July 2011 Archives

A casual viewer at last week's hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would have thought Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., were superheroes for achieving a deal on a surface-transportation bill. "The fact that this committee was able to reach agreement on a bipartisan basis is nothing short of miraculous," said Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. By contrast, House Republicans and Democrats are at loggerheads over a six-year, $230 billion surface-transportation bill.

The Senate outline, yet to be drafted into actual legislation, is the product of compromise. It doesn't please anyone completely, but it's considered better than the alternative of a six-month or one-year stopgap. Because of funding shortages, Boxer and Inhofe had to sacrifice their goal of a six-year bill, settling for a two-year reauthorization. After much back and forth, they also have agreed on language to streamline red tape for transportation projects. Their framework also adds new reporting requirements that will put state transportation departments on the spot to make sure they're meeting deadlines. Funding for bicycle paths and other alternative-transportation forms have been retained in the bill, but with new flexibility that won Inhofe's approval.

How will the Boxer and Inhofe framework impact the conversation about a new surface-transportation bill? How important is it that they compromised? Is a two-year bill a reasonable solution to the budget shortfalls? Or (to borrow a phrase from debt-ceiling talks) are they simply kicking the can down the road? Will the smaller components of the agreement--for example, on bicycle paths and project acceleration--help motivate the larger process of reauthorizing surface-transportation programs.

2 responses: Laura Barrett, Robert L. Darbelnet

Recent research from the Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute in Perth, Australia, confirms that urbanites around the world are using their cars less. This "peak car use" phenomenon is occurring in at least eight major countries. (In the United States, that trend was noticed a few years ago by the Brookings Institution.) In Europe, cities where automobile use actually declined from 1995 include London, Stockholm, Vienna, and Zurich. In the United States, they include Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

Scientifically, no one knows exactly why car use is diminishing, but the Curtin University researchers cite a few theories, including growth of public transportation and high gas prices. The most interesting hypothesis comes from Thomas Marchetti, the researcher who noticed that human beings appear to hit a psychological wall when it takes more than an hour to get to work. Thus, when cities become more than "one hour wide," they stop growing or they become dysfunctional, or both. No matter what the reason, it would appear that the public is rational enough to recognize that they can only use their cars so much. If a reasonable commuting alternative arises, they are likely to use that instead.

If the public is rational about its travel, can the public policy follow their lead? The Curtin University researchers say traffic engineers will have to shift their thinking away from roads that accommodate cars to "road diets," "traffic calming," and other transportation modes. The Infrastructurist posits that public officials should actually fund those activities.

How rational is the public in choosing its commuting devices? Can city planners capitalize on the one-hour commute limit to maximize traffic mobility? Is the "peak car use phenomenon" so unique to developed urban areas that the solutions are fundamentally different than for other places? Are there lessons from big cities on car use that could extend to less densely populated regions?

4 responses: Robert L. Darbelnet, David Pickeral, Michael A. Replogle, Gabriel Roth

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., rolled out a six-year, $230 billion surface-transportation bill last week, and the reviews were, well, negative to mixed. Republicans on the committee said the bill, which would cut current transportation money by about 35 percent, maximizes the value of available funding and provides stability for states that have been living from stopgap to stopgap for the past two years. The measure would dedicate $6 billion to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program, which, in theory, would finance $120 billion in projects. It also would consolidate or eliminate some 70 projects considered duplicative and limit Highway Trust Fund money to just highway spending. In the familiar Republican slant away from federal government, the measure would distribute more than 90 percent of federal highway program funds to states, "allowing state and local transportation officials to prioritize projects."

Democrats hated it. "Based on the funding levels alone, it appears that this bill can best be called the 'Republican Road to Ruin,' " said Transportation ranking member Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. Other Democrats got a few scattered Republicans to join in asking for the Republican sponsors to put forth a "robust" bill instead of the meager measure. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said the funding is "disastrously stingy," and Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, said lawmakers can't keep putting the transportation bill "on the back burner."

Outside lobbying interests were more careful. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials expressed "concerns" about the funding levels, but they also reminded everyone that this is the beginning of the process and it's important to get the ball rolling. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commended Mica for tracking its recommendations in the substance of the bill, but said the funding level is unacceptable. The Laborers' International Union of North America simply said GOP leaders gave up on America.

So where are we? The Republican highway proposal shouldn't be a surprise, given the severe budget constraints that GOP leaders have handed the committee. It also won't pass as written. What in Mica's proposal is salvageable? What is helpful? Does the grand unveiling of the bill actually get the ball rolling and people talking such that lawmakers can agree on a workable number? Is it possible to fund any transportation priorities with $230 billion?

11 responses: Jack Kinstlinger, Deron Lovaas, Joshua Schank, Steve Van Beek, Ken Orski, Norman Mineta, Robert L. Darbelnet, Laura Barrett, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., William Millar, Bob Poole

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made two separate announcements last week about providing funds for transportation projects that cited environmental benefits as their main selling point.

On Monday, DOT announced that 27 transit projects will receive $1.58 billion "that will improve public transportation access for millions of Americans while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and curbing air pollution."

On Wednesday, DOT announced a $101.4 million competitive grant for transit providers, proposing "projects that create 'green' jobs, promote the use of clean fuels and cut our nation's dependence on oil."

Maybe LaHood is on to something. A recent national phone survey from the Mineta Transportation Institute found that the public's meager 24 percent support for a 10-cent-per-gallon gas tax hike rose to 45 percent once respondents were told that the incremental revenue was to be spent on reducing global warming. The acceptance rate rose to 48 percent when respondents were told that the revenue was to be spent on reducing local air pollution.

How can improvements in the nation's infrastructure also improve the environment? How helpful is the environmental argument to promote transportation investment? Should infrastructure advocates and environmentalists combine forces to push for more investment in roads, bridges, railways, and transit? Are there areas of conflict between environmentalists and transportation gurus that would harm such a partnership?

(And thanks for the tip, Infrastructurist!)

2 responses: Gabriel Roth, David Pickeral