Every politician likes to say they’re for infrastructure investment. That was the mantra in all quarters while the stimulus sausage was being made, after all. But it’s a very easy thing to say. A new bill in the House will offer an interesting opportunity to see who’s really on board.

Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D, Ore.) has introduced legislation that would throw a much needed $10 billion per year toward our water infrastructure, recently assessed as being in “D-minus” condition by the American Society of Civil Engineers. There’s no shortage of facts to support this glum assessment: more than 70,000 miles of water pipes are more than 80 years old; there were a quarter million water main breaks last year; we’re flushing billions of gallons of raw sewage a day into our soil and waterways; and so on. The investment deficit is something like $20 billion a year right now, so this is a very respectable stab at addressing the need. Plus, the congressman calculates that the bill will create 250,000 jobs — of the productive, lasting, and “on American soil” variety too, we’d note.

The measure, which has a bipartisan group of cosponsors, would pay for itself with a series of small taxes: 4 percent on canned and bottled beverages (a rather water-dependent industry); 3 percent on products that get flushed into the sewer system like Charmin Plus with Soothing Lotion and Axe Body Wash; a half a percent on pharmaceuticals, which tend to wind up in the wastewater system one way or another; and a generalized 0.15 percent corporate tax, since commerce tends to require access to water.

It sounds like a very good bill, and we’ll be tracking it. As Blumenauer points out, we’ve recently been spending only $2 billion per year at the federal level on clean water. This is water for #&$@’s sake–the most essential human need after oxygen. This a classic case where everybody needs to just act like a grown up and scrape together a little dough to pay for these fundamental structures that make our society possible. Even more fundamental than F-22’s, one might argue.

Over the past week or so, there has been a pretend drama in Washington about whether we’ll be getting a giant new transportation bill in 2009. The prospect is exiciting, of course, because in addition to $500 billion in loot that would be handed out, the bill would offers tantalizing opportunities for bureaucratic and policy reform.

On Monday, perhaps the most active and powerful Congressional player in these matters, Jim Oberstar, released his long-awaited draft version of the bill and, along with his committee-mates, vowed to push forward and get it passed into law by the end of September.

Oddly, that came on the heels of the Secretary of Transportation–a man who speaks for the president–requesting that it be kicked back to 2011 and that Congress craft an 18 month extension of the present legislation to cover the country’s needs in the meantime. Clash of the titans?

Eh, not really. The statements of most Senators who’ve bothered to address the matter have inclined toward delaying it. Faced with a White House and Senate who don’t want to play ball, Oberstar and his loyalists have never had much chance of getting their way.

Now, at a hearing today in the Senate, Barbara Boxer pretty much closed the door on the idea  the bill might happen this year. As chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, she would play a leading role in sheparding the bill through the upper house. And she’s saying unequivocally that the new bill will have to wait for 2011.

She gave a very clear reason: “It’s not because we [in the Senate] have a full plate”–dealing with healthcare, climate, and financial reforms–”it’s because we have no consensus on how to fund the new bill.”

(more…)

Maybe next year, transpo fans. Or, more accurately, maybe in 2011.

A few months ago, it seemed like we would get a new transportation bill–those behemoth and defining pieces of legislation that come up every half decade or so  in Congress–by the fall. In fact, the king of all things transportative on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jim Oberstar, promised one would be on the president’s desk by September 30, the day the old act expires.

The proposed agenda for this bill has been broad and ambitious: put transit investment on more equal footing with highways, create a more integrated and sensible structure for the DOT, start making up for decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, and move toward greener and more rational decision making for all projects.

But then public voices began to chime in and say that getting it done this year might not be realistic. Still Oberstar pressed on for getting it done in ‘09. But privately, and then to some extent publicly, members of Congress and staffers began to acknowledge that doing it this year would be a problem. The biggest issue: How to pay for it. The sums being discussed have been in the $450 - 500 billion range, and there’s already been a good bit of spending done this year.

