Earlier this week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report supporting a “fundamental reexamination and refocusing of the nation’s surface transportation policies”—just as the Department released our own proposal to reform, refocus and renew the government’s approach to transportation.
Citing increased demand that “for the past several decades…has outpaced the capacity of the surface transportation system,” the report recommends that Congress consider restructuring federal programs to meet the strain on our infrastructure that will be caused by “population growth, technological change, and the increased globalization of the economy.”
I believe the GAO report confirms what we have been saying all along: it’s time for fresh ideas, and a new approach to funding, building, and managing our nation’s transportation infrastructure.
The plan we released earlier this week does just that by streamlining funding mechanisms, making it easier for state and local governments to access private capital for infrastructure improvements, and reducing the fiscal damage caused by the broken earmark system.
I hope you will read the report and comment on the Fast Lane…it’s always good to get your thoughts!
-Secretary Peters
Secretary Peters,
A view from the field:
Surface transportation in this country is just fine. Oh, sure, it's crowded in the cities, and more open in the country, but that's to be expected. Urban freeways are now landlocked - they cannot expand in the cities - so urban surface transportation will be hard to improve.
The typical response to urban surface transportation is to look at a bus system or a light rail system. Both of those systems require massive government subsidy. In other words, you take funds from many to subsidize the few users of such systems. In my view, that is patently unfair.
What to do? Let the market decide!
Seriously. When the urban freeway systems get so bad that a small, private (and TAXABLE) operation springs up to fill a need, you will have your solution.
That type of solution may not be what the DOT is looking for, but it's a whole lot better than spending (borrowed) tax money on a subsidized mass-transportation system. At least, in my view.
Posted by: SalineVance | August 02, 2008 at 07:09 AM
One other system that has historically relied on massive government subsidies are highways.
Letting the market decide on efficiency versus a predilection toward independent (and expensive) mobility is, with all due respect, balderdash!
Transit systems need not be self-sustaining nor profitable in the marketplace for their far-reaching benefits to be enjoyed by every facet of public and private sector business, housing, entertainment and the virtually-improved quality of life that comes from breathing air made slightly cleaner because fewer mobile sources clutter our surface transportation network.
No, there is no one silver bullet to cure the ailment of congestion and scarce fiscal resources.
Rather, any hope for American cities to be economically sustainable and competitive on a rapidly crowding world-stage will come from making a few valiant sacrifices in our attitudes, behaviors and utilization of roadway, rails and public/private transportation initiatives.
As with any construction activity, the process of building a new paradigm for mobility will not come without some lumps, blunders and a few hard-learned lessons. Some like we've already learned.
However, as any parent knows, a toddler can never learn to walk that shies-away after having merely stubbed its toe.
Fear of the unknown really is our only obstacle to overcoming the current quagmire.
Posted by: Alexander | August 04, 2008 at 04:46 PM