February 2011 Archives

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Florida Gov. Rick Scott are digging in to some pretty serious questions about high-speed rail. Scott has been on the verge of rejecting some $2.4 billion in federal high-speed rail money for weeks. As of Friday, LaHood and Scott had agreed to wait another week before spiking the Florida project. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has weighed in with a modified version of the state's original high-speed rail plan, saying "the 21-mile segment from the Orlando Airport to the Convention Center and Disney World can be a feasible and profitable transportation link for Florida." Scott has raised questions about whether Florida would bear financial or legal liabilities for the project. Transportation Department officials have assured him that the state won't bear the risk for the project and that there is strong private-sector interest building and operating the system.

This conversation is considerably more in-depth than the previous high-speed rail scuffles with DOT in Wisconsin and Ohio, where the governors flat-out rejected the funds and LaHood just as quickly redirected their $1.2 billion to other states. Scott is asking legitimate questions about just how much his state would be on the hook for a rail project. Mica wants to make sure that any project that receives the green light will have the ridership to make it successful. The administration wants to make sure that infrastructure developments don't die on the vine, taking jobs and economic growth with them.

Is this a sea change? Can a rational conversation about the pros and cons of high-speed rail projects spur transportation thinkers across the country to find innovative ways to keep worthy projects alive? Does it matter what the outcome is -- whether Scott takes the money or not -- if it means the administration and the states' governors can think more creatively about how major transit projects can work? How can members of the transportation community help the conversation?

9 responses: Emil H. Frankel, Laura Barrett, William Millar, Robert L. Darbelnet, Ken Orski, Joshua Schank, Bill Lind, Gabriel Roth, Jack Kinstlinger

A single paragraph in the Transportation Department's fiscal 2012 budget could fundamentally alter the funding mechanism for highways and other transit. The administration is calling for replacing the current highway trust fund with a "transportation trust fund" that will have separate accounts for highways, transit, high-speed rail, and a national infrastructure bank. In the near term, this means that highways would see only a slightly smaller share of the overall national transportation funds that also go to intercity transit and passenger rail. But over a longer period of time, the move away from a dedicated highway trust fund signals the administration's desire to wean the country away from the automobile.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the idea is to streamline disparate pots of money into a larger pool that will make the agency more nimble in funding good projects. The department also has proposed consolidating 55 separate highway programs into five to give states and communities the opportunity to build on the projects they identify as priorities.

Is this a good idea? Does it make sense to think of the various components of transportation as a whole entity rather than parcel them into distinct areas? Are there dangers to what the administration is proposing? Would a streamlined government make it easier or harder for states and cities to navigate the funding process?

11 responses: Rebecca Kaplan, Gabriel Roth, William Millar, Ken Orski, James Corless, Laura Barrett, Deron Lovaas, David Heymsfield, Greg Cohen, Rich Sarles, Gabriel Roth

The White House's release of its fiscal 2012 budget proposal this week kicks off the discussion about the administration's priorities, and infrastructure is at the top of the list. The administration has been honing the idea of an infrastructure "bank" or "fund" since President Obama took office. The fund would be designed to vet and provide cash for large projects that use multiple modes of transportation and take several years to complete. It's a safe bet that we'll hear more about this idea in the weeks to come as Transportation Department officials trot up to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers on their ideas.

Obama sees infrastructure investment as the key to job growth and economic competitiveness. The infrastructure bank would ensure success on large transportation projects because the administration would select only the best ideas for federal funding, in the White House view. Skeptics in Congress have balked at an infrastructure bank, worrying that it would face the same problems as the politically unpopular Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Republicans are unlikely to give the Transportation Department the funding to make an infrastructure bank work as Obama would like.

Is an infrastructure bank an idea ahead of its time? What are the best arguments to convince naysayers that it could work? Could it be established initially as a pilot program that could grow in later years? How much money would be needed to allow the administration to effectively select and encourage projects that otherwise might not get off the ground? How important is buy-in from states, local governments, and the private sector?

5 responses: Fawn Johnson, Gabriel Roth, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., David Heymsfeld, Greg Principato

Transportation is everywhere all of a sudden. The Senate is debating a long-awaited Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. The House will hold hearings on the FAA this week, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will mark up its own FAA bill next week. President Obama goes to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday to discuss infrastructure investment and other areas where businesses can get involved in government. The White House theme for the week is simply this: "Build." If there were ever the political will to actually get something done -- on FAA or on a highway bill -- that time appears to be now.

There is a problem with all this consideration, of course. Some lawmakers aren't really paying attention to transportation per se. Take Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who decided the FAA bill was as good as any for forcing a vote on repealing health care. Or there's newly elected Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is beginning his legacy as the Senate's prime budget buster by asking to cut FAA funding across the board.

You in the aviation and surface transportation communities have been patient for several years waiting for Congress to come around to your issues. Now that it's your turn, what's more important, getting it done or getting it right? The FAA bill already passed the Senate with industry support. Would it be OK if it passed just like that again, or should the House tweak it to ensure that it's better for the community once it goes to the president? The surface transportation bill is likely to come up short on funding for everything the administration wants, but is it better to pass half a bill than no bill at all? Is this year the best chance for major transportation legislation to be completed? Or should we wait until Congress is less divided and budgets are less tight? Now that you're in the spotlight, what can you accomplish?

10 responses: Paul Rinaldi, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., James Corless, Laura Barrett, Marion C. Blakey, Bill Lind, Greg Principato, Jack Kinstlinger, Gabriel Roth, Rich Sarles