Innovation Briefs are published by Ken Orski. Cascadia Prospectus republishes them with permission. The content of Innovation Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center or Discovery Institute. 

"I have not been a student of the Senate bill because the Senate bill has been academic to me. But now that it's becoming a potential reality and I'm a potential negotiator, I will become conversant with the Senate bill line by line and then I'll have an opinion," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), answering a reporter's query about details of a provision in the Senate bill (quoted in POLITICO's Morning Transportation, April 19.)

As Rep. DeFazio observed, getting to know the finer details of the Senate highway bill (MAP-21, S. 1813) has taken on new significance now that a House-Senate conference negotiation on the reauthorization measure has become a reality. Understanding the Senate bill is important because the Senate measure is likely to become the basis of any final bill.  The House bill (H.R. 4348) is little more than a 90-day extension of the current program (through September 2012) with the Keystone XL pipeline amendment attached to it.  It is silent on nearly everything addressed by the Senate bill.  And, equally, it is silent on nearly every issue germane to the transportation reauthorization except for a detailed set of environmental streamlining provisions.

Below, we provide a detailed analysis of one aspect of the Senate highway bill ---its finance and revenue provisions. We owe this analysis to Gary Hoitsma, editor of the Washington Letter on Transportation (published by the Carmen Group, www.washingtonletter.com), who alone among the Washington reporters had the initiative and curiosity to go behind the rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and document the convoluted financing of the Senate bill.  As Hoitsma's analysis shows, the Senate has made an extensive use of offsets over a period of 10 years to cover spending over just 15 months--- the effective length of the Senate bill at the termination of the current extension. Of the total revenue-increase offsets (to transfers into the HTF) only $3.1 billion would be transferred during the life of the bill while a transfer of $10.9 billion would occur over a period of 10 years.  This practice has been widely condemned as "budgetary gimmickry." A particular egregious example has been a provision inserted via a Managers' Amendment shortly before the final vote, transferring $5 billion in general funds to the Highway Trust Fund  "out of money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."  (Sec. 40313 of MAP-21).

[Washington] successfully competed for $750 million in new federal rail funds for projects with BNSF Railway from Vancouver, Washington to Blaine. These projects have multiple benefits from more passenger service to better freight access to ports and safer highway/rail grade crossings. ... The state should encourage public private partnerships for new and expanded train/bus ferry centers linked by more passenger rail. ... [M]ore trains requires more public investments in the BNSF line. Since they carry millions passengers every day, the state should explore new revenue options with them as partners. The highly successful Victoria Clipper derives only 31 percent of its revenues from ferry operations - the rest is through vacation packages with their 80 "Two-Nation Vacation" partners.

Read the full guest post -- and the rest of the blog's great transportation coverage -- here.

Image via Wikipedia

As Crosscut's C.B. Hall writes, the company says if a location can't be found, it'll need to leave Seattle. It's a test, he says, to Seattle's "commitment to mass transportation."

Greyhound officials, according to Hall's reporting, say the company's preference for a new home would be at or near King Street Station in Pioneer Square. According to Hall's Crosscut article, "Greyhound's first choice, says [Greyhound] district manager Mike Timlin, 'would be to go in with King Street Station, with other providers, to turn King Street into a sort of intermodal hub.'"

Once upon a time, according to Hall's reporting, King Street Station as intermodal hub had even more political will behind it than it has today. Former Seattle mayor Greg Nickels and former city council Transportation Chairwoman Jan Drago were strongly behind the notion several years ago. But, as Hall reports, even though the station is going through a restoration, the political landscape has changed (including more of a regional focus on the deep-bored tunnel to replace the Viaduct). Though Seattle once wanted Greyhound included in the transportation hub, it isn't clear whether that can now work out. (The Crosscut article includes artist J.Craig Thorpe's drawing of what a remade station with bus terminal might look like. Cascadia Center has often relied on Thorpe's talents to help communicate complex policy issues visually.)

Comparing the opportunity for turning King Street Station into a true multimodal terminal, as has been done in Vancouver, British Columbia and Meridian, Miss., among other locations, Hall poses the only question that really matters: "Does Seattle intend to seize the opportunity?"

Image via Wikipedia

By eliminating duplicative inspection functions and increasing the speed of travel between Canada and the U.S., the Beyond the Border accord serves as a long-awaited landmark agreement. ... By December 2012, with pre-clearance a reality, the region will benefit from one - instead of two - inspections, meaning a faster and more efficient train travel experience. The decision is also better for the inspection officers who will be able to consolidate their efforts in Blaine, Wash., to one central location in Vancouver, British Columbia.

In conjunction with the Canada Border Services Agency's decision in August to permanently waive the inspection fee, the Beyond the Border accord points to a brighter future for the Amtrak Cascades service. 

Innovation Briefs are published by Ken Orski. Cascadia Prospectus reprints them with permission. The content of Innovation Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute.

On November 18, President Obama signed into law a bundle of appropriation bills for FY 2012  including appropriations  for the U.S. Department of Transportation. The measure had been passed earlier in the House by a vote of 298-121 and in  the Senate by a vote of 70-30.

