Support for Reform

Last week, I introduced a plan to refocus, reform and renew transportation policy in America…and we at the Department aren’t the only ones who think the time for change has come.  As you can see from the following quotes, a variety of think tanks, business groups, government entities, and transportation experts are sounding the drumbeat for reform. 

The Congressional Budget Office—Congress’ budget arm for nearly 100 years said “there is a strong rationale for charging users for the costs of transportation infrastructure because they reap substantial benefits that the system provides. Designing and implementing a financing system that charges users of transportation infrastructure for the costs that they impose on the system can encourage efficient use of existing roads, rails, and other transportation infrastructure. It can also help in identifying needs and paying for the construction of new infrastructure in the right places at the right time. The charges users pay for the costs that they impose on the system provide a measure of the value of investment in increased capacity.” (Public Spending on Surface Transportation Infrastructure,” Testimony of Robert A. Sunshine, CBO Deputy Director, Before the House Committee on the Budget, October 25, 2007.

In the SAFETEA-LU bill, Congress created two independent Commissions to develop recommendations on the future of surface transportation.  Both bodies were supportive of significant programmatic reform.

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission has said that “the absence of national investment priorities under our current surface transportation programs has been frequently raised, illustrated by long lists of highway and transit programs authorized in SAFETEA-LU, many of which are heavily earmarked…Many such categorical programs address narrow issue areas, arguably with meritorious intent, but with little or no overarching national interest. The Commission believes that surface transportation programs should be reconstructed from a ‘clean slate’ to allow for radical program reforms.” (Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, December 2007)

And the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission argued that “reliance on fuel taxes may have been an effective funding approach in the second half of the 20th century, but it may not be sufficient to address the pressing needs of the first half of the 21st century and beyond.” (The Path Forward: Funding and Financing our Surface Transportation System, February 2008)

And think tanks from across the ideological spectrum have also chimed in:

While the Heritage Foundation wrote that “while there is much that state governments can do to improve mobility and alleviate congestion within their borders, current federal surface trans¬portation policies and programs—which provide about one-third of the funding for the nation's roads—will not help to achieve this goal unless Congress dramatically changes federal transporta¬tion law. Chief among the many needed changes is redirecting federal transportation resources to ben¬efit the motorists and truckers who pay the taxes that fund the system, rather than continuing to ben¬efit privileged constituencies who pay their lobby¬ists handsome retainers to divert highway money to pork-barrel projects and ineffective programs, many of which contribute nothing to transportation, safety, or congestion relief.” (“How States Can Improve Their Transportation Systems and Relieve Traffic Congestion,” by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., July 28, 2008)

And the CATO Institute said that “ideally, the federal government should not be in the business of funding local transportation and dictating local transportation policies. At the least, Congress should repeal long-range transportation planning requirements in the next reauthorization of federal surface transportation funding. Instead, metropolitan transportation organizations should focus planning on the short term (5 years), and concentrate on quantifiable factors that are directly related to transportation, including safety and congestion relief.” (Roadmap to Gridlock: The Failure of Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation Planning,” by Randal O'Toole, May 27, 2008)

Finally, a Brookings Institution Fellow testified before Congress in April that “each reauthorization cycle is dominated by parochial interests around funding.   In particular are the debates over donors and donees…This approach is anathema to achieving a true national purpose and vision—and turns the program into one of revenue distribution instead of one designed to meet national needs.” 

Clearly, there is a strong chorus in favor of change.  I’m pleased the Department could lend its voice with a plan for reform.

-Secretary Peters

Comments

[SalineVance]

Secretary Peters,

I believe the paragraph

>"...Chief among the many needed changes is redirecting federal transportation resources to ben¬efit the motorists and truckers who pay the taxes that fund the system, rather than continuing to ben¬efit privileged constituencies who pay their lobby¬ists handsome retainers to divert highway money to pork-barrel projects and ineffective programs, many of which contribute nothing to transportation, safety, or congestion relief."

Is the heart of the matter. I've commented on this thought-thread previously (http://fastlane.dot.gov/secretarysblog/2008/08/gao-issues-repo.html)

[Dr. Jack Paxton]

Why can't the DOT mandate responsive traffic lights such as used on Walnut Ave. in Carmichael, CA?
Huge amounts of gasoline are wasted along with tempers in stopping at traffic lights where there is NO cross traffic [when someone turns right for example].
Please respond.

[Paula J. Shaw]

Transportation changes begin at the root of funding distributions. It is imparative for the nation to step back and re-evaluate the distribution of funds between modes. At a time when our demand for transportation services has finally awaken to the benefits of using alternatives modes such as rail, transit, air and waterways the base cost of fuel has forced these modes to reduce services levels and routes in needed areas. The public is confused by what they interpret to be "poor management decisions" not understanding that the reduction in services has been created by escalating operating costs made up, primarily, by high fuel costs. Yes, dependance on an alternative (sustainable) fuel source will provide the best solution to this problem but that is a long term fix that is long passed due...However, the short term concerns of daily life can only be sustained by an immediate and significant reduction in fuel cost, either by subsidy or in actual price at the pumps. Failure to act on this single item will continue the downward spiral for all transportation service modes, which will in turn fuel the spiral cycle by causing service providers and business' to constantly search for areas to cut costs and reduce services even further. As services are cut and people and business' seeking economical transportation alternatives begin to fail, an increasing number of employment sites and workers will be lost from the pool and the spiral will continue----All the while further reducing the tax base needed to sustain the existing transporation systems.

The economic stability of the nation rests on it's leader's ability to identify not only a long term approach to transportation thinking but a short term plan that ensures that each citizen's quality of life and basic ability to meet everyday needs is not further diminished by the disproportionate percentage of their budgets required to fund transportation costs for their families and business'.

Action Number 1: (Short-Term)Federal Fuel Subsidy for transit, rail, water and air service...This could keep service levels static, fuel tax bases stable, and would help promote uses of green alternatives and begin to reduce congestion---Would help business' and citizens stabilize transportation (operations)costs

Action Number 2: (Long-Term)Direct a larger percentage of Federal Transportion dollars toward alternative capital investments and existing structures maintenance (ie...bridges.)

Granted, this is an oversimplification of a very complex issue however these are core principles that embody the possibility of bringing about the "change" in "transportation thinking" that could well lead us to become a greener, cleaner, more fossil fuel independant nation.

[Zane Royal]

Secretary Peters,
Thanks for you and your agency's hard work on total reform of the Transportation System! Your out front and in our face approach has opened my eyes and changed my opinion on taxation and spending on our highway system. One philosophy I live by is "If we always do what we have always done, then we will always have what we always had." What was once the greatest is now in disrepair, we have a long way to go in returning our roads to even adequate as a whole. You are heading up an agency that hopefully have a legacy of reform and rebuilding, those who move this country have taken note! Although the average Joe on the street may never notice, please keep up the good fight! God bless our great Country and those who keep it moving.

[Jon]

I certainly agree that measures need to be taken to prevent the squandering of transportation funds on 'pork barrel projects', especially at a time when the condition of our bridges was being overlooked. I think a broader measure to prevent the redirection of any earmarked money is probably in order.