The growing number of earmarks in surface transportation acts (the number has increased by over 30 times in twenty years) is symptomatic of the fact that these bills have lost a sense of national purpose. Instead, as Ken Orski and others have pointed out, "highway bills" have become huge public works programs, in which Members of Congress have focused on money, rather than on national goals -- how much money is returned to their states, how many projects can they bring to their districts. Instead of earmarks' "greasing the skids," they have become the skids, themselves. National goals and purpose have been lost.

The earmarking issue is, also, about power, that is, who should exercise the power to determine how federal money is used. I would argue that we have lost sight of the real issue. The question should not be who has the power to select the surface transportation programs and projects that will receive federal funding -- Congress or the Executive Branch, federal or state and local governments -- but, rather, the quality of, and the benefits received from, the programs and the projects in which federal funds are invested. Particularly in a time of fiscal crisis and scarce resources, it is critical that limited funds be targeted to, and invested in, those programs that bring the greatest returns, in terms of national economic, energy, safety, and environemental goals.

Earmarks should be subject to scrutiny and analysis, as should states' use of formula funds, and there should be accountability. Before an earmark is enacted Congress should ask and determine whether it is consistent with national goals and purposes. While the evaluative criteria of the New Starts program have been criticized, at least such criteria exist. The New Starts program represents an attempt to analyze potential projects and to filter them through an evaluative process at the Federal Transit Administration before Congress makes the ultimate selections. Over many years, Congress has generally come to respect US DOT's analyses of potential projects, and responsibility for the earmarking in this program is shared.

The values of goals, outcomes, and accountability should be included in any surface transportation bill that the new Congress will consider and pass. Without these reforms, it is not realistic to assume that any bill, authorizing the investment of federal resources in the nation's transportation infrastructure, can be enacted in a time of huge annual budget deficits and a ballooning national debt.

It’s interesting to me that this week’s question – and perhaps the whole earmark “debate” – is framed as a political question, not a policy question. Politics, as they say, is the art of the possible. If my memory serves me correctly, transportation funding at the federal and state level has been handled before without earmarks, so it is at least theoretically possible that it could be done again. In fact, the results of TIGER I and II are proof that an objective, merit-based program can be set up to provide federal funding for projects without “earmarking” by Congress. It may have not been perfect – what is? – but it was a very good start, improved from round one to two, and, if it had more funding, could make greater strides toward the national competitive program many of us think is needed. But in recent history, it has NOT been possible to pass a major funding bill without earmarking money to specific projects. Anyone who works in government like I do knows that you always seek to enact good policy, but occasionally cannot achieve anything unless you also handle the politics. So perhaps it is possible. But rather than speculate about the politics, I think we need to continue to harp away on the best policy for our country. So let’s leave the political question aside for a moment, and get back to the policy. Speaking on behalf of America’s #1 container port, we are a nationally important economic asset. When the federal government invests in us, it is almost like they are investing in a federal project, and not just on the dredging side, which of course is partly a federal jurisdiction. We should think of the major last-mile land-side transportation bottlenecks as partially federal obligations as well. If federal grants to nationally important ports get thrown out because of “earmark” politics, there goes the baby with the bath water. We are competing and collaborating with ports and gateways around the world that are either run by federal governments – like in S. Korea and Panama – or significantly aided by federal governments – like in Canada and China. While we are bickering over budget dust, other countries are eating our lunch! I’m not saying that earmarking did not get out of control – the pendulum clearly had swung too far toward bridges to nowhere. But as it swings back the other way, let’s not let it swing so far that the federal government abrogates funding of nationally important strategic assets.

Although Congress is considering a ban on “earmarks” in order to target wasteful federal spending and “pet projects,” there is concern that a broadly defined ban could have significant impacts on appropriate federal investments critical to our nation’s transportation system. There is broad bipartisan agreement on the need to improve our infrastructure moving forward, as an efficient transportation system is vital to our economy. More than a quarter of our country’s GDP comes from international trade with every $1 billion in exports resulting in 15,000 American jobs.

America’s state and local public seaports are investing more than $2 billion in infrastructure improvements and rely on a more than 200-year old partnership for the concomitant federal investments in connecting infrastructure. Due to the existing structure of legislation, particularly regarding federal navigation channels, the federal investment has traditionally been provided through line-item project bills.

As the dialogue proceeds, it’s important not to lose sight of the need to ensure that any resolution of the earmark debate provides a process to identify and advance appropriate investments in needed improvements to our nation’s transportation infrastructure, including seaports and the land- and water-side connections to them. As a result we will have a transportation system that allows the United States to remain competitive, improves the economy and creates jobs for today and in the future.

During an era of tightening budgets and declining revenues at every level of government, opportunities for private public partnerships (PPPs) between the private bus sector and public officials are rife, where buses can provide the same services to commuters as public transit services in a more cost-effective manner.

