Steve Van Beek

Paul Rinaldi is right not to take the bait and directly link the two issues. The sequester is a bipartisan Washington D.C. failure, the latest in a series of irresponsible policy decisions (and lack of decisions) with our nation’s infrastructure. Let’s remember that it was less than 18 months ago when the FAA was partially shut down after yet another policy stalemate.

In the current situation, the FAA is executing the effects of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Why is it hard for Congress and some analysts to understand that it is difficult for an agency to cut halfway through the fiscal year when it (1) has funds that Congress has protected from cuts; (2) has long-term obligations and contracts that cannot be unwound in days or weeks; and (3) has received little to no discretion to make cuts in a responsible way? As a member of the FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC), I have sat through the MAC’s discussions with Paul Rinaldi, other representatives of our industry, the FAA Administrator and the U.S. DOT Deputy Secretary. To a

As usual a good collection of responses. I find myself in 100% agreement with Pat Jones that the real issue is educating the users of transportation that there is no free lunch--we either pay for the transportation infrastructure we use or we will face deteiorating surface, aviation and maritime infrastructure as well as congestion, inefficient use of fossil fuels and unnecessary environmental degradation.

Sure, we can wait for local and state-by-state leadership but that is going to happen anyway. My guess is that in 2013 budgetary pressures will open a window of opportunity for federal leadership, especially on issues where there are practical alternatives to the general fund (as there clearly are with transportation). So let's not let our elected representatives off the hook ("[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes") and insist on their leadership and support them.

We have the opportunity to raise the necessary transportation funding, replace the gas tax AND better utilize market-base

Anyone working in congested metropolitan regions on long-term planning understands that improving passenger rail services is critical to our future mobility and economic growth. In the coming decades we will have a shortage of intercity and national capacity to move people and goods. Rail, properly networked with the other modes, offers a practical and cost beneficial solution in many corridors.

Unfortunately, the nation today continues to pay for years of neglect of Amtrak and passenger rail more generally. Thankfully the past Congress (through finally reauthorizing Amtrak and rail programs) and the current Administration have put rail back on the policy table. This has been a catalyst for many states, freight rail companies, Amtrak and others to work together on practical solutions, the benefits of which will be delivered for years to come.

Most of the critics (including many on the Hill), citing the supposed inefficiencies of HSR, rail or individual projects, are hard to take seriously as they have criticized Amtrak and other programs for years while sitting

This destructive and embarrassing episode should cause policymakers to take a serious look at long-term reform of the FAA and the way it and its programs are funded. It should also encourage us not to do the very same thing with surface transportation programs.

While many of us will justifiably criticize policymakers for putting their personal goals and politics ahead of what is good for the system and the nation, we should all recognize that we are responsible as well. The fact that the long-term authorization for the FAA and its programs expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2007 creates the vulnerability for aviation to get linked with debt-ceilings and other matters of high politics. The way to avoid this is for everyone to come to the policymaking table prepared to bargain and put the system on solid footing—not to just play the Washington game of telling all the other interests what is wrong with their positions, holding tight to our own parochial position papers and juicing up our constituencies in order to raise money and/or keep our organizations fed.

Tw

The best an analyst can say about the bill is that it gets the legislative process moving and provides an opportunity to ultimately pass multi-year legislation. Stability is not a virtue, however, if what we create is a stable, underfunded infrastructure program that sacrifices future economic growth and shortchanges the generations to come.

I agree that TIFIA expansion is a great idea and I also agree that we need to incentivize more PPPs. For the latter to occur, however, we need to depoliticize PPPs and move to standard concession agreements that begin building a national market. These changes and those referenced by Secretary Mineta are positive, but represent a fraction of what our policymakers need to accomplish.

Let’s start with the fact that the current economic climate should not be a deterrent to a bigger program; in fact, it should be a driver for it. We seem to forget that for years we have a program funded by users with the revenues held in trust. I agree with ASCE that the fact that politicians have not shown the leadership to shore up the trust

In many ways, this is the old Amtrak debate, complete with ideological axes to grind but still lacking answers to the tough, fundamental questions:

What will the ongoing role of the federal government be to support operations that are not profitable but provide net public benefits? As Emil points out, most Amtrak corridors and routes will not make even an operational profit and would be unattractive to private investors without federal subsidy guarantees. It is instructive in the U.K. that subsidies increased to private rail operators (such as Virgin) after privatization, in part to pay for infrastructure upgrades on long neglected corridors.

Will the House of Representatives commit to such a funding structure that would provide certainties for private companies and upgrade rail infrastructure? If so, how would they support ongoing operations and capital infrastructure needs? Upfront payments, credit enhancements, availability payments, annual subsidies? How will th

There are two things that contributors to this blog consistently support. First, that we should obtain bigger returns (however calculated) on our transportation investments. Widespread support exists for “merit-based assessments” using tools such as benefit-cost analyses, inclusive planning and performance measurements. All appear to have their place in local, state and national programs. Second, most of us bemoan the fact that policymakers do not appear to have the courage to raise additional revenues at a time when the need for transportation infrastructure investments is all too clear. We hold this view even though we do not yet have a consensus (or even near a consensus) on how these funds should actually be used. Attentive readers of this blog will note that most of the disagreements and debate are over (1) who is going to decide; (2) what type of discretion the decision-makers will have; (3) who will be charged to pay for the investments; and (4) what types of projects will be built from their decisions. However, at a time when t