Just looking at some of the items on the APTA web site's list of recent analyses makes me shudder:

• Nearly Three in Four Private Sector Transit Businesses' Activity Decreased or Remained Flat Due to Lack of Public Transit Investment
• Nearly 80 Percent of Public Transit Systems Forced to Implement Fare Increases or Service Cuts Due to Flat or Decreased Local and State Funding

And of course we're all aware of the state of disrepair on portions of the road network and - dangerously - the bridge network. I remain hopeful that support for federal programs that can help remedy that is strong enough that it will trump the simple-minded, overly rigid doctrine that seems to prevail among some in Congress right now that the only way to deal with government is to shrink it and drown it in a bathtub.

Senator Whitehouse of the EPW Committee broke out a compelling analogy during their hearing about transportation in July, comparing the nation to a homeowner facing a leaky, broken roof. A smart homeowner would realize that repairs should be made right away, even if it required borrowing money. Putting it off -- and a contractor working on my house's Irene-damaged roof at this very minute told me he faces such tales of woe sometimes -- means more extensive and expensive work at a later date.

Senator Whitehouse pointed out that most people realize there's a difference between such repairs and, say, a fun trip to Disney World. Not all spending is the same. But too many Members of Congress don't realize that or set the realization aside for political purposes.

However, at the end of the day, in spite of all the ideological noise and haze, I remain hopeful that a penny-wise but pound-foolish approach to infrastructure won't prevail.

While the science of predicting many natural events such as hurricanes, floods and earthquakes continues to benefit from new technology, many of the techniques for monitoring critical infrastructure remain grounded in the 20th century or even earlier. The challenge of sustaining our critical transportation infrastructure from the local to the global level will require new technology. In essence, this means supplementing periodic or post-incident physical inspections with more accurate and cost effective instrumentation of these assets with sensors that monitor vibrations, stress, and above all, fractures and faults that could require costly repairs if not addressed--or worse.

The data from these sensors can be combined with predictive analytics that can assess the potential for problems before they happen. This will provide operations centers – and senior government officials, technical experts, industry leaders and the public -- with accurate, better-than-real-time information on the condition of these assets following either natural or human-caused event. They can make informed decisions at all levels that both protect life and property, while also ensuring that transportation operations across all modes are not disrupted by unneeded closures and that repair and recovery efforts can be directed at assets that most need attention. Of further importance, digital infrastructure monitoring systems can collect and store useful data over the lifecycle of an asset that can be essential in maintaining that it, as well as understanding how these assets are collectively affected by both normal wear and extraordinary events. With that data, combined with the scientific information about predicting events, the costs associated with infrastructure can be driven down, which is good news in the current economy and, even better news, as prosperity drives further investment in our transportation network.

Politicians on opposite sides of the aisle in Washington agree on very little these days. One of the very few things on which both Democrats and Republicans generally agree on, however, is that the current condition of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is not good and needs to be improved. Obviously, disagreement appears very quickly and visibly when the specifics of how much to spend, how to pay for it, what is the federal role, etc., are discussed. But given that most basic mutual recognition that transportation infrastructure is not where it should be, I am optimistic that the authorization and gasoline tax will be extended beyond the current expiration September 30.

But beyond that immediate deadline, several of the points made in Robert Crandall’s response are particularly important to note and further discuss as Congress ponders what to do about reauthorizing the transportation program.

First, his noting that the United States is now ranked #15 in terms of economic competitiveness globally, dropping precipitously from our #1 ranking just six years earlier. The condition and inadequacies of our transportation infrastructure, especially at and connecting to America’s ports on the land-side and water-side, significantly impact the international competitiveness of U.S. produced goods and commodities. We no longer are in a position where we can simply assume and expect that the U.S. will remain a leader in world trade. Trade, and the jobs that go with it, can and will pass us by (both literally and figuratively) if our infrastructure does not enable us to be competitive internationally.

Second, his pointing out that allowing the gasoline tax to lapse would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs due to less infrastructure spending and the resultant economic activity. Even those significant job losses understate what is fully at stake as our competitiveness wanes, putting at risk many of the over 13 million jobs related to the cargo moving through U.S. seaports.

Third, his view that “these are investments we cannot afford to forego.” I strongly agree. Like we as individuals and families do when budgets get tight, having a considered and serious discussion of what is necessary spending, what we can or must cut back on, and recognizing what actually helps our bottom line, is certainly a reasonable exercise for the federal government to do given the ongoing federal deficit and budget debates.

Such a considered review would recognize that America’s seaports and connecting infrastructure are integral to our economy and jobs. Reducing federal investments in port related infrastructure would be detrimental for our country, both in the short and long term. This federal “spending” is essential and pays dividends through increased trade and job creation, as every additional $1 billion in exports creates 15,000 jobs. In addition, this trade generates over $200 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue and Customs duties. Let’s make sure we recognize a “golden goose” and a “cash cow” when we see it and not wait for another earthquake to make us look for them

On September 30, unless Congress acts to extend it, the 18.4 cent Federal gasoline tax will expire. It’s hard to imagine an overt act more immediately damaging to our economy or more inconsistent with our long term economic needs.

The tax, which has not been raised since 1983, is clearly inadequate. In 2008, the Highway Trust fund – which is the fund intended to support transportation improvements in the U. S. – ran out of money. Spending from the Trust Fund has exceeded revenues since 2002. Although Congress has plugged the gap with revenues from the General fund, it has failed to come up with an integrated plan – and a funding program –to assure adequate maintenance of our existing assets and provide the improvements needed to assure competitive capabilities in the years ahead.

Allowing the gasoline tax to lapse would, among other things:

· Encourage people to drive more, thus worsening the already severe congestion that irritates us all – and costs more than $100 billion annually in extra fuel costs.

· Increase our negative trade gap, and increase our energy dependence

· Cost lots of jobs. $1billion in infrastructure spending supports about 25,000 jobs; if the tax lapses and we stop spending, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be in immediate jeopardy.

· Accelerate the already severe deterioration of existing bridges and highways

It’s hard to understand why anyone would even consider allowing the tax to lapse. Americans pay far less for gasoline than driver’s in other countries, and much less in fuel taxes as well. The recent Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended an immediate 15 cent per gallon increase in the tax; others have suggested more substantial increases. Everyone except politicians seeking votes seems to agree that our infrastructure needs immediate and substantial help.

It is clear that it does – and that the needed help will cost lots more than another 15 cents a gallon at the pump. In 2008 the national Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission – a Congressional creation – recommended spending at least $225 billion annually, far more than we now spend. Various estimates put the bill for deferred maintenance of our highways and bridges in the neighborhood of $2 trillion.

In addition to needing lots more maintenance on our roads and bridges, we also need an integrated plan to upgrade and expand our capabilities in many areas. We need a plan that measures the adequacy of our highways, mass transit capabilities, airports, ports, communication systems, energy transmission systems, waste facilities, water systems, hospitals, law enforcement facilities and educational assets against those of other countries – and that provides for the many and substantial improvements needed to put the U. S. back in a position of leadership.

Around the world, our competitors are spending far larger shares of GDP on infrastructure improvements than the U. S. Brazil, India and China, are reportedly spending more than $1trillion annually! And we are clearly falling behind.

In 2005, the World Economic Forum rated the U. S. # 1 in economic competitiveness; today, we are ranked #15. Unless we fix the problem, we’ll rank even lower in the years ahead.

Solving the problem is a necessity if we want the country and our kids to have a satisfactory future– and stepping up to that necessity also represents an opportunity to solve one of today’s major problems. If Congress and the President were to come up with a national infrastructure plan this fall, and fund it at just $200 billion annually for the next ten years, we’d generate about 5 million new jobs.

Although it is clear that $200 billion will not be sufficient to meet the competitive challenge being mounted by others, it will be enough to provide a big chunk of the roughly 12 million jobs we’ll need during those ten years to put the currently unemployed back to work and provide opportunities for new workers. Moreover, the economic activity created and facilitated by that infrastructure investment will drive GDP growth, create lots of additional employment opportunities and – hopefully – provide the resources needed to build the capabilities not included in the initial plan.

Some will doubtless say we can’t afford it. In my view, these are investments we cannot afford to forego. Moreover, since we have spent or committed between $3 and $5 trillion during the last ten years in Iraq, Afghanistan and other military adventures – spending which has produced nothing and has yielded neither assets nor infrastructure to support our future growth – I just don’t buy the argument that we can’t find a way to finance the assets and capabilities needed to assure a decent future for our kids and grandkids.