NATCA represents a highly motivated and dedicated workforce of safety professionals. We are working more effectively with the Federal Aviation Administration in an improving relationship built on collaboration. Thus, NATCA supports the swift passage of a comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill that will help its frontline workforce make the world’s safest skies even safer.

Ratification of a new contract with the FAA in 2009 ended three years of imposed work rules that led to unprecedented attrition rates and the negative consequences associated with a large-scale loss of experienced workers. One of the many beneficial by-products of improved labor relations is the significant increase in NATCA’s inclusion in modernization projects.

NATCA’s controllers have been providing essential input into the research, development, testing, and implementation stages of NextGen modernization projects. This process relies on current, certified and proficient controllers who provide unique insight into both the needs of the air traffic control system and the functionality of modernizations. This pre-decisional input in projects helps the FAA ensure safety and it saves both time and money.

NATCA’s priorities for the 2011 FAA reauthorization bill are as follows:

- First, official collaboration between the FAA and NATCA should be mandated by law. The guaranteed inclusion of NATCA’s subject matter expertise would ensure that safety and efficiency are maximized while modernizing our national airspace system. This will positively impact NextGen programs including the consolidation and realignment of facilities and services.

- Second, the bill must include language establishing a fair dispute resolution process that enables the FAA and the aviation safety professionals that it employs to resolve negotiation disputes in a way that is fair and legitimate without imposing undue burdens on Congress.

Good relations between the FAA and its employees help to ensure the stability of the controller workforce and that NATCA remains an integral part of NextGen development and implementation.

Why does it have to be one or the other? There is no reason to assume that swift action on any of the infrastructure bills currently before Congress would mean bad policy or inadequate funding. The only thing we are missing is the will of our political leaders to get going and to make the tough decisions, such as increases to revenue streams like the gas tax.

While it may seem counterintuitive, there is an advantage to having programs like surface transportation and the FAA be so long past their expiration date. The delay has allowed so many groups, such as those of us who write for this blog, to develop robust and progressive policy recommendations. Congress wouldn’t have to look very far to find a long list of ways to improve performance, safety, freight movement, congestion, environmental quality and a whole host of other things that need addressing, not to mention ways to pay for it all.

The research, surveys and reports are done. The case for immediate action has been made. Yet, many of our political leaders are slow to react. While it is heartening to hear President Obama talk about the need to invest, so far he has been silent on how he wants to pay it, especially when he also promises to freeze federal spending for the next two years.

In the current political climate it’s understandable that no politician wants to risk his or her career by voting to raise taxes, but how long can they reasonably expect to avoid the problem? How far are they willing to let the nation’s roads, bridges, transit systems and airports deteriorate? We must remember that a thriving economy cannot exist without a strong infrastructure.

The question shouldn’t be whether we take the half loaf or hold out for the whole, but instead how do we make our political leaders understand that getting it right and getting it done aren’t mutually exclusive?

It’s fair to ask whether getting a surface transportation bill done or getting it right should be the priority, but as others have noted, it is also a false choice. Quite frankly, we can’t afford not to do both.

The case for immediate action is obvious. The unemployment rate remains at 9 percent overall and at double-digits in construction. Transit operators are promising layoffs and hiring freezes if Congress fails to act. In a rare display of unity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and ALF-CIO are joining hands in support of infrastructure investment. The cost to build will never be lower, and the need to do so couldn’t be more apparent.

But a path-of-least-resistance bill that fails to meet the challenges of the 21st century is a non-starter. Fortunately, getting the policy right and saving money can – and should – work in tandem. As physicist Ernest Rutherford once said: “We haven’t got the money, so we’ve got to think!”

So what does a fiscally responsible, reformed reauthorization look like? First, states should be encouraged to pursue projects that generate the best return on investment. Those currently prioritizing maintenance of existing infrastructure and transit systems have created more jobs per Recovery Act dollar than states prioritizing new roads and highways. Second, states should be held accountable for meeting common-sense goals such as reduced exposure to congestion, improved mobility and cleaner air. Third, we need a willingness to be creative with financing. An infrastructure bank that would “pick projects based on what’s best for the economy rather than politicians,” as President Obama put it, and an increased focus on private capital, a priority of House transportation committee chairman John Mica, are good starting points.