Plus there’s the fact the Highway Trust Fund, the piggy bank that your gasoline taxes get fed into, is about to go bust. So the administration–which has shown very good leadership on transportation issues for the most part–seems to have calculated that the best strategy was to punt until 2011. Why not just do it next year? Well, the run-up to Congressional elections is not a great time to be trying to pass a half trillion dollar bill that lots of challengers and incumbents will want to demagogue (by Twitter, no doubt) as the mother of all pork sandwiches.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood dropped the bomb this afternoon with the following statement:

“This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund.  I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect.

“As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period…

“I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach.  However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation.”

The reforms he mentions are things he has already been advancing, and presumably if they can take solid form in this interim reauthorization then the battle lines will have advanced meaningfully for the next bill.

Oberstar is vowing that he’ll push ahead with his plan to get the bill passed this year. But he’s a Democrat, and our bet would be that the administration will ultimately determine the timetable.

One thing we’ve been wondering about: in this little-noted Journal of Commerce story from last week, Oberstar said that he wanted the Treasury to reimburse the Highway Trust Fund $20 billion to repay a transfer that went the other back in the 90s. Was that a last ditch strategy to keep the highway fund solvent (though Oberstar’s press secretary also claimed it wouldn’t go bust before December) and get a new bill passed this year? Well, if so, it didn’t work.

Jim Oberstar, the Minnesota congressman who is writing the House’s draft of the next transportation bill, is planning to release his outline of the legislation tomorrow. Since this is the internet age, there will be a live webcast of the news conference. There is sure to be lots of great commentary to follow at sites like StreetsBlog, T4America, and our contributor Yonah Freemark’s Transport Politic.

The release was actually scheduled for today, but by the wonders of Twitter, Oberstar let us know that it was the being postponed. (It’s worth following his feed if you enjoy keeping tabs on the nitty gritty of this stuff.)

For our part, we’re slaving away on a new story about train depots which we’ll put up later today or early tomorrow. The funnest part of journalism, blog or otherwise, is working on a piece that gets you fired up even as you’re writing and editing it. This one does, and we’ve always found that to be promising.

Pic via 2Wheels1World

The fuel efficiency of cars in the US has gone down for most of the past two decades (so to speak). Obama now seems ready to ensure that isn’t true in the years ahead.

According to Politico, he has been conducting “secret meetings” over recent months with state officials and representative of the auto industry, and tomorrow he will announce a boost in fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. Arnold Schwarzenegger and auto executives from around the world will reportedly be flying to DC to stand at the president’s side when he unveils the plan.

(more…)

Recently, the word from Congress has been that the new transportation bill would be passed this year. In particular, Jim Oberstar, the House transportation committee chairman, has been talking about September 30 as a target date.

But Sen Mark Warner (D, Va.) is now saying he’s “not sure” that the estimated $500 billion authorization will happen until next year. According to a story by Terry Kivlan in CongressDaily, Warner thinks that “Congress might have too many big-ticket items on its agenda this year to take on a transportation package.” Speaking at an infrastructure-focused conference hosted by the Departments of Transportation and the Department of Commerce, the senator remarked: “I’m not sure you are going to see a full transportation bill put out this year.”

He’s specifically worried about funding availability in light of the fact that revenue from the gas tax, which pays for highway and transit programs, is no longer sufficient to cover outlays.  He called this the “elephant in the room” with respect to infrastructure funding.

Photo: gloperflickr

A 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 has leaked.

Oberstar has recently been circulating a “two-page handwritten outline” around the Hill, according to the BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, which obtained a copy of the document . They report the following tidbits:

> The outline calls for “transit equity.” Right now the feds pay 80 percent of highway projects and 50 percent of transit projects. That would change.

> It would create DOT agencies focused on a “national strategic plan” and on “mega-projects.”

> “DOT’s 108 programs [will be consolidated] into four “major formula programs”: critical asset preservation, highway safety improvement, surface transportation program, and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement.”