Take, for example, the park & ride facilities in four different locations in southern New Hampshire that serve as feeder hubs for Portsmouth, N.H.-based C&J Lines’ Boston Express commuter service to downtown. In all four locations, suit & tie commuters leave their cars behind and hop on a C&J motorcoach to commute into Boston daily, mitigating congestion on the busy I-93 route. The park & rides were built through PPPs to forge cost-effective service with private bus operators to help ease gridlock by taking single occupant vehicle (SOV) commuters off the road. Each motorcoach removes up to 55 SOVs from the road and achieves an average of 206 passenger miles per gallon, according to the Texas Transportation Institute.

This is one of many examples of PPPs forge transportation solutions that leverage public investment with private resources and experience to benefit the commuter, the community and local business. Society gains through less traffic, less energy use and fewer emissions.

Intercity motorcoaches are the low-cost, high-value option for connecting communities and modes., filling gaps in the intermodal system while providing the most mobility to all Americans. Motorcoaches are the glue that connects all transportation modes. Without significant mode specific investments intercity and motorcoach transportation connects many people to many places flexibly, conveniently and cost effectively, which is a big reason for the 762 million motorcoach passenger trips annually.

Although high-speed rail makes sense in a few places around the county, in most places, improvements to the private bus system make more sense, particularly during austere budgetary times. For example, the governor of Wisconsin recently cancelled the proposed high-speed rail program, as it was too costly and there is reliable convenient bus service in Wisconsin to build demand and develop the rail corridor until it makes economical sense to have rail, high-speed or other rail in a specific corridor between two urban centers, such as Milwaukee and Chicago or Milwaukee and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Buses are here today, and that government programs should make them the centerpiece of any transportation legislation that seeks cost efficient, convenient, accessible, affordable, safe, green and comfortable mobility for Americans.

Certainly it's possible to develop an earmark-free bill. These bills were passed routinely with few or no earmarks until 1987. I expect that such a bill would not have 90-95% of Congress voting for it like SAFETEA-LU. But the goal should be passage of a bipartisan bill, not unanimous support.

The prospect of an earmark-free bill could be exciting for transportation stakeholders in that passage of the bill would have to depend on the strength of the bill's policies, rather than the goodies in it for individual districts. That also would help create a much better public perception of the bill as well. However, I do not think all earmarks in previous bills were bad -- the problem is that a bill with earmarks would be judged by the most ridiculous projects in it -- if Congress could have shown some restraint in the past then voters probably wouldn't be fed up with earmarking today.

But if Congress has an earmark-free bill, it will likely take steps to prevent the Administration from earmarking as well by eliminating or radically changing the Administration's flexibility with discretionary grant programs. Then the question is how to pursue a performance-based bill that has appropriate incentives for the States to invest in projects of national interest?

Instead of relying totally on DOT to create the incentives, Congress could lead on the issue by authorizing a reserve fund of performance bonus formula monies that could be distributed to states based on success or progress in meeting key national goals such as reducing fatalities, relieving congestion, improving freight throughput, and/or strengthening bridges and pavements. Of course, States would also need flexibility to concentrate on the focus areas that are most important or applicable in their State. Reserving money for incentive-based bonuses will require more money, however... which remains the biggest roadblock ahead for enactment of a bill.

It will be an interesting road ahead in the new year...

This response was an early submission originally posted as a guest item and has been updated to reflect that Mr. Roth is a regular contributor to this blog.

Fawn,

As earmarks usually fund local projects, they are obviously inappropriate for federal projects, except to help members wishing to barter their votes.

But your question also illustrates the absurdity of transport funding being dependent on congressional budgets, procedures and timetables.

Transport is of major interest to you and to me, but President Obama, and the new federal congress, rightly have other priorities. Why not encourage them to concentrate on what is most important to them, and allow others to raise and spend money on transport infrastructure?

The administration seems unwilling to increase transport funding, either from general revenues or by raising fuel charges. Why cannot it find a way to distribute the federal Highway Trust Fund monies to the states, and let them use them, with no conditions attached? States could then raise their fuel charges if they see the necessity.

Members of the federal congress do not (yet) determine how much we should spend on vehicles. Why should they go through the complications you describe in order to decide how much we should spend on infrastructure?

The next transportation bill should be rooted in shared national objectives, like curbing our dependence on oil, not politicized trophy-spending. In the meantime, there are a set of important reforms to the earmarking process that were instituted this Congress that should be built on by the incoming leadership.

At their worst, earmarks are little more than a currency of power. As favors used to secure votes without transparency or accountability, they end up funding too many boondoggles, like the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

But the reforms made by outgoing Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar this past July were a good start toward rooting out the worst abuses in the earmark process. Under Oberstar’s watch, the Committee established rules requiring that earmarked projects have the support of local public officials, a plan for how to fully fund the project, information about the project’s benefits, and proof that the member of Congress submitting the request will not benefit financially from the project. Additionally, the Committee created a public database with information about all of the Committee’s earmark requests.

These measures should be continued and strenthened under presumptive Chairman John Mica. They shuld also be adopted by the Senate Committees that have jurisdiction over tra nsportation policy. Bringing some sunshine in will improve the earmark process and lead to better projects being funded.