“Skepticism” about transportation infrastructure investments may be the order of the day in the current frenzy of budget-cutting (at least among Republicans). But Sen. Hatch’s quips don’t change the fact that 82 of Americans want more transportation options, including 79% of rural voters. Nor does it change the fact that transportation investments—especially in public transportation—have been shown time and again to be a powerful engine of job creation and economic growth. That’s why transportation has long been an area of bipartisan cooperation and compromise. And underlying all the practical benefits is the fact that transportation investments help forge the commitment to community that made America possible.

As far as trust in government does, there are real reasons why it’s lower than it has been in the past. That doesn’t negate the need for it, any more than skepticism about seat belts negates the fact that they save lives, or skepticism about religion negates the transformative power of faith.

The reality is that there are some decisions that shape our national transportation system that are best in the hands of federal authorities. Others are best in state or local hands. But all of them need to respond to the needs and voices of the communities they are sworn to serve.

Without federal direction and oversight, there would be no way to stop ill-planned state transportation projects from harming low-income and people of color. (The Federal Transit Administration has intervened repeatedly over the last few years to prevent this from happening.) Without federal oversight and direction, there would be no way to monitor whether the billions of dollars in federal transportation funds that states allocate are offering equal opportunity for all contractors and workers, or whether they are being siphoned into an old boys network that locks out minority and female entrepreneurs and workers. And let’s not forget that without federal direction and oversight, we would have no interstate highway, rail, or aviation system.

One decision that needs to be in local hands, though, is whether to use federal transit funds for day-to-day operations or capital expenses. The transit agencies that connect millions of Americans with jobs, health care, education, and opportunity are in crisis, and they need local control over how to use federal funds. TEN is very glad that the White House’s proposed transportation bill allows greater local control of transit funds. That local control needs to stay in whatever version of the bill becomes law.

Anyone , like Senator Hatch, who begins his argument by labeling differing views as "left", "liberal" or "right" has lost credibility with me.
Of course investments in infrastructure can do nothing but help the economy.We have benefited from public infrastructure expenditures for centuries, beginning with the Erie Canal, transcontinental railroads, and interstate highway system. The federal government and states have developed highly skilled staff and procedures to initiate, manage and operate transportation systems for generations and we need to build on that superlative record and enhance the system, not dismantle it as the naysayers propose.

The Senate Finance Committee hearing last week shined a spotlight on the current debate raging around surface transportation investments and displayed just how divided the two sides of the aisle have become on an issue that was once bipartisan. Unfortunately, while Congress continues to debate, the nation’s infrastructure continues to deteriorate. In order for Congress to make these necessary investments the public must trust their legislators and be willing to accept new ways to pay for a shared system. Congress and the Department of Transportation should work to reform the current system including program consolidation, development of performance metrics, and additional revenue to address the investment gap.

There are some who may argue that designating all highway and transit funds to the states, without federal government mandates, is the best solution, yet this course of action would be counter to the national highway system that President Eisenhower envisioned. The federal government does have a constitutionally mandated role to play in surface transportation investment.

Increasing the motor fuels tax to meet the documented system needs will ensure the near term viability of the Highway Trust Fund. However, the long term viability is dependent on an overhaul of the program, such as a possible transition to a vehicle miles travelled funding system.

Finally, innovative financing and funding techniques can greatly accelerate infrastructure development and can have a powerful economic stimulus effect compared to conventional methods. This has been the approach in many states where expanded and accelerated transportation investment programs have been successful, however innovative financing cannot replace direct public funding of infrastructure projects.

Democrats are nice people. They love their spouses; their children; their dogs; and their Priuses. They let me see their New Yorkers. So why are their transportation policies not trusted?

One reason might be that they expect federal taxpayers to support hugely expensive policies without assessing their benefits. For example, the Federal Railroad Administration cannot show us a single cost-benefit analysis to support its costly “High-Speed Rail” projects.

So of course policymakers should take a more serious look at privately financed toll road systems. But they first need to give more power to the states. One way to do this would be to “turn back” highway financing to the states, which could then increase private sector roles.

States are closer to taxpayers and travelers, and cannot (yet) print money to avoid budget deficits. So many are more inclined to verify before they spend.

Private investors, who spend their own money, have even stronger incentives to verify. They supply us with necessities such as food, water, and telecommunications, and electronic charging systems will soon enable them to supply all the roads we wish to pay for.