Today, December 21, 2012, is the end of the world. At least according to the Mayan calendar. But certainly not because of the so-called fiscal cliff.

For millennia, enlightened people everywhere have waited in anticipation for the coming of the winter solstice. It marks the beginning of the end of darkness; it marks the beginning of a six-month expanse of time when the hours of daylight increase with each passing day.

I believe the amount of daylight is growing for those who are serious about investing in transportation infrastructure – never mind the Mayan calendar or the fiscal cliff. More and more states, cities and regions are looking at all the tools in the toolbox -- taxes, tolling, road user charges -- to help solve their transportation funding and mobility needs.

As negotiators in Washington contemplate the fiscal cliff – and ignore the promise of new light – it's useful to consider the wisdom of farmers who use the downtime of winter as an opportunity to invest before the next growing season and harvest. Below is an excerpt from a December 2010 Fiscal Times column by economist Mark Thoma. He suggests that we use this economic winter as a time for robust government investment, not belt tightening, especially on critical infrastructure:

"Farmers face a yearly crop cycle that has a lot in common with business cycles. There is a boom period in the spring, summer, and fall when there never seem to be enough people or hours in the day to do everything that needs to be done. And there is also a down period – call it a recession – in winter.

"The very best farmers are not idle during the winter. They use this time to repair equipment, expand capacity, and do other things to get ready for the next year’s planting and harvesting. In the spring, summer, and fall it is too costly to do these things because there is so much else to do, but in the winter there is lots of labor and equipment available for such tasks. This often requires farmers to take on new debt and pay it off after harvest, but farmers who take advantage of downtime to get ready for whatever the coming growing and harvest season might throw at them have an advantage over those who mostly remain idle during this time.

"Boom times and recessions for entire economies are much the same. During boom times it is very costly to divert resources to construction and repair of the infrastructure necessary to promote economic growth. But during the economic winter, i.e. in recessions, when large quantities of labor, equipment, and raw materials are idle, the cost of such activities is relatively low. Governments that take advantage of this will be in a better position to compete in the global economy than governments that allow labor and other resources to sit idle waiting for things to improve. It does require an increase in the deficit, but if we follow the farmers’ lead and pay off the debt during boom times – something we’ve had trouble doing – we will be better off.

"No matter what the government does, it will take longer than we’d like for the economy to reemploy its unused resources. But the government can help things along by taking advantage of the availability of low-cost labor and raw materials, rock bottom interest rates that make the cost of borrowing very low, and lots of infrastructure needs offering big benefits in transportation, environmental abatement, water and sewage systems, electrical grids, digital technology, and other areas. It is easy to find projects where the expected benefits far exceed the expected costs.

"Political gridlock makes it unlikely that we can avoid leaving resources idle when there is so much that needs to be done and so many people are looking for work. Worse, deficit reduction based upon a false belt-tightening analogy that puts even more labor and resources on the sidelines is a mistake we should try to avoid."

Emil points out that, in times of financial scarcity, it is even more important to use federal capital efficiently, and to invest in programs that bring in the greatest benefits and the highest economic returns. How right he is!

But, additionally, might there be other funding sources that could be tapped to provide facilities for which users would be willing to pay? Cannot states raise fuel taxes for dedicated road funds? Cannot IBTTA members provide tolled facilities, the tolls being paid electronically without vehicles having to stop? And express toll lanes, with tolls being varied to ensure desired traffic speeds at all times?

As for air traffic control, could we not follow Canada and privatize it? Nav Canada was praised by the International Air Transport Association as “a global leader in the efficient implementation and reliable delivery of air traffic control procedures and technologies”. Should we not be studying the Canadian experience?

And might not facilities financed by users (rather than by taxpayers) be more likely than federal funding to meet Emil’s efficiency criteria?

While federal transporation funding is less directly affected by the looming "fiscal cliff," there could be impacts on transportation, resulting from the outcomes of broader policy considerations of budget deficits, spending cuts, and comprehensive tax reform. Despite the existence of a dedicated revenue stream, a trust fund, and contract authority -- all of which makes most federal transportation funding largely immune to the direct impacts of the sequestration, scheduled for January 1, 2013 -- a condition of constrained public resources for infrastructure investment is likely to remain the dominant "fact of life" for the transportation sector for many years.

For the foreseeable future, the level of transportation funding is likely to remain stagnant, as the proceeds of federal motor fuels taxes, on which surface transportation programs depend, decline. Over the last three or four years almost $35 billion has been transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), in order to keep HTF solvent, and to maintain the program levels authorized by SAFETEA-LU. For the 27-month life of MAP-21, another almost 20 billion is to be similarly transferred from the general fund to HTF. In the current fiscal situation, it is difficult to imagine that further such transfers can be sustained.

Despite these fiscal pressures, investment in the nation's infrastructure (including, but not limited to, transportation assets and networks) is critically important to the economic recovery, on which the nation's competitiveness, long-term job growth, and fiscal balance ultimately depend. However, adequate investment requires the establishment of sustainable, user-based revenue streams for transportation. To that end, discussion of extending and increasing (and indexing) the federal gasoline tax should be part of the discussions of a fiscal "grand bargain," as recommended by both the Simpson-Bowles Commission and, more recently, by the Domenici-Rivlin debt reduction task force of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). These discussions should also be the forum for the consideration of the long-term replacement of the gasoline tax with more sustainable, reliable, and appropriate mileage-based user fees.

Will establishment of sustainable revenues be part of the discussions over the fiscal cliff and of the grand bargain in the next few months? If it is not, we are unlikely to see these issues addressed by the Administraion or Congress in the next year or two. That political reality makes it more important, than ever, that the new Congress build on the performance-based reforms of MAP-21, as it considers the new surface transportation authorization legislation that will be necessary on the expiration of MAP-21 on September 30, 2014.

While we cannot do more with less, it is urgent that we do better with the public capital that will be available for transportation infrastructure investment in the next few years and that we invest in those programs and projects that will bring the greatest benefits and economic returns. Like the establishment of sustainable revenues for transportation investment, the principles of goals, outcomes, performance, and accountability need to become the key elements of federal transportation programs, even in -- indeed, especially in -- an environment of scarce resources. That is the new reality.