The transportation bill, however, cannot possibly be decoupled from what’s going on with the budget, and on that front, House members have a decision to make: Are they going to work with President Obama, the Democrat-led Senate, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups on a fiscally responsible, reformed reauthorization, or will they embrace the crippling, penny-wise-and-pound foolish cuts pushed by the Republican Study Committee? Lets hope for the sake of our long-term recovery and prosperity that members of Congress choose the former.

The question, “Do we get it done or get it done right?” presents us with a false choice. Getting a transportation bill “done right” doesn’t mean achieving some pie-in-the-sky, best-of-all-possible-worlds aims. It means building on a consensus that has already united APTA and AASHTO, the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, Rep. Mica and former Rep. Oberstar. And it means incorporating policies and practices that have already been proven in communities around the country to create jobs, give all Americans a fair shot at them, and make sure that communities have a say in the decisions that shape their towns and cities.

Our nationwide budget crunch clearly means that not everyone will come away with everything they want from our next transportation bill, but that doesn’t mean we settle for scraps. It means we maximize job creation through “fix-it-first” rather than new construction, maximize job creation through public transportation investments wherever possible, start to move to maximize funding streams other than the ever-shrinking gas tax, and use an infrastructure bank to leverage private and public capital in a responsible way.

A few months back, TEN member MCU in St. Louis held a public meeting between community leaders and elected officials that was a great reminder why transportation has so often been an area of bipartisan cooperation and compromise. State Senator Jim Lembke—a very conservative Republican who drove a vote to reject the new health care insurance mandate—joined County Executive Charlie Dooley—a liberal Democrat—in pledging his support for public transportation investment in St. Louis in spite of the calls of compulsive budget-slashers.

If two ideological opposites in the bellwether state of Missouri can agree that transportation investments are the way to keep America moving, there’s no reason for us to set our sights low for the next transportation bill. “Getting it done” has to mean “getting it done right,” and will.

U.S. aerospace manufacturing industry has employed the people, developed the technology and manufactured the products that have helped make the U.S. air transportation system the world’s gold standard for more than half a century. But to remain so, we need to bring our system into the 21st Century. Air transportation is a proven economic engine. And air service demand will return to pre-recession levels, but along with the return of that demand will come the return of gridlock—you can count on it.

There are many things a good FAA Reauthorization Bill can do, but nothing is more important than a commitment to building and implementing NextGen. An expeditious implementation of NextGen will go a long way toward curing many of our current air traffic system’s ills. It will make the system safer, more efficient, less impactful on the environment and enable future growth as demand warrants.

But to realize the enormous benefits that NextGen is poised to bring our nation, we need to figure out how to fund both the ground and airborne infrastructure. Some will say “how can we afford to fund both?” I say, “We can’t afford not to.” Innovative public/private funding vehicles could be the answer. Our air traffic control system needs a transformation and the cost of delay will be many times more expensive than the cost of investment today.

It’s important to get it done right. Remember past models of how to do it, all of which relied wholly on government funding, no longer apply. All levels of government are broke. The next transportation bill must offer a new model, one that stresses private-public partnerships and finds multiple ways to keep costs down. Levels of funding may be less important than presenting a new model. Chairman Oberstar understood this, but it is not clear that the Obama administration does.

William S. Lind, Director, The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation

By Greg Principato

During his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday, President Obama said “So if I’ve got one message, my message is now is the time to invest in America.” In his State of the Union address, he also noted that “the third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information…” And Thomas Donahue, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, in his State of American Business address, called for rebuilding our transportation infrastructure, calling it “the platform on which our society runs.”

I could not agree more. If our national aviation system is to deliver passengers to their destination on time, provide price and service competition, and address growing safety and security challenges while ensuring we have the runways, taxiways and terminal space necessary to accommodate the one billion passengers that will take to the skies in 2023, we must make the investment President Obama and Mr. Donahue called for, now.

