Excellent piece.

President's deficit commission recommends gas tax hike to fund transportation improvements

 

Presidential Deficit Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson recently submitted a report to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that proposes to preserve and improve the country’s transportation network by phasing in a 15-cent motor fuels tax increase to help fund transportation improvements, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

 

The tax increase is consistent with recommendations previously submitted by two independent, bi-partisan commissions: the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, APTA said.

 

Full story at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article/Presidents-deficit-commission-recommends-gas-tax-hike-to-fund-transportation-improvements--25182

What we need is a mile tax!!!

What we need is a mile tax!!!

 

I don't disagree that a Vehicle Mile Tax might be a better way to go, but that kind of tax doesn't encourage people to purchase more efficient vehicles.  The volatile fluctuations of gas prices might end up making the point moot, but it could hit very hard and abruptly.  We may end up with both a VMT and a gas tax, so electric vehicles don't get a free pass on the roads, without also penalizing those who choose efficient compact gasoline cars over SUVs.  Maybe if the VMT was indexed to the vehicle's EPA mileage and CO2 ratings, with different rates for road wear based on weight, plus for emissions and pollution externalities, then it might make more sense. 

^ Agreed. I was just trying to point out that raising the gas tax is not (by itself) a viable long term solution, which I think is part of what the Simpson-Bowles bill aims to be for the budget crisis. When the results of the bill are expressed in a time frame of decades, it should include more thought regarding the suggestions you've highlighted, rather than merely focusing on the short-term gains provided by raising the gas tax.

I view the Simpson-Bowles bill as a solution intended to get us moving in the direction of long term stability, and as such, I think just raising the gas tax is good enough. Long term, a milage tax is going to be needed, but for the next decade, I would think this is good enough. The next time the transportation tax situation has to be revisited, in a decade or two the number of electric vehicles is going to be much more substantial, and that's when we need to be visiting charging per mile.

Keep in mind that the Simpson-Bowles report has essentially nothing to do with transportation policy per se.  Its focus was fiscal policy.  Its mandate was to propose fiscal measures, including those jealously defended by entrenched interests and therefore difficult to attack without senior figures in both parties aligned, that would lead to balancing the federal budget.

 

Their goal was not to reduce VMTs.  It was not to promote trains or electric cars or personal rocket packs.  To the extent that their report dovetails with such goals (or doesn't), it is not by design.  In fact, the Simpson-Bowles proposals would be more effective if demand for highways turns out to be relatively inelastic, i.e., such that raising the gas tax does not materially lower VMTs, because that would produce more revenue than if the gas tax hike suddenly curtailed the amount of driving on the nation's highways.

^ But they have to take account of behavioral changes that would result from their actions, implicitly. If they make projections using the assumption that raising the gas tax will not affect people's behavior, then those projections are suspect. Since the success of their proposal is measured over decades, such a faulty extrapolation would become very pronounced over time.

 

Keith was saying their goals are short-term, but that's not my understanding of the bill. If Keith is correct, then transportation policy need not be part of their consideration. Otherwise, it should be something they take into account, in terms of fiscal and behavioral effects which feed off each other.

True, so I hope they did use realistic assumptions about the effect that raising the gas tax would have on VMTs.  My real point was that their goal was not to reduce driving, it was to bring revenues and expenditures into line.  They are not saying that reducing VMTs would be a good thing--that would be a statement of transportation policy.  They are saying that a certain amount of revenue can be generated from increasing the gas tax notwithstanding a projected decrease in VMTs that might attend such a tax increase.

Let's put it this way -- Ohio has to come with an average of $471 million PER YEAR in extra highway M&O (maintenance & operation) costs over the next decade. Yet Ohio keeps adding more pavement, bigger bridges and added highway infrastructure it must maintain -- with no consideration how it can afford to pay their M&O costs, especially in light of reduced gasoline tax revenues from this:

 

http://toledoblade.com/article/20101221/BUSINESS02/12200394/-1/BUSINESS05

 

Article published December 21, 2010

More efficient vehicles cut U.S. demand for gasoline

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

...Gasoline prices are forecast to stay high as developing economies in Asia and the Middle East use more oil.

 

There are demographic factors at work too. Baby Boomers will drive less as they age. The surge of women entering the work force and commuting in recent decades has leveled off. And the era of Americans commuting ever farther distances appears to be over. One measure of this, vehicle miles traveled per licensed driver, began to flatten in the middle of the last decade after years of sharp growth.

 

"People wildly underestimate the effect that all this is going to have" on gasoline demand," said Paul Sankey, an analyst at Deutsche Bank. He predicts by 2030 America will use just 5.4 million barrels a day, the same as in 1969. Aaron Brady, an analyst at CERA, predicts a more modest drop, to 6.6 million barrels a day.

 

Still, America will continue to burn more gasoline than any other country, in total and per capita, for decades to come. China is second in total consumption, but, despite its explosive growth, still uses just half of what the United States uses. Canada is second in consumption per capita but is on its own path toward a more fuel-efficient economy.

"Your visual interpretation of what is "packed" doesn't correspond to reality. You can't do a visual check and say the highway is congested because you see a line of vehicles." -- Sherman Cahal

 

 

 

It certainly does correspond to reality, because the reality is that I have used this hundreds of times and my reality is..... that I more often than not see a lot of traffic, more than we need. And, as some have pointed out, it takes only one monkey wrench thrown in the engine to create full blown traffic jams on I-71.

 

When it comes to influencing my choice of transportation mode, or whether I would want to take I-71, it takes a great study to determine whether this road gets jam packed. It does. I think experience can teach us a lot and while there are those who sit in office cubicles throwing out fancy stats, the best teacher is experience and many times when I am on and have traveled I-71, it has been full enough.

 

I really wonder just how many times you have traveled this road and at what times because I would love to have the opportunity to personally take you on a drive to show how crowded it can get. Sure, it isn't all the time, but it happens a lot of the time.

 

Still, no one should have to be forced to drive this corridor if they do not want to, yet need to get from city to city. Many cannot, many do not want to. Do these people not count? I thought this was supposed to be the wonderful free land of choice. Where is my freedom or choice to not have to rely on a car and I-71 to go to places within this corridor?

 

Granted, I speak from a user perspective...and what I would find more convenient and that's all I need to do to determine my choice of transportation, because I find using this Rt. to be a hardship. What you or stats may see as not packed, others may simply see the opposite.

