Thursday, October 1, 2009

Strengthening the Detroit Metro Region through a Call for Federal Transportation Policy Reform

The nation’s existing surface transportation law SAFETEA-LU expired yesterday, and while Congressional action on reauthorization remains muddled and misguided NTPP is continuing to engage key transportation decision makers across the country in discussions about future policies necessary to shape our nation’s transportation system.

We most recently held a public forum in Detroit on September 21st to discuss our blueprint for reform entitled, Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy, and the impact of our recommendations on the Detroit metro region. This forum was the second to be held in a series of events that we are holding across the country. It attracted leading local, state and national transportation policymakers, academics, and other key transportation stakeholders, as well as the interested public.


Panelists who spoke at the Detroit event agreed that reforming federal transportation policy is critical, not only for maintaining necessary infrastructure in the State of Michigan, but for stabilizing the region and the nation's economy. During the event NTPP Co-Chairman and former Mayor of Detroit Dennis Archer stated that “the current structure of federal transportation programs does not recognize the key role that transportation investment plays in economic growth and access to jobs. Detroit would benefit from a program and funding framework that is based on economic performance and outcomes.”


Our recommendations call for U.S. transportation policy to be more performance-driven, more directly linked to a set of clearly articulated goals, and more accountable for results. One of the goals of our framework is that transportation investment be measured and held accountable for generating economic growth. Speakers at the forum urged local citizens, as well as Congress, to push for these recommendations in the next transportation bill.


This event was held in downtown Detroit, in partnership with the Detroit Regional Chamber. It attracted transportation experts from across the state including: State Representative and Chair of the House Transportation Committee Pam Byrnes; Gregory Johnson, Chief Operations Officer for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT); Paul Tait, Executive Director of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments; John Woodrooffe, Head of the Transportation Safety Analysis Division at the University of Michigan; Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano; Richard Wallace, Senior Project Manager at the Center of Automotive Research; and Tim Johnson, Strategic Opportunity Manager for the Sprint Nextel Corporation.

A full video recording of the event can be viewed here.


A number of news pieces ran in the days preceding and following the Detroit NTPP forum:


Map a new course for U.S. transportation funds,

Detroit Free Press by Dennis Archer


Federal policies ignore transportation’s role in economic growth, ex-mayor says,

Crain’s Detroit Business by Bill Shea


State help sought to reform U.S. transportation funding,

Detroit Free Press by Matt Helms


The next NTPP forum will take place in Minneapolis on Monday, November 23rd at the University of Minnesota.

Friday, September 11, 2009

NTPP Advocates for Federal Transportation Policy Reform at Seattle Forum

With less than a month to go before the nation’s surface transportation law is due to expire, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) is hard at work facilitating debate and engaging key transportation decision makers across the country in discussions about the future of our nation’s transportation system.


The NTPP held a public forum in Seattle, Washington on August 27th to discuss its blueprint for reform entitled, “Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation Policy,” and the implications for the Puget Sound region. The forum, the first of many to be held around the country, attracted leading local and national transportation policymakers, academics, and other key transportation stakeholders.


Panelists who spoke at the Seattle event agreed that federal transportation policy, which hasn’t been overhauled in decades, needs immediate reform. NTPP Co-Chair and Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton urged local citizens, as well as Congress, to push for such reform.


The Seattle forum discussion focused on the importance of greater flexibility in local and regional spending based on performance, as well as highlighted the need for innovative solutions to increase the capacity and performance of the transportation system. A research paper by Thomas A. Horan, Ph.D. on “The Critical Role of Information Technology in Improving Surface Transportation Performancewas released at the forum, calling for an acceleration of ITS innovation in the context of a performance-based federal transportation system.


Held at the Arctic Club Hotel in downtown Seattle, the forum attracted transportation experts from across the state, including State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen; Charlie Howard, Transportation Planning Director for the Puget Sound Regional Council; Dan O’Neal, Commissioner, Washington State Transportation Commission; Steve Marshall, Senior Fellow, Cascadia Center for Regional Development; Joni Earl, Chief Executive Officer, Sound Transit; and J. Tayloe Washburn, Foster Pepper PLLC and Chair of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.


