Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Surface Transportation Commission Releases Report
« Go for the Tap, Skip the Bottle | Main | State of the Union? Crumbling. »After some delay and much anticipation, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released its report this morning with its recommendations for improving the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. The commission is comprised of twelve members including the Secretary of Transportation, state and local transportation officials, policy experts, and transportation users and represents a broad spectrum of politics and experience. ASCE supported the creation of this commission in the SAFETEA-LU authorization two years ago, and has eagerly been awaiting the group’s findings.
Among the chief recommendations of the commission are to increase the federal government’s role in surface transportation significantly, and make it a full partner in future developments at the state and local levels. Additionally, the commissioners urge a complete overhaul of the federal transportation administration system to replace over a hundred agencies with ten over-arching and multi-modal agencies that will focus on key goals of surface transportation including mobility, environmental protection, increased mass transit, and freight movement, among others. Finally, the commissioners recognize the chronic under-funding of surface transportation and recommend immediate increases in the federal gasoline tax and eventual implementation of other revenue streams including vehicle miles traveled charges, congestion pricing, and increased use of public private partnerships.
While some of these proposals may seem somewhat radical and politically unpopular, the needs identified by the commission are not news to ASCE. The federal highway system built 50 years ago was designed to link cities for ease of travel and transport of goods - and it has done a tremendous job at that. Today, however, we don’t really need to link up any more cities or build new roads, what we need is maintenance and increased capacity on those old roads.
Despite this modern problem, most people still seem to have the 50 year old mindset that we can keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing. Two years ago when SAFETEA-LU was implemented, ASCE felt like we were the only ones saying that the current system is not just broke, but broken and needed a new perspective. The truth is that Americans must change their transportation behavior. This commission’s report might be the impetus we need to get both policy makers and the public to wake up to reality.
Unfortunately there are some who still don’t see the light – chief amongst them the current administration. Besides the fact that the commission recommends an eventual forty cent gas tax increase, most reporters at this morning’s press conference on the release of the report could not fail to point out Transportation Secretary Peters’ absence and dissent from the commission that she herself chaired. In what has become her boiler plate response to any reasonable plan to fix surface transportation infrastructure she said in a statement today, “Raising gas taxes won’t improve traffic congestion, it will only perpetuate our ineffective reliance on fossil-based fuels to fund infrastructure and send more of Americans’ hard-earned money to Washington to be squandered on earmarks and special interest programs,” Secretary Peters said. “A better way forward is to provide incentives to states willing to pursue more efficient approaches and to invest federal funds more effectively to give commuters real relief from gridlock.” Of the few other programs she mentioned in the statement such as congestion pricing, all are in fact included in the commission’s report, but with a way to pay for them.
With opposition at such high and integral levels, it’s obvious that the commission’s report will face some real challenges to implementation. ASCE, however, will be a leader in ensuring that the future of the surface transportation infrastructure looks a lot like the vision laid out today. This report may not be the silver bullet to deep and chronic problems facing the system today, but it’s a good start. Specific proposals in the report may not appeal to everyone, but at the very least, it should help us all to recognize that the new goal of the surface transportation system should be to contribute to a high quality of life for all Americans and be the backbone of our strong economy. We don’t need any more facts to tell us the system is broken, let’s take this opportunity to fix it.
Comments on this entry:
Given the dissenting report and Bush Administration history, nothing will happen on this during 2008. Congress will have a very hard time passing any fuel tax even in 2009. The presidential candidates are not even remotely focused on infrastructure. ASCE needs to align with all national public interest groups (NARC, NLC, NACO, AASHTO, APTA, et al and from a coalition that Congress and the new president cannot ignore.
Thanks for your fine work on this.
As a recently retired Federal supervisory highway engineer, I have seen the roads and bridges languish with inadequate maintenance funding and funding for replacement of the Interstate highway system bridges that were built nearly 50 years ago. We must recognize that concrete and steel don't last forever and we must repair and replace when necessary if we need our highway system to function safely.
Increased taxes for gas will reduce the unnecessary use of gas and could fund new roads to alleviate congestion in our urban areas.
I agree with the dissenting opinion. Unless the consumption of transportation services aligns with the perceived costs, there is no incentive to be discriminating consumers. Also, more Federal involvement is the last thing we need. Eliminate the Federal gas tax and let the states decide if they want to increase their own tax.
I read the report last night and commend the commission for providing a solution. I was very disappointed in the Ms. Peter's reaction to the report as it offered no counter solution. I do agree with her that more controls are necessary at the state and local levels and not DC and that appears to be addressed in the re-organization discussed in the report. I also concur that a "just in time" plan is not effective and regardless of anything else stated in the report, a stategic plan for transportation must be put in place now. I sent an email to my representative this morning to let him know that I read this report and believe further action is necessary and he should read this report too. I encourage you all to write your representative and make them aware of this report.
Words fail me to describe the intelligence and logic that commission displayed if they think Americans will accept, much less want, a 10% increase in the current price they pay for gasoline. I would suggest reallocation of current fundings so politicians do not have even more money to try to buy the citizens' votes as the candidates from both parties are so blatantly doing right now.
I do not support increased federal participation (read "money") to repair, maintain, or build state and local roadways. I do support improved transportation system planning and design collaboration between the state, local, and federal entities.
I do not support additional taxes to pay for transportation projects. The Federal government already consumes over 35% of the GDP in tax receipts. I do support value based funding prioritization for federal projects. I do support shifting money from other federal programs (such as defense and health care) to pay for roadways. I do support using the taxes and fees already collected for roadways, but spent elsewhere, to be spent on roadways. I support criminal penalties for those authorizing the use of such moneys to be spent on projects other than the transportation accounts for which they were by law intended.
I do not support ASCE singling out individuals, whose views differ from their corporate perspective, for attack.
I do not support ASCE posting position statements like the one above without subscribing authorship. The position statement author, or ASCE committe or author who wrote or authorized it, should attach their name to it.
We definitely do not need any more gas taxes at this time. It would only raise the price of all consumer goods getting to market and hurt all families trying to put food on the table. This is a bad economic policy.
I strongly disagree with the proposed 40 cent increase in the gas tax. We as a great nation can do a better job at solving our infrastructure problems w\o increasing taxes. This is an action that will result in future call for tax increases under the guies of needs and cost to be passed on to the public. We are an intelligent nation made up of educated prople who can solve problems without tas increases.We need to restructure government spending and research . We have no solutions and no plan, but we need monies to implement our much needed " No Plan Solutions". We have become an nation based upon taxes spent on wasteful items.Let's get real and solve our shortfalls w\o tax increases...
I have and still am, uneasy about all these Commissions, particularly when our Organization has and continuous telling our government the infrastructure deficiencies of the nation; therefore, I consider a Commission, a political manouver to justify an agenda that ignores many other factors before making recommendations which given the current economic situation of Americans will simply compound and accelarate the problem.
Yes, the needs are there but I wish the government will realign it's priorities and begin spending 2 billion dollars a week in our infrastructure.
It is amazing to me that the commission still does not see that massive raising gasoline taxes will not be accepted by the American people. Instead of restrictions on public private partnerships there should be facilitation. Transit is not a cure all answer for most American cities. Transit should pay its own way. Creative bus transit systems can be more flexible and better serve a population. But such systems must be attractive to the population. Many of the problems are operational causing people to avoid the bus because of inconsistent service. Further, ASCE should avoid inflammatory language in its comments on the opposition.
Your comment: