Chairman' Mica's bill provides funding that is grossly inadequate. He should be praised for the long awaited programmatic changes, but his timidity in proposing an increase in gas taxes is infuriating. He has become captive to House extremists who don’t understand the difference between spending and investment. Recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans and even a majority of Republican voters support a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases to meet our fiscal challenge.

Mica’s statement ,” a continuation of deficit spending and General Fund transfers will destroy the dedicated user-fee based Trust Fund” totally ignores the possibility of revenue increases.

On the one hand, the transportation cuts mean that state and local jurisdictions would have to innovate in order to pay for roads or new highway infrastructure, likely turning to road and congestion pricing. With a consequent cost of driving somewhat closer to its true cost to society, people would have more information when choosing about their means of getting around.

There are some other positives. The plan seeks to broaden TIFIA and RIIF participation, which would make it easier for rail and transportation infrastructure projects to obtain low-interest loans. The draft also includes a maritime component to support domestic shipbuilding. This provision would expand short-sea shipping, a possible alternative to truck transport that could cut congestion and pollution.

However, overall the bill would ditch far too much needed investment by cutting highway and mass transit funding by one-third. Lack of strategic investment is short-sighted and the consequences of this are even greater in the context of a 6-year versus a 2-year bill. We must direct funds to bridges, roads, and infrastructure that are in critical and crumbling conditions to ensure that we can move our people, goods, and services safely and efficiently.

And of course a 35 percent cut in transportation spending jeopardizes jobs. Greater public and private investment in public transportation can create new construction jobs, provide affordable access to transit, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Without boosting the level of such investments, we’re exceedingly likely to find ourselves worse off in 6 years than we are today.

The bill does stipulate that new transportation projects must meet quantifiable performance measures. I can’t underscore enough the importance of requiring that states are accountable for high standards for economic, environmental, and social equity. In our current fiscal climate, such performance management can leverage limited dollars, yielding crucial long-term returns on investment for our families and our future.

The most essential components of Mica’s bill have yet to be revealed. While there is much focus on the overall funding level, this reduction in spending came as no surprise to anyone. Chairman Mica has made clear for months that the existing political environment makes it impossible for him to pass a bill at current spending levels, much less the higher levels so desperately needed. The more interesting unknown is how well Mr. Mica’s bill will ensure wiser, more performance-based transportation investment.

What we do know is that the “summary” Mica released indicates an intention to move towards a consolidated federal program where grantees are held accountable for performance. If this means performance with respect to national goals and outcomes, these goals are clearly articulated, and a process is put in place to allow for substantial work on developing the appropriate metrics, tools, and data, then this bill will be an essential leap forward. If instead performance turns out to be more rhetoric than reality, with no clear national goals, and an emphasis on outputs such as ridership and pavement condition, then this bill will likely not be worth supporting.

Funding levels matter. But right now, improving our return on investment matters more. We need to make sure that whatever funds we do have are invested wisely, in accordance with clearly articulated national purposes. This will give us the opportunity to make a more effective case for maintaining a robust federal surface transportation program.

The best an analyst can say about the bill is that it gets the legislative process moving and provides an opportunity to ultimately pass multi-year legislation. Stability is not a virtue, however, if what we create is a stable, underfunded infrastructure program that sacrifices future economic growth and shortchanges the generations to come.

I agree that TIFIA expansion is a great idea and I also agree that we need to incentivize more PPPs. For the latter to occur, however, we need to depoliticize PPPs and move to standard concession agreements that begin building a national market. These changes and those referenced by Secretary Mineta are positive, but represent a fraction of what our policymakers need to accomplish.

Let’s start with the fact that the current economic climate should not be a deterrent to a bigger program; in fact, it should be a driver for it. We seem to forget that for years we have a program funded by users with the revenues held in trust. I agree with ASCE that the fact that politicians have not shown the leadership to shore up the trust fund and provide adequate funding levels doesn’t mean we should let them off the hook or stop our advocacy. An increase in gas taxes or other new revenues is the right thing to do for mobility, for the environment and, yes, for jobs (with unemployment, especially among construction workers at unacceptable levels).