A full video recording of the event can be viewed here, as well as a selection of photographs here.


NTPP Co-Chair former Senator Slade Gorton was interviewed following the August 27 event by Jeremy Grater on Seattle’s KOMO Newsradio.


As a result of the Seattle forum a number of news articles and blogs that ran, including:


Transportation dollars should be allocated to maximize larger society goals,

The Seattle Times by Slade Gorton


A Call for Federal Transportation Reform,

Business Improvement Area Blog


New Direction and Goals Unveiled at National Transportation Forum,

Cascadia Prospectus by Mike Wussow


Forget Pork. When It Comes to Transportation Spending, Think Sugar, What’s Wrong with Transportation Policy and How to Get it Right,

The Daily Green by Jim DiPeso


Slade Gorton: Federal transpo dollars should follow clearly stated national objectives,

The Bellingham Herald (Traffic Talk Blog) by Jared Paben


The next NTPP forum will take place in Detroit on Monday, September 21st at the offices of the Detroit Regional Chamber. Invited speakers include: Dennis Archer, NTPP Co-Chair and Former Mayor of Detroit, Jack Basso, NTPP Member and Director of Program Finance and Management at AASHTO, Michigan State Representative Pam Byrnes, among others.


Thursday, August 13, 2009

$20 Per Gallon by Christopher Steiner


Christopher Steiner’s new book, $20 Per Gallon, released last month, tells the story of America’s future in a world of rising gas prices. Steiner combines the insight of experts and industry leaders in energy, transportation, and agriculture to paint a vision that inspires awe, anticipation, and sometimes apprehension. By the time gas prices reach—you guessed it—$20 per gallon, Steiner predicts that Americans will no longer enjoy a plethora of cheap, made-in-China products; vacation destinations such as Las Vegas, Jackson Hole, and Disney World will cease to exist; and sprawling suburban homes will grow vacant. All of this because oil prices, continuously heightened by decreasing supply and increasing demand, will kill most major airlines, exponentially raise the cost of shipping, and overthrow the automobile as America’s cheapest, most convenient mode of transportation.


Overall, however, Steiner’s envisioned future is a bright one. Even under the constraint of high oil prices, America will adapt, maintaining its position as an economic leader. To do so, the U.S. will need to maintain accessibility within and between cities, allowing people and goods to reach the jobs and industries that drive America’s production. Luckily, as Steiner points out, the world already has plenty of examples of fuel-efficient transport from which to learn. New York City’s subway system, unparalleled in capacity by any other mass transit system in the U.S., will become the envy of cities around the country. As suburbanites abandon their half-acre lots and take up residences closer to their jobs, these cities will grow not only in population, but also in density. This density, which now fuels the overwhelming use of New York’s subway, will drive cities to invest in new mass transit systems. Similarly, Americans will need a more fuel-efficient method than airlines to travel from city to city, and Steiner suggests that many regions will develop high-speed rail lines modeled after those in Europe that transport people in France, Germany, and Spain at 200 mph.


Steiner’s book is a thought-provoking and entertaining read, highlighting several illustrative examples of the effects of rising oil prices in each chapter, culminating in the end to provide a thoughtful and intriguing view of the future. These examples provide insight from a variety of experts and perspectives, calling attention to an important issue in a manner that is engaging and accessible to the public. Steiner makes many apt predictions. Many airlines, especially those that struggled at $4 per gallon, will probably fail before new technology will save them. Traveling overseas will be much more difficult for the average American. Certain everyday items will become luxuries in the future. Overall, $20 Per Gallon is a very worthwhile read.

However, $20 Per Gallon fails to fully consider the effects of new developments in technology, especially improvements to electric cars. First, one assumption on which the premise of the book is based, that demand for oil will keep increasing despite rising prices, lacks thorough justification. Second, the prediction that America will choose rail and mass transit as the sole modes of transportation to reduce oil use lacks evidence. In the chapter entitled “The Car Diminished but Reborn,” Steiner points out several upcoming innovations including GM’s plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt, to be released in 2010. According to a New York Times article published on August 12th, the Volt is estimated to get 230 mpg in city driving, and its competitor, Nissan’s Leaf, would get 367 mpg in the city. Steiner also refers to Better Place, which is developing the electric equivalent of gas stations, allowing drivers to take long trips without charging their batteries overnight.


