March 2011 Archives

It looks like the long-suffering Federal Aviation Administration's wait for a reauthorization bill is coming to an end. This week, the House will vote on the 18th stopgap funding measure for the FAA since the last reauthorization expired in 2007. But this extension, to May 31, is almost definitely the last if key negotiators like House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., and Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., get their way. The Senate has already passed its version of the FAA bill, and the House will follow suit this week with its bill.

That gives the House and Senate about two months to work out the differences between their two measures. It shouldn't be that hard. The biggest stumbling blocks that have held up the bill in the past--such as language on how collective-bargaining laws would apply to FedEx employees or increases in airport-passenger facility charges--are gone. Still, there are some outstanding issues: the number of long-distance slots at Reagan National Airport, for example, or what happens with "essential air services" that guarantee airport service in rural areas. There is also the question of money. The House bill, at $59.7 billion, funds the FAA at fiscal 2008 levels for four years. The Senate bill punts, offering $34.5 billion for just two years.

What are the most important issues on which the aviation community should focus as the final touches are being put on the FAA bill? Is funding at fiscal 2008 levels acceptable? How important are essential air services? Is the debate over Reagan National Airport a side-show to the underlying bill? What aspects of the NextGen navigation and surveillance technology should Congress be aware of? Are there overlooked provisions that should be highlighted before the spotlight disappears?

3 responses: Steve Van Beek, Greg Principato, David Heymsfield

The Florida dilemma over high-speed rail is resolved. Sunshine State Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, has finally rejected $2.4 billion in federal dollars for high-speed rail, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood immediately made that money available to other states on a competitive basis. LaHood also upped the ante on the contest by designating the Northeast Corridor as an official high-speed rail corridor, making it eligible for significantly more federal funds for high-speed and intercity passenger-rail programs. This should be good news to the founders of the congressional Bi-Cameral High-Speed and Intercity Passenger-Rail Caucus -- Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who both hail from the heavily train-trafficked Northeast.

The new designation for the Northeast Corridor could allow Amtrak to apply for some of the federal grant money, which is likely to raise eyebrows among some Republicans. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., and Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., say Amtrak is a "Soviet-style passenger rail service" that is too heavily subsidized by taxpayers. The committee Republicans are calling on cutting federal funding for Amtrak and allowing other private-sector rail companies to compete with Amtrak on its "money-losing" routes.

Does it make sense to designate the Northeast Corridor as a high-speed rail corridor? How does the label change the merits for a high-speed rail competition? Is this just another iteration of an age-old fight over Amtrak? If Amtrak is able to get federal money, does that change the general understanding of the definition of high-speed rail? What is so unique about the Northeast that makes it appear more rail-friendly?

8 responses: Gabriel Roth, Petra Todorovich, Bill Lind, Ken Orski, Peter Gertler, David Heymsfield, Jack Kinstlinger, Gabriel Roth

Gas prices are going up, and fast. In the last several weeks, they have averaged $3.50 per gallon and are approaching $4 per gallon in some parts of the country. They haven't reached this level since September 2008, according to the Energy Department. If rising fuel costs cause people to drive their cars less frequently, the highway trust fund could find itself with less money to maintain roads and bridges than anticipated. (Already, we know the trust fund can't meet the demand.)

Rising fuel prices can also change how Americans use the public transportation system. A new report from the American Public Transportation Association finds that $4 per-gallon gas prices could result in an additional 670 million public transit passenger trips. If pump prices jump to $5 a gallon, the report predicts an additional 1.5 billion passenger trips can be expected.

Economists say it would take a protracted period of high gas prices--more than six months--to fundamentally change how the nation behaves toward transportation. But even a few months of volatility can impact the way policymakers view mass transit and funding for highways. The gas price crunch comes at a critical time for Congress, as lawmakers are grappling with how to pay for at least $300 billion to reauthorize the surface transportation system.

What impact does a gas-price hike have on current highway funding? How long would gas prices need to remain elevated to change the estimate that the highway trust fund can sustain road maintenance for at least another year and a half? Will a sustained increase in gas prices change the public policy conversation about a highway bill? Will it cause policymakers focus more on mass transit than they have in the past? Can high fuel prices kick-start a conversation about a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee?

14 responses: Colin F. Peppard, Deron Lovaas, Emil H. Frankel, James Corless, Patrick D. Jones, Paul Yarossi, Patrick D. Jones, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Laura Barrett, Patrick D. Jones, Joshua Schank, Bill Lind, David Heymsfield, William Millar

You've got to give Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., credit for trying. He wants to revive the administration's popular Build America Bonds program, which gave bond issuers generous tax credits and federal subsidies for infrastructure investments before it expired last year. Wyden has proposed limiting the bonds to transportation investments, thinking that a narrowly tailored program would garner bipartisan support and ease the pain of paying for a six-year surface transportation bill. He's gotten some interest from Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said he will advocate for such a program with the administration.

Reviving Build America Bonds is one of the only concrete ideas that has surfaced to help pay for a $300 billion to $500 billion highway bill. Yet everyone agrees that the highway trust fund's current receipts aren't going to cut it when it comes to road and bridge maintenance. LaHood hasn't offered any specific thoughts on revenue raisers except to say that a gas tax increase is off the table. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has posited that some $100 billion could be found in unused spending from previous funding bills, but there's no evidence to substantiate that claim.

What do you think of Wyden's plan? Is he dreaming? Can such a bond program work if it's targeted just for transportation? How much headway could states and cities make on their biggest projects if they had easier access to investors? Would such bonds really make a difference in lowering the overall cost of a six-year highway bill? Politically, how can supporters like Wyden sell their idea to Republicans who see it as just another way to funnel money to the states?

4 responses: Steve Van Beek, Greg Principato, David Heymsfield, Rebecca Kaplan