The bill provides $39.14 billion in obligation limitation for the highway program, a reduction of  almost $2 billion from FY 2011; however, an additional $1.66 billion is appropriated for highway-relared "emergency relief." The transit program is funded at $10.31 billion (incl. $1.95 for New Starts), a $400 million increase from FY 2011, and Amtrak at $1.42 (incl. $466 million for operating expenses). The discretionary TIGER program is retained at $500 million, a slight decrease from FY 2011.

Conspicuously absent in the new budget is any funding for high-speed rail and the Intercity Passenger Rail Service program --- a fact cheered  by fiscal conservatives but mourned by boosters of high-speed rail and supporters of the California bullet train. The California High-Speed Rail Authority relies heavily on further federal funds to complete the project. According to its business plan, it expects $33-36 billion to come from the federal government. Failure by Congress to appropriate money for high-speed rail for a second year in a row makes the prospect of future federal support for the California rail project increasingly doubtful.

Also refused any funding in the FY 2012 congressional transportation appropriation are two other Administration priorities:  the Livable Communities Initiative ($10 million requested in the President's budget); and the National Infrastructure Bank ($5 billion requested).  The conference committee action would seem to put an effective end to any further attempts to create the Bank, at least during the remainder of this session of Congress.  

By Larry Ehl

When you travel today -- whether by car, bus, rail, plane or bike -- technology made your trip safer, faster and cleaner than in the past. That technology may have been obvious to you (hybrid vehicles, GPS) or not (traffic light synchronization, interstate weigh-in-motion for trucks).  

Yet our transportation network can be much, much safer, efficient and cleaner. Every year nearly 40,000 people are killed on our highways. Congestion cost about $101 billion and 4.8 billion wasted hours in 2010. Transportation accounts for nearly 30% of our greenhouse gases.

Making transportation safer, more efficient and cleaner was the focus of a recent conference -- the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) World Congress, held Oct. 16-20, in Orlando, Fla. --  attended by about 8,000 public- and private-sector transportation specialists from more than 65 countries.

Innovation Briefs are published by Ken Orski. Cascadia Prospectus reprints them with permission. The content of Innovation Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute.

President Obama's new  $50 billion infrastructure initiative--part of his  $447 billion American Jobs Act (AJA)--offered no surprises. It's almost an exact replica of his FY 2012 budget request which included a  sum of $50 billion for transportation to "jump start" a proposed $556 billion six-year surface transportation reauthorization.
 
The rhetoric may have changed--Obama avoided using the terms "stimulus" and "infrastructure" in presenting his AJA initiative to Congress--but the substance of the two initiatives is remarkably similar. Both proposals would fund an identical mix of programs (highways, transit, Amtrak, high-speed rail, aviation and the TIFIA credit program) and both would establish a  National Infrastructure Bank.
 
The FY 2012 transportation budget request failed to obtain congressional approval for two reasons: (1) the Administration failed to show how the proposed $50 billion program would be paid for; and (2) there was no convincing evidence that the program would promptly create new jobs. Indeed, all evidence pointed in the opposite direction. The $48 billion in Recovery Act funds for transportation had failed to create the millions of jobs promised by the Administration. The money earmarked for highways had been spent largely on short term roadway maintenance-type contracts and had produced only temporary jobs.  Nor was there much to show for in terms of an improved condition or performance of the nation's transportation system.  As for the Infrastructure Bank, it is widely believed that at least one or two years could pass before the Bank would become operational  and in a position to begin financing  large-scale job-creating infrastructure projects.

The same reasons that led Congress to ignore the Administration's FY 2012 transportation budget request will likely cause the lawmakers to reject the new transportation initiative. They are skeptical that a fresh infusion of funds will succeeed where the first stimulus failed. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results may not be exacly insanity but it does suggest a certain denial to look facts in the face.  
 
The President said that "everything in this bill will be paid for" and that he will call on the Joint Deficit Committee to come up with additional deficit reductions necessary to pay for the American Jobs Act.  But by proposing to end tax breaks for people making more than $200,000 and for oil and gas companies, the White House is setting itself up again for a fight with the Congress which already once before rejected this approach to "revenue enhancement."   It remains to be seen if the independent congressional committee will do Obama's bidding. With the President's approval ratings at an all time low, they just might be emboldened to ignore his plea.   

The second Amtrak Cascades service to Vancouver, B.C., which could have ended in October if the Canadian government had decided to implement a previously proposed $1,500 inspection fee, received a reprieve when Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced after a meeting with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, his decision to permanently waive the proposed fee.

Cascadia had worked closely with the Washington Department of Transportation, Amtrak, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) and All Aboard Washington in pointing to the strong ridership and great economic impact to B.C. from both trains. In July, at the PNWER Summit in Portland, we collectively pressed the case with Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer. Canadian Consulate General Denis Stevens also deserves great credit for focusing Ottawa on the regional impact of the train.