 

Sorry, there is nothing you can say to have me believing that 1-71 does not have these crowded issues...OR maybe in the idea that widening it would solve them. In the long run, that would just create more problems and is like feeding a fat guy more cake when he should be on a diet in the first place. We need to go on a road diet in Ohio. KJP's post above sums it up about this insatiable road habit in Ohio, that is totally unsustainable.

^I've driven highways all over the Eastern half of the U.S. and in my experience I-71 is not "packed". I went to UD and worked in Cincinnati while my girlfriend lived in Cleveland. Needless to say, I drove I-71 a lot… probably at least 50 round trips within the last 5 years, likely more, and the rural portions in between cities were never "packed" except for an occasional slow down for an accident or for some of the widening construction. Compared to many east coast highways, I-71 is a breeze.

 

Actually, the ease of travel from Cincinnati to Cleveland (and any point in between) is one of the things holding the 3C back, IMO.

^I've driven highways all over the Eastern half of the U.S. and in my experience I-71 is not "packed".  I went to UD and worked in Cincinnati while my girlfriend lived in Cleveland.  Needless to say, I drove I-71 a lot… probably at least 50 round trips within the last 5 years, likely more, and the rural portions in between cities was never "packed" except for an occasional slow down for an accident or for some of the widening construction.  Compared to many east coast highways, I-71 is a breeze. 

 

Actually, the ease of travel from Cincinnati to Cleveland (and any point in between) is one of the things holding the 3C back, IMO.

 

Again, what are we going to deem as "not packed?" I do not need a study to do it, I prefer trusting my own eyes and experiences on the road. Who or what determines this criteria or carves it in stone as Gospel?

 

Maybe I should change the word from packed to crowded. The same logic that sees this road as "not crowded" is is analogous to the logic that sees someone who is actually obese or over weight, as merely "thick" or "full figured" Even stats that determine such information about roads can greatly be connected to cultural acceptance of a certain amount of traffic on a given road.

 

I never said it was packed all the time and in all places, but it can get packed. Or, again, should I say more than crowded enough. A third lane has alleviated some of this congestion in some areas, but it is only a matter of time before history repeats itself. If I-71 had to rely on two lanes the entire trip between Cle and Cincy, I shudder to think what it would look like. Trucks alone, as there are so many, need a lane to themselves. With sprawl in the future, does anyone really think traffic on I-71 is going to lessen? Hence another reason for the rail option.

 

Still, there is no transportation choice in the great and diverse state of Ohio...on this most populated corridor. Its either drive or die. And this is a bit embarrassing as well as very odd. You must drive, be a part of all costs associated with vehicle ownership and dangers in driving.... or be driven in this great land of freedom of/and choice! in the year 2010.

 

Disclaimer: "freedom of choice" applies as long as the choice is auto oriented.

Again, what are we going to deem as "not packed?" I do not need a study to do it, I prefer trusting my own eyes and experiences on the road. Who or what determines this criteria or carves it in stone as Gospel?

 

You know, engineers. People who went to eight years of school, developed a mathematical formula, and can more accurately pinpoint and determine what is congested and not. Glancing at traffic and your own comfort levels do not count. Thankfully, we have formulas and other guidance measures than our own eyes, because our own perceptions can be very much biased.

 

Maybe I should change the word from packed to crowded....

 

That analogy doesn't make sense. It's just interchanging the same word. Sure, you can zoom in on an image on Google Maps and proclaim it is packed, but without driving in those conditions, you would not be able to make an educated assumption on how traffic is flowing, what their speeds are, if there are passing areas and so forth. A stationary observation is pretty useless because of that.

 

I never said it was packed all the time and in all places, but it can get packed. Or, again, should I say more than crowded enough. A third lane has alleviated some of this congestion in some areas, but it is only a matter of time before history repeats itself. If I-71 had to rely on two lanes the entire trip between Cle and Cincy, I shudder to think what it would look like. Trucks alone, as there are so many, need a lane to themselves. With sprawl in the future, does anyone really think traffic on I-71 is going to lessen? Hence another reason for the rail option.

 

The only mainline three-lane widening planned south of Columbus is I-71 from MP 28 to MP 36, which includes the Little Miami River Bridge that they are now rebuilding. The rest of the highway is still well within acceptable LOS.

 

If you want more congested -- but tolerable driving, try I-81 in Virginia. Interchanging with a lot of trucks, traffic still flows smoothly from 65 MPH and above (the 85% percentile there is 70 MPH for the most part).

 

Still, there is no transportation choice in the great and diverse state of Ohio...on this most populated corridor. Its either drive or die. And this is a bit embarrassing as well as very odd. You must drive, be a part of all costs associated with vehicle ownership and dangers in driving.... or be driven in this great land of freedom of/and choice! in the year 2010.

 

Disclaimer: "freedom of choice" applies as long as the choice is auto oriented.

A few things:

 

1. LOS is a crap way to determine traffic congestion because it only takes into account automobile traffic.

2. Traffic engineers do their job very well.  That is why we are still funding highway expansion and new highways.

3. This thread is in danger of going off topic.  We have several other threads for transportation policy.

 

Replying to the specific points:

 

1. LOS is not a "crap" way -- the Caltrans adopted freeway LOS measure is the best and most accurate measure for determining the service level of a freeway. There are LOS measures for intersections and regular arterial streets. It's not best used for what most planners care about - urbanized areas with lots of intersections and pedestrian interactions. Therefore, it is best when it counts only vehicles, not pedestrians - and that's what it's always been about.

2. Engineers was a term used loosely. There are plenty of engineers to go around -- for rail and air. Traffic engineers are also used in traffic calming projects, bike paths and lanes, improved side streets, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, etc. How do you think the bike lanes of Cincinnati are being designed? Not by applying a strip of paint and calling it a day.

3. Yes, I think this topic can be split.

 

Engineers make technical decisions. Politicians make political decisions. The decision to collect fuel taxes and fund highways instead of rail is a political one. If we had a fuel tax that funded rail, more engineers would be involved in rail instead of highways.

 

 

LOS is crap to planners.  It's great for measuring cars cars cars but traffic doesn't exist in a vacuum and neither should the standard of measurement.

 

Engineers make recommendations on highway expansions through studies which are then used by politicians to secure money though earmarks and transportation bills.  They are not mutually exclusive.  The difference is an engineer that endorses highway plans have a better chance of getting awarded contracts for design than railroad engineers.

As I said before, LOS is crap to planners because it is not designed to be used by planners - only by traffic engineers in non-urbanized settings. It's appropriate for freeways, arterial roads and intersections, but it really doesn't pertain to urban streets, pedestrian interactions and the like.

