Jim Obestar, the Minnesota Democrat who oversees transportation and infrastructure issues in the House, told Reuters that he wants to fundamentally change how the country plans and pays for highway and transit projects.
The scheme will be a central part of his draft of the next transportation bill, a projected $450 billion piece of legislation that he hopes will be to the president by early fall. Oberstar has said that he plans to unveil the first draft of the bill next month.
According to the Reuters story:
Oberstar [said] that his plan would reorganize the U.S. Transportation Department in order to streamline infrastructure spending programs.
“It’s a complete restructuring of the thought process, the delivery system, the delivery mechanism, and the funding for it,” Oberstar, from Minnesota, said in his Capitol Hill office.
The Oberstar measure would retain current federal funding sources as well as give more spending discretion to states. In addition, it would make room for private investment in infrastructure programs.
Highway spending is funded through a federal trust which draws from taxes on motor fuels. [...] Historically, the federal government has decided which projects receive the money.
Oberstar’s plan would keep the trust, but would allow states to determine their spending priorities.
“They’ve had these responsibilities. They’ve just been straight-jacketed,” Oberstar said about the states. “We’re going to give the states broad discretion.”
Oberstar’s plan would also restructure the Transportation Department to break down barriers between agencies in order to smooth the regulatory approval process and planning.
The Minnesota Democrat also will promote an initiative to reduce traffic in heavily congested metropolitan areas that he says could “unleash that private sector financial energy.”
While the federal government would provide the base funding, the metropolitan areas could tap public-private partnerships or take out debt through bonds for expanded funding of projects.
Finding a way to reduce congestion in metropolitan areas is a particularly good idea. These regions generate an outsized share of the nation’s economic activity, and yet the federal government isn’t addressing their transportation needs. Letting private capital into the process, if done right, could make huge difference.
Giving broader discretion to the states could be particularly good news for transit, which right now face very difficult hurdles in terms of getting federal approval for new projects.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
The last thing I want are the Yahoos in the Kentucky state legislature or the Kentucky transportation cabinet to have more power in making decisions. They’re notoriously corrupt. Only the hoops that the feds force them to jump through keep even the semblance of propriety or rationality intact.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Kentuckian -
Yeah, I was highlighting the positive, but that’s obviously the other side of this.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:33 am
[...] including thoughts from Nirvana’s Krist Novoselic on the subject! — at Seattle Transit Blog. Plus, The Infrastructurist takes an early look at Rep. Jim Oberstar’s plans to change the way American transportation is [...]
May 7th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Same here - the Missourah state legislature will pave 20 lanes from StL to KC is they’re allowed to. I believe that our state’s only chance to build more mass transit and commonsense roads is an enlightened Federal Government.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I wouldn’t trust Texas DOT with any more power. Already we’re hearing talk of certain elements wanting to take some of the funding package we’ve been putting together in Fort Worth/Dallas for rail transit projects away from those projects and put to highway expansion.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am
[...] James Oberstar Gives Preview of House Transpo Bill (Reuters via Infrastructurist) [...]
May 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I think that the Federal Government needs to actually draft a National Urban Transportation Policy that provides guidelines for States and Cities to follow, and tie this to the money they receive. I say urban policy, because it is clear that metropolitan regions are the most vital to our nation’s economy, and where the majority of the people live. I would take a look at emerging countries, such as Colombia, Brazil, and India to get an idea of policies, and funding commitments to building infrastructure that moves people not cars.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
This is a bad, bad idea. Like the other commenters mentioned, giving more power to states over transportation funding means the sure death of any inkling of fairness when it comes to transit programs.
State power centers have been historically anti-city. The tiny federal programs for rail and urban projects are what have been keeping cities afloat. The federal government is big enough and removed far enough to potentially be able to compare projects objectively and award funding based on merit, not pork or special interests. It’s true that highway funding should be reformed to remove pork from the federal system, but giving states more power is absolutely not the answer.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It might be great for a state like Oberstar’s, or even mine (Virginia). Otherwise, the states that need the most help are run by local yokels who will do exactly the wrong thing. MPOs and politicians in these states are too easily controlled by singular interests like big box stores and developers. Sometimes the federal government really does know best. I’m with Kentuckian on this one.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
[...] few days ago, Jim Oberstar, head of the House transportation committee, tipped his hand that he has big changes in mind for transportation policy in this country. Now his outline for the new transportation bill [...]