Tom Madigan

This week, the Bipartisan Policy Center will release recommendations to fund transportation programs based on performance measures, with the idea that money can be spent more efficiently if a cost-benefit analysis is a central component of the decision-making process. If it's a familiar refrain, that's because the Department of Transportation also is honing some of its grant programs to fund the projects that offer the biggest bang for the buck. The White House's idea is to model transportation projects after the Education Department's Race to the Top program, which uses federal incentives to get states to come up with the best ideas to run and maintain their programs.

It won't be easy. Bipartisan Policy Center Transportation Advocacy Director JayEtta Hecker told the Senate Banking Committee last month that "a performance‐driven approach will challenge entrenched interests and require government institutions at all levels to change longstanding prac

The Federal Aviation Administration is operating under its 16th funding extension (though who can keep track?). But the word from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is that a real FAA reauthorization is one of the first items on the agenda next year. That means the FAA could actually see a multiyear funding blueprint by sometime next summer.

What will it look like? Here's what we know. The election ousting of this year's chairman, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., means the labor dispute involving FedEx -- the issue that stopped the bill last summer -- is now moot. Beyond that, the tone of the FAA bill might shift with Republicans in control of the House, but the bulk of the bill hasn't been in contention from either party for over a year. There is a small hurdle. The Transportation Committee has shrunk by about 15 seats, and at least half of its members will be new, which means at least some delay as they go to school on aviation issues.

Aviation gurus, here's your chance. What will we see in an FAA reauthorization next year? Where is ther

Let the games begin. House Republicans already are gearing up to pull money away from high-speed rail development, a cause near and dear to Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., has introduced a bill to rescind unobligated funds from the high-speed rail project that President Obama pushed in an economic stimulus package. (The irascible Sensenbrenner is probably offended by the recent scuffle between LaHood and Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker, when LaHood rebuffed Walker's attempts to use high-speed rail funding for other projects.) Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich also has rejected federal money for high-speed rail.

The administration is showing no signs of backing down. LaHood announced last week that he was redirecting nearly $1.2 billion in high-speed rail funding to other states “eager to develop high-speed rail corridors across the United States.”

Other House members, like Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., want all unobligated stimulus funds returned to federal coffers,

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me restate the obvious: We all know that the highway trust fund is insufficient to maintain the country's current transportation infrastructure, let alone improve it. Lawmakers would be more than happy to bolster spending for highways, railroads, and bridges if only they could make the dollars materialize out of thin air. Meanwhile, economists and transportation-related business and labor groups all seem to land at the same answer for raising the money--a fuel tax increase, either per gallon or per miles traveled. Last week, the chairmen of President Obama's bipartisan debt commission proposed a 15-cent per-gallon gas tax hike to fully fund highway infrastructure. A few days before the draft debt commission outline was released, Sens. Tom Carper, D-Del., and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, proposed a 25-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase.

Yet the idea of a fuel tax hike can't even get off the ground in Congress. Republican leaders have outright rejected it, even though they generally agree that infrastructure in

This is a guest post by Steven E. Polzin, director of mobility policy at the Center for Urban Transportation Research.

The issue of a fuel tax increase might best be discussed by disaggregating it into a number of questions:

1. Is there a need for more revenues?

2. Does the public believe there is a need, and if not why?

3. What is the best source for new revenues?

4. What level(s) of governance should implement a new or higher revenue source? and,

5. How should new revenues be spent?

I will restrict my comments to the third question, what is the best source of new revenues, and restrict my comments to the near term.

For those seeking to raise additional revenues the goal might be to have the tax or fee be as unobtrusive as possible. It is likely to be most palatable if it is embedded in the cost of something else, preferable a very small incremental cost,

The transportation community lost one of its policymaking giants in last week's midterm elections when House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., was defeated by Republican challenger Chip Cravaack after 18 terms in office. An affable gentleman with almost unparalleled influence in the transportation world, Oberstar will leave a big void in talks for the next surface transportation reauthorization. "That's an earth-shaker," said next year's presumptive committee chairman, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., when National Journal interviewed him after the election.

Oberstar was only the chairman of the committee for four years, and he never got the chance to complete the highway reauthorization process that he began with Mica over a year ago. His contributions to transportation policy over the years include, but aren't limited to, his chairmanship of the Aviation Subcommittee from 1989 to 1995 and as a powerful ranking member of the full committee after that.

As the dust settles and questions swirl abou

This is a guest post by Rep. Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii.