Rural I-71 cleaned up a lot flow-wise when they did away with the split speed limit for semis.

As I said before, LOS is crap to planners because it is not designed to be used by planners - only by traffic engineers in non-urbanized settings. It's appropriate for freeways, arterial roads and intersections, but it really doesn't pertain to urban streets, pedestrian interactions and the like.

 

I completely disagree.  It's a standard that has been adopted that has very little bearing on how cities actually function.  LOS is an outdated arbitrary standard the ITE created decades ago because the focus was moving cars in and out.  That viewpoint for the most part has changed.  Freeways, arterial roads and intersections are part of any fabric, rural, suburban or city and need to be context sensitive, which is something LOS completely disregards.  What I am saying is the standard needs to be replaced because there are plenty of better solutions that benefit reducing traffic congestion and also improve and incorporate other modes of transit such as walking, biking, etc.

 

The problem is that most traffic engineers have failed to adapt to that because LOS designations and highway expansion are a sure source of income.  Therefore they almost always recommend improvements with the hopes of getting lucrative government contracts to carry out the design and engineering.  I've only met 2 traffic engineers that acknowledge LOS is an outdated and outmoded standard for anything having to do with roadway design.  So the consensus is changing, albeit slowly.

The proposed alternative (which took years off lobbying the ITE to adopt).

 

http://www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf

High-Speed Rail: Obama's High-Stakes Gamble

 

By Michael Grunwald

Tuesday, Dec. 28, 2010

 

 

The master builder Robert Moses had a legendary strategy for ambitious public-works projects: start now, and figure out how to finish later. "Once you sink that first stake," he liked to say, "they'll never make you pull it up." And that, in essence, is the Obama Administration's strategy for spreading high-speed passenger rail across the United States.

 

It's an understandable strategy, since a true national network of bullet trains could cost as much as $1 trillion, and Obama has secured only $10.5 billion to start. But it's also a risky strategy, because the Administration is preparing to sink stakes in projects that might make perfect sense as links in that larger chain but look silly on their own. The first bullet train, an Orlando-Tampa line, has the feel of a glorified Disney shuttle. The boldest project, a Los Angeles–San Francisco line, was initially designed to begin with a train from nowhere to nowhere. Ohio got $400 million to launch a "high-speed" passenger service — with an average speeds of only 39 m.p.h. (63 km/h).

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039897,00.html#ixzz19YbXo74l

Do Roads Pay For Themselves? Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding

2011-01-04

 

Executive Summary

 

Highway advocates often claim that roads “pay for themselves,” with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering – or nearly covering – the full cost of highway construction and maintenance. They are wrong.

 

Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.

 

To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy – particularly at a time of tight public budgets – it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century. Toward that end, this report shows:

 

· Gasoline taxes aren’t “user fees” in any meaningful sense of the term – The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes.

 

· State gas taxes are often not “extra” fees – Most states exempt gasoline from the state sales tax, diverting much of the money that would have gone into a state’s general fund to roads.

 

· Federal gas taxes have typically not been devoted exclusively to highways – Since its 1934 inception, Congress only temporarily dedicated gas tax revenues fully to highways during the brief 17-year period beginning in 1956. This was at the start of construction for the Interstate highway network, a project completed in the 1990s.

 

· Highways don’t pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.

 

· Highways “pay for themselves” less today than ever. Currently, highway “user fees” pay only about half the cost of building and maintaining the nation’s network of highways, roads and streets.

 

· These figures fail to include the many costs imposed by highway construction on non-users of the system, including damage to the environment and public health and encouragement of sprawling forms of development that impose major costs on the environment and government finances.

 

To make the right choices for America’s transportation future, the nation should take a smart approach to transportation investments, one that weighs the full costs and benefits of those investments and then allocates the costs of those investments fairly across society.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/transportation/transportation2/do-roads-pay-for-themselves-setting-the-record-straight-on-transportation-funding

GOP Wants to Bring Transpo Policy Back to the 1950s

by Tanya Snyder on November 19, 2010

 

A top Republican transportation staffer gave some clues yesterday about the GOP’s plan to drastically restructure national transportation policy and reverse many reforms of the past 20 years.

 

In an off-the-record luncheon with the Road Gang, a sort of “fraternity” of Washington highway executives, Jim Tymon gave the view from his seat as Republican staff director of the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee. Streetsblog spoke to sources who attended the gathering.

 

...What does that mean for reforming our broken transportation system? Well, everyone wants to stabilize the highway trust fund – it’s not sustainable to continue spending more than the fund brings in from gas tax revenues. (According to Tymon, the trust fund currently spends roughly $50 billion a year, while taking in revenues of just $35 billion.)

 

But if the option of raising taxes is off the table (Mica believes in VMT fees but says it’ll take years to get there, and has flatly opposed raising the gas tax), the only solution is to cut spending – and that’s just what Mica and his Republican colleagues seem poised to do, to the tune of $7 billion to $8 billion per year. Tymon called it “cutting the fat.”

 

Apparently, for Republicans, the big target for cuts appears to be transit spending. Tymon suggested to the Road Gang that the current $8 billion allocated for transit annually could shrink to $5 billion. The Road Gang was, apparently, relieved to see that transit would bear the brunt of the burden of spending cuts.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/11/19/leaked-gop-wants-to-bring-transpo-policy-back-to-the-1950s/

NOTE: Ohio has over $212-million in unspent transportation project earmarks

 

Earmarks to Nowhere

By Cezary Podkul and Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

 

WASHINGTON — Almost 13 years ago, Rep. David

McIntosh, R-Ind., directed $375,000 in federal

funding "to improve State Road 31" in Columbus,

Ind., a city at the edge of his district.

 

The McIntosh "earmark" seemed routine at the time,

like almost 2,000 other congressional pet projects

that lawmakers inserted into the 1998 highway bill.

But there was a problem: "There is no State Road 31

that travels through Columbus, only U.S. 31," says

Will Wingfield, a spokesman for the Indiana

Department of Transportation.

 

Read more at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-04-earmarks_N.htm

Earlier today, the House voted along strict party lines to adopt House Resolution 5. This is the package of changes to the House Rules and includes the previously discussed change to the Highway Trust Fund. HTF spending will now be treated as other general spending.

 

Full text and a summary of HR 5 are available here:

http://rules.house.gov/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=50

Mica Plans Field Hearings on Surface Transport Bill

John D. Boyd | Jan 10, 2011 9:44PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, intends to start a process in February that can help his panel craft a new multi-year surface transportation bill.

