Good New Summary Report on Reauthorization Funding Options

The Congressional Research Service has published an excellent new report summarizing the transportation funding options we are likely to look at during a Reauthorization legislative process (“Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation,” available here).

As they usually do, CRS manages to summarize a lot of material, some of it pretty complicated, in a readable document that policymakers can actually use.  The reader can quickly learn where we are in terms of federal surface transportation funding, how we got here, and what our options are for going forward (including “do nothing” and let the Highway Trust Fund shrink or disappear altogether).  Although most of this ground has been plowed before, two sections should be noted for their fresh treatment.  First, the paper describes the Trust Fund financing problem in a remarkably clear fashion, with both text and numbers.   A simple spreadsheet (yes, it is possible to use a simple spreadsheet to communicate complicated information!) sets out the shortfall in high relief.  Second, the authors provide a two-page legislative history of the motor fuels tax and the Highway Trust Fund over the past 30 years that reminds us not only of the controversial nature of the subject but also of the convoluted nature of the Congressional process.  These process issues are often given little attention, but they are important for the Capitol Hill audience for whom the paper is oriented.  (They are not for the faint of heart, being essentially a report from the industrial engineers at the sausage factory.)

However, I do have a few quibbles.  I have the same quibbles with most papers done on this subject, but I want to note them here as they can affect the policy process that the CRS paper will help to inform.

First, the authors call attention to the growing gap between motor fuels tax revenues and identified transportation needs, suggesting that Congress may need to find new sources of income.  One of the sources discussed later is indexing the motor fuels tax.  However, I think it is fairer to say that increasing the motor fuels tax and indexing it and maybe adding a few refinements would in fact solve the problem, at least for a considerable time

Second, the paper alludes in passing to the “political difficulty” of raising the gas tax, but I think does not fully recognize that the perception of that “political difficulty” is pretty much the only reason we are passing over the obvious solution (increase and index the gas tax) in favor of more exotic options.

Third, in common with most papers on the subject, the CRS effort, I believe, seriously underestimates the “political difficulty” of passing alternative taxes.  Do we really think that the anti-tax forces will be just fine with enacting a national sales tax or a VMT tax?  I don’t understand why we think that novelty will make the medicine go down better.

Fourth, I believe that the authors – again in common with many others – also seriously underestimates the likely opposition to a VMT tax due to the privacy issue.  True, they suggest that data collection not using GPS systems may provoke less resistance than a system that does.  That may be so, but remember we live in an age in which enacting a middle-of-the-road health insurance reform bill leads to talk of nullification and secession and in which scientists identifying the crisis of climate change are held to be fraudulent conspirators.  What do you think these people will say about a national VMT tax, even if it starts out on a low-tech basis?

Fifth, I would have preferred that the report more clearly point out the difference between “funding” and “financing” options.  I think many people still think of PPP and Infrastructure Bank money as “funding” rather than “financing.”  That’s like confusing money you get from a paycheck with money you get from a payday loan.  Last year (here) I called attention to language I like a lot in a GAO report:  “While these tools have promise to help meet increasing transportation demands, they are forms of debt that must be repaid, not new revenues.  New revenues for transportation infrastructure investments can come only from two sources: new taxes or new fees. Ultimately, raising new revenues or reducing transportation spending or both will be needed.”

Good Luck to yet another Blue Ribbon Commission – Indiana

Indiana has joined the ranks of states empowering a blue ribbon commission to deal with transportation issues.  Governor Mike Pence has announced the cochairs (press release here) and has given the group a mission: identify priority transportation projects for road, rail, air, and water (based on metrics they will develop) and “explore and monitor innovations in transportation infrastructure to keep Indiana on the cutting edge” (whatever that means exactly).  The governor has also stated three “guiding principles”: “taking care of what we have; finishing what we start; and planning for the future.”

All of that is fine, but does anyone notice anything missing? 

Is the commission going to be charged with creating an actual program, as opposed to just a prioritized list?  And will they also be charged with calculating the cost of that program and proposing options for raising the revenue to pay for it?

Hmmmm.  We’ll see.

New York, New York, It’s a Walkable Town!

Or at least it’s getting to be one.  I still find walking through the canyonlands of midtown Manhattan to be more work than pleasure, but even there the work done to tame Times Square (very much under construction) promises a bright future.  And strolling down Broadway is much more pleasant than it previously was, with many pedestrianized areas that seem to be very supportive of a revitalizing retail economy.  The older squares along Broadway (Madison Square and Union Square, in particular) I found to be delightful urban experiences on a beautiful Fall day. 

Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg, Janette Sadik-Kahn, and New York City DOT for a fine job (amid the usual New York sound and fury) in planning and implementing a new way of thinking about transportation and land use in the city.

Social and economic trends are also making a big difference.  Many parts of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn – with a much better development scale for pedestrians than midtown – have seen major revitalization, with exciting residential, commercial, and cultural development.

For those of us that remember a grungier – and more dangerous – New York, these changes are heartening indeed.  And they show how solid (and sometime fearless) transportation policies can enable transformations that benefit everyone’s quality of life.

High Line in Early Fall – Spectacular!

I’m sure there’s nothing new I can say about New York’s High Line (the former elevated freight rail line now repurposed as a landscaped walkway) but I will just note that a recent visit on a beautiful early Fall day confirms that this is one of the best pedestrian projects in the country.  Tourists from around the world (the variety of languages is amazing) come to walk the High Line, and with good reason.  Now open for four years, the High Line’s incredible views, lush landscaping, and well-maintained pathway combine to make the walk a delightful experience.  When the new Whitney Museum building opens in 2015 at the bottom end of the High Line, the whole area (the “Meatpacking District” describes its past) will be a real showcase.

