---something that most political analysts and pollsters seem to take almost for granted--- the pressure to reduce the budget deficit and reduce spending will increase. But with active support from the White House, a bipartisan agreement on a scaled-down program during the next session of Congress is conceivable. To be sure, a bill "front-loaded " with an extra $50 billion --- i.e. funded at $110.8 billion in FY 2011, which includes $60.8 billion in requested regular program funding --- is out of the question. ("Anyone who thinks that is a credible sum of money must be smoking something," one congressional source, who requested anonymity, told us.) A $500 billion six-year bill ($83 billion/year) as proposed by Rep. Jim Oberstar, may be equally unrealistic. But a more modest four-year bill, funded at an annual level of $60 billion/year (i.e. roughly, the level requested by the Administration for FY 2011) would cost a more manageable sum of $240 billion. With FY 2011-2014 tax revenues and interest expected to generate approximately $160 billion (CBO estimate), the annual shortfall would require a general revenue appropriation of only $20 billion/year.

Substantively, a bill reported out of a Rep.John Mica (R-FL)-led committee would look very different from the bill that was authored by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) earlier this year. But many of the reforms suggested by the Administration in its September 6 announcement — such as program consolidation, performance-driven investment decisions, an infrastructure bank, even inclusion of passenger rail — are not ideologically motivated and could find their way into a bipartisan bill.

For U.S. DOT's executive staff, the White House September 6 announcement has been undoubtedly a big morale booster and a reason to redouble their efforts to prepare a detailed legislative proposal in time for late spring or early summer submission to Congress. As Jeff Davis, editor of the Transportation Weekly has pointed out, all previous Administrations have submitted full legislative proposals before Congress took up the reauthorization legislation. This time should be no exception. It would be just the first step, but an important one in putting us firmly on the road to breaking the impasse over the future of the federal surface transportation program.