 

Mica told The Journal of Commerce that beginning on or around Feb. 18 he plans to hold field hearings or "listening sessions" outside of Washington to get more input from local and regional officials on what should be in the next transportation legislation.

 

He also said his immediate top priority will be to complete legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. Congress has passed 17 FAA extensions pending passage of a new aviation bill, "so I've got to get that out first," he said.

Read more at: http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/mica-plans-field-hearings-surface-transport-bill

So they're not all under the thumb of the highway lobby after all?!?!  :-P

 

Mica Eyes Rail to Get More Trucks, Cars Off Roadways

John D. Boyd | Jan 13, 2011 3:57PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

Goal would be to reduce roadway damage, trust fund spending on pavement repair

 

The new chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, signaling domestic transport goals similar to those of the Obama administration, says he wants to advance several initiatives that shift commercial truck loads and automobiles off the nation's stressed highways.

 

"My goal would be to get more trucks off of the highway, and more cars off of the highway," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told The Journal of Commerce. He said that would ease pressure on federal road and bridge spending out of the Highway Trust Fund, by reducing the pace of wear and tear.

 

The comments are close to some made last year by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and other DOT officials, that federal policy aims to get more trucks off the road to better distribute U.S. transportation demand among other modes. Those DOT remarks drew a sharp criticism by some highway users including the American Trucking Associations.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/mica-eyes-rail-get-more-trucks-cars-roadways

"My goal would be to get more trucks off the highway, and more cars off the highway."

 

That should be an easy goal to meet, seeing that the number of vehicles on the road today seems to be declining.

LaHood: Transport funding bill to be signed by August recess

DOT secretary says he's confident Congress will transcend partisan differences to pass multiyear reauthorization law.

 

By Mark B. Solomon

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today he was confident a multiyear bill to reauthorize the nation's surface transportation programs can be passed by Congress and signed into law by the August summer recess.

 

Speaking at the SMC3 annual winter meeting in Atlanta, LaHood said he was confident that the timetable could be met even with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and pledges of spending austerity from some members of Congress. That's because Congress recognizes that transportation funding is a bipartisan issue that benefits the nation through improved infrastructure and enhanced job-creation, LaHood said.

 

Read more at: http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/2011018_transport_bill_to_be_signed_august/

Note: only one Ohioans named to the House Transportation Committee (Subcommitt...

 

Rosters set for House Transportation Committee, (Railroad Subcommittee)...

 

Yesterday, Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, announced the chairmen, vice chairmen and Republican members of the committee’s six subcommittees for the 112th Congress.

 

The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials will be chaired by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.); Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) will serve as vice chair. The subcommittee’s Republican members include Gary Miller (Calif.), Sam Graves (Mo.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio), Candice Miller (Mich.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Lou Barletta (Pa.), Larry Bucshon (Ind.), Billy Long (Mo.), Patrick Meehan (Pa.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Jeff Landry (La.) and Jeff Denham (Calif.).

 

Read moe at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article/Rosters-set-for-House-transportation-committee-railroad-subcommittee--25558

^ And what an Ohioan!

Members of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project Call for New Approach to Transportation Funding

Report says “well-targeted” investments will improve accessibility, accelerate the nation’s economic recovery, and create short- and long-term jobs

Jan. 21, 2011

 

Media Contact:

Contact: Ashley Clark, Press Secretary

(202) 637-1456

[email protected]

 

Washington, D.C. – A new report released today, authored by two members of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) National Transportation Policy Project, called on the Administration and Congress to change their approach to transportation policy saying that “the nation can no longer afford to support poorly targeted investments when the needs are so great and public resources are so constrained.” The report authors, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs, spoke at a press conference to release the report in Washington, D.C.

 

“The future of transportation policy is central to economic policy. Despite what has long been argued, investments in transportation infrastructure are not guaranteed to create jobs and simultaneously grow the economy. We must ruthlessly focus on economic growth, immediately and in the future,” said Dr. Holtz-Eakin. “The need for investment is clear: our roads are deteriorating and our transportation systems are not equipped to handle increasing capacity. Still, we cannot devote additional dollars, much less borrowed dollars, to transportation programs that provide an uncertain number of jobs and no lasting economic benefit.”

 

The report, Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth, outlines three specific policy changes the Administration and Congress can make to ensure that scarce public dollars are spent wisely and, at the same time, create employment opportunities in the short-term and contribute to the nation’s economic recovery in the long-term.

 

First, the report recommends that no new funds be allocated to existing transportation programs if they provide questionable job-creation, unclear long-term benefits or if the programs are solely an effort to increase short-term employment. Second, investments should be directed to programs that are both “shovel-ready” and provide long-term benefits. These investments can help ease unemployment while also building the nation’s economic future. Finally, federal transportation investments should not be constrained by the silos and restrictions that dominate the federal government’s existing surface transportation program. “Instead of focusing on how the money is spent – that is, on whether funds go to operations versus capital or to highway versus transit – the focus must shift to the outcomes being achieved with a particular expenditure,” said the report. “If the most pressing outcomes at this point in time relate to job creation and long-term economic recovery, both of those outcomes should drive decisions about how to allocate federal resources and measure progress.”

 

“In addition to addressing long-term transportation-related objectives including safety, energy independence, and environmental sustainability, Congress should consider investments that result in higher productivity,” said Dr. Wachs. “These investments will improve economic well-being by increasing connectivity and accessibility to jobs while reducing congestion. Ideally, there is an approach to transportation investment that advances both goals - enduring productivity gains and immediate job creation. To do this, there must be flexibility within the system to pursue the highest returns on spending.”

 

The BPC’s National Transportation Policy Project is a group dedicated to reforming federal surface transportation policy in a way that ensures federal investments are held accountable for demonstrating results toward the achievement of national goals. Its members include former Republican and Democratic members of Congress, local-elected officials, business and civic leaders, and transportation stakeholders and experts. The project released its blueprint for surface transportation reform, Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy, in June 2009.

 

“We have repeatedly argued that not all transportation investments are equally effective, and that future transportation spending must be driven by considerations of economic merit and guided by clearly articulated federal goals, including economic growth, metropolitan accessibility, environmental protection and energy security, and safety,” said JayEtta Hecker, Director of Transportation Advocacy at the BPC. “The report released today emphasizes the need for long-term returns rather than just short-term gains.”

