May 2011 Archives

It's a familiar refrain to anyone involved in transportation: Infrastructure investment means jobs. But the transportation sector hasn't cornered the market on the "jobs" talking point. For environmentalists, investment in clean technology means jobs. For unions and manufacturers, products built in the United States mean jobs.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, has connected the aforementioned dots in a single bill dubbed the SMART Act that attempts to encourage the growth of the domestic transportation-manufacturing industry by giving preference to domestic supply chains when the government awards infrastructure grants. The idea is to expand public transit and rail services using domestic manufacturers. Brown expects that 27,600 transit buses, 4,000 passenger rail cars and locomotives, and 220 light-rail cars will need replacing over the next six years. If all of that production went on inside the United States, it would be a significant boost to the economy, he argues.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, are cheering Brown's emphasis on mass transit and rail. Those investments reduce traffic congestion and reduce the carbon-burning toll on the environment. In a nutshell, Brown's proposal is a win-win-win for environmental, labor, and manufacturing groups. (The only trouble for anyone advocating such investments is that it costs money.)

Setting aside the cost of such investments for a moment, can there be a solid marriage between environmentalists, domestic-manufacturing advocates, unions, and the transportation community? Does it make sense for separate coalitions like this to come together to advocate for infrastructure investment? Is Brown right that investments in mass transit and rail are big job creators? Can highway maintenance be considered under the "green jobs" banner? Are domestic manufacturers a viable option for developers of high-speed rail or other transit products?

3 responses: Gabriel Roth, Laura Barrett, Douglas R Waggoner

The Congressional Budget Office offered lengthy, detailed (and dry) testimony last week that outlined the options for paying for highways. Limiting spending to the amount garnered from the current fuel tax would result in $13 billion less per year than the current amount, CBO said. Spending enough to maintain the current performance of the highway system would require about $14 billion more per year than current levels. Funding projects whose benefits exceed their costs requires more than just maintenance, meaning federal annual spending would have to double, to about $94 billion annually.

The figures provide a good backdrop for a story that really isn't about numbers--it's about trust in government. Democrats and President Obama say investments in infrastructure can do nothing but help the economy. But Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, adequately summed up Republicans' skepticism: "There is a lot of rebranding going on over on the left. What used to be called 'raising taxes' is now called 'shared sacrifice.' And what used to be called government spending has now been dubbed 'investments.' "

For policymakers to actually choose among the options laid out by CBO, they have to get past the doubts about spending expressed by Republicans. Can they do it? Would it be easier if the money was designated entirely to the states? (CBO notes that 80 percent of federal highway money is allocated for state grants.) Does the highway trust fund system need a complete overhaul (or at least the appearance of it) to win over naysayers like Hatch? Should policymakers take a more serious look at a privately financed toll road system?

4 responses: Laura Barrett, Jack Kinstlinger, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Gabriel Roth

If a city bridge is still standing and the Main Street potholes are filled, does that justify the town's transportation budget? Probably not, at least not now. As states and cities are combing through their budgets in search of extraneous fat to cut, it will become the job of the transportation departments to outline in detail how they are spending the public's money.

Some states have a long way to go, according to a new report from the Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation, which found that 19 states lack a full array of tools needed to account for the return on investment in their roads, highways, bridges, and bus and rail systems. Of the six commonly accepted transportation goals identified by Pew, most states were up to speed on safety and infrastructure preservation measurements. At least a third of the states didn't have adequate measurements for access, mobility, and environmental stewardship, according to the report.

Focusing just on mass transit, a new report from the Brookings Institution found that only about one-fourth of low and middle-skill jobs and one-third of high-skill jobs are accessible via transit. The takeaway lesson from the Brookings authors is that "transportation leaders should make access to jobs an explicit priority in their spending and service decisions" and "collect and disseminate standardized transit data to enable public, private, and non-profit actors to make more informed decisions."

Is the public entitled to more detail about how transportation dollars are spent? Is it a worthwhile exercise to identify transportation goals and then measure the progress toward them? What benchmarks, if any, should transportation officials identify? Are certain transportation goals (like livability) too difficult to quantify?

6 responses: Joshua Schank, Laura Barrett, James Corless, Pete K. Rahn, Paula J. Hammond, Nathaniel P. Ford Sr.

Summer is approaching, vacations hover just beyond high school graduations, and the cost of fueling up your beach ride is out of control. The price of gas, climbing steadily toward $4 a gallon, is one of the most tangible indicators to voters that the world is on the right or wrong track. High gas prices give fodder to politicians to push any number of public policy fixes, be it oil drilling, tinier cars, or more bike paths.

It's a tired debate. Oil prices are certain to escalate and then crash back down in several more cycles before any transportation policies are implemented to make pump prices less painful. Still, it will be interesting to watch which ideas get the most traction, including how the folks touting alternative transportation will couch their arguments that mass transit and biking save money on gas.

Now that fuel prices are emptying our wallets, is it time to ask whether we are too dependent on our cars? Should commuters have more options for getting around? Are the advocates seeking more bus lanes and parking fees to pave roads actually declaring a war on cars? Does it make sense to talk about alternative transportation in the wake of high gas prices? Or are gas prices and public transit unrelated?

2 responses: Laura Barrett, Phineas Baxandall

The U.S. Conference of Mayors will unveil the results of a survey this week showing that the country's mayors are big fans of transit, and perhaps less so of new highways. The survey will show that most mayors want highway expansion to be a low priority when investing in infrastructure. A majority of mayors also oppose a gas tax increase--the preferred revenue-raising option of the transportation and business communities--unless the money from those taxes goes only to support maintenance of existing roads and bridges and expanded transit like rail, buses, and other public transit. They would oppose a gas tax increase if it were directed at highway expansion.

The gas-tax conversation is theoretical right now, with both President Obama and congressional Republicans on record opposing it. But the mayors' perspective speaks to a broader debate that will bubble up when policymakers start crafting a new surface-transportation bill--where should infrastructure investment go? New highway construction is lucrative and sexy, and thus easier to win political support for it. Road maintenance, by contrast, is boring. Public-transit investments can also cause difficulties because they set up disputes between urban and rural areas.

Are the mayors right that the United States doesn't need anymore new highways? If they are wrong, where should new highway construction take place? If they are right, how should infrastructure spending be allotted among public transit projects and road and bridge maintenance? Does it make sense to devote any gas tax funds to public transportation?

12 responses: James Corless, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Laura Barrett, Greg Cohen, Robert L. Darbelnet, Douglas R Waggoner, Phineas Baxandall, Joshua Schank, Mortimer L. Downey, Bob Poole, Gabriel Roth, Rich Sarles