The prompt correctly points out that new projects lend themselves more easily to ribbon cuttings and press releases. But whenever asked, members of the public consistently demand that fixing our crumbling infrastructure should be the country’s first order of business. The recent Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey found that 80 percent of Americans favor — and 63 percent strongly favor — prioritizing maintenance of our existing transportation system as much as possible.

These findings, along with being smarter and more strategic about where and how to expand our transportation system and providing greater travel options, form the basis for our Fix It! Campaign. The Transportation for America coalition is using this campaign to build public awareness around the sorry state of the nation’s infrastructure to get the attention of the nation’s policymakers. The accompanying report, “The Fix We’re in For: The State of Our Nation's Bridges,” generated widespread media coverage in nearly 40 states and illustrates the urgency for action in communities across America.

Washington’s trend toward austerity could potentially make repair more palatable by orienting policymakers toward a new phase of our nation’s infrastructure in which we preserve what we have already built. With insufficient revenues to replenish the Highway Trust Fund and key House Chairman John Mica likely to introduce a bill with a modest price tag, we will be forced to pursue policies that stretch every dollar as far as it can go.

Repairing what we’ve got and strategically making our system work better is about as fiscally responsible as you can get. Whether our elected leaders seize this challenge will say a lot about their fiscal bona fides — and how much they are listening to what their constituents are telling them.

What needs to happen for Congress to take our crumbling national infrastructure seriously? They could start by looking at the overwhelming evidence of how grim the current situation is. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America's infrastructure an overall grade of D, and new reports by the Organization for International Investment (on global competitiveness) and Transportation for America (on the poor condition of our nation’s bridges) fill out the picture.

If the state of crisis isn’t enough to move members of Congress, what about job creation? TEN has long supported a "fix it first" policy for roads and bridges—in part because it’s a more efficient job creator than new construction. In our 2008 report, The Road to Good Jobs, we looked at the job-creation potential of transit investments, highway repair and maintenance, and new highway construction. The report concludes that transit is the biggest job creator, and highway repairs and maintenance the second-biggest. If we’re looking for ways to get the most bang for our buck, “fix it first” is the way to go.

And on the eve of Earth Day, it’s worth remembering that highway maintenance and repair is far more environmentally friendly than tearing up new stretches of land to cover them with blacktop and encourage more destructive sprawl.

Clearly President Obama understands that we need to secure and maintain the massive public investments we’ve already made in our national infrastructure, rather than simply rushing to build more. In a recent speech, the president warned that the GOP budget cuts could leave "potholes everywhere," and pointed to the tragic 2007 collapse of a Minnesota bridge as evidence of our crumbling infrastructure.

We’ve often sounded the refrain here that our national transportation system is what connects us to jobs, education, health care, and opportunity. If we’re serious about repairing our nation’s economy, there’s no better way to start than by repairing our infrastructure.

Making the case for federal funding in transportation arena has always been a challenge. For most of the 35 years the Washington Metro has been in business there has been no dedicated funding to maintain a state of good repair until Congress passed legislation in 2009 providing $1.5 billion over ten years to address our long neglected capital needs. While the legislation was a critical step, it still requires that we make the case on an annual basis to receive the $150 million in funding. Making the case has always been a challenge, but never more so than now given our current budget environment. Replacing rails cars and rail, updating signal systems and track fasteners are critical to the safe operation of all transit, but they are projects that rarely garner any headlines. And, unfortunately those headlines usually come because of an accident or other incident. In fact, getting that work done is a long arduous process that often requires scheduling inconveniences for our customers.

