As Congress works to reauthorize federal transportation funding before the current program expires on Sept. 30, 2011, an important debate has revived over the role of the federal government in and the appropriate level of federal funding for highways, railways, transit, waterways, and ports. The House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee fueled the debate when it released its six-year reauthorization plan with significant funding cuts and reforms; at press time, the Senate was expected soon to release a two-year plan with spending near current levels. Generally hailed by transportation and construction groups as "a step in the right direction," a "good first step," and a timely "start to the process," the House T&I Committee plan has several components that these groups welcome, although funding levels are a major concern to most.

Ken Wrightman, chairman of the American Council of Engineering Companies Transportation Committee, said: "We very much like the programmatic reforms in the bill but we need to find more funding to address the nation's critical transportation needs." The American Road & Transportation Builders Association noted that the plan contained "much needed reforms that would reduce red tape and bureaucratic hurdles" and that it would expedite product delivery and facilitate public-private partnerships.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials said state departments of transportation (DOTs) support many of the House T&I Committee plan reforms, including consolidation of federal transportation programs, strategies that will accelerate project delivery, tools to leverage transportation funds, and distribution of nearly all federal highway funding by formula to state DOTs.

The American Association of Port Authorities applauded the plan's "goal of streamlining the project planning and delivery process," its inclusion of "a title specifically addressing maritime and port related transportation infrastructure," and "provisions to improve the project planning and delivery process."

The American Public Transportation Association said that "efforts to expand project financing, streamline project delivery, and simplify federal grant programs are important components of the proposal," but that "the bill's investment levels ... are woefully short of what is required to address the nation's surface transportation infrastructure investment needs."

With economic conditions constraining budgets and creating greater than 16 percent unemployment in the construction industry, many are framing the discussion on surface transportation reauthorization as a "jobs bill" rather than a strategy for funding infrastructure that is vital to long-term economic stability and growth, not to mention public safety. However, that shift in focus, while understandable, especially to those unemployed, may not be helpful to developing effective policy.

Richard Little, director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy and a senior fellow at the University of Southern California, succinctly stated the issue in a recent commentary: "Focusing on a reauthorization bill that purports to meet the nation's combined transportation wants and needs from the $40 billion or so that the Trust Fund is expected to produce annually, or relying on one-time stimulus funding, only guarantees that we will never address the real question. That is, what does a 21st Century transportation policy look like, how will we fund it, and who will pay for it. This question is not new and an answer is long overdue."

Bob Drake,
bdrake@zweigwhite.com