 

Full report at: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/NTPP%20Strengthening%20Connections%20Paper.pdf

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us--obama-transportation,0,7976405.story

 

chicagotribune.com

Obama administration readies transportation plan; how to pay for the proposal will be key

JOAN LOWY

Associated Press

3:01 PM CST, January 25, 2011

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Obama administration officials are preparing a long-term highway and transit spending plan even though they've had to dip into the general treasury just to keep the current program afloat and Republicans are demanding that government shrink.

 

Transportation lobbyists and interest groups said administration officials have indicated in public forums and private conversations in recent weeks that they expect to unveil a transportation plan after President Barack Obama presents his budget to Congress in mid-February.

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a recent business conference in Atlanta that the six-year bill will include a $50 billion "upfront investment to help employ the nearly one in five construction workers that are still out of a job," according to a transcript of his remarks. He has also said he wants Congress to put a transportation bill on Obama's desk for signature by August.

 

More at Link Above:

Here's a tool to share with others when they ask if passenger rail should be privatized -- it already is, on the infrastructure side. Ask them when highways, airports and waterways will privatize their infrastructure, then we can discuss privatizing Amtrak operations which require fewer of their costs (one-fourth) to be subsidized than highways' costs (one-half). Equalize the rules of the game first....

 

Introduction

 

Everyone benefits from a transportation system that works efficiently and effectively.

 

The U.S. government has played a continuous role in the transportation sector throughout its history. To better coordinate the government's transportation activities, in 1966, President Johnson created the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Today DOT houses various government transportation programs, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway Trust Fund and the U.S. Maritime Administration. Altogether DOT includes 13 sub-agencies covering a range of transportation modes, such as: aviation, highways, maritime, motor carriers, pipeline safety, and public transit and railroads.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/summary/

 

FYI: From Streetsblog.... Here is an opportunity to attend to learn about the input the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is receiving on a renewal of the six-year surface transportation spending law (which is overdue for renewal).

 

However only invited attendees will be allowed to testify. I will share specific details for the Columbus event as soon as I get them....

 

Friday, January 28, 2011 1 Comment

Schedule for Transpo Bill Listening Tour Announced

by Tanya Snyder

 

Yesterday’s field hearing of the House Transportation Committee on high-speed rail in New York City wasn’t officially part of the series of field hearings on the reauthorization. The tentative schedule hits small towns, big cities, and suburbs:

 

February 14th – West Virginia (Ranking Democrat Nick Rahall’s home state)

February 17th – Philadelphia area (Republican committee freshmen Patrick Meehan and Lou Barletta are from the area, as is Democratic T&I member Tim Holden)

February 18th – Rochester, NY (freshman Republican Tom Reed’s district and not too far for some of Richard Hanna’s constituents)

February 19-20 – Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, and suburbs of Chicago (within reach of four Republican members’ districts and one Democrat)

February 21-23 – Portland, OR; Vancouver, WA; Fresno and Southern California (reaching four Republican districts and two Democrat)

 

The hearings may be focused on specific topics, which haven’t been announced yet. Witnesses must be invited to speak.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/28/ti-committee-announces-field-hearing-schedule/

A federal legislative alert sent by e-mail from the American Public Transit Association......

 

February 1, 2011

 

House and Senate Committee Leaders Unveil Preliminary Plans for Surface Transportation Authorization Legislation

 

As the newly sworn-in 112th Congress begins to organize for the legislative business ahead, a few key committee leaders have begun to reveal their plans for the next surface transportation authorization bill.

 

Last week, in a series of meetings with transportation industry groups (including APTA President Bill Millar), new Transportation & Infrastructure Chairman John Mica (R-FL) announced his commitment to writing a full six-year bill this year, and outlined four guiding principles for the legislation. Chairman Mica plans to introduce legislation that will achieve the following:

 

1)      Stabilize the Highway Trust Fund by ensuring that spending authorized in the bill will not exceed  actual Trust Fund receipts.

2)    Recapture unspent federal funds within the transportation program.  Specific funds have not been identified, but the Chairman has noted that there are significant unobligated funds available throughout the federal transportation program.  These funds could be used to supplement trust fund spending.

3)    Utilizing public private partnerships and other alternative financing mechanisms to leverage federal funds.  Chairman Mica plans to encourage more investment from the private sector for transportation projects. He expressed interest in expanding and improving current authorized programs that provide loan assistance and innovative financing such as the Transportation Innovative Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and Building America Bonds. He is also open to developing new programs to encourage private investment.

4)      Streamline programs and speed project delivery.  The Chairman noted that delays in project delivery add unnecessary costs to programs funded with federal dollars.

 

Chairman Mica’s goals for the legislation are based on the premise that there will be no new resources available to increase trust fund revenues, and that the political climate is not favorable for a general increase in spending without budget offsets.  Therefore, he is committed to “doing more with less” and finding alternative means of continuing spending at the current or an increased rate.

 

Also during these meetings, Chairman Mica announced that he would be travelling to more than a dozen cities across the country during the month of February to conduct a series of field hearings and listening sessions to gather ideas for the new authorization bill.  The Chairman wants a participatory process in developing his legislation, and has encouraged the transportation community to share information and ideas for the policy and financing portions of his legislation.  APTA will play an active role in this process, and encourages all members to attend any events in their local area.  Details on dates and locations of the field hearings and listening session will be forwarded as soon as they are finalized.

 

In the Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has also set the passage of a surface transportation bill as a top priority for her Committee in the coming months.  The Chairman has set a goal of moving a bill through her Committee by Memorial Day, but noted she needs cooperation from a number of other committees that have jurisdiction over different components of the transportation program, including the Senate Banking Committee, which must write the transit title.  In related news, Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), was officially named Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee last week.  Chairman Boxer has not discussed in detail her goals for the bill, but has stated that she understands the fiscal constraints, and plans to work together with Chairman Mica in the House with the common goal of completing the bill this year.

 

Meanwhile, Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that the Obama Administration hopes that a bill will be completed by August.  The Administration’s outlook on authorization should become clearer the week of February 14, when the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget proposal is submitted to Congress.  While the President called for a new commitment to rebuilding America’s infrastructure during his State of the Union address this week, including access to high speed rail for 80 percent of Americans within the next 25 years, policies and funding specifics were not given.  The President also stated that he will veto any legislation sent to him that includes earmarks.  This could have a significant impact on the development of the next authorization bill, as well as annual appropriations bills for transportation programs.

 

For questions or additional information, please contact Paul Dean of APTA’s Government Affairs Department at (202) 496-4887 or [email protected].

________________________________________________

 

Continuing Resolution Set to Expire March 4 Amid Republican Calls for Spending Cuts

 

The continuing resolution (CR) that is currently funding government operations as well as the extension of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) will expire on March 4.

