February 2013 Archives

Being pissed off at the airport is something we all understand, so that's probably why everyone from President Obama to former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles is talking about how much worse it will be for air travelers when automatic budget cuts go into effect on Friday. It's the public's common denominator.

"When you guys have to go out here to Reagan airport and wait in line three hours for security, you're going to be pissed and so is everyone else," said Bowles at a recent Politico briefing.

Yet Congress appears incapable of fending off the "sequestration" cuts, which were part of a debt ceiling deal negotiated a year and a half ago. The cuts will impact all of government; Washington D.C. is bracing for pink slips. In the transportation world, sequestration will add to the already heavy burden being placed on an infrastructure system badly in of upgrading.

No one really knows what's going to happen. If the budget hawks are right, it could be nothing. But if the sequester amounts to anything, the place where the public will see it first is at the airport. The Federal Aviation Administration is looking at $600 million in cuts, with virtually all of their 47,000 employees being furloughed for one day per pay period for the rest of the year. The Transportation Security Administration will experience a $1.27 billion cut under the sequestration plan, which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said would lead to unspecified furloughs.

This isn't the first time we've seen this happen. The transportation community rarely gets its day in the spotlight unless air travel is somehow impacted. Look at the furor that erupted over a partial FAA shutdown in August of 2011, which led to a fairly swift resolution of aviation legislation that had been languishing in Congress for years. By contrast, a similarly stalled highway bill only limped to completion last summer by hitching a ride on a bill that kept student loan interest rates from increasing.

What's going on here? Why is air travel the thing that the public seems to care most about? How can the public's interest in aviation be used to broaden a general understanding of infrastructure? Other than long lines, how will the aviation industry be impacted by sequestration? What about the surface transportation industry?

6 responses: Brigham McCown, Nicholas Calio, Gabriel Roth, Robert L. Crandall, Laura Barrett, Paul Rinaldi

President Obama loves to invest in infrastructure. He has been asking for a $50 billion in "frontloaded" investments to repair bridges and roads for the past four years. The State of the Union address last week was no exception. His latest name for the plan--notice he doesn't use the term "stimulus"--is "Fix It First." The money would be targeted to the most urgent upgrades, "like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country."

Not to be a downer, but Obama is living a fantasy. Congress has consistently rejected this proposal for years. I think he knows it, too, given that "Fix It First" got one sentence in the actual speech.

Republicans were ready with their rejections. Even before Obama's speech, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he hoped the president wouldn't ask for investments. "Every time he uses the word 'investment,' the American people will hear the word 'spending,' government spending," he said.

We have covered this topic on the blog many times. In honor of the SOTU madness, let's do it once more with feeling: Is an immediate investment in infrastructure really important? Would it make more sense to figure out a way to fix our long-term funding needs? What do Obama's consistent requests to Congress do for the overall attention to infrastructure? The White House says there has been progress since Obama first took office--300,000 miles of U.S. roads repaired, 22,000 bridges repaired, and 6,000 miles of rail improved. Did that make a difference?

8 responses: Deron Lovaas, Pete K. Rahn, Ken Orski, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Emil H. Frankel, Jack Kinstlinger, Ken Orski, Jeffrey Shane

Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and Boston rank at the top of the country's worst cities for traffic congestion, according to the most recent urban mobility report from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute.

TTI has lots of ways to measure the costs of congestion, from the number of hours delayed in traffic to the carbon dioxide emission attributed to traffic congestion. This year, the research group introduced a compelling new variable, the Planning Time Index (PTI), which measures the amount of time travelers add on to a trip to meet an important event on time, like a doctor appointment or an airline flight. A PTI value of 3.0 indicates that a traveler should allow three times the actual length of the trip to get their on time--i.e., they would allow 60 minutes for a 20-minute ride in light traffic. (Washington D.C. ranks Number 1 in this category with 5.72, almost three hours designated for a half-hour trip.)

"Washington, D.C., has the dubious distinction of being number one in two areas. It is the capital of partisan gridlock, and now traffic gridlock," observed American Road & Transportation Builders Association President Pete Ruane.

Everyone knows that traffic delays trips, but the report highlights just how variable traffic congestion can be, causing stress and frustration to commuters. The worst trips, the ones you remember, are usually caused by accidents. But other days, the ride can be half as long. "As bad as traffic jams are, it's even more frustrating that you can't depend on traffic jams being consistent from day-to-day. This unreliable travel is costly for commuters and truck drivers moving goods," said Bill Eisele, a TTI researcher and report co-author.

What problems are caused by unreliable traffic patterns, as opposed to more steady gridlock? How can the variability be mediated? How important is transit reliability in easing congestion on the roads? What constitutes "reliable" transit? Are there ways to make congestion patterns more predictable, even if the roads are still crowded? Understanding that budgets are tight, what ideas offer the best bang for the buck in combatting traffic?

6 responses: Deron Lovaas, Fawn Johnson, James Corless, Robert L. Darbelnet, Fawn Johnson, Gabriel Roth

Who knows what the kids are going to come up with next? Some of them think owning a car is a big bother and would rather rent or borrow one. Others don't even have a driver's license! Their smart phones are an extension of their brains, which makes grown-ups cringe when they get behind the wheel. Still, all that connectivity has tantalizing possibilities for modernizing how people get from place to place.

These were some of the thoughts tossed around at National Journal's "Affordable Mobility" policy summit last week, where automobile manufacturers and greenhouse gas emission specialists convened to talk about how to make travel more affordable and environmentally friendly. For the government, it's a delicate dance to nudge the transportation industry towards greener thinking without squelching innovation. And it's even harder to do without dedicated resources. "We can't control what kinds of discoveries are going to come on line," said Mary Nichols, who chairs the California Air Resources Board. "But we need to fix our infrastructure to give us the biggest bang for the buck."

What would a truly cutting-edge transportation system would look like? I imagine computerized traffic management, cars that drive themselves along my commute, elevated buses, automated trains.

The most advanced ideas need an up-to-date transportation grid to be anything but a pipe dream. The automobile industry has come a long way in improving gas mileage for its newer cars, in part because of a productive working relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Mass transit can't make those kinds of improvements without a commitment from government to support their innovations. So far, that commitment is lacking. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., recently told Politico that she wants the soon-to-be-antiquated gas tax to be replaced with a user fee that takes into account newer electric and hybrid vehicles. Good luck with that one, senator.

What are the best new ideas in transit and mobility? What new ideas in transportation are on hold because of outdated or crumbling infrastructure? How would the big ideas in transportation change if innovators were confident that they had government support for their ideas? Are investments in high-tech transit too steep to be worth it? What is a realistic forecast for the future of transit?

2 responses: Emil H. Frankel, Robert L. Darbelnet