This irresponsibility remains a multi-modal issue as well. We are now approaching our 21st short-term extension of the FAA and its programs. This almost four-year testament to legislative inaction has created a great deal of uncertainty especially for the constituencies for FAA’s capital programs (e.g., airports and proponents for NextGen) that like state DOTs and transit agencies, require adequate funding levels and multi-year stability to plan capital investments.

This week the Fed said that more stimulus was necessary to increase demand in the economy. What better way to accomplish that than investing in our country?

Let me join former Secretaries of Transportation Norman Mineta and Sam Skinner in thanking Chairman John Mica for producing a thoughtful and responsible piece of legislation to address our long-term transportation needs.

As Chairman Mica underscored in his presentation, his Committee’s proposal for a $230 billion six-year bill aligns spending with the amount of revenue expected to be collected, and thus ensures the long-term viability of the Highway Trust Fund. To authorize higher levels of funding would be tantamount to spending money the government does not have and would place the Trust Fund on a path to insolvency.

It is to be hoped that the Senate Finance Committee will come to the same conclusion and join the House in a bipartisan effort to place the federal surface transportation program on a sound fiscal basis. As for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s idea of a (partly-funded) two-year bill, it would deprive states of the funding stability they need for planning major multi-year projects. I have yet to hear a single governor or state transportation official lending support to Sen. Boxer’s proposal. Virginia's Gov. Bob McDonnell, spoke, I believe, for most of his colleagues when he expressed support for the House bill, even though the bill would provide about 17 percent less funding than SAFETE-LU "I would rather have less money and the assurance of long-term funding predictability," one senior State DOT official told me, "than to kick the can down the road for yet another short-term extension."

Former Secretaries of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner co-authored a transportation policy report released late last year by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. The report, titled "Well Within Reach" was a collaborative effort among 80 of the nation's top transportation experts and resulted in a meeting at The White House focused on the importance and future of America's transportation infrastructure.

In last week’s unveiling of the transportation reauthorization bill by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica, we were encouraged to see many of the proposed changes in process that we and the Miller Center at the University of Virginia recommended in Well Within Reach – America’s New Transportation Agenda. But we are discouraged and apprehensive about the low funding levels suggested in the legislation. Quite simply, maintaining our roads and transportation systems is absolutely essential to American competitiveness and economic strength. We can’t get there without the necessary funding, no matter how smooth and streamlined internal processes and projects may become. And, the House bill would spend a lot less money than recommended in our report. The proposed House Bill allocates $35 billion annually, whereas we cite a range of $85-118 billion in annual spending to actually improve our transportation system – a figure reached through consensus and dialogue among the nation’s top transportation experts. Those same experts are also calling on the federal government to adopt accounting methods that both recognize expenditures on transportation infrastructure as investments (rather than consumption) and that also take into account future returns on those investments.

On a more encouraging note, the Center recommendations that were included in the bill include: (1) clarifying federal decision-making power and enhancing the decision-making power of states, localities, and metropolitan-planning organizations; (2) focusing federal efforts on a federal purpose, providing states with greater flexibility to prioritize and implement transportation projects; (3) reforming project planning and review, permitting processes to speed actual implementation; and (4) encouraging public-private partnerships while also improving oversight of such partnerships.

We—and the assembled experts at the Miller Center’s David R. Goode National Transportation Conference held last year—think these reforms get us started on the right track and open the door to further conversations and deliberations about investments needed in America’s transportation infrastructure. We thank Chairman Mica for starting the dialogue and encourage Congress to continue their work on identifying viable, sustainable and adequate solutions to keep our transportation systems bustling.

This response was submitted by former Secretaries of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner

Given the critical importance of transportation to the nation’s economy and safety, the speedy enactment of a multi-year surface transportation bill should be a top legislative priority. AAA appreciates Chairman Mica taking a positive first step towards that outcome with the outline of a bill.

Although details are lacking, AAA welcomes the fact that Chairman Mica proposes to more clearly identify national priorities, consolidate programs where appropriate, improve the delivery time of transportation projects, and transition the program to a more performance-based system. Performance measures will help ensure the wise use of limited resources, not only from the project selection standpoint, but throughout the entire project development process. The statement that highway and motor carrier safety programs will be “held harmless” from any funding cuts is also very encouraging.