Unfortunately neither the Whitney nor any other adjacent building has any direct access to the High Line, and apparently does not plan to. 

The High Line is maintained by its own nonprofit (link here) which has done a remarkable job. 

I know that the success of the High Line has started other cities thinking about how they can repurpose some of the odd remnants of infrastructure they are left with.  Can’t see to see some more creative projects!

A 21st Century Transportation System: Pedal to the Metal

I frequently call attention to the “inconvenient truth” about transportation funding, which is that even the most ambitious funding initiatives that get bandied about at the federal and state levels are pretty much limited to patching up our inherited, legacy transportation system.  They do little to plan, design, and build a 21^st Century system (see my posting here).  That comment is sometimes followed up by a question to me: so what does a 21^st Century transportation system look like?

That’s a good question, and one that some of us are working away at.

One possible answer is put forward by Michael Hoexter and his recent “Pedal-to-the-Metal Plan” (posted on the New Economic Perspectives website here).  Hoexter approaches the question from the view that the climate change crisis will require an urgent, radical response.   He also deals with many non-transportation issues (the Plan is aimed at “energy system transformation”).  But I’ll limit my remarks to his agenda for surface transportation.  His main goal is to “electrify land-based transportation and machines,” under which he lists eights specific objectives:

1.  Shift long­distance freight transport to electrified rail or electrified grid­charged or powered trucks.  Build out rail infrastructure to allow modal shift to rail versus road.

2.  Shift freight and passenger fleets to battery electric transportation with battery swap or in­motion inductive charging capability.

3. Build high speed rail, electrified express rail or equivalently rapid electrified public transit between major cities to replace much short and middle distance air travel.

4.  Shift high traffic public transportation routes to electrified commuter rail, light rail, subway, elevated rail, trolleybus, street car or electric bus.

5.  Build electric vehicle charging infrastructure in multifamily, single family residences, office parking facilities and public streets.

6.  Build rapid charge, roadway charging, and/or battery swap infrastructure to facilitate electric vehicle travel over middle and longer distances.

7.  Increase electrical energy storage performance by a factor of 2 per decade.

8.  Facilitate transition from self­driven to programmable computer driven autonomous vehicles (increasing capacity of existing road infrastructure and reducing emissions).

Interestingly, most of the technology to make these changes is already available or reachable within the near future.  And all of them make pretty good sense to me.  As always, the institutional issues are the tough ones.  The toughest of these eight are probably number 1 and number 2, dealing with freight.  Building an electrified Steel Interstate and shifting long-haul freight to it is not something we can easily figure out.

And in case you were wondering, the author recognizes the importance both of land use planning and of decarbonizing electricity supply.

Hoexter goes into a lot of other issues involving climate change and related social and political concerns – all controversial – but on the transportation side, at least, I’d give him high marks for a envisioning a real 21^st Century transportation system.

Gizmodo Calls Attention to Freeway “Cap Parks”

Gizmodo has published a nice intro (here) to the subject of freeway “cap parks” – the decking of freeway sections in CBDs.  The examples given are Boston and Dallas (built) and St. Louis, Los Angeles, and Chicago (planned or proposed).  Of these examples, Boston is by far the most extensive and the most important in terms of its impact on the city.  In fact, the Boston Central Artery wasn’t really decked – the elevated highway was torn down and replaced with a tunnel.  And although the Big Dig project had it problems (the Gizmodo writer calls it “infamous”), the results are truly transformative.

Missing from the story is Seattle, where putting the Alaskan Way viaduct into tunnel could mimic Boston’s success.

Certainly the other examples mentioned have or will benefit from putting some sort of covering.

How about some more opportunities for the future:

·      Philadelphia – I-95 still separates center city from the waterfront, despite some small “caps.” 

·      Atlanta – The worst.  The Downtown Connector runs like a river of magma through the heart of the city.

·      Hartford – I-84 is already the subject of local efforts to tame it.

These projects can be very expensive, but I don’t consider them frills.  I think that a successful 21^st century city has to tame its highways – especially in the city centers – and decking can be a tool to do that.

Paul Krugman’s “Tragic Waste” for the Economy is also a Tragic Waste for Transportation

Paul Krugman writes eloquently (here) of the “tragic waste” we have subjected ourselves to over the past five years through a weak response to the economic disaster – a waste of human resources through unnecessarily high unemployment and a waste of opportunities for higher production and growth. 

I would just add that we can see that waste in high relief in the transportation sector. 

Krugman notes the “could have beens” that would have flowed from a vigorous federal spending program – essentially an ongoing Stimulus over five years.  Just consider the “could have beens” if the Transportation Stimulus had been carried forward each year!  The construction sector would be in full recovery, the general economy would be reinvigorated, and think of what could have been built!  We could have made a serious dent in the backlog of deficient legacy infrastructure and even made a good start toward building a 21^st century transportation system.  (Remember how cheaply projects could be built at the bottom of the economic slump?)

And – as I have often noted (see my 2010 presentation on the subject here) – significantly ramped up transportation spending doesn’t have to be a long-term deficit inducer.  The trick is to ramp up motor fuels taxes (that’s right) after ramping up spending, at a rate linked to economic recovery.  In the long run, higher motor fuels taxes don’t burden the economy that much, and if applied correctly, can encourage beneficial transportation decision making while funding more transportation options for people.

As Paul Krugman notes, the political ingredients have not been in place to support the kind of Stimulus that would have gotten us out of the hole in a timely manner.  The same is certainly true of transportation spending, where even the meager amounts of investment we are making now are funded on a hand-to-mouth basis.  But, hey, we are still in the hole, so why not start climbing out now?