Joe Biden’s – very progressive – transportation program

It’s difficult to remind ourselves that we are in the middle of a critical election year.  But we are.  And when (hopefully) some sort of normalcy is back, we will all need to deal with it.  At any rate, I thought this might be a good time to think a bit about the transportation program of Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  One reason I do this is to respond to the talk that Biden is somehow “not progressive enough,” is too beholden to Wall Street, or something similar.  I believe it is important to note that on transportation issues, his proposals are very progressive indeed.  (For a more general argument that Joe Biden is more progressive than people might think, see Michelle Goldberg’s column here.)

I will summarize his program, under the bullet points on his website (here), and add a few comments of my own.

·      “Jump-start the repair of our highways, roads, and bridges.”  Fix-it-first is always a good way to start, and the Biden plan would allocated $50 Billion in the first year toward roadway system preservation.  In a theme repeated in several places, the program promises that a significant portion of these funds would go directly to local governments.  Perhaps this theme emerges from memories of the 2009 Stimulus bill.  He also promises to “expedite permitting.”  Many a brave knight has gone forth to slay that dragon, but none has succeeded.

·      “Make American roads the world’s safest.”  In addition to spending more money on highway safety programs, this element in the program calls for promoting Complete Streets and new technologies, “including ‘smart’ pavement, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, connected intersections, and other infrastructure-related innovations.”

·      “Invest in historically marginalized communities and bring everyone to the table for transportation planning.”  The Biden plan calls for several steps to promote transportation equity, including a “robust public engagement process” and a Community Restoration Fund targeted at frontline communities.

·      “Pair new infrastructure investments with new training programs.”  This item promotes workforce development, including “new Apprenticeship Readiness Programs that specifically target veterans, women, and communities of color.”

·      “Stabilize the Highway Trust Fund.”  The program calls for “new revenues” to stabilize the Trust Fund.  I think this is the right approach, as it confirms the need for more tax revenue without prematurely getting in to the thorny issues of gas taxes vs. VMT taxes and so forth.

·      “Speed the transition to electric vehicles.”  Thank you!  This seems like an obvious point, but we as a country are so far behind where we need to be that it bears emphasis.  Specific measures outlined include restoring EV purchase tax credits, investing $5 Billion in battery research and development, promoting domestic manufacture of EVs, building a national charging network with 500,000 outlets, investing in workforce development for charging station installation, and providing federal funding for demonstration projects.

·      “Launch a new generation of low-carbon trucking, shipping, and aviation technologies.”  These are the toughest parts of the transport sector to decarbonize.  The Biden plan is basically to plow a lot of R&D money into the problem.

·      “Spark the second great railroad revolution.”  This section refers both to passenger and freight rail, which of course share the same infrastructure but are very different beasts.  On the passenger side, the plan is very aggressive, including cutting trip time between DC and New York in half, building a new trans-Hudson tunnel (which is needed under any scenario), extending the Northeast Corridor to the south, and – the most ambitious element – beginning “the construction of an end-to-end high speed rail system that will connect the coasts.”  On the freight side, the plan mentions some specific projects, such as the Chicago-area CREATE improvements.  Unfortunately, the freight sector is controlled by a small oligopoly of companies who own most of the infrastructure and who are resistant to change.

·      “Electrify the rail system.”  The plan actually says “work with Amtrak and private freight rail companies to further electrify the rail system.”  I’m all in favor of it.  I don’t seen the freight rail companies having any interest without major carrots and sticks.

·      “Offer tens of millions of Americans new transportation options.”  This element of the plan would provide major investments to “provide all Americans in municipalities of more than 100,000 people with quality public transportation by 2030.”   This would include investments in light rail, existing transit systems, bike/ped, and microtransit.  There are also land use elements, including creating “a new program that gives rapidly expanding communities the resources to build in public transit options from the start.”

·      “Reduce congestion by working with metropolitan regions to plan smarter growth.”  This bullet covers a lot of territory.  Biden would encourage a synthesis of smart growth, climate friendly, and innovative mobility strategies.  How to do this?  The specifics include: a competitive grant system “to help leaders rethink and redesign regional transportation systems” and a highway funding bonus for states that “embrace smart climate design and pollution reduction.”

