June 2011 Archives

June 29 marks the 55th anniversary of President Eisenhower's signing of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. The statute created the Highway Trust Fund, which was designed to pay for 90 percent of highway-construction costs. States were required to pay the remaining 10 percent of the costs. Eisenhower considered the project to be one of his most important accomplishments. "More than any single action by the government since the end of the war, this one would change the face of America.... Its impact on the American economy--the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up--was beyond calculation," he said in his memoir.

Today, the surface-transportation funding system waits in limbo for a congressional reauthorization; revenue from the gas tax is slowly declining, and transportation industry participants grouse about unmet infrastructure preservation and maintenance needs. The federal portion of the cost of the Interstate highway system has been paid for in part by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. The taxes haven't always met the need for highway construction. Congress has appropriated almost $35 billion from general Treasury funds to the Highway Trust Fund since 2008.

How far have we come since this first highway bill? Is the highway system now true to Eisenhower's vision of a workable, free, transcontinental roadway? Are there new technological or demographic changes since 1955 that should be incorporated into the surface-transportation goals? If Eisenhower was alive now, what would you tell him about his proudest domestic accomplishment?

8 responses: Robert L. Darbelnet, James Corless, Terry O’Sullivan, Gabriel Roth, Rob McCulloch, Laura Barrett, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., John Horsley

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., last week came up with a pretty cool way to unveil an idea that he has been tossing around for some time. His policy proposal, which comes as no surprise, is to separate Amtrak from the Northeast Corridor and open the heavily trafficked route up to private competition. The public rollout of the proposal was unique--part town hall, part press conference--a Webcast and teleconference operated out of the committee room in front of a live audience.

Mica's bill would create a competition for high-speed and intercity passenger-rail service and infrastructure contracts, to be run out of the Department of Transportation. It is designed to lower the proportion of taxpayer subsidies that goes toward rail, but it is really a direct repudiation of Amtrak. Mica has been highly critical of Amtrak for years, arguing that it is costly and discourages private investment.

The privatization plan was immediately criticized by Amtrak and others who say it would destroy passenger rail. This proposal has been suggested before and it doesn't work, the critics said. But Mica, who is unusual among Republicans for actually liking rail, says it is high time other companies got in on the passenger-rail game; if they can do it better, and cheaper, why shouldn't they be given the chance?

With government budgets strained to their breaking points, does Mica's proposal make sense now, even if it hasn't in the past? Are there areas where public-private partnerships legitimately can shift the burden away from taxpayers to provide passenger rail? Have private-sector companies been shut out of the passenger-rail business as a result of Amtrak? Are there elements of Mica's plan that can be put into place separating Amtrak from the Northeast Corridor?

9 responses: Fawn Johnson, Ed Wytkind, Steve Van Beek, Laura Barrett, Emil H. Frankel, Gabriel Roth, Fawn Johnson, Fawn Johnson, Gabriel Roth

This week, the Bipartisan Policy Center will release recommendations to fund transportation programs based on performance measures, with the idea that money can be spent more efficiently if a cost-benefit analysis is a central component of the decision-making process. If it's a familiar refrain, that's because the Department of Transportation also is honing some of its grant programs to fund the projects that offer the biggest bang for the buck. The White House's idea is to model transportation projects after the Education Department's Race to the Top program, which uses federal incentives to get states to come up with the best ideas to run and maintain their programs.

It won't be easy. Bipartisan Policy Center Transportation Advocacy Director JayEtta Hecker told the Senate Banking Committee last month that "a performance‐driven approach will challenge entrenched interests and require government institutions at all levels to change longstanding practices and ways of doing business." A performance-based transportation funding system also will require a strong federal presence, one that can "support for comprehensive testing and refining of outcome‐oriented national metrics," Hecker said.

With budgets so tight that governors and mayors must choose between filling potholes and repairing schools, is the country finally ready for a merit-based system of funding transportation? Are there good measurements available to determine which projects offer the best economic return? Can policymakers ask the right questions to ensure that the best projects receive the funding they need? What are the appropriate questions to ask about transportation projects? Are there situations when a cost-benefit analysis doesn't make sense?

6 responses: Robert L. Darbelnet, Steve Van Beek, Emil H. Frankel, Laura Barrett, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Greg Principato

I have been interviewing staffers on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as part of a broader project for National Journal magazine profiling "Hill People." To a person, Republican and Democratic staffers on the committee say they want to see a six-year surface-transportation reauthorization bill completed this year. Everyone knows that's a tall order. It's already June. There are few options to pay for the proposal because of Republican mandates on spending and taxes. The earmark ban further complicates the endeavor.

It is significant, however, that no one disagrees with the overall goal. With a green light from House leaders, staffers could soon find themselves happily horse-trading the bill's details over pizza and Diet Coke. The only question is how they would narrow their focus, given the tight budget constraints. Smart Growth America may have provided one clue that could inch the committee down the yellow brick road. A report released last week found that between 2004 and 2008, states spent 43 percent of total road construction and preservation funds on the repair of existing roads, while the remaining 57 percent of funds went to new construction.

It's more cost effective to focus on the repairs, even though they may not win mayoral or city council elections. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that every $1 spent to keep a road in good condition avoids $6 to $14 needed later to rebuild the same road once it has deteriorated significantly.

Is there a grand bargain to be struck here? Could a focus--mandated from Congress--on repair and maintenance, instead of new construction, reduce the cost of a surface-transportation bill such that the legislating process could begin in earnest? Would Republicans and Democrats embrace that idea equally? What are the drawbacks? Why does maintenance get ignored by states and cities? What is the appropriate role for new construction in a tight budget situation?

10 responses: Robert L. Darbelnet, Parris N. Glendening, James Corless, Laura Barrett, Geoff Anderson, Phineas Baxandall, Greg Cohen, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Jack Kinstlinger, Rich Sarles