by Petra Todorovich, Director, America 2050, RPA
When the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission issued their final report last week, headlines in newspapers, to the extent there were any, focused on the Commission's controversial proposal to raise the gas tax over five years by 25 - 40 cents a gallon and index it to inflation. (Currently the gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon.)
While these numbers raised many eyebrows, there is also no doubt that this is the scale of investment needed in surface transportation for robust and prosperous economic growth in the 21st Century. Such an increase in the gas tax would help advance the Commission's laudable goal of increasing overall investment in the nation's surface transportation network to $250 billion a year for 50 years from all sources.
Beyond these big brush strokes, however, there are other recommendations and themes in the report that deserve attention, some for praise, some for the contrary. All of them though help advance the debate around the nation's next surface transportation bill, which will come up for authorization in 2009. In general, the report underscores the need for real reform.
The current transportation program, scorned for its earmarks and regional battles over funding, is likened to a block grant program to the states with negligible accountability.
The Commission's proposed solution is radical program reform, reducing the 108 existing mode-specific funding programs (all siphoned through separate administrations, Federal Transit, Federal Highways, Federal Railroad, etc.) to 10, "mode-neutral", goal-oriented programs like "Rebuilding America," "Saving Lives," "Congestion Relief," and "Energy Security." These programs would be guided by national plans and performance criteria developed for each program and used to drive decisions about project selection and measure the progress of each program toward meeting its objectives.
A new independent commission, called the National Surface Transportation Commission (NASTRAC) would oversee the development of a national strategic plan composed of the 10 new program plans described above. NASTRAC would recommend the total funding amount for the transportation program to Congress, and in the manner of the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC), would be subject to a Congressional veto but no amendments. If no actions are taken, the recommendations become law.
The devil is in the details of course, and we need to better understand whether the proposed process can move the transportation program away from the politics and earmarks that have plagued it and toward investments that support strategic, sustainable metropolitan growth in America. Will a newly appointed NASTRAC commission, once given authority to set total transportation funding levels, be any more insulated from politics than the Congress has been?
If performance criteria become the key factor in project decision-making, the challenge is finding the right performance criteria that will select projects that provide a high return on investment, promote transportation choice and safety, and produce the greatest efficiency. In light of the enormous challenge to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, (and the contribution of a growing 33 percent of all carbon emissions coming from the transportation sector), it is appropriate to establish performance criteria that evaluate projects on the basis of their climate benefits. Coordination with existing land uses could also be used to evaluate projects that create new capacity, as has been done in California.
In fact, while the Commission's focus on performance criteria and accountability is right, it could go farther. By failing to articulate how the hard decisions about transportation projects will be made in an era of mounting climate and energy constraints, it has left the door open for others to develop a vision for nation's transportation system. Yes - we need to move people and goods efficiently, provide capacity for economic growth, dramatically increase safety on our roadways, and shape our built environment in ways that will be both prosperous and pleasant. But will these goals be achieved by building more than 150,000 new lane miles on the Interstate System by 2050, as the leading highway industry group has proposed, or a real commitment to linking metropolitan development with modern public transportation investments, so as to provide new transportation choices to millions of Americans and reduce vehicle miles traveled?
The Commission report also fails to address the hegemony of state Departments of Transportation and their natural predilection toward road building as the solution to most transportation problems. The Commission's proposal to develop 10 national plans to guide its 10 goal-oriented transportation programs is a sound one - except that it calls for state DOTs to propose the projects in each state that will comprise the plans. (How will this process differ from the free-for-all pork process we currently suffer from?) Without greater funding directly sub-allocated to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transit agencies, the metropolitan regions that power the nation's economy will continue to lose out. And the Commission, while tipping its hat to the challenges of America's emerging megaregions and the complex transportation issues they pose, does not suggest new institutions, tools, or legal mechanisms to allow adjacent states and metropolitan areas to plan, fund, and operate multi-jurisdictional transportation corridors and networks.
Getting back to the gas tax, the Commission provides a great service by not shying away from the serious funding gap needed to fix the falling-down bridges, congested roads, inadequate public transit, and lack of decent intercity rail in the nation. America deserves a modern and sustainable transportation system to fuel growth and prosperity in this century as previous generations built for us in the past. But to get there will require a radical realignment of the way we spend our transportation dollars with the goals we have as a society. That is a conversation that has yet to take place.
