Congress needs to take a fresh and thorough look at how transportation dollars are managed. In this time of fiscal austerity, if not pending financial crisis, discipline and focus must drive systemic reforms. And the sooner such reforms come, hopefully within two years, the better.

A new chairman certainly can and should transform the House Transportation Committee. We should all wish Rep. Shuster the best and work with him to take a fresh and thorough look at transportation issues.

For starters, Congress should mandate that state and regional agencies document how efficiently they are spending funds, and managing operations through an independently audited performance scorecard system. A national benchmarking system could serve as guard rails to keep funding and performance in line.

In both Washington and at state and regional transportation agencies, we need leaders focused on and independent, verifiable, performance-oriented data. Today, unfortunately many such decisions are based on ideology, their personal preference of government managers, or simply

A new gas tax is regressive and especially harmful during a slow economy. Before instituting this burden on taxpayers, Congress should first insist that the $120 billion being spent in conjunction with this past summer’s transportation act be spent as sensibly as possible.

A national benchmarking system for transportation agencies would transparently scrutinize how funds are being used and reward the best performers.

With the benchmarking system, agencies would be placed in groups with similar organizations in terms of the size of the service population and geographic location. An independent auditor would determine how efficiently each agency is performing and using funds and rank them against peers.

Such a practice would be a wake-up call for more efficient spending – and better transportation service.

The Simpson-Bowles report already supports this approach. It says, “Before asking taxpayers to pay more for roads, bridges, and infrastructure, we must ensure existing funds are not wasted. The Commission recommends significant re

Beyond sizable and important investments in physical infrastructure for transportation, we need to take a fresh look at the optimal ways transportation agencies function – the “people infrastructure” issues which are critical to transportation agencies. By having efficient, high-performing, accountable organizations -- which avoid a duplication of work, improve productivity, and are structured to meet transparent and compelling goals, transportation agencies can have dramatic impact on the nation’s overall infrastructure debate. Focus on managerial infrastructure provides better service for customers and vital support for the communities they serve.

We not only can protect workers and innovation – we must. This also applies to the public sector workforce in transportation as well.

Today and in the years ahead, as fiscal challenges and budget cuts loom, it will be more important than ever to find ways to do things better and more efficiently. Unions can, and have, been part of constructive solutions in this regard. Whether it is rank and file employees, or even senior union leaders, I have seen this flexibility – this openness to innovation -- when fair and innovative proposals are put forth.

Let’s also not forget about transit management needing to be innovative. Today, it is very important that they be flexible, and be ready to be held accountable by clear, transparent performance metrics.

Earmarks are simply part of the allocation process that determines how public funds are spent.

Banning earmarks by elected officials simply increases the power and authority of the executive branch — often un-elected bureaucrats – to determine how to dispense those dollars.

The decision is whether to allow elected representatives – most of whom live or visit those communities – or staff people who predominantly work in Washington, D.C. to set priorities.

The answer, interestingly enough, is neither scenario on its own makes good sense. We must design a hybrid approach whereby the subject matter expertise of talented staff in federal agencies participate in the decision making process, balancing this with the views of the elected representatives of the people who are part of those communities. Clearly there is a way to integrate those two valuable banks of knowledge in the funding allocation process so we get the best results.

This topic will serve great value if it is a catalyst for a broader and much overdue public discussion about how the performance and effectiveness of government transportation agencies can be measured and improved.

Regardless of one’s ideology or political party we should all be able to agree that transportation agencies should operate at the high standards of performance. We should be able to transparently monitor actual performance against pre-established goals. Such management is common in the private sector. Unfortunately, most public transportation agencies do not have a set of weighted metrics to determine how well they are doing, let alone ones that set annual goals and invite transparency to compare their performance with agencies of similar size and mission. In 2011, I appeared before the House Transportation Committee that Rep. Mica chairs to discuss and advocate for competitive benchmarking and evaluation. The recently passed federal transportation act, in fact, obligates transit agencies to report on their performance. Transportation agencies must