I have lost a real friend. So has my home state of Hawaii and the nation. Articles written about James Oberstar paint the picture of a transportation titan who has toiled to improve the country. He certainly is that. I’ll never forget the time in Hawaii when Chairman Oberstar joined me to view the proposed route for the Honolulu Rail Project in a door-less helicopter. The ride involved sharp maneuvering and white knuckles.

Our intrepid Chairman has mastered America’s vast transportation and infrastructure realm. He has overseen industries of a multi-billion dollar scale on work that stretches across a continent and into the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. His was the clearest, strongest, and most knowledgeable voice in support of our country’s transportation and infrastructure needs.

What sets Jim Oberstar apart is that he never lost focus of the fact that these grand projects are, at heart, about individuals and communities. Despite the tremendous power and influence Jim Oberstar

Friday's foiled terrorist attack, in which explosive-laden packages were removed from two commercial cargo flights, put air and cargo industries in the national spotlight. Will it help or hurt?

In the "help" column, the packages were discovered during a routine cargo screening, which prompted several non-routine screens of other planes and at least one cargo truck. The system worked. In the "hurt" column, potentially dangerous incidents like this one prompt a range of inquiries from lawmakers and the public about how the industry operates. At a minimum, that means the Transportation Security Administration and companies like FedEx and United Parcel Service will have to respond, costing time and money.

When the dust settles on this story, how will the air and cargo industries be viewed by policymakers and the public? Does the increased attention create an opportunity for transportation stakeholders to push a public policy agenda with Congress and the administration? What should the industry ask lawmakers to do? What should government, air, and cargo executives avoid in re

Updated at 10:05 a.m. on October 26.

President Obama has made it clear that infrastructure investment and long-term transportation funding measures are a top priority for the administration next year. His most recent statement to that effect was in an exclusive interview with National Journal on October 19, when he said Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to work together to find more efficient ways to fund roads, bridges, rail, and runways.

On Columbus Day, Obama gathered together a host of transportation experts to discuss the need for a long-term transportation bill and ask Congress for $50 billion in up-front funding. The event coincided with a report published by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, co-chaired by former Transportation Secretaries Samuel Skinner and Norman Mineta. It called for new approaches to funding national highways, including "clear plan for transitioning, over the next decade, from the per-gallon fue

Republicans almost certainly will see their numbers improve in Congress next year, and party hopefuls are hoping to win control of the House and possibly the Senate. Transportation policy law traditionally has been negotiated and passed in a bipartisan fashion, but Republican control of at least one chamber would alter the tone of the discussions on Capitol Hill. In transportation, both surface and aviation measures are operating under temporary extensions, with a December 31 deadline approaching for the surface measure.

How would a Republican-controlled House or Senate change the debate around transportation? If Republicans win control of the House, how would lawmakers handle a temporary extension for surface transportation funding during the lame-duck session? Would a divided government make it more or less likely that lawmakers could hammer out longer-term measures authorization measures? Would transportation get more or less attention under a Republican-controlled House or Senate than it would under Democrats?

Train talk is busting out all over the place. Next Monday, bicycle enthusiast Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., will convene the annual three-day Rail-Volution conference in Portland, Ore., designed to bring together people who are "passionate" about using street cars and commuter trains to create "livable communities." And last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) shuttered construction of a major commuter train tunnel to Manhattan, citing lack of funding. Because the federal pledge for the project came out of the Transportation Department's New Starts project, the $300 million New Jersey has already spent for the tunnel will have to be refunded to federal coffers, according to the state's two senators.

What's going on here? Rail enthusiasts like Blumenauer and Vice President Joe Biden are promoting high-speed rail and commuter trains to save energy and lighten up on highway traffic. But, as Gov. Christie demonstrated, those enticements aren't always enough to win over states with tight budgets. Meanwhile, track space isn't unlimited, and freight rail carrier

This response is from Liz Rao, chair of public transit services for HNTB Corp.

Name one attribute America’s most successful cities have in common. The “it” factor often overlooked – but necessary for success – is transit. Successful cities all across the nation have made the choice to make public transit a priority – and that decision pays off.

According to the American Public Transit Association, for every $1 cities invest in public transportation, they generate $4 in economic returns. Economically viable cities make funding transit a priority because they can generate multiple, positive economic outcomes with a single investment:

Developers are attracted to transit areas.If a city wants to revitalize a blighted area or dictate where high-density growth and expansion occur, one of the smartest things it can do is invest in transit.

Properties near train stops have become the new beachfront property, selling for 20 percent

What will it take to solve the problem of fatigue in transportation?

Fatigue has been a major issue in aviation lately because of its possible role in the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 near Buffalo, N.Y., early last year. The Transportation Department and Federal Aviation Administration recently proposed new rules intended to keep pilots fresh, including requirements that they get nine hours of rest, not just nine hours off duty. It's also a problem on rails, waterways and trucking routes, as laid out in a recent analysis by News21, a student journalism project associated with the Center for Public Integrity.

But what to do about it? News21 found that since the National Transportation Safety Board was founded in 1967, "the board has issued 138 fatigue-related safety recommendations. Only 68 have been implemented." Some of those recommendations have sat fo

The Federal Aviation Administration is headed for its 16th temporary extension in three years. While the House and Senate have each passed a comprehensive reauthorization bill this year, getting a final package to the president's desk has been arduous. The process is currently held up over a number of issues, including a labor dispute involving FedEx, an increase in the passenger facility charge and the question of how many long-distance flights should be allowed at Reagan National Airport.

What are the most pressing needs in a comprehensive reauthorization bill? If prospects continue to look dim, would it be better for Congress to break out provisions dealing with airport infrastructure, a NextGen air traffic control system, or others?

Distracted driving has been one of the Transportation Department's signature issues under Secretary Ray LaHood, and this week DOT is convening its second summit on the problem. A wide range of officials from government to industry to law enforcement are being brought together to discuss the past year's efforts, current outreach strategies and what happens next.

The public focus of distracted driving is typically handheld cell phones and texting. As laws have proliferated, that's where the emphasis has been: Forty states, plus the District of Columbia and two U.S. territories, will have some sort of ban in place by January. Are there reasonable limits on such laws' scope, such as allowances for gridlock? Is there a solution for the "traditional" distractions, such as talking with passengers? Should distracted driving be a primary offense or a secondary offense -- or neither? Are there promising prevention strategies that merit wider use?

This is a guest post by Randy Mullett, vice president of government relations and public affairs for freight transportation and logistics services company Con-way Inc.

Addressing driver distraction has been a major priority for the trucking industry, as we seek ways to improve safety on our nation’s highways. As Scott Belcher points out in his post, there are three basic types of distractions for drivers: visual, manual and cognitive, and texting is one technology that involves all three. Research from a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) shows that drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while texting. At 55 miles per hour, texting drivers will travel the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road!

The same study found that drivers who texted while driving were 23 times more likely to have a collisi

After President Obama unveiled a wide-ranging transportation and infrastructure plan last week, where do we go from here?

Obama touched on several major themes, including: significant rehabbing or construction of roads, rails and runways; long-term reauthorization of the surface transportation law; an infrastructure bank meant to replace the earmark system for federal transportation spending; general streamlining of surface transportation investments; putting high-speed rail "on an equal footing" as a federal priority; and "a robust investment" in the NextGen air traffic control system.

The White House didn't offer many funding specifics, but the initial $50 billion for the infrastructure bank would be offset by doing away with tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

What parts of this plan are you most excited about and most wary of? What will it do for the nation's unemployment problem? How should the bank's initial $50 billion be allocated among roads, rails and runways

New cars might be getting environmental letter grades under a plan by the Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency to redesign auto-lot window stickers. There are actually two designs up for public comment; one of them would resemble the current stickers but add emissions data in accordance with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. But the other would be dominated by a new grade based on fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions. The emergence of electric and hybrid autos plays a part; both new sticker designs show what fuel a vehicle uses. Another change: Where current stickers compare a vehicle to others in its class, the new ones will additionally use a more comprehensive scale including all labeled vehicles.

What do you think of the letter grade? Would this be an effective way to steer new-car buyers away from gas-guzzlers? Should the government use the grading system

You never have to wait too long for a new study or report on the shaky condition of our highway funding system. A survey of transportation news in August alone would have found think tanks, journalists and bloggers alike offering their prescriptions for an unfocused, malnourished, misdirected or imperiled Highway Trust Fund.

Just asking how to fix the highway fund seems redundant. But if we come at it from a different angle: Are we raising the money and spending the money in ways that reflect how we actually use the highway system? What do we need to consider in the way of costs and benefits that we aren't taking into account now? Or is th

A new congressional proposal is designed to ensure a place for freight in planning infrastructure and transportation policy.

