October 2010 Archives

Updated at 10:05 a.m. on October 26.

President Obama has made it clear that infrastructure investment and long-term transportation funding measures are a top priority for the administration next year. His most recent statement to that effect was in an exclusive interview with National Journal on October 19, when he said Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to work together to find more efficient ways to fund roads, bridges, rail, and runways.

On Columbus Day, Obama gathered together a host of transportation experts to discuss the need for a long-term transportation bill and ask Congress for $50 billion in up-front funding. The event coincided with a report published by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, co-chaired by former Transportation Secretaries Samuel Skinner and Norman Mineta. It called for new approaches to funding national highways, including "clear plan for transitioning, over the next decade, from the per-gallon fuel tax to a highway-use fee based on vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)."

Obama's Columbus Day plea was splashy, but it met with a collective yawn from Capitol Hill and an outright rebuff from Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who is slated to chair the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee if Republicans win control of the House next year.

Is now the time for a "serious, high-level policy discussion" on transportation, as Skinner and Mineta suggest? What do industry participants need to do to convince policymakers and the public that it's worth it to undertake such a task? What is the appropriate involvement of the administration in the talks?

Skinner and Mineta kindly provided us with an early response to this question, posted by staff reporter Rebecca Kaplan.

11 responses: Deron Lovaas, James Corless, Steve Van Beek, Ed Wytkind, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Gabriel Roth, Laura Barrett, Kurt J. Nagle, John Horsley, Greg Principato, Rebecca Kaplan

Republicans almost certainly will see their numbers improve in Congress next year, and party hopefuls are hoping to win control of the House and possibly the Senate. Transportation policy law traditionally has been negotiated and passed in a bipartisan fashion, but Republican control of at least one chamber would alter the tone of the discussions on Capitol Hill. In transportation, both surface and aviation measures are operating under temporary extensions, with a December 31 deadline approaching for the surface measure.

How would a Republican-controlled House or Senate change the debate around transportation? If Republicans win control of the House, how would lawmakers handle a temporary extension for surface transportation funding during the lame-duck session? Would a divided government make it more or less likely that lawmakers could hammer out longer-term measures authorization measures? Would transportation get more or less attention under a Republican-controlled House or Senate than it would under Democrats?

7 responses: Jack Schenendorf, Gabriel Roth, Emil H. Frankel, Bob Poole, Gabriel Roth, Ken Orski, Fawn Johnson

Train talk is busting out all over the place. Next Monday, bicycle enthusiast Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., will convene the annual three-day Rail-Volution conference in Portland, Ore., designed to bring together people who are "passionate" about using street cars and commuter trains to create "livable communities." And last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) shuttered construction of a major commuter train tunnel to Manhattan, citing lack of funding. Because the federal pledge for the project came out of the Transportation Department's New Starts project, the $300 million New Jersey has already spent for the tunnel will have to be refunded to federal coffers, according to the state's two senators.

What's going on here? Rail enthusiasts like Blumenauer and Vice President Joe Biden are promoting high-speed rail and commuter trains to save energy and lighten up on highway traffic. But, as Gov. Christie demonstrated, those enticements aren't always enough to win over states with tight budgets. Meanwhile, track space isn't unlimited, and freight rail carriers worry that more passenger trains will relegate their cargo to the sidelines.

How can the government support the growth of new passenger rail systems in a way that won't bankrupt the federal treasury or leave states high and dry? How can the competing needs of passengers and freight rail be balanced? Who should be involved in these types of decisions?

13 responses: Ed Hamberger, Ken Orski, James Corless, John Horsley, Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Peter J. Pantuso, William Millar, Laura Barrett, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Rob McCulloch, Andy Kunz, Gabriel Roth, Tom Madigan

What will it take to solve the problem of fatigue in transportation?

Fatigue has been a major issue in aviation lately because of its possible role in the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 near Buffalo, N.Y., early last year. The Transportation Department and Federal Aviation Administration recently proposed new rules intended to keep pilots fresh, including requirements that they get nine hours of rest, not just nine hours off duty. It's also a problem on rails, waterways and trucking routes, as laid out in a recent analysis by News21, a student journalism project associated with the Center for Public Integrity.

But what to do about it? News21 found that since the National Transportation Safety Board was founded in 1967, "the board has issued 138 fatigue-related safety recommendations. Only 68 have been implemented." Some of those recommendations have sat for years. Indeed, the NTSB has had its eye on pilot fatigue for two decades already.

On the regulators' side: Why have the NTSB's recommendations languished? How can fatigue be measured and ameliorated? On the operators' side: What about the pressures on individuals to work more hours or stay on schedule? Are there costs to getting proper rest? What practical problems would be created for airlines, shippers and others who need those man hours?

2 responses: Jacqueline Gillan, James C. May