April 2011 Archives

The government can look awfully cool when it does what the Department of Transportation did last week in finalizing new rules that require airlines to disclose hidden fees and refund bag fees if they lose travelers' luggage. Whether it be gas prices, road traffic, or air-travel headaches, policymakers always look good when they're trying to take care of customers.

The trouble is that customers' problems are just the top layer of a vast underlying system of public and private structures -- some heavily regulated, some very expensive -- that also need attention. Sometimes the impact on customers isn't so obvious or direct. Several infrastructure and transportation groups have pointed to worsening road traffic as a reason for more investment in roads and highways, but the time lag between cause and effect weakens the good-for-customers argument.

Customers aren't always served as cleanly as they might expect. Even the relatively clear rules on airline disclosures left some questions unanswered; the DOT will separately consider whether all ancillary fees must be stated at the point of sale. The government itself could be causing the problem. The Air Transport Association made sure to note that government taxes and fees can account for 20 percent of a ticket price.

What can customers expect from the government in making their travel easier? Will DOT's new airline rules make a difference for passengers? How much of customer service really is rooted in businesses' competition with one another, rather than government intervention? What are the possible land-based corollaries to the airline customer-service rules? Is it possible for the regulations to go too far?

3 responses: Robert L. Crandall, Greg Principato, David Heymsfield

Last week, the Organization for International Investment launched an infrastructure campaign touting the economic benefits of strengthening America's infrastructure and warning subtly that the lack of attention to airports, bridges, and electrical grids is bordering on a crisis that will change how global companies view the United States.

Is anyone listening? Thus far, OFII's message that infrastructure improvements can't wait appears to be resonating only with those who are predisposed to believe it: Democrats, the White House, and the transportation and engineering communities. That's because maintaining roads and bridges isn't nearly as sexy as building them. "It's like having the roof leaking and buying a hot tub.... There's a lot of pressure on [transportation agencies] to build new facilities, and that comes at the expense of keeping up what you've got," said Roger Millar, Smart Growth America's director of Land Use and Transportation Policy. Smart Growth America will release a study next month showing that filling the pothole is perhaps more important than building a new road. Acting now saves money later.

How can infrastructure advocates overcome the political reality that fixing a leaky roof, or a pothole, is just plain boring? Does the public need to weigh in? Or can the discussions be had among just elected officials and the transportation community? Do officials at the federal and state transportation departments need to be more up front about where their allotted transportation money is going if they are to justify the need for more? Do tight budgets help or hurt the conversation?

5 responses: James Corless, Laura Barrett, Rich Sarles, Greg Principato, Gabriel Roth

Lobbyists for various modes of transportation -- roads, rail, aviation, even bike enthusiasts -- have done a good job of hanging together this year in advocating for infrastructure investment. Everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO is saying the same thing to policymakers: You can't afford not to invest in infrastructure, which, by the way, also will create jobs and grow the economy. At this stage of the game, when lawmakers and lobbyists alike haven't delved beyond the talking points, infrastructure investment is win-win for all.

Times are about to get tougher. The available pot of money from which lawmakers can dip to write a six-year highway bill could shrink by as much as one-third if Republicans get their way on the budget for next year. The lack of funding for infrastructure is likely to create competition for the remaining scraps between rail, roads, and bicycles. As Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., pointedly told National Journal last week, "When you shrink this down, then all of a sudden you risk a food fight" among coalition members. "Politicians don't like to choose between trucks and railroads and pedestrians and bikes."

It's been clear for months that the transportation community and the Obama administration aren't going to get everything they want in a surface transportation bill. Some lawmakers acknowledge that a shorter-term bill might be necessary since the $300 billion needed to maintain the highways and waterways over the next six years simply isn't there.

What is at risk if the transportation community is seen by Congress as being at war with itself during the creation of a surface transportation bill? How can infrastructure advocates keep the sibling rivalry among transportation modes at bay? Would it be better for the various modes of transportation to accept half a loaf that is evenly divided than to risk getting no loaf at all?

5 responses: Laura Barrett, David Heymsfield, Gabriel Roth, Jack Kinstlinger, Rich Sarles

It seems like there's a lot of talk about the importance of infrastructure investment in Washington, but not a lot of action. The administration and key transportation leaders in Congress both say they want a highway bill before August, but the chances of meeting that goal shrink with each passing day that a bill isn't circulated. The natives (i.e., industry) are getting restless. Transportation for America put out a report last week titled "The Fix We're In For," saying 1 in 9 bridges and overpasses is in poor enough condition to be dangerous. AECOM Technology put out a white paper last week titled "U.S. Infrastructure: Ignore the Need or Retake the Lead?" arguing that highways, bridges, and public works require "urgent attention."

When lawmakers aren't fully engaged in staving off a government shutdown, the infrastructure conversation endlessly revolves around money. If you want investment, you have to come up with a way to pay for it, says Congress. Thus far, the Obama administration and congressional Republicans are dancing around the pay-for question, daring the other to come up with an answer first. (As in most negotiations, they know that the first one to offer a number loses the battle.)

Meanwhile, infrastructure continues to erode. What's it going to take to move beyond a simple pay-for question among lawmakers? Who needs to make the first move, Congress or the White House? Is it possible to have a conversation about the details of highway, rail, or transit plans when the top-level debate is dominated by spending concerns? What can industry groups do to convince policymakers that they need to do more than just talk?

6 responses: Steve Van Beek, Laura Barrett, Kurt J. Nagle, Bill Lind, Patrick D. Jones, Gabriel Roth