Of concern, or course, is the funding level. A 35 percent reduction from SAFETEA-LU spending levels is unacceptable given the immense backlog of maintenance and capacity needs that exist today. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that simply to maintain the current performance of the highway system would require an additional $14 billion per year in further investment. AAA has called on Congress and the Obama Administration to keep all funding options on the table, including an increase in the federal gas tax, to fix our transportation shortfall. Both parties have failed to engage the country in a serious transportation funding discussion.

Chairman Mica’s blueprint is a necessary step in the right direction toward enacting a surface transportation authorization law. However, we await his legislative text in order to fully evaluate the proposal and its potential impact on motorists. The time is right to re-invest in the fundamentals that will help ensure the U.S. can compete in the 21st century economy so that Americans can get to and from their destinations safely and efficiently. The challenges are significant, but enactment of a reformed, more accountable multi-year surface transportation bill is an important step in getting the nation’s transportation system out of neutral.

Few of us in the transportation organizing and advocacy communities found anything to cheer in Chairman Mica's reauthorization proposal. Mica’s committee constantly repeated the mantra of “long-term predictability” during the presentation, as though any six-year bill, regardless of what it contained, would be a step forward.

In reality, the $230 billion that Mica proposed would be a massive step backward. $230 billion over six years is an alarmingly low figure, a starvation diet for a transportation infrastructure system that’s already too weak to stand on its own. Such a bill would throw countless struggling Americans into crisis—especially the transit-dependent—while slowing our economic recovery even further.

The only consolation is that Mica’s proposal was just that: a proposal. It marked out a negotiating position. Unfortunately, that position is one more example of the deluded notion that we can starve our way to economic health. No matter how many Nobel Prize-winning economists refute this notion, it still has much of Washington in a death grip.

In spite of this, there was one glimmer of hope at the hearing where Chairmen Mica laid out his proposal. When the floor opened for questions, TEN's Federal Policy Coordinator Cynthia Jarrold asked Chairman Mica whether his proposal would include workforce development and training programs for low income people—programs like TEN’s Missouri Model. In response, Chairman Mica had nothing but praise for workforce development.

“These programs do work extremely well … they put people in high-paying jobs,” the chairman said. He suggested that they could be added to his proposal: “It’s just an awesome program. Thanks for bringing that up, and we will follow up on that one.”

It rare that a seasoned politician speaks with that much enthusiasm about a program devoted to expanding opportunity for low-income people. We’re very glad that Chairman Mica recognizes that workforce development is a powerful way for hardworking Americans to build lives and careers. We will be working with him to make sure that it’s part of the next transportation bill, whatever the funding level may be.

There’s lots more to fight for, of course. In the coming negotiations, we'll be pushing for more transit funding, sustained resources for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and greater community control over transportation planning. We’ll also be fighting to make sure that “public-private partnership” doesn’t come to mean “fire sale of public assets at laughable prices.” Senator Dick Durbin has led the way on this fight by introducing a bill to prevent the short-selling of publicly owned transportation assets. We at TEN are proud to support that bill.

Chairman Mica's proposal did get us marginally closer to our next long-term transportation bill. That on its own is a good thing. And a chairman who supports workforce development is a good thing. But let’s not pretend that “long-term predictability” is all we need to achieve with this bill. Six years of planned famine might count as being “predictable.” It would also count as a big step backward.

In order to raise the nation’s declining surface transportation grades in ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (Roads, D-; Bridges, C; Transit, D),the nation must be dedicated to making the investments that are required. Leveraging funds, consolidating programs, streamlining project delivery, and incorporating maritime programs are all positive programmatic reforms; however, these reforms without additional funding cannot solve the current infrastructure crisis.

The nation requires strong bi-partisan leadership that will incorporate the compelling programmatic reforms that have been outlined in the House Transportation Reauthorization proposal into an investment package for surface transportation that addresses the investment gap. This should not be a political issue. While ASCE is sympathetic to the current economic climate, pushing off investing today’s infrastructure investments until tomorrow will only engender even greater costs, while also setting back economic advances and job creation for future generations.

