by Alex Marshall, Editor, Spotlight on the Region
In presidential politics, the care and feeding of our roads, bridges, train lines, airports, ports and other types of infrastructure has been our little lost orphan, its face pressed against the glass while more important "issues," such as alleged misstatements and unappealing facial expressions, get the attention.
But about a week ago the presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama gave a speech in Miami on June 21st to the U.S. Conference of Mayors that was mostly about infrastructure, and why and how we needed to invest more in it. In political terms, the little lost orphan had been invited into the dinner party, and given a seat at the table.
"We'll unlock the potential of all our regions by connecting them with a 21st century infrastructure," Obama said. "You know why this is so important. You see the traffic along I-95 in Miami. You see the crumbling roads and bridges, the aging water and sewer pipes, the faltering electrical grids that cost us billions in blackouts, repairs, and travel delays." He went on to talk about investing in "a world-class transit system, . . .green energy technology, . . . and in our ports, roads, and high-speed rails."
What Obama was calling for was a renewed and redefined federal role in infrastructure development, in the context of investment in cities and regions themselves.
Those who follow such things could see that Obama, like any good politician, was following as much as leading, choosing the right moment to highlight an issue that others had already underscored and defined. He has surely noticed the debated beginning to gain traction in the past few months.
Many of Obama's themes draw directly from RPA's America 2050 program. The conference, "Rebuilding and Renewing America: Toward a 21st Century Infrastructure Investment Plan", which RPA organized in early May in Washington, D.C., inspired an article in The Economist this week, citing America 2050's efforts emphasizing an enhanced role for the federal government in the creation of freight, passenger rail and intermodal networks, all things referenced in Obama's speech. Obama's language discussing a historic tradition of federal involvement in planning and transportation, going back to Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt, draws from a paper commissioned by America 2050 and written by historian Robert Fishman.
And, just 10 days before Obama's speech, the Brookings Institution held a conference in Washington D.C. that also examined the relationship of the federal government to cities and metropolitan areas. Many of Obama's themes on the importance of metropolitan regions use Brookings research. At a transportation panel there that I moderated, Brookings Fellow Robert Puentes read his new report "A Bridge to Somewhere" that called for the creation of "Strategic Transportation Investments Commission (STIC)--to prioritize federal investments."
Meanwhile, Obama's colleagues in Congress have also been active. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, has introduced H.R. 5976 to establish a "Commission on Rebuilding America for the 21st Century" that calls for, well, a renewed federal role in infrastructure development. In the Senate, Republican maverick Chuck Hagel and Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd from Connecticut have introduced a bill to establish a National Infrastructure Bank, something proposed several years ago by New Yorker Felix Rohatyn and former Sen. Warren Rudman.
"I'll also launch a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years, and create nearly two million new jobs," Obama said. "It's time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and start investing that money in Phoenix, Nashville, Seattle and metro areas across this country."
Many of these efforts that Obama is picking up on are the culmination of years of effort. But they are coming to fruition in a very different political climate, something that Obama surely senses. Since roughly the collapse last August of the I-35 Minneapolis bridge across the Mississippi that killed 13 people, the issue of how much to invest in maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure has suddenly become viable politically. A tipping point appears to have been reached.
Meanwhile, Obama's opponent Sen. John McCain has drawn a sharp distinction between himself and Obama on many of these issues. While McCain has emphasized cutting pork in federal expenditures, and has advocated investing in nuclear power and space travel, he has not laid out any sort of comprehensive program or policy for federal investment in transportation infrastructure.
But the candidates will have to do more than pledge more focus and resources. Given the federal track record, is greater involvement in infrastructure an unalloyed good? Like most things, it depends. If the federal government can work out an effective way to rank projects and funding, if it can develop projects with some sort of care and attention, then the answer is yes. Conceptually, it certainly makes sense for the federal government to take a strong role in transportation between and among multiple states. The cautionary note I strike is that subtlety has often not been the federal government's strong suit. Everything from urban renewal in the 1950s to the invasion of Iraq in current times demonstrates it.