> The document seems to call for more transparency with transportation data.

(There’s more wonky fun — check out the original story.)

Broadly speaking, the idea of better strategic planning, better data, more performance-focused assessments of projects, and a fair footing for transit all fit under the category of much-needed changes. Sounds promising.

(Slightly random photo: Flickr - Bystedt)

SEE ALSO: Boxer: Senate Aims to Index Gas Tax to Inflation, Is Considering Mileage Charge

It’s a hell of a day in Baltimore: Two major water lines break, each creating a separate logistical nightmare.

In the suburb of Halethorp, a 36-inch main broke and created a small river that has swamped the Amtrak line linking Washington and New York. Train service has been halted, and crews are working to clear debris and assess whether there’s been any structural damage to the tracks or to a railway bridge in the area. A local television station has posted some raw helicopter footage of the flooded area, and it certainly looks like tracks will need to be repaired after the water subsides.

Several areas schools have been closed and there are also reports that underground electrical lines have been washed out into the open (which doesn’t sound like any fun at all in the context of the flooding).

The other local hydrological catastrophe was a break in a 20-inch main that flooded part of Baltimore’s downtown, closing government and business offices, creating traffic jams, and causing significant street damage.

So, apart from the local news angle, what’s to be gleaned from this? The venerable city, like much of the rest of the country, has a water system that’s in miserable shape. According to the Baltimore Sun:

(more…)

Just two months ago, the idea of taxing motorists on the basis of how many miles they drive seemed to be dead as a doornail. After being floated by the new transportation secretary as a way to fund our highways, his boss–the guy everyone calls “Mr President”–shot it down remorselessly.

Usually, when a Mr President shoots something down, it stays dead. [Insert own Dick Cheney hunting joke here.] But not in this case. Today, James Oberstar, the head of the House transportation committee, said he wants a mileage tax. And not only does he want one, he wants it to happen in as little as two years — not the decade or more that many advocates have been talking about.

The Associated Press reports:

Oberstar said he believes the technology exists to implement a mileage tax. He said he sees no point in waiting years for the results of pilot programs since such a tax system is inevitable as federal gasoline tax revenues decline.

“Why do we need a pilot program? Why don’t we just phase it in?” said Oberstar, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman. Oberstar is drafting a six-year transportation bill to fund highway and transit programs that is expected to total around a half trillion dollars.

(more…)

The MTA bailout continues to be a mess beyond words. But during a panel discussion at today’s America 2050 conference, Representative Jerrold Nadler offered a potential solution. He proposed that “a few Republicans from Buffalo” should be–and probably will be–enticed to sign on to the Ravitch rescue plan.

An hour or two later, after giving a speech to the conference, Governor Patterson was asked to weigh in on Nadler’s idea, and he said: “That theoretically is true. Their districts stand to benefit substantially.” Patterson then noted that “a couple” of Republicans in the state senate have not yet been approached to discuss their votes, and he vowed to do this.

The governor also invited any opponents of the rescue plan to “step outside.” He said that the fact that he can’t see would make it “an even fight.” Laughter ensued.

During his keynote speech at the America 2050 conference today in Manhattan, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell stressed the need build out a modern passenger rail system in the US. In this context, he suggested that we should begin looking at it as a replacement for airline shuttle and other short-haul passenger flights. “Let’s *end* air travel of less than 500 miles,” he concluded.

He offered the Acela as an example. Invest some money in it now, he said, so that it can actually be a high speed train instead of (in so many words) a really snazzy looking train that goes 82 MPH like normal trains do everywhere and have for more than a century. Quote: “If we cut the travel time between New York and Washington from the current 2 hours 35 minutes to an hour and a half, would anyone *ever* take an air shuttle again on this route?”

Scaling back air travel is an admirable idea — one that Obama expressed in slightly more gentle terms yesterday at the news conference unveiling his rail proposal — and it’s great to have politicians of this stature saying it.