·     “Connect workers to jobs.”  The program promises “an additional $10 billion over 10 years specifically for transit projects that serve high-poverty areas with limited transportation options.”·      “Encourage innovation and launch smarter cities.”  The Biden proposal for addressing new auto technologies: “a yearly $1 billion competitive grant program to help five cities pilot new planning strategies and smart-city technologies that can serve as models for the country.”

·      “Invest in freight infrastructure, including inland waterways, freight corridors, freight rail, transfer facilities, and ports.”  Various programs include doubling the size of the program formerly known as TIGER and other discretionary programs and more funding for ports and waterways.

A few comments:

1.     I would call this program “progressive” under most any definition.  It not only supports a transportation reform agenda, but it is explicitly linked to the climate crisis (his climate agenda is outlined elsewhere in his program).

2.     Although definitely progressive, there is plenty here to please mainline transportation agencies: lots more money for system preservation and operating needs!

3.     Biden obviously has very good transportation advisors.  There is nothing here that rings amateurish.

4.     There are lots of signs that the greatest influence on Biden’s thinking is the 2009 Stimulus bill, which I think is a good thing!  (My stimulus thoughts here.)

5.     The program is a laundry list, not a bill.  But I think almost all the pieces are here.

6.     What would I add?  A 10-year moratorium on the use of federal funds for highway capacity expansion.  I think we have to stop that right now in order to reorient the program.

7.     How will the current coronavirus crisis affect the timing and shape of the next big transportation bill?  I have no idea.

Learning from the Recovery Act: Lessons and recommendations for future infrastructure stimulus

Smart Growth America and Transportation for America have issued a new, and very timely, report by this name (available here).  With Congress poised to (potentially) pump significant funding into the transportation sector, it’s a good idea to remind ourselves of the experience of the last big stimulus bill and what we can learn from it.  I was part of the SGA team that worked on implementing the Stimulus, so not surprisingly my conclusions are very similar to those in the new report.  (My retrospective on the Stimulus was done five years after the program was started – here – and my views are still the same.)

The report is a clear, crisp, easy-to-read text of 8 pages, with 6 lessons and 6 recommendations, so if you have any interest in the subject you should read the whole thing.  But – spoiler alert – the main takeaway is that the experience of 2009-2010 teaches us that transportation stimulus money should be targeted toward transit (especially operating costs) and roadway repair (maintenance and rehab) to have maximum impact.  Back in the earlier Stimulus, some states did better than others, so better guidelines and reporting are needed this time.

Just a few thoughts of mine to add:

·      I would put more money into planning and engineering than the SGA report suggests.  Planning and design firms took a heavy hit in the Great Recession.  We need to keep those firms healthy not only to protect the jobs there but to preserve and build up a robust planning and engineering capacity for the next big wave of construction (AKA Green New Deal).

·      TIGER TIGER TIGER.  The SGA report notes the importance of this program, which spurred a whole raft of innovative projects.  More, please.

·      As a general rule (extrapolating from the two points above) we should, wherever possible, design any new stimulus program to provide stepping stones to what needs to be a much bigger, sustained program for the future (did I say Green New Deal?).

·      The SGA report recommends that all resurfacing projects incorporate a safety review.  I would also require a bike/ped review.  Resurfacing projects – which usually require paint striping anyway – are the easiest way to get bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the ground.  Many state DOTs will avoid that step if they can.

·      Speaking of bike/ped, now would be a great time to provide funding and incentives for what many cities are already doing: striping out streets to meet the current emergency by reducing unneeded auto space and increasing needed pedestrian and bicycle space.

·      I would simply rule out the use of any stimulus funds for highway capacity increases.  The SGA report suggests this requirement because of the inefficiency of capacity increase dollars for providing jobs and putting money into the economy.  I think we should also insist that we do nothing that will cause more trouble in the long run for our other big emergency – the climate emergency.

Speaking of the 2009 Stimulus coming around again, anyone who takes a close look at Joe Biden’s transportation program (more on that at another time) will see lots of elements that suggest the large impression that his involvement in the Stimulus made on his thinking.

Finally, congrats to Beth Osborne, Will Schroeer, et al. for producing a very timely (and hopefully effective) set of recommendations!