We could do this if we return control to the local community to fund local projects that their airports need. But for some reason there are people who are intent on keeping that control away from the local community by calling the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) a tax when it is a user fee determined by the local community for a specified airport project paid only by people who use that particular airport. And by doing so they are depriving communities across this country from making much needed investments in local infrastructure at a time when Washington doesn't have the money to address their safety and security problems.

The facts are simple: the PFC is not a tax but an incredibly efficient user fee that has allowed airports to build and maintain runways and terminals that generate economic activity and jobs throughout the United States. If you were to start with a clean sheet of paper and develop a transportation funding option that fiscal conservatives could embrace, you would end up something like the PFC user fee:

· The PFC is a local fee that is paid only by passengers that use the airport.

· The PFC has no impact on the federal budget or deficit.

· The PFC is project based and the money does not come to Washington, D.C.

· The PFC adds infrastructure that increases airline competition which ultimately reduces airline fares.

· The PFC is collected by the airlines which are paid to do so - compensation that amounted to more than $80 million last year.

· The PFC generates jobs.

More than 125,000 jobs a year would have been created from a combination of providing local communities the ability to increase their PFC user fee by no more than $2.50 and full funding for the self-financing Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Airports would have been invested in local safety projects, runway work, repairing and rehabilitating terminals, building new gates and improving security. In the short term, this investment would have immediately created good construction and engineering jobs. Over the longer term, it would have created the conditions necessary to encourage the next wave of economic growth, because the fact is the PFC is the greatest job creation program ever devised.

The fact is airports and the traveling public can’t afford to wait any longer for the much needed investment in our national aviation transportation system. We need to pass a long-term FAA reauthorization bill that provides full AIP funding and allows communities to increase their local PFC user fee so travel can remain safe, security and efficient.

We need a well conceived long term transportation reauthorization with a restructured program and adequately funded through revenue enhancement.We cannot continue to stumble along wiyth inadequate financing and often ineffective projects. What is needed is a consolidation of programs, emphasis on cost effectiveness and tax increases. Given the extreme idealogue stance of the Congress, especially the House, it's bettter to get a short( one or two year) extension now and hope for a return to fiscal sanity at the end of that period.

The question seems to assume that, given time, congress could get this “right”. Another triumph of hope over experience?

Since the completion of the Interstate Highway System – entirely financed by road users — congressional interventions have harmed most of those who paid into the Highway Trust Fund. They have also delayed aviation reform.

The main beneficiaries of federal transportation financing are likely to remain:

- Power-hungry congress-people;

- Providers of unionized transit systems for which users are unwilling to pay; and

- Those who build facilities — such as “High-Speed Rail” — that are not justified by benefits.

Most road users would benefit from sun-setting fuel taxes and federal highway financing, as provided for in the 1956 legislation that established them as temporary measures.

The problem with the McConnell-Paul approach is that it does not go far enough. As the federal government has no spare cash, why should it finance facilities for which users themselves can pay? Where voters consider subsidies to be necessary, should not the states concerned provide them?

As the Chief Executive Officer of Washington Metro, the second largest transit rail system in the United States, I think the current focus on the needs and benefits infrastructure plays in our county is long overdue. Transportation touches every aspect of our daily lives.

In Washington, we provide 1.3 million trips a day to people traveling to and from work, to medical appointments, to visit family and friends and to leisure activities as well. As the single link in the region, Metro is vital to the economic growth of the greater Washington area.

During times of crisis, Metro is the only way to leave the nation’s capital region.

You can look to Metro as an example of what happens when not enough attention is put on transportation. We are now catching up to improve safety and service reliability by bringing the system back to a state of good repair. We are investing the largest capital budget since the system was constructed—more than $5 billion over six years in more than 140 projects across the system. More than $1 billion of that is budgeted to address the NTSB recommendations that Metro received following the fatal crash in 2009.

While we need to spend every dollar wisely, we cannot afford any more excuses when it comes to fixing our transit programs, here and across the country.