Given these innovations, as well as the many others likely to develop soon given the huge economic incentive to develop alternative energy and transportation technologies, Steiner’s conclusions are not certain. At 300 mpg, over 10 times higher than the current average mpg, Americans could still afford to drive at $20. The Volt, currently priced at $40,000 may not be accessible to the average American. But as the technology is further refined and economies of scale develop, that price tag will surely drop. And with such little fuel required to operate these cars, demand for gas might not increase as quickly as Steiner expects. Furthermore, companies like Better Place will allow people to drive as far as they choose, challenging an increased necessity for alternative modes of transportation such as rail and transit. America has spent decades developing an infrastructure based on the automobile, and while many dense areas such as New York City depend on mass transit systems, the need to abandon roads for rail in all areas of the country is unlikely.


Although Steiner does not discuss policy implications in his book, the predictions in $20 Per Gallon speak to action today. While previous policies to reduce America’s dependence on oil have largely been aimed at environmental and security benefits, fuel-efficient transportation systems also frequently have economic benefits. As Steiner points out, fuel efficiency will be a necessity for the U.S. to maintain its economic standards at $20 per gallon; however, such developments would spur huge economic gains in present day. Mobility between and within cities is important regardless of gas prices; it is a major driver of economic growth in and of itself. Metropolitan areas with populations greater than one million account for 54 percent of the U.S. population and 65 percent of the nation’s GDP. These cities are the cornerstone of America’s economy, and it is essential that they be easily navigable and well connected. However, high speed rail and mass transit are not the only modes of transportation that could achieve these goals. Policy should reward transportation investments that improve mobility, connectivity, and economic competitiveness. Programs that score highest in these areas should be federally funded, regardless of mode, driving real economic growth in the present.


-Sarah Fletcher

Monday, July 27, 2009

Land Use Does Not Measure National Priorities


On July 22, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) released recommendations for transportation reform entitled “Transportation for a New Era: Growing More Sustainable Communities,” calling for the federal government to overhaul the planning and funding of our national transportation system. The recommendations propose the establishment of a new vision for federal transportation policy, recognizing the opportunity of the upcoming reauthorization to update current policies to the needs of the 21st century and increase investment to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

Two of the broad goals ULI recommends are recognizing the role of land use in linking infrastructure, housing, and sustainability and encouraging more compact development. The report indentifies land use as the intersection of infrastructure, housing, and sustainability and promotes it as a medium in which the federal government can address concerns for all three issues. In light of this, ULI promotes compact development to simultaneously minimize travel time to jobs, shopping and services and environmental impacts.

While NTPP does not endorse land use as a national transportation goal, efficient land use can help achieve both economic and environmental goals. By moving from a sprawling, highway-based system to a more compact, transit-based system, a city may reduce the distance to jobs and other activities, reducing the economic cost of time spent traveling. This could also reduce the vehicle miles traveled in the city and therefore reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption. It may even promote safety by reducing highway congestion and the resulting collisions. Likewise, building affordable housing closer to public transit could have the same effects.

However, these decisions must be left to communities, not instituted in federal transportation policy. An efficient national transportation system should, in the end, promote economic competitiveness, environmental protection and safety. Land use is not a measure of success in and of itself, but rather a means to achieving these ends. Furthermore, it is not the only method for reaching national transportation goals. Developing carbon fuel standards and efficient vehicles will also reduce emissions; innovations in technology could promote safety. The use of congestion pricing or in-car information technology systems may improve economic competitiveness. All of these are viable options in developing efficient transportation programs, and the federal government should not mandate which option be given preference. Rather, a competitive system which evaluates programs on more high-level, outcome-oriented criteria will best achieve national goals.

