Is transport infrastructure “campaign fodder”? Not at the federal level. Some 98% of person-miles are provided on roads, yet federal priorities seem focused on rail-based services. It is hard to accuse the federal administration of promising to provide what transport users want.

Hence Jack Schenendorf’s pertinent observations that “party politics … are likely … to fall short of addressing national needs”. Yet he opposes “devolution … that would elevate state and local interests over the national interest.” But state interests already dominate the allocation of federal transport funding, which enables them to get other states to fund their weak projects. Is there not a national interest in transport users paying for the facilities they use? There are other national interests in transport, such as standardization and research, but it is not clear that these require federal funding of infrastructure.

Emil Frankel points out that a reauthorization bill is unlikely to be passed by this congress. Does not the difficulty of passing federal legislation, combined with a lack of federal funding, suggest that devolution to the states could be the best way to enable transport users to get the facilities they are prepared to pay for?

We are two and a half years beyond the expiration of SAFETEA-LU, and it is impossible to imagine that a new surface transportation authorization bill will be enacted before the current extension of SAFETEA-LU (its eighth), along with authority for the federal motor fuels taxes, expires on March 31st. Indeed, enactment of a new bill in this Congress seems equally unlikely. These are almost unprecedented circumstances for surface transportation legislation.

Only in the Senate, where the Majority and Minority Leaders and the Chairs, Ranking Members, and Members of the relevant authorizing and revenue-raising committees seem committed to the enactment of a broadly bipartisan surface transportation authorization bill (albeit one for only two years), do the prospects for passage of a bill in this session seem promising.

Unfortunately, neither the Budget proposals of the Obama Administration, nor the actions of the House Leadership have enhanced the prospects for enactment of a surface transportation authorization bill this year. For its part, the Administration never formally introduced its own legislative proposals to reauthorize and reform these programs, nor has the Administration been willing to identify specific and authentic measures to fund fully the surface transportation programs at the levels recommended in the President's fiscal 2012 and 2013 budgets. Thus, despite the President's statements about the importance of transportation infrastructure investment to economic growth and to improving the safety and quality of life for the American people, the Administration appears to have ceded its capacity and opportunity to be a major force, in shaping final surface transportation legislation this year.

In the House of Representatives, for the first time in over fifty years, there has been little apparent effort to fashion a bipartisan surface transportation authorization bill. The core bill, approved on a straight party-line vote in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T & I), has attracted little or no Democratic support and is dependent for House passage on the votes of almost all Republican Members. This is proving to be a considerable challenge for the House Leadership and for the Chair of T & I, and, if any bill is passed by the House, it is almost certain to contain provisions that are unlikely to be acceptable to the Senate or to emerge from a Senate-House conference committee.

As Jack Schenendorf noted in his excellent comments in this blog, the hope for enactment of surface transportation authorization legislation in this Congress rests on all of the principal actors' and leaders' rising above partisan politics in this election year. Unfortunately, I am less sanguine than he that those hopes will be realized. Only, perhaps, in the Senate bill, MAP-21, have we seen the framework of a surface transportation bill and a level of funding around which a bipartisan majority of Congress and the Administration might coalesce. A clear path to such an outcome has yet to emerge.

This week’s question focuses on some of the challenges--such as partisan politics and parochial interests--facing Congress and the Administration as they attempt to enact a multi-year surface transportation bill. Also this week, we just so happen to be celebrating the birthdays of Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, two Presidents who were very much concerned that partisan politics and parochial interests could weaken America and keep it from achieving greatness.

If America is to be great, Presidents Washington and Lincoln believed that we must transcend party politics and overcome narrow self-interests in favor of the common, national good. And they understood the importance of initiatives--like navigation improvements in the case of President Washington and the transcontinental railroad in the case of President Lincoln--that bind the country together, making it stronger, more prosperous and more secure.

We would do well to heed their sage advice. It is not that Congress and the Administration do not know what to do. Commission after Commission, study after study, and report after report have identified the policies and investment necessary to preserve and modernize the Nation’s multi-modal transportation network to ensure U.S. prosperity and global preeminence for generations to come. Moreover, these Commissions, studies and reports have identified ways to make the necessary investment without increasing the deficit or national debt.

But, as the question notes, partisan politics have made it difficult for Congress to move a bill that adequately addresses the Nation’s transportation needs. Given the current political climate, the House and Senate have lowered their sights and are simply trying to invest at or slightly below SAFETEA-LU levels. This level of investment is well below the level necessary to ensure strong economic growth for our families. President Obama, on the other hand, has proposed a significant and much-needed increase in investment, but pays for it with budget gimmickry, a political non-starter. As a result, unless the two political parties come together to put the national interest over party politics, we are likely to wind up with a modest bill that makes some essential policy reforms but falls far short of addressing national needs.

Partisan politics are not the only challenge. Narrow parochial interests are a challenge as well. To ensure our Nation’s well-being, vitality and global economic leadership in the future, we must act soon to modernize our national multi-modal surface transportation network. Yet many members of Congress seem more focused on getting back as much as possible for their states, with little concern for the national interest. Others are advancing a variety of proposals, including devolution, that would elevate state and local interests over the national interest. These proposals, if adopted, would balkanize our national surface transportation network and, in doing so, would weaken America. This is just what Presidents Washington and Lincoln feared.

Congress and the Administration must not let this happen. The House and Senate should pass their separate bills as soon as possible. Then, in conference, they should produce a bill that transcends parochial interests and party politics to promote the national interest and common good. After all, there are no Republican roads or Democratic bridges. There are only American roads and American bridges. A multi-year reauthorization bill reflecting this principle must be enacted soon.

The President's proposed budget for infrastructure is a terrific start to moving our country back on the right path. We need to return to the days of building great bridges and transit systems. Investing in America's infrastructure will put people to work and will rectify the alarming situation that many of our cities and states have fallen into - thousands of people travelling every day on dangerous crumbling systems that aren't as safe as they should be. Of course, when we are talking about putting people to work in construction, we need to think about who gets the jobs. The Missouri Model that Gamaliel and the Transportation Equity Network (TEN) pioneered is a great way to include minority and women workers who might get left behind if the system is left the way it is. The President's original proposal, the American Jobs Act, had a couple of key provisions that would have enhanced the entry of these workers into construction careers: a clarification around the local hiring issue as well as training provisions and assistance for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (minority and women owned businesses). These jobs are critical to the future of women and minorities in the construction industry. TEN's study last year, More Transit = More Jobs, showed that transit is one of the most advantageous investments our country can make. Transit investments actually create more jobs than similar investments in road building. We not only need to invest in infrastructure - we need to invest wisely in systems that will actually make a difference in people's everyday lives. Transit will not only provide construction jobs, it will get other workers to their jobs more efficiently as well. Investing in public transit is a win for everyone associated with it.