But hope springs eternal.
In presidential politics, the care and feeding of our roads, bridges, train lines, airports, ports and other types of infrastructure has been our little lost orphan, its face pressed against the glass while more important "issues," such as alleged misstatements and unappealing facial expressions, get the attention.
But about a week ago the presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama gave a speech in Miami on June 21st to the U.S. Conference of Mayors that was mostly about infrastructure, and why and how we needed to invest more in it. In political terms, the little lost orphan had been invited into the dinner party, and given a seat at the table.
"We'll unlock the potential of all our regions by connecting them with a 21st century infrastructure," Obama said. "You know why this is so important. You see the traffic along I-95 in Miami. You see the crumbling roads and bridges, the aging water and sewer pipes, the faltering electrical grids that cost us billions in blackouts, repairs, and travel delays." He went on to talk about investing in "a world-class transit system, . . .green energy technology, . . . and in our ports, roads, and high-speed rails."
What Obama was calling for was a renewed and redefined federal role in infrastructure development, in the context of investment in cities and regions themselves.
Those who follow such things could see that Obama, like any good politician, was following as much as leading, choosing the right moment to highlight an issue that others had already underscored and defined. He has surely noticed the debated beginning to gain traction in the past few months.
Many of Obama's themes draw directly from RPA's America 2050 program. The conference, "Rebuilding and Renewing America: Toward a 21st Century Infrastructure Investment Plan", which RPA organized in early May in Washington, D.C., inspired an article in The Economist this week, citing America 2050's efforts emphasizing an enhanced role for the federal government in the creation of freight, passenger rail and intermodal networks, all things referenced in Obama's speech. Obama's language discussing a historic tradition of federal involvement in planning and transportation, going back to Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt, draws from a paper commissioned by America 2050 and written by historian Robert Fishman.
And, just 10 days before Obama's speech, the Brookings Institution held a conference in Washington D.C. that also examined the relationship of the federal government to cities and metropolitan areas. Many of Obama's themes on the importance of metropolitan regions use Brookings research. At a transportation panel there that I moderated, Brookings Fellow Robert Puentes read his new report "A Bridge to Somewhere" that called for the creation of "Strategic Transportation Investments Commission (STIC)--to prioritize federal investments."
Meanwhile, Obama's colleagues in Congress have also been active. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, has introduced H.R. 5976 to establish a "Commission on Rebuilding America for the 21st Century" that calls for, well, a renewed federal role in infrastructure development. In the Senate, Republican maverick Chuck Hagel and Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd from Connecticut have introduced a bill to establish a National Infrastructure Bank, something proposed several years ago by New Yorker Felix Rohatyn and former Sen. Warren Rudman.
"I'll also launch a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years, and create nearly two million new jobs," Obama said. "It's time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and start investing that money in Phoenix, Nashville, Seattle and metro areas across this country."
Many of these efforts that Obama is picking up on are the culmination of years of effort. But they are coming to fruition in a very different political climate, something that Obama surely senses. Since roughly the collapse last August of the I-35 Minneapolis bridge across the Mississippi that killed 13 people, the issue of how much to invest in maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure has suddenly become viable politically. A tipping point appears to have been reached.
Meanwhile, Obama's opponent Sen. John McCain has drawn a sharp distinction between himself and Obama on many of these issues. While McCain has emphasized cutting pork in federal expenditures, and has advocated investing in nuclear power and space travel, he has not laid out any sort of comprehensive program or policy for federal investment in transportation infrastructure.
But the candidates will have to do more than pledge more focus and resources. Given the federal track record, is greater involvement in infrastructure an unalloyed good? Like most things, it depends. If the federal government can work out an effective way to rank projects and funding, if it can develop projects with some sort of care and attention, then the answer is yes. Conceptually, it certainly makes sense for the federal government to take a strong role in transportation between and among multiple states. The cautionary note I strike is that subtlety has often not been the federal government's strong suit. Everything from urban renewal in the 1950s to the invasion of Iraq in current times demonstrates it.
But hope springs eternal.
@RegionalPlan