Land use is an essential consideration in infrastructure development, and the research done in this area is vital to successful community development. However, every city and region has its own unique challenges. Federal transportation policy must allow enough flexibility for local authorities to develop their own approach to meeting regional and national goals.
-Sarah Fletcher

Thursday, July 9, 2009

A National Infrastructure Bank Does Not Solve Revenue Problems


Proposals for a national infrastructure bank have continued to generate significant interest and debate in recent months. On May 20, Representative Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill that would create such a bank, and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, co-founder of Building America’s Future (BAF), has been outspoken in his support. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has outlined its own plan for a national infrastructure bank.


These plans have several merits. Governor Rendell argued at an event sponsored by BAF on June 24 that an infrastructure bank governed by appointed officials could help depoliticize transportation funding and potentially limit the power of earmarks to allocate spending. Additionally, by working outside of the established donor/donee system, the bank could fund projects across traditional modal and geographic boundaries. DeLauro’s bill, for instance, would allow up to $625 billion in loans, bonds and other securities to be distributed to projects of national and regional significance on a competitive basis. Finally, the bank could encourage private investment in public infrastructure projects.


Realistically, however, a national infrastructure bank would likely not solve the fundamental flaws in our current transportation financing system. Even if Congress could be convinced to relinquish control of transportation project funding to an infrastructure bank, the act of establishing a bank does not create blank check power to give out hundreds of billions of dollars in loans. The capital must come from somewhere. DeLauro’s bill calls for the appropriation of $5 billion to the bank each year for 5 years, starting with FY 2010, but it does not identify a source in the budget. Additionally, states receiving funding would have to repay the loans eventually. This merely diverts responsibility for finding a revenue source to the state level instead of finding a national solution. A national infrastructure bank cannot be treated as a revenue source; rather, a successful bank would have to be accompanied by a sustainable revenue source.

An alternative approach that deserves more attention is expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). Established as part of TEA-21 in 1998 and extended by SAFETEA-LU in 2005, TIFIA is a federal credit program that funds transportation projects of national and regional significance on a competitive basis. As of April 15, 2009, TIFIA has provided $6.6 billion in assistance to 19 projects, which sum to $24.4 billion in total investment, and all loan repayments have been made on time. Instead of creating a bank to provide similar credit assistance, it makes more sense to capitalize on the success of this existing program. On June 2, 2009, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced a bill (H.R. 2663) to extend TIFIA, increase yearly appropriations for the program from $122 million to $285 million, and raise the maximum federal funding share from 33 percent to 49 percent. While these numbers would need to be raised further to match the scale of a proposed national infrastructure bank, this bill is a good start towards expansion. It has not received any action from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee since its referral to the committee on June 2.


As the highway trust fund dries up and the gas tax continues to provide insufficient revenue, federal infrastructure financing needs an overhaul. Finding a new, sustainable revenue source is the first and most important step in this reform. A national infrastructure bank, by itself, does not take this step at all. While a carefully constructed national infrastructure bank may help to stimulate efficient and competitive transportation investment, something which the TIFIA program already does, it is not the best tool for solving the transportation financing crisis.


-Sarah Fletcher

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Break the Political Traffic Jam on Transportation Overhaul

Big thinking after World War II changed the nation. It must evolve again.


By Joshua Schank , Matthew Dallek
Posted June 25, 2009

Joshua Schank is transportation research director at the Bipartisan Policy Center and was the transportation policy adviser to former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Matthew Dallek is a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center and teaches history and politics at the University of California Washington Center.

In recent months, the heated-up healthcare debate has short-circuited a serious and much-needed discussion about America's transportation and infrastructure agenda—and all of the economic benefits that will flow from enacting a revitalized transportation policy. Transportation has become a policy orphan amid the healthcare tsunami that's overwhelmed the news coverage of Obama's America...

To read the full piece, head on over to the site of US News & World Report

Monday, June 22, 2009

A website devoted to infrastructure

FYI, There's a new website out, www.infrastructureusa.org, devoted entirely to, you guessed it, infrastructure. We are not affiliated with the group but are spreading the word anyways!