The House Republican Transportation Reauthorization proposal will hopefully provide a starting point as legislation is introduced and moves forward. By unveiling the proposal, Chairman Mica has begun the conversation in earnest on Capitol Hill and has allowed debate on funding levels to commence. With many already calculating the potential job losses from a $230 billion package, funding levels should be adjusted in order to stave off a continued economic decline in the transportation construction sector.

I, along with our more than 1500 members, commend Chairman Mica and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their leadership in moving forward with developing a six-year, multi-modal surface transportation authorization bill. While these efforts to expand project financing, streamline project delivery, and simplify federal grant programs are important components of the proposal, the bill’s investment levels, which are strictly limited under the House-passed budget resolution and rules, are drastically short of what is required to address the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure investment needs.

Today’s high gas prices and a slow economy make this no time to implement cuts of more than 30 percent in public transportation funding. This lack of investment in the nation’s public transportation infrastructure will have a chilling effect on our country’s ability to create jobs, as well as provide access to jobs necessary to move the economy forward. One dollar invested in our public transportation infrastructure generates four dollars in economic return.

This proposal would severely underfund critical elements of the federal transit program. The funding will not permit public transit agencies to address the costs of getting existing systems to a state of good repair, which the U.S. DOT has estimated as a one-time cost of $78 billion, let alone meet the growing demand for public transportation services in the United States. It will severely curtail the purchase of new buses and trains, reduce critical maintenance and safety programs, and could cut operating funds for transit systems in small communities and rural areas, leaving many Americans without transportation options.

While we are pleased with Chairman Mica’s efforts to leverage federal dollars through the various financing projects, there is no substitute for actual investment.

We stand firm in our belief and strongly urge Congress to move forward with a bill that increases transportation investment or at the very least, maintains current funding levels.

Unlike numerous critics, I’m generally positive about the reauthorization proposal outlined by T&I Chairman John Mica last week. In fact, I give it two cheers out of three. Of all the various proposals floated during the past two years, it’s the only one that’s fully paid for. Continuing to bail out the Highway Trust Fund with general fund monies is not sustainable—and risks undoing the Trust Fund’s legal status as a user-fee supported entity that can only be used for transportation.

So my first cheer is for Mica’s recognition that in the era of fiscal constraint this country will be in for a generation, we have to sort out roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local governments, not just in transportation but across the board. In transportation, this means refocusing the Trust Fund on what is truly federal: the Interstates and the National Highway System. The federal government can no longer afford to do hundreds of nice-to-have things like sidewalks and bike paths that should be state and local responsibilities.

This is not the end of the world; in fact, by refocusing the federal program in this manner (more on this below), we can actually increase investment in our most vitally important infrastructure. To be sure, this will put a greater burden on states and localities—but they are precisely the bodies that are succeeding, far more than the federal government, in making the case to their voters for increased investment.

My second cheer is that Mica’s approach does, indeed, give states more tools in the toolbox to do just that. The increase in TIFIA, from a bit over $100 million per year to $1 billion per year, will have enormous impact. The federal budget scores TIFIA loans at 10% of face value. Thus, $1 billion/year in budget authority allows $10 billion/year in loans. And if the program retains the current rules (that TIFIA loans be for no more than one-third of project cost, and be subordinate to investment-grade senior debt), that $10 billion would support over $30 billion/year in projects. The two safeguards in parentheses make TIFIA the most performance-based transportation program we’ve ever had, weeding out poorly justified projects in a market-based way. If states take full advantage, their annual federally-assisted investment could be nearly double the $35-40 billion/year in direct federal contract authority.

The reason there is no third cheer is that Mica does not go far enough in giving states self-help tools. His bill would apparently terminate the important tolling and pricing pilot programs from the past three reauthorizations, and take a step backwards by permitting tolling only for new lanes on the Interstates. Far better would be to “mainstream” all of those pilot programs, removing all their numerical limits. In particular, every state should be free to use toll financing to reconstruct aging Interstates, which will otherwise deteriorate as they exceed their 50-year design life. States and metro areas should also be free to use congestion pricing on their urban Interstates, permitted now under the Value Pricing Pilot Program but at risk of abolition under Mica’s narrower approach. The bill should also remove SAFETEA-LU’s $15 billion cap on tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds, to complement the expanded TIFIA program.

With those improvements, Mica’s approach would gain my whole-hearted support as a fiscally responsible, performance-based program.