At WMATA we have put together and continue to develop a program to make the case for our funding. The coalition starts with our Board of Directors utilizing their many years of expertise in their communities to make the case for funding. Also critical to our success are the very focused group of business leaders whose employees and customers are served by our rail and bus system. Each business involved in supporting WMATA's funding has their own list of issues they need addressed by political leaders. We work with businesses to assure that our funding is close to the top of that list. As with all major transportation systems with large capital and operating needs we utilize a broad group of vendors and suppliers. They have a vested interest in assuring that our funding continues and are and will be critical players in continued federal funding for Washington Metro, other transit, highway, aviation and rail programs. Each one of the members of the coalition brings their unique expertise and perspective when they meet with members of Congress to make the case for funding. It will take coalitions such as these all over the United States in large cities and small towns to build the momentum needed to reverse the unaddressed billions of dollars in infrastructure needs in the U.S.

It is true that all over the world, governments, businesses and others are moving forward with critical investments in infrastructure. There is a broad global understanding of the immutable fact of human history that those who invest in transporting their people and products will grow and prosper and those who do not invest will fall further behind. Right now, the United States is in that second group.

Why? Because we have gotten so wrapped up in political arguments over terms like investment and spending. Revenue and user fees. Revenue and taxes. No one I’ve ever heard has seriously argued that infrastructure is not important. But, we can’t get out of our own political way to make it happen.

In aviation it is even worse. All over the world, airports, airlines and governments understand the need to modernize their aviation infrastructure. They are increasingly moving toward user fees as a way to ensure a flow of revenue. But not in the United States. In fact, it is illegal for airports to generate revenue in this way, beyond a (very low by international standards) passenger facility charge capped for more than a decade at $4.50. And, make no mistake here, either. This is the federal government interfering in local affairs and decisions. This is a fact of life established in the bad old regulated airline days, and has been left in place all this time. And, in a time when we are looking for ways to build infrastructure without adding to public budget deficits, the PFC which accomplishes this very result, should be a centerpiece in this nation’s infrastructure strategy.

The really scandalous part of this is that U.S. airlines, unlike in most of the rest of the world where they seem to have a clearer view of their true interests, have led the fight to keep this cap in place. Why? Because they have never gotten over the fact that before de-regulation they controlled airports, and now they don’t. They want to do everything they can to reduce competition and they know that the PFC was originally put into place to give airports a means to build infrastructure to PROMOTE competition.

There is an old New Yorker cartoon showing a corporate CEO explaining to his assistant that “I love free enterprise. It is competition I can’t stand!” That sums up the U.S. airline view of investment in aviation infrastructure. Short sighted, to say the least. And, the fact that the U.S. government has acquiesced in this for the past three decades is even worse.

Fixing a leaky roof is not "boring" to home owners, nor is fixing a pothole "boring" to road owners, who can lose plenty of money if their roads deteriorate. They well know that "acting now saves money later".

But most roads, even in free market countries, are run socialistically, and socialist enterprises are prone to congestion, deterioration and misplaced investment. Until roads are privatized, one way to improve their maintenance might be to have them run commercially, by managements motivated to profitability.

For example, eight thirty-year highway concessions in the UK were awarded to private consortia under the Thatcher government’s “Private Finance Initiative”. The consortia, which are paid on the basis of traffic counts (not by tolls), are obligated to maintain their roads to agreed standards. Similar contracts were made in Belgium and Spain.

Smart Growth America's study is likely to conclude that "filling the pothole is perhaps more important than building a new road". But will its experts suggest that lack of effective ownership is a key part of the problem? We should hope so.

The point is not new. Adam Smith described it in 1776:

"The proud minister of an ostentatious court may frequently take pleasure in executing a work of splendour and magnificence, such as a great highway, which is frequently seen by the principal nobility, whose applauses not only flatter his vanity, but even contribute to support his interest at court.

But to execute a great number of little works, in which nothing that can be done can make any great appearance, or excite the smallest degree of admiration in any traveller, and which, in short, have nothing to recommend them but their extreme utility, is a business which appears in every respect too mean and paultry to merit the attention of so great a magistrate.

Under such an administration, therefore, such works are almost always entirely neglected".

The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Article I of Part III of Chapter 1.