But, out of curiosity, what is the airline industry saying about this? Politicians calling for the elimination of a major chunk of one of the country’s major industries? There aren’t *too* many precedents for that. Does anyone know — are the airlines and/or industry bodies and/or airplane makers starting to kick and scream?

(Photo: AP)

Today the Wall Street Journal reports that “cyberhackers” have infiltrated the U.S. power grid, as well as parts of the water and sewer systems. This all probably sounds chillingly familiar to fans of a certain action series on Fox–after all, the current season of 24 kicked off with terrorists trying to take over large parts of America’s infrastructure. Not long ago, we talked with national security expert Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations about how vulnerable our infrastructure really is. The conversation is particularly relevant in light of today’s news. -Ed.

***

In his seventh ‘day’ of non-stop action, the gravelly-voiced superhero of Fox’s addictive drama faces an especially tall order. The chief engineer of the government’s infrastructure security system is kidnapped by a grassroots terrorist group seeking to take control of the nation’s telecommunication, transportation, and electricity grids…. Makes for good television, but could any of it really happen?

To get a reality check, we contacted Dr. Stephen Flynn, former homeland security adviser to the Clinton administration and currently a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. In his must-read books America the Vulnerable and The Edge of Disaster, Flynn pinpoints America’s real-life security vulnerabilities with frightening clarity. We went through the current season of 24 with Flynn plot device by plot device to get his judgments on what’s bogus and what’s legitimate. (Hint: terror attacks against infrastructure are a real concern–but be more worried about hydro-electric dams than airplanes.) He also explains how the show might actually be undermining a key aspect of public safety.

(more…)

The cash spigot has officially been turned on.

The House Transportation committee released a report yesterday detailing what’s happening with the $65 billion in infrastructure funds (of the non-energy variety, anyway) contained in the stimulus package.

Short version: it’s getting out there.

The biggest chunk of the loot–$27.5 billion–is highway funds. Of that amount, $3.4 billion has already been granted. It will pay for about 1000 approved road projects in 35 states. These are generally of the routine maintenance variety.

So, for instance, if you’re all tied in knots about how bumpy Mickles Road in Yell County, Arkansas, has become these days, rest assured that a million bucks from Uncle Sam is on the way to pay for resurfacing.

The money flow has been a bit slower with the $6.8 billion dedicated to transit grants program — only $46 million has been awarded. But kudos to Maine, which has managed to lock in some cash to build a new passenger ferry.

Amtrak seems to be most ready to spend. It’s getting $1.3 billion in capital grants and already has approved more than $900 million worth of projects (including rehabbing old passenger cars and replacing a movable bridge over the Niantic River in Connecticut.)

But the big exciting prize that has everyone on the edges of their seats is the $8 billion for high(ish) speed rail projects. There’s nothing doing with that yet — the US DOT has to submit a strategic plan to Congress by April 18.

Today in Paris, French Minister of Parisian-Capital Development, Christian Blanc announced that the state would invest 15-20 billion euros in a new 80-mile driverless metro surrounding the city of Paris. The Minister made the announcement at a meeting where architects were presenting their proposals for a Greater Paris, a plan to transform the French capital into a “post-Kyoto city” with an expanded transit sytem and lots of new park space.

The state, city, and region are working to integrate the city with the surrounding suburban departments, which are currently isolated from the historical core by a circular ring road.

Blanc’s metro line would be by far the world’s largest driverless line, almost twice as long as the Dubai metro currently under construction. It would connect the city’s two major airports with the major suburban business district at La Défense. The line, whose route has been under discussion for several years, is contested by the conservative national government and the socialist region.

Along with the extension of the RER E line from the center of Paris to La Défense, the new line would help decrease congestion on existing transit routes and increase commuting options for people living in the suburbs.

[The image above, while it looks cool and holds the page well, is actually of a different proposal. Consider it a imagination teaser for those who aren't familiar with futuristic driverless metros. -Ed]