 

Republicans leaders in the House have continued express their desire to reduce the federal deficit by cutting funds within the federal discretionary budget, including for transportation programs.  Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced that the House will vote on a slimmed down CR the week of February 14 that will reduce non-security discretionary spending to FY 2008 levels, which coincides with the release of the President’s FY 2012 budget. APTA strongly opposes this effort, and urges all members to contact their Senators and Representatives to express your opposition to this measure.

 

____________

 

From our friends at NARP: Note that Cleveland RTA's ongoing $168 million capital plan to modernize and expand its electric rail transit system, which carries about 7 million people per year, would come to a halt. Also, all Ohio Amtrak services, which carry more than 750,000 riders per year (with ridership growing in Ohio at 14% -- double the national rate), would cease operation. That includes killing Amtrak's plans to expand its Cardinal service through Cincinnati to daily, and for adding new daily service from Toledo, Sandusky, Elyria, Cleveland and Alliance to Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark and New York City....

 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS

505 Capitol Ct. NE Suite 300 w Washington, D.C. 20002-7706

Phone 202-408-8362 w Fax 202-408-8287 w [email protected] w http://www.narprail.org

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (#11-03)

February 4, 2011

 

Contact: Sean Jean-Gail – 202-408-8362 [cell: 202-320-2723]

 

CALL TO SHUT DOWN PASSENGER TRAINS IS ON COLLISION COURSE WITH MIDDLE EAST EVENTS

 

Ending federal funding for passenger trains—as Republican Study Group urges—would increase American dependence on imported oil

 

As democratic unrest sweeps across North Africa and the Middle East, the National Association of Railroad Passengers is asking Congress to sweep aside a proposal that would gut passenger rail and transit. Instead, U.S. leaders should focus on policies that give Americans real travel choices and reduce the nation's massive dependence on imported oil in the transportation sector.

 

The democratic uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria—and perhaps elsewhere—highlight the risk of America’s overreliance on oil and the potential inability of Middle Eastern nations to maintain current oil export levels. It also serves as a reminder that gas prices could rise above $4 a gallon more quickly than previously expected.

 

Despite these developments, the Republican Study Committee is urging an end to U.S. intercity passenger train service, eliminating federal funding for Amtrak and high-speed rail. The proposal also has huge mass transit cuts, including elimination of New Starts, a vital resource in building new transit lines. The Committee includes over two-thirds of House Republicans.

 

The House Budget Committee is considering drastic reductions in passenger train funding which could also lead to a service shutdown.

 

If adopted, these policies would deprive Americans of important transportation choices, make America more vulnerable to uncontrollable events overseas, and lead to substantial layoffs at Amtrak and transit agencies.

 

NARP calls on Congress to fully fund intercity passenger trains ($2.65 billion for Amtrak, and at least $3.5 billion for the high-speed rail program) to build a truly national rail passenger system and embrace President Obama's goal of putting high speed rail within reach of 80% of Americans within 25 years. Passenger trains and transit will help address the consumption side of our oil dependency by providing energy-efficient transportation choices, while creating good paying, non-exportable jobs for our citizens.

 

Energy consumption facts:

 

·   The U.S. transportation system is 96% petroleum dependent, accounts for 71% of the country’s oil use, and consumes 25% of the world’s net output.

 

·   Amtrak is 30% more energy efficient than cars, and 20% more efficient than air travel (based on BTUs per passenger mile).

 

·   Public transportation saves the U.S. 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline every year—more than three times the annual amount imported from Kuwait.

 

·   U.S. motorists’ fuel consumption alone accounts for eleven percent (11%) of the world’s total oil production.

 

·   Trains are the only mode which can run on electricity over long distances at high speeds.

 

# # #

http://allaboardohio.org/2011/02/21/all-aboard-ohio%E2%80%99s-house-ti-testimony-with-right-policies-rail-will-be-the-only-mode-that%E2%80%99s-privatized-%E2%80%9Cfrom-the-infrastructure-on-up%E2%80%9D/

 

Dear House T&I: right policies let rail be the only mode privatized “from the infrastructure on up”

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — February 21, 2011

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

COLUMBUS – For the first time since the early 20th century, railroad carriers’ unique ownership of their infrastructure and rights of way could be a speedy growth engine for them. All Aboard Ohio made that case as the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee sought testimony at a series of “field hearings” for its upcoming renewal of the six-year federal surface transportation spending law.

 

A field hearing was held in Columbus on Feb. 19. All Aboard Ohio is grateful to U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Columbus) for inviting us to submit written testimony. T&I Committee Chair Rep. John Mica (R-Winter Park, FL) asked witnesses for ideas and input on how to:

 

+ accelerate transportation project delivery;

+ identify creative financing options; and

+ increase private-sector investment in transportation projects.

 

All Aboard Ohio offered solutions to problems told by witnesses like Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jerry Wray who lamented falling state and federal gas tax revenues and the rising costs of maintaining roads. Keith Tuttle of Motor Carrier Services in Toledo urged longer hours that truckers can be on the road – because of highway congestion, truckers cannot travel as far. Meanwhile Rep. Mica reminded witnesses about rising gasoline prices and that federally compliant transportation projects typically require a decade to go from idea to construction.

 

In its testimony (see: http://freepdfhosting.com/abbc4763ff.pdf), All Aboard Ohio noted there are three ways for government to subsidize transportation:

 

+ direct financial outlays (grants and loans);

+ tax credits; and

+ outright ownership of transportation infrastructure.

 

All Aboard Ohio urged expansion of tax credits to meet the committee’s three basic goals, noted above. It would allow federal transportation incentives to move at the speed of business and without expanding federal bureaucracies.

 

“The passenger and freight rail industry is unlike any other mode of transportation as the carriers must own and be responsible for their infrastructure and rights of way,” All Aboard Ohio noted in its testimony. “That places a much higher fixed-cost burden on rail carriers (including Amtrak and transit agencies), compared to other modes where carriers can treat the public infrastructure they use more so as a variable cost. Rail carriers must pay for their own right-of-way policing and security, maintenance, dispatching and traffic management, and liability insurance. By comparison, for highway users and airlines, those costs are largely externalized onto general revenue taxpayers. Any public policy changes must acknowledge this unique situation in the rail industry.”

 

In recognition of this situation, All Aboard Ohio urged creation or expansion of tax-credit incentives for the following activities:

 

Capital improvements: encourages private enterprise, not public agencies, to lead rail freight, passenger and transit projects.