Now the region can continue to press for "pre-clearance" of southbound passengers at the Pacific Central Station (to eliminate the 15-minute delay from the current double inspection at the station and at Blaine). We are counting on the new Beyond the Border Accord between Prime Minister Harper and President Obama for this reform.

Future waterfront visualization. (Photo source: WSDOT)

Though one hesitates to say something in Seattle is ever actually finished, in the land of indecision, it appears that a decision has finally been made. With nearly 60 percent in favor, Seattle voters told their elected officials on Tuesday to move forward with a tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

As The Seattle Times reports, the defeat of the effort to recall the earlier decision to build the tunnel sets into motion the final bureaucratic and regulatory approvals that will move the project forward rapidly and allow "the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to tell its tunnel contractors by Sept. 1 to move into final design and construction."

In a bi-partisan pitch, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (a Democrat) and current Mesa, Ariz., mayor Scott Smith (a Republican), argue in today's Wall Street Journal for a stronger U.S. investment in transportation infrastructure.

Whether it involves highways, railways, ports, aviation or any other sector, infrastructure is an economic driver that is essential for the long-term creation of quality American jobs.

When it comes to transportation, Washington has been on autopilot for the last half-century. Instead of tackling the hard choices facing our nation and embracing innovations, federal transportation policy still largely adheres to an agenda set by President Eisenhower.

Investments in transportation infrastructure--especially strategic, long-term investments--are investments in the future of the country. And as Rendell and Smith argue, true transportation investments aren't (or shouldn't be) a partisan issue.

Building America's transportation infrastructure has been a national goal since Thomas Jefferson promoted canals and roads and Abraham Lincoln helped forge the Transcontinental Railroad. And still today, there remains a justifiable federal responsibility to address the country's infrastructure decline. But it must be addressed thoughtfully, and much differently from the past. The sole responsibility can't be left up to the federal government--from a financing or management perspective. (Indeed, given the current economic outlook, we're probably well past the days when this made sense--if it ever did.) Instead, infrastructure investments could benefit tremendously, especially in terms of innovation and financing, from public-private cooperation.

Ultimately, despite the economic chaos we find ourselves in, we need infrastructure improvements that will contribute to the long-term economic growth of the country. Hopefully, Messrs. Rendell and Smith aren't the only ones willing to cross the political aisle to cooperate on this issue.  

By Bruce Chapman

The Japanese have come up with a new electric car charger that can provide a Nissan Leaf (for example) a complete charge, good for 200 miles, in only five minutes. It's a potentially serious advance.

Innovation Briefs, now in their 22nd year of publication, are published by Ken Orski. Cascadia Prospectus reprints them with permission. The content of Innovation Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute.

While we do not know the exact level of funding the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will propose in its draft legislation, to be unveiled in the first week of July and marked up the following week, we do know it is going to be far less than the current (FY 2010) funding of  $52 billion ---$41 billion for highways and $11 billion for transit. What will be the consequences?

That the Federal Government "must learn to live within its means" has become the fiscal conservatives' elliptical way of stating their opposition to deficit financing. This principle found its way into the House T&I Committee's "Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2012" report and has been reaffirmed since in countless statements and briefings by congressional sources.

The practical implications of this policy for the federal-aid transportation program are unambiguous: federal budget authority in FY 2012 and beyond will be limited to tax receipts flowing into the Highway Trust Fund. Those revenues (plus interest) will amount to an estimated $36.9 billion in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)-- $31.8 billion will be credited to the Highway Account and $5.1 billion to the Transit Account. Over the next ten years, CBO estimates these revenues will grow at an average rate of a little more than one percent per year, largely reflecting expected growth in motor fuel consumption. ("The Highway Trust Fund and Paying for Highways," testimony of Joseph Kile, Asst. Director of CBO, before the Senate Finance Committee, May 17, 2011).

Innovation Briefs, now in their 20th year of publication, are published by Ken Orski. Cascadia Prospectus reprints them with permission. The content of Innovation Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute.

May 6, 2011

An undated--- and possibly still unvetted by OMB---draft of US DOT's legislative proposal for surface transportation reauthorization, the "Transportation Opportunities Act," has been making the rounds in Washington for the past week. Its publication, however, has been largely ignored by the inside-the-Beltway transportation community. What would ordinarily be an eagerly awaited event and an  occasion to compliment the Department , has passed virtually unnoticed. Even the usual cheering squad of Administration-supportive advocacy groups such as Transportation for America, the Building America's Future coalition and US PIRG has been muted in their approval.

The reason for this indifference is twofold. Partly, it's because the DOT draft contains no surprises: it merely restates the proposals already revealed in the President's FY 2012 Budget request. But more importantly, the draft has been ignored because it has been judged to lack political savvy and realism. Even the highly partisan liberal Streetsblog was obliged to pronounce the draft bill as irrelevant. Wrote Tanya Snyder, its Capitol Hill correspondent in a level-headed assessment, "...don't expect it to be central to the debate in Congress. By refusing to adjust to a still-struggling economy, high gas prices, and a deficit-obsessed Congress, the president has rendered his own plan moot."