When the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission issued their final report last week, headlines in newspapers, to the extent there were any, focused on the Commission's controversial proposal to raise the gas tax over five years by 25 - 40 cents a gallon and index it to inflation. (Currently the gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon.)
While these numbers raised many eyebrows, there is also no doubt that this is the scale of investment needed in surface transportation for robust and prosperous economic growth in the 21st Century. Such an increase in the gas tax would help advance the Commission's laudable goal of increasing overall investment in the nation's surface transportation network to $250 billion a year for 50 years from all sources.
Beyond these big brush strokes, however, there are other recommendations and themes in the report that deserve attention, some for praise, some for the contrary. All of them though help advance the debate around the nation's next surface transportation bill, which will come up for authorization in 2009. In general, the report underscores the need for real reform.
The current transportation program, scorned for its earmarks and regional battles over funding, is likened to a block grant program to the states with negligible accountability.
The Commission's proposed solution is radical program reform, reducing the 108 existing mode-specific funding programs (all siphoned through separate administrations, Federal Transit, Federal Highways, Federal Railroad, etc.) to 10, "mode-neutral", goal-oriented programs like "Rebuilding America," "Saving Lives," "Congestion Relief," and "Energy Security." These programs would be guided by national plans and performance criteria developed for each program and used to drive decisions about project selection and measure the progress of each program toward meeting its objectives.
A new independent commission, called the National Surface Transportation Commission (NASTRAC) would oversee the development of a national strategic plan composed of the 10 new program plans described above. NASTRAC would recommend the total funding amount for the transportation program to Congress, and in the manner of the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC), would be subject to a Congressional veto but no amendments. If no actions are taken, the recommendations become law.
The devil is in the details of course, and we need to better understand whether the proposed process can move the transportation program away from the politics and earmarks that have plagued it and toward investments that support strategic, sustainable metropolitan growth in America. Will a newly appointed NASTRAC commission, once given authority to set total transportation funding levels, be any more insulated from politics than the Congress has been?
If performance criteria become the key factor in project decision-making, the challenge is finding the right performance criteria that will select projects that provide a high return on investment, promote transportation choice and safety, and produce the greatest efficiency. In light of the enormous challenge to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, (and the contribution of a growing 33 percent of all carbon emissions coming from the transportation sector), it is appropriate to establish performance criteria that evaluate projects on the basis of their climate benefits. Coordination with existing land uses could also be used to evaluate projects that create new capacity, as has been done in California.
In fact, while the Commission's focus on performance criteria and accountability is right, it could go farther. By failing to articulate how the hard decisions about transportation projects will be made in an era of mounting climate and energy constraints, it has left the door open for others to develop a vision for nation's transportation system. Yes - we need to move people and goods efficiently, provide capacity for economic growth, dramatically increase safety on our roadways, and shape our built environment in ways that will be both prosperous and pleasant. But will these goals be achieved by building more than 150,000 new lane miles on the Interstate System by 2050, as the leading highway industry group has proposed, or a real commitment to linking metropolitan development with modern public transportation investments, so as to provide new transportation choices to millions of Americans and reduce vehicle miles traveled?
The Commission report also fails to address the hegemony of state Departments of Transportation and their natural predilection toward road building as the solution to most transportation problems. The Commission's proposal to develop 10 national plans to guide its 10 goal-oriented transportation programs is a sound one - except that it calls for state DOTs to propose the projects in each state that will comprise the plans. (How will this process differ from the free-for-all pork process we currently suffer from?) Without greater funding directly sub-allocated to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transit agencies, the metropolitan regions that power the nation's economy will continue to lose out. And the Commission, while tipping its hat to the challenges of America's emerging megaregions and the complex transportation issues they pose, does not suggest new institutions, tools, or legal mechanisms to allow adjacent states and metropolitan areas to plan, fund, and operate multi-jurisdictional transportation corridors and networks.
Getting back to the gas tax, the Commission provides a great service by not shying away from the serious funding gap needed to fix the falling-down bridges, congested roads, inadequate public transit, and lack of decent intercity rail in the nation. America deserves a modern and sustainable transportation system to fuel growth and prosperity in this century as previous generations built for us in the past. But to get there will require a radical realignment of the way we spend our transportation dollars with the goals we have as a society. That is a conversation that has yet to take place.
@RegionalPlan
Leave a comment