 

Positive Train Control: addresses the unfunded mandate of PL 110-432 on railroads to invest up to $10 billion to install PTC by 2015.

 

Public-benefit activities: allows railroads to provide public-benefit activities that do not benefit freight rail shareholders.

 

Electrification: encourages railroads and public utilities to expand use of electricity as a source of motive power.

 

Safety & technology research: promotes innovation at rail industry suppliers.

 

All Aboard Ohio urged Congressional action on two other issues:

 

Expand service partnerships with higher education: specialization in education requires more travel by students who often do not have cars and no other way of getting around. We support the Ohio Higher Education Rail Network model.

 

Simplify the RRIF program: The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing should offer no-interest loans, eliminate loan rankings based on purpose, be aligned more closely with the fiscal soundness loan-award policies of private lenders, and require only NEPA categorical exclusion documentation.

 

“The low-cost, market-based, high-impact proposals in this report would allow the rail industry to use its inherent strengths to surge ahead and take the next logical steps for both passenger and freight. And thus, the unique situation of carriers’ responsibility over their infrastructure could be turned from an albatross into a true asset,” All Aboard Ohio concluded.

 

END

I wonder if John Runyan is any relation to the Ohio Contractor Association (road builders) President Chris Runyan?? What a shock that an Ohioan (Jean Schmidt) is sponsoring this.

 

And gee, I didn't realize Europe and Canada allowed 97,000-pound trucks on their roads? So our government owned roads are already falling apart, gas taxes can't afford to pay for what we have now, and we want to beat the hell out of our roads and bridges more?!?!

 

____________________

 

2/22/2011

Bill backing heavier trucks re-enters House

 

On Feb. 18, Reps. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) and Mike Michaud (D-Maine) reintroduced the Safe & Efficient Transportation Act (SETA) or H.R. 763, which would enable states to increase truck weight limits on interstate highways.

 

Current truck weight limits, which were established in 1982, are set at 80,000 pounds. SETA would enable states to increase the limit to 97,000 pounds.

 

The United States currently lags behind Canada, Mexico and Europe, which already have increased truck weight limits, and many states already permit heavier trucks on state and local roads, said Schmidt in a prepared statement. In addition, half-full trucks that are common on today’s highways are increasing shipping costs for manufacturers, the agricultural industry and consumers, she said.

 

.....The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) — a group of more than 180 shippers and associations dedicated to increasing federal weight limits on interstate highways — supports the bill.

 

“Many shippers hit the 30-year-old federal weight limit with significant space left in their rigs and must use more truckloads, fuel and vehicle miles than necessary to get products to market,” said CTP Executive Director John Runyan in a prepared statement. “SETA gives each state the option to correct this inefficiency by raising its interstate weight limit for trucks equipped with an additional axle.”

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article/Bill-backing-heavier-trucks-reenters-House--25844

We are absolutely screwed and there's little we can do. First of all, we have a shortage of intelligent people in this country and secondly, virtually none of them are involved in manning our local and national transportation systems. We should have already cut out new road and road widening projects for more traffic lanes in favor of maintaining and reducing what we currently have. That's not happening and it's now a lost opportunity. It's bad enough that no one goes to their city council to address these issues, and it certainly doesn't help that some of those in charge have backroom dealings going on to fatten their own wallets. The general public just doesn't care that billions (likely trillions) are being thrown away on unnecessary projects and when they finally open their eyes it will be too late because everything has fallen to sh!t. Only then will they push for reform, but it will be too late because as with anything else, the only truly effective measures are preventative: a concept lost on a distracted, uninformed, anti-intellectual public. They weren't shaken out of their slumber from the bridges that have already collapsed and killed people and I can't say I'm surprised when they already turn a blind and callous eye to 30,000 annual highway deaths.

 

Rupert Cornwell: Crumbling America has a $2.2 trillion repair bill

 

Out of America: The US needs to update its roads, railways and airports – but recession and a shift to the right have put big infrastructure projects in jeopardy.

 

 

First, a tale of two rail tunnels. One of them is in Switzerland – the 35-mile Gotthard Base tunnel, the cutting of which was completed on Friday amid great national rejoicing, and which, when it opens for business in 2017, will be the longest of its kind in the world. It will have cost $10bn (£6.2bn), representing $1,300 of taxpayer's money for every citizen in the land of William Tell. But it will bestow huge benefits not only on Switzerland, but on north-south freight and passenger traffic for all Europe.

 

Full story at:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-crumbling-america-has-a-22-trillion-repair-bill-2108955.html

February 22, 2011

Study: Low-income adults worry about transportation costs

 

Most low-income households are concerned about transportation costs, even if they don't own a car, according to a new study of travel behavior and transportation expeditures of low-income adults.

 

In the study, released by The Mineta Transportation Institute, principal investigator Asha Weinstein Agrawal, Ph.D., asked how people with limited resources pay for cars, public transit and other means of travel, and how their transportation behavior changes during periods of falling employment and rising fuel prices. She and her research team conducted in-depth interviews with 73 adults to examine how rising transportation costs impact low-income families.

 

"The interviews examine four general areas," said Agrawal. "These include travel behavior and transportation spending patterns; the costs and benefits of alternative travel modes; cost management strategies; and opinions about the effect of changing transportation prices on travel behavior."

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2011/02/Study-Low-income-adults-worry-about-transportation-costs.aspx?ref=Express-Tuesday-20110222

My prediction is that, by 2020, the first Interstate will be abandoned for lack of money, lack of use and too much maintenance costs. It will probably be a short section of small-city highway with a decaying bridge on it. But it might gain at least as much as attention as the "unpaving" of rural roads. Here's two articles.....

 

 

JULY 17, 2010

Roads to Ruin: Towns Rip Up the Pavement

Asphalt Is Replaced By Cheaper Gravel; 'Back to Stone Age'

 

SPIRITWOOD, N.D.—A hulking yellow machine inched along Old Highway 10 here recently in a summer scene that seemed as normal as the nearby corn swaying in the breeze. But instead of laying a blanket of steaming blacktop, the machine was grinding the asphalt road into bits.

 

"When [counties] had lots of money, they paved a lot of the roads and tried to make life easier for the people who lived out here," said Stutsman County Highway Superintendant Mike Zimmerman, sifting the dusty black rubble through his fingers. "Now, it's catching up to them."

 

Outside this speck of a town, pop. 78, a 10-mile stretch of road had deteriorated to the point that residents reported seeing ducks floating in potholes, Mr. Zimmerman said. As the road wore out, the cost of repaving became too great. Last year, the county spent $400,000 on an RM300 Caterpillar rotary mixer to grind the road up, making it look more like the old homesteader trail it once was.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575370950363737746.html

 

 

Some Ohio roads, and those in other states, reverting to gravel because repairs are too costly

Published: Thursday, August 05, 2010, 7:00 AM

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Some Ohio drivers who are used to paved surfaces may find themselves traveling on gravel instead as rural counties struggle to pay for road improvements.

 

Coshocton County, in east-central Ohio, already has let some roads go to gravel, and a few other counties in the state may follow suit, according to Fred Pausch, executive director of the County Engineers Association of Ohio.

 

"It is kind of a reflection on how times are tough for everybody right now," he said. "I think they are trying to do the best they can with the limited resources at their disposal."\

 

READ MORE AT:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/some_ohio_roads_reverting_to_g.html

http://allaboardohio.org/2011/03/02/federal-report-transportation-free-market-is-side-tracked/

 

Federal report: transportation free-market is side-tracked

Private-sector tax credits for rails will create jobs, cut costs, restore efficiency

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — March 2, 2011

 

Contact:

Ken Prendergast

All Aboard Ohio Executive Director

(216) 288-4883

[email protected]

 

CLEVELAND – The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan research body, released an insightful report showing that greater use of fuel-efficient rail and water transportation modes is discouraged by government policies that favor less-fuel efficient trucking.

 

The report, “Surface Freight Transportation: A Comparison of the Costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers” is timely because the U.S. Congress and the Ohio General Assembly are now debating their respective multi-year transportation budgets. The GAO report says:

 

“If government policy gives one mode a cost advantage over another, by, for example, not recouping all the costs of that mode's use of infrastructure, then shipping prices and customers’ use of freight modes can be distorted, reducing the overall efficiency of the nation’s economy.”

 

One fact was most troubling: “GAO estimates that freight trucking costs that were not passed on to consumers were at least 6 times greater than rail costs.”

 

The 67-page report, including a highlights page, is available at:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-134

 

GAO suggested “policy changes that align prices with marginal costs on a shipment-by-shipment basis would provide the greatest economic benefit” or “charging user fees based on average costs, subsidizing more efficient alternatives, or broadly applying safety or emissions regulations – can change the overall distribution of freight across modes.”

 

All Aboard Ohio testified Feb. 19 at a U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee field hearing in Columbus that the upcoming renewal of the federal surface transportation law should include tax credits for railroad capital investments (including federally mandated Positive Train Control installations on railroad-owned properties) and for right-of-way operating costs that their trucking competitors do not pay on government-owned highways:

• Dispatching and traffic management;

• Liability insurance;

• Policing and security;

• Public-benefit costs (eg: corridor preservation, hosting passenger rail).

 

Tax credits will accelerate transportation project delivery, reduce government bureaucracy and increase private-sector investment in transportation projects. All Aboard Ohio’s testimony and a summary is available at:

http://tinyurl.com/4tr83gt

 

“All Aboard Ohio is concerned about public policies that affect freight rail because a healthy freight rail system that is able to compete for high-value, time-sensitive cargo is more compatible with fast passenger rail services,” said All Aboard Ohio President Bill Hutchison. “Indeed, before all levels of government got involved in building, owning and subsidizing highways, time-sensitive freight and passenger services coexisted on the same tracks – sometimes on the same trains – to a far greater extent than today.

 

“It’s long overdue to reintroduce the free market to our nation’s transportation system for the benefit of consumers who are hurting from rising costs of food, fuel and finished goods. The federal surface transportation law renewal is a great time to do this,” Hutchison concluded.

 

END

Interesting analysis of the automotive "costs" of sprawl for the poor.  (the intersection of urban design and planning on poverty)

 

http://www.originalgreen.org/OG/Blog/Entries/2011/2/28_Automobile_Poverty_-_Part_1.html

 

 

LaHood commits to working on popular US bond program

Wed, Mar 9 2011

 

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The Obama administration is actively supporting U.S. lawmakers on bipartisan plans to revive a popular infrastructure financing subsidy for transportation.

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the Senate Public Works Committee on Wednesday that he has conveyed that sentiment to at least one senator who is leading a push to rebrand Build America Bonds.

 

LaHood said he recently "committed to Senator (Ron) Wyden to help" with his idea for the government to reissue a similar type of financing to the BABs program, which was created in the 2009 economic stimulus package.

Read more at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/congress-buildamericabonds-idUSN0927645520110309

March 11, 2011

The Master Key

By BOB HERBERT

New York Times

 

The United States is not racked with the turmoil that is shaking the Arab world, or the tragic devastation that has hit Japan. We are not in a state of emergency. We’re in a moment when it is possible to look thoughtfully at the American landscape and take rational steps to ensure a better, more sustainable future.

 

But we’re not doing that. The big news out of Washington this week was Representative Peter King’s Muslim witch hunt. Policy makers at all levels of government are talking austerity — sometimes sensibly, but most often mindlessly. Creative ideas regarding energy, education, jobs and so forth have trouble even getting a hearing.

 

Now comes Senator John Kerry hoping to buck the frustrating tide with a modest proposal. He mentioned in a speech in January that through most of its history America could build things — not just manufacture goods, but build the infrastructure that is required for a nation to be great: “We built a transcontinental railroad. We built an interstate highway system. We built the rockets that let us explore the farthest edge of the solar system and beyond.”

Read full column at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/opinion/12herbert.html?ref=bobherbert

Mica Aims for T&I to Complete Transport Bill in May

John D. Boyd | Mar 15, 2011 4:15PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee plans to complete the panel's work on the next long-term transportation legislation in May, an ambitious schedule that could get a long-sought national plan done this year.

 

Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., told the American Public Transportation Association in Washington, D.C., this schedule would allow time for Congress to hold a conference on differing House and Senate versions, and complete the bill in September.

 

Read more at: http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/mica-aims-ti-complete-transport-bill-may

Three senators unveil BUILD Act to create national infrastructure bank

 

Yesterday, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced a bill that would establish an infrastructure bank to help repair, modernize and expand the nation’s transportation, water and energy infrastructure.

 

The Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development (BUILD) Act would create an American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) to complement existing infrastructure funding. The AIFA would provide loans and loan guarantees for infrastructure projects. It would be independent of the political process and fund the “most important and economically viable” projects in the country, according to the legislation.

 

Read more at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article/Three-senators-unveil-BUILD-Act-to-create-national-infrastructure-bank--26058