The legislation, dubbed the FREIGHT Act, would create a strategic plan for freight transportation; establish a special freight planning and development office within the Transportation Department; and set up an infrastructure grant program. The overarching goals, according to its Senate sponsors, are to make freight transportation safer, more efficient and more eco-friendly.

Supporters admire the bill's scope and say we're overdue for a comprehensive freight policy; at least one major trucking group, however, says the legislation wouldn't go far enough to improve highways.

What's your take on the FREIGHT Act, both its substance and its scope? Should it be folded into a larger transportation reauthorization

This is a guest post by Kathryn Phillips, director of the California Transportation and Air Initiative at the Environmental Defense Fund. Phillips works on federal transportation policy for the organization, including the FREIGHT Act.

America’s freight transportation system is an environmental and health hazard that cries out for reform.

It emits enough smog-producing and toxic diesel pollution to smother thousands of Americans to death each year. The freight system’s pollution increases health care costs by tens of billions of dollars annually in California alone. The system spews about 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution annually; fouls rivers and harbors with dirty ballast, leaking fuel, and other waste; and eats up wildlife habitat, threatening the survival of endangered and threatened species.

Given this l

Is it still possible to promote new bicycling and walking options in harmony with vehicular traffic? Or as city space gets more limited, will planners have to take sides?

There was talk in New York recently about tearing down the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx and replacing it with open space along the Bronx River -- about 13 acres' worth, according to the New York Times. The paper summed up the clash by calling the Sheridan "a reliable thoroughfare for truckers and an eyesore for Hunts Point residents" and saying it had become "a battleground in a national fight to take urban spaces back from the automobile." John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, was quoted as saying, "We're rolling back the freeway system."

Plans to raze the Sheridan hit a bump when the New York State Department of Transportation found that doing so would make local traffic worse. But we probably haven't heard the last of the broader argument.

So what's at stake here? Will cars

Should airlines be taxed on all those fees they charge passengers? Airlines made at least $3 billion in service fees last year for things like checking bags and in-flight meals.

But much of that money wasn't taxable because the IRS considers those services separate from "transportation of a person," according to a report this month by the Government Accountability Office. Airlines pay an excise tax on all transportation-related revenue into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which goes toward capital costs and helps fund the FAA.

Service fees make up an ever-increasing share of airline revenues, growing from less than 1 percent in 2007 to more than 4 percent in 2009, the GAO report found. Lawmakers, who already want airlines to be more transparent about what they're charging, say applying the excise tax to all these fees could be an option. Airlines argue that taxing more services would hurt the customer and that "a la carte" pr

Would it be a good investment for all concerned if state and local governments borrowed federal money for transportation projects up front and paid it back over time?

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa last fall floated a plan for getting 30 years' worth of transportation projects built in 10 years: Borrow now to fully fund the projects and pay back the loan using the special tax already approved by L.A. voters. Villaraigosa has been attracting support since then with the argument that the 30/10 plan will save money in the long run, put vital projects in use sooner, create jobs and help the environment. It isn't so far off from the idea of a national infrastructure bank, and President Obama reportedly called it "a template for the nation."

Is it? Discuss the benefits and costs of having the federal government front money for transportation projects. How much is there to gain from getting m

This is a guest post by Joel Epstein, a member of the leadership board of Move LA, a transportation advocacy group that supports the 30/10 plan.

Thank you for posing this important question for your readers. 30/10 presents a model opportunity for Los Angeles as well as the nation to help itself out of its economic malaise while bringing online, critical and overdue public transportation infrastructure. 30/10 will build practical, cost-effective and much needed public transportation, not pie-in-the-sky unproven and costly transportation technology.

30/10 is also not a handout, as LA will largely pay back the government with revenue from a half-cent transportation sales tax that County voters approved in November 2008 when, by a two-thirds majority, they passed Measure R.

The LA economy is so large that as LA goes, so goes the nation. The currently dire economic situation has no

With John Pistole's recent confirmation as chief of the Transportation Security Administration, the agency finally has a full-time leader under President Obama. The 17 months TSA went under interim management were anything but quiet, and the two months since Pistole was nominated have given him more to think about. Two reports from the Government Accountability Office have faulted the implementation of TSA's behavioral detection program and questioned the agency's ability to meet Congress' August deadline for screening all incoming passenger air cargo. TSA has also taken over 100 percent of terrorist watchlist screening on domestic passenger flights. There's even a question of collective bargaining for transportation security officers.

