January 2011 Archives

President Obama views Washington policymaking from a wide lens that doesn't distinguish between individual lobbying communities or committee jurisdictions on Capitol Hill. His State of the Union call for more investment in infrastructure had a decidedly high-tech feel. He said he wants to connect the nation through high-speed rail and high-speed wireless connections. His ideas about infrastructure span the transportation and telecommunications sectors, and they touch on all of the business community in terms of job creation. For Obama, it doesn't matter that transportation and telecommunications firms are subjected to different government regulations or that traditionally, they answer to a different set of lawmakers in Congress.

Still, it's an inspiring vision. Some thinkers argue that investing in telecommunications is the next logical step in the public transportation and utility system. Certainly, the administration's efforts to blanket the country with Internet access carry echoes of earlier presidents who built interstate highway systems or extended electricity throughout the country. Besides, doesn't it just make sense to invest in high-tech solutions anyway, be it NextGen air traffic control or wireless sensors that gauge traffic lights according to congestion patterns?

But does the vision clash with reality? Isn't it hard enough to win support for basic infrastructure like highway repair or bridge supports? How do traditional transportation companies that are oriented toward government dollars work together with private-sector telecom companies that put in the lion's share of investment towards Internet access? Is Obama's vision of a totally connected nation -- through rail and Internet -- a bit too futuristic? If so, what needs to happen in government and in the private sector to make it a reality?

3 responses: Scott Belcher, Bill Lind, John Horsley

It would appear that tea party Republicans aren't big fans of government rail programs, judging from the Republican Study Committee's spending reduction recommendations released last week. The conservative crop of Republicans have proposed eliminating federal subsidies for Amtrak ($1.6 billion annually), the Transportation Department's New Starts program for commuter rail and rapid transit systems ($2 billion annually), and all grant programs for intercity and high-speed rail ($2.5 billion annually).

Overall, the plan is intended to slash $2.5 trillion in government spending over 10 years, and it goes after more than just rail. The RSC also wants to zero out weatherization grants, family planning funding, and the "International Fund for Ireland," to name a few. The plan also isn't anywhere near becoming a reality. Many of the programs on the list have aggressive defenders who will make sure they survive even in this era of budget cutting.

So why pick on rail? Are there unique characteristics of rail programs that make them ripe for trimming? How are these rail funding programs different from federal subsidies for highways or runways? Are there essential features of each of these rail programs that should be preserved, and if so, why? What can rail and mass transit enthusiasts do to convince conservatives like the RSC that their projects are worthwhile?

10 responses: Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., James Corless, Laura Barrett, Peter Gertler, William Millar, Ed Wytkind, Bill Lind, Bob Poole, Jack Kinstlinger, Gabriel Roth

Both the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress say they want to marshal the power of the private sector in developing and maintaining the nation's infrastructure. The government's current budget crunch means that private investment certainly will be a big help in starting (and then actually finishing) any large road, tunnel, or bridge projects. Just how much leeway the government will give businesses in these partnerships is a matter of debate. Public-private partnerships can mean different things to different people.

Most transportation lobbyists are referring to some type of tolling when they speak of public-private partnerships. The administration has a slightly more expansive view with its proposed infrastructure fund, believing that businesses can involve themselves in all manner of government projects, such as putting up loans and contracting parts of projects.

What is the appropriate role for businesses in government infrastructure? Can public-private partnerships be leveraged to bring forth projects that otherwise would languish for lack of funding? Are there barriers that keep businesses from stepping up to invest in major infrastructure? If so, what can be done to remove them?

5 responses: Robert Puentes, Bob Poole, John Horsley, Laura Barrett, Gabriel Roth

Transportation budgets are in limbo for the foreseeable future, thanks to being tacked on to the continuing funding resolution that runs until March 4. It's safe to assume surface transit funding will see another temporary extension at that point. And after that, the bulk of the legwork on transportation funding will be in the hands of Republican-controlled House appropriators. GOP leaders in the House have been aggressively vocal about their intent to slash federal spending, and some are seeking to cancel unspent stimulus funds. President Obama, for his part, is committing to increased infrastructure spending over the next two years. That puts transportation in the center of what could be a nasty political fight.

Are there areas where federal transportation budgets can be reduced without harming the programs? Will Obama's priorities (such as high-speed rail) suffer in the belt tightening, or will non-rail entities get the shaft? And what happens to the current surface transportation law, now in its sixth temporary extension since it expired on September 30, 2009? House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has said that he will make a long-term authorization a top priority. But does that actually mean that transportation funding will be the first to get the ax?

3 responses: Bob Poole, Laura Barrett, Ken Orski

The 112th Congress hadn't even gaveled in when a broad group of transportation and labor organizations assailed House Republicans for changing the rules to limit how the highway trust fund is used in spending bills. The groups--including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Laborers International Union of North America--claim the change will "sever the user-financed basis of the Highway Trust Fund, and make annual federal highway and transit investments subject to the whims of the appropriations process."

For House Republican leaders, it's about making sure spending on transportation projects is limited to the money available. That could be a big problem for anyone, including President Obama, who believes immediate infrastructure spending is essential to improving the economy, not to mention maintaining a road and bridge system that will keep its travelers safe.

So what's the solution? Is there a way to stay within a budget and also maintain adequate maintenance of the nation's highways and runways? Is the "user-fee" model of financing outdated, and if so, what should replace it? Politically, is it really that easy for congressional appropriators to cut transportation funding, as AASHTO and other organizations fear? Or are those groups crying wolf?

14 responses: Robert L. Darbelnet, Emil H. Frankel, Patrick D. Jones, Laura Barrett, Terry O’Sullivan, Janet F. Kavinoky, Kurt J. Nagle, Phineas Baxandall, Ken Orski, Steve Heminger, Bob Poole, Jack Kinstlinger, Jack Basso, Gabriel Roth