Getting the Transportation Infrastructure We Need

Bank, Commission, Capital Budget or Business as Usual? There's a growing consensus the U.S. needs to invest more in our infrastructure, especially our transportation infrastructure. Too many roads and bridges are in poor repair, and congestion is slowing the economy of many cities. High gas prices has only added to intense interest nationwide for new and enhanced public transportation. With the expiration of the SAFETEA-LU legislation, next year Congress has the opportunity to revise the policies guiding investment in this critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, after the interstate highway system, the federal role in transportation infrastructure is mostly known for its excessive pork barrel spending (bridges to nowhere) and limited funds and Byzantine policies restricting mass transit investment. How should we evaluate the various proposals to reform federal policy? The Urban Land Institute (where I am working this summer) proposed an 8-point "action agenda" for infrastructure in their second-annual infrastructure report. The agenda is a statement of principles that should guide investments. It includes: build a vision for the community, invest strategically in coordination with land use, fix and maintain first, reduce driving, couple land use decisions with water availability, break down government "silos," cut pork barrel spending and support smart growth, keep score and keep governments accountable. Taking those principles as advice, let's take a look at what has been proposed.

Read Time: 4 minutes

June 6, 2008, 8:59 AM PDT

By Robert Goodspeed @rgoodspeed


Bank, Commission, Capital Budget or Business as Usual?

There's a growing consensus the U.S. needs to invest more in our infrastructure, especially our
transportation infrastructure. Too many roads and bridges are in poor repair, and congestion is
slowing the economy of many cities. High gas prices has only added to intense interest nationwide
for new and enhanced public transportation. With the expiration of the SAFETEA-LU legislation, next
year Congress has the opportunity to revise the policies guiding investment in this
critical infrastructure.

Unfortunately, after the interstate highway system, the federal role in transportation
infrastructure is mostly known for its excessive pork barrel spending (bridges to nowhere) and
limited funds and Byzantine policies restricting mass transit investment.

How should we evaluate the various proposals to reform federal policy? The Urban Land Institute (where I am working this
summer) proposed an 8-point "action agenda" for infrastructure in their second-annual infrastructure report. The agenda is a statement of principles that should guide
investments. It includes: build a vision for the community, invest strategically in coordination
with land use, fix and maintain first, reduce driving, couple land use decisions with water
availability, break down government "silos," cut pork barrel spending and support smart growth,
keep score and keep governments accountable.

Taking those principles as advice, let's take a look at what has been proposed.

In preparation for a new surface transportation bill, the federal government set up a National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission
to study the matter and make recommendations. They proposed in their report
creating a new independent public commission to oversee a national transportation plan and make
funding recommendations to Congress. They propose:

National Surface Transportation Commission (NASTRAC) would have ten
presidentially-appointed members serving staggered six year terms. The commission would make
revenue recommendations directly to congress, on which congress could exercise a 2/3
veto.

This proposal seems to solve two problems: the short-sighted approach to funding long-term
transportation infrastructure and the tendency of congress to fund infrastructure through earmarks.
It's biggest weakness is funding -- the commission proposed a hike in the gas tax to fund both new
roads and transit. They acknowledged this approach may become obsolete in our lifetime, but thought
alternative sources like fees and tolls were promising but not the answer yet. I like their emphasis on
depoliticizing the process and tying decisions to planning, not Congressional whims.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Congress has some different ideas. First, James Oberstar and others
have promoted isolating infrastructure from the regular budgeting process in order to shift to a
long-term perspective. Creating a federal capital budget has been discussed before and would solve
some problems but still keep the decision-making power with congress.

Oberstar and others have also discussed creating an infrastructure bank, a specially-chartered
federal entity charged with investing in major infrastructure. The idea has piqued the interest of
Barack Obama, who includes it in his
transportation fact sheet. Here's what is envisioned by a
version described by a bill introduced by Chuck Hagel and Chris Dodd:

The Dodd-Hagel legislation establishes the National Infrastructure Bank, which as an
independent entity of the government is tasked with evaluating and financing capacity-building
infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects
come under the Bank's consideration are publicly-owned mass transit systems, housing
properties, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and wastewater systems.
Modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bank is led by a five
member Board of Directors, each whom are appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. ... The financing package could include direct subsidies, direct loan guarantees, long-term
tax-credit general purpose bonds, and long-term tax-credit infrastructure project specific bonds.
The initial ceiling to issue bonds is $60 billion. The Bank does not displace existing formula
grants and earmarks for infrastructure. It targets specifically large capacity-building projects
that are not adequately served by current financing mechanisms.

Two congressional committees recently held a joint hearing to
discuss capital budgeting and the infrastructure bank proposals.
An infrastructure bank would solve solves the short-sighted funding problem, and creates a new body to fund large projects beyond existing programs, expanding capital for infrastructure. However as planners are well aware, not all transportation infrastructure is self-supporting. The interstate highway system, many bus and subway lines, and an intercity transportation network would not exist today if each of their parts were required to be self-supporting, but that doesn't mean they are bad investments. I worry it would create additional funds for high-visibility projects, leaving the rest to fight over a limit pool of money.

This brings us to the last option: business as usual. While containing record amounts of pork barrel money, SAFETEA-LU did include funds for biking and transit. Absent federal leadership, many states and cities have been opting for their own bonds and taxes to fund transit projects. Maybe the feds should just worry about big stuff like airports and intercity passenger rail, and leave the rest up to states and cities to worry about.


Robert Goodspeed

Robert Goodspeed is an Assistant Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Michigan. He holds a PhD from the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning and previously worked for the Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

Chicago Commute

The Right to Mobility

As we consider how to decarbonize transportation, preserving mobility, especially for lower- and middle-income people, must be a priority.

January 26, 2023 - Angie Schmitt

Green bike lane with flexible delineators and textures paint in Hoboken, New Jersey

America’s Best New Bike Lanes

PeopleForBikes highlights some