What advice would you give Pistole? Where should he guide TSA? Where shou

USA Today reports that Pistole will make mass transit as high a security priority as air travel. He's quoted as saying: "Given the list of threats on subways and rails over the last six years going on seven years, we know that some terrorist groups see rail and subways as being more vulnerable because there's not the type of screening that you find in aviation. From my perspective, that is an equally important threat area."

Read the full story here.

Does a recent report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors touting the economic benefits of high-speed passenger rail put to rest questions about HSR's value as a business engine?

The report focused on four hub cities: Albany, N.Y.; Chicago; Los Angeles; and Orlando. Despite the differences of these hubs, the report found that high-speed rail networks had similar effects in all of them, including expanding markets; making business travel more efficient; and encouraging mixed-use development. Among its conclusions, the report argued for looking at these networks "in the broader context of a changing economy" that includes more long-distance tourism and business travel, and ever-wider markets and supply chains.

In 2035, the report says, high-speed rail networks around these four hubs could generate as much as $19 billion in new business.

What are your thoughts on the economic potential of high-speed rail? Will it generate the bang for the buck that the report says? Are there more cost-efficient ways to link cities?

As the Transportation Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development team up to award planning money for "sustainable community" projects, what should they be looking for?

The DOT and HUD formally announced last week that they're making available $75 million for planning on "projects that integrate transportation, housing and economic development." Those projects could include anything from zoning changes allowing more development near transit centers to freight corridors designed for minimum impact on the surrounding area. The alliance is intended to ease the bureaucracy of dealing with multiple agencies. DOT's share of the money is $35 million in TIGER II Planning Grants.

"Livability" has been a common theme in the Transportation Department under Secretary Ray LaHood. A year ago, DOT, HUD and the Environmental Protection Agency announced a

This is a guest post from Liz Rao, HNTB’s national public transit services chairwoman, who has more than 25 years of experience with transportation planning and program development. Before joining HNTB, Rao was assistant general manager for planning and development for the Regional Transportation District in Denver. The Denver area is home to a number of established, successful transit-oriented developments including CityCenter Englewood in Englewood, Colo., one of the first projects in the nation to replace an enclosed, regional shopping mall with an open-air, mixed-use city core. Cinderella City Mall opened for business in 1968. At the time, it was the world’s largest shopping center under one roof. By 1974, the mall accounted for 52 percent of Englewood’s sales tax revenue. However, as suburban competition increased, retail trends shifted and a decline set in. By 1994, the mall contributed only 2.6 percent of Englewood’s tax revenues before closing for good. Englewood turned to the concepts of new urbanism and transit-oriented development to revive

Much of the policy debate over electric vehicles has focused on their impact on the environment and energy consumption. For instance, when the federal government gave out more than $2 billion in stimulus money for electric vehicle technology last year, it was the Energy Department that selected the 48 winning projects. But are we paying enough attention to issues that are normally in the Transportation Department's purview, like fuel efficiency and infrastructure needs?

What's the best role for federal, state and local transportation departments to play in developing and promoting electric vehicle technology? If government is to take an active role in putting electric cars on the road, what can transportation officials do that they aren't doing now? Or should the electric vehicle experiment go on without the DOT? How much should be left up to the private sector, from R&D to charging stations? Wh

This is a guest post from Kevin Matthews, director of NSI’s Sustainability Practice, where he runs the day-to-day sector operations and works with clients on sustainable solutions for interfacing with state and local governments. He’s also held various positions in the Environmental Protection Agency. Transportation departments at the federal, state and local levels could be creating incentives for electric vehicle drivers such as allowing access to HOV/HOT lanes and free or reduced rate parking as well as reduced licensing fees. Metropolitan areas across the country might consider following London’s lead in placing limitations on congested city roads, but waiving them for electric vehicles. In turn, penalties attached to polluting vehicles would make driving something other than electric vehicles less attractive. These incentives assist transportation departments in reaching mandatory

This is a guest post by Oliver Hazimeh, director and head of the Global E-Mobility Practice at PRTM, a global management consulting firm. For the first time, industry and government – as well as public opinion – appear to be marching in lock-step toward an electrified vehicle (EV) future. The use of electricity as a fuel, however, requires unique and unprecedented coordination among automakers, utilities, internet service providers, commercial property owners and home builders. Essential to making this nascent industry work and thrive will be a solid infrastructure supporting greater deployment of EVs. This needed infrastructure is not limited merely to convenient and accessible charging stations; rather, it must consist of an integrated end-to-end network that links together all disparate players, from physical home charge points enabled by smart metering to demand-response planning s

The Transportation Department proposed more consumer protections for air travelers last week, piggybacking off newly enacted restrictions on how long passengers can wait on the tarmac. Under the new rule, carriers must increase compensation to travelers who are bumped from their flights; advertise "full fare" ticket prices; publicize all baggage fees; let customers cancel their tickets without penalty within 24 hours of purchase; and ban post-purchase price increases, among other provisions. In addition, the tarmac requirements would be expanded to more airports and to foreign carriers at U.S. airports. The rule is currently open for public comment.

What do you think of the proposed changes? Do consumers need more protection from the airlines? Are there any other passenger issues that need similar attention? Or should government stay out of it? Do you see any negative consequences arising from the new rule -- for passengers as well as the airlines?

Public transportation systems across the country are under tremendous pressure as the recession has reduced the state and local revenue streams that help fund their operating expenses to nearly a trickle. According to the American Public Transportation Association, 84 percent of transit systems have cut service or raised fares, or might do so. More than half have cut jobs and a third have laid off employees, APTA says.

In response, eight Democratic senators from the Northeast and Midwest have introduced legislation to provide transit systems with $2 billion in emergency aid to cover their operating budgets. By law, mass transportation can only use its share of revenues from the Highway Trust Fund, which provides most federal funding for transit programs, to pay for capital expenses.

Some public transportation advocates want Congress to go a step further and allow transit agencies to use their federal dollars to meet their day-to-day operating costs as well. Others fear that doing so would reduce needed capital investment and could reduce state and local government contr

Updated at 11:37 a.m. on May 26.

Earlier this month the Department of Transportation released its draft strategic plan for the next five years, posting it on the department's website and asking for public comments. Titled "Transportation for a New Generation," it lays out an ambitious and "transformative" set of goals to enable the country's transportation system to meet the social, environmental and economic challenges of the 21st century, according to the executive summary.

The draft plan is organized around five strategic goals, with a chapter for each elaborating on detailed strategies, as well as challenges, for meeting them. The goals are:

• Improve public health and safety by reducing transportation-related fatalities and injuries.

• Ensure the U.S. proactively maintains its critical transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair.

• Promote transportation policies and investments that foster economic competitiveness and bring lasting and

On April 29, the Transportation Department's controversial rule setting harsh penalties for U.S. airlines that delay domestic flights on the ground for more than three hours took effect. The rule requires airlines to let passengers off a plane grounded on the tarmac after three hours except for reasons of safety or security, or if air traffic controllers determine that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations. Airlines must also provide passengers adequate food and drinking water within two hours of delaying a flight, maintain working lavatories, and provide medical attention if necessary.

Passengers' rights advocates have cheered the rule, which they first started pushing for in 1999 and redoubled their efforts to secure after incidents in 2006 and 2007 left outraged travelers stranded on grounded flights for up to 10 hours without food, water or working toilets. But the airline industry has warned that it will inconvenience flyers as carriers pre-emptively cancel more flights than they otherwise would have rather than risk being fined up to $27,500 for ever

On April 26, the organization representing state transportation officials released the first in a series of reports calling for increasing the nation's capacity in transit, rail and particularly highways. Two days later, a leading consumer watchdog group unveiled a report urging federal and state governments to strongly emphasize preserving the current interstate highway and bridge system rather than expanding it.

"Unlocking Gridlock," released by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, focuses on relieving urban congestion. While AASHTO advocates maintaining and improving the performance of the current transportation system, shifting car trips to other modes and shifting freight from trucks to rail, it says that adding new highways "will be a principal part of what is needed" to relieve congestion and foster economic growth.

When it comes to highways, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reaches a different conclusion in its repo

Over the last year, states such as Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine and Vermont have shuttered their state-run highway rest areas to help close budget deficits. Virginia closed 19 rest stops in 2009 under then-Gov. Tim Kaine (D) but has reopened them since Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) took office in January.

Kaine also worked with the state's congressional delegation in a failed attempt to allow Virginia to commercialize its rest stops. The current surface transportation law bans interstate rest areas built after 1960 from offering commercial services like food and fuel. In February, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urging that the commercialization ban be dropped. Other states, including Georgia and New Jersey, have also been pushing the idea recently.

States argue that commercializing rest stops would allow them to raise revenues while keeping open rest areas that drivers and long-haul truckers depend on. Communities and businesses located off the interstate that serve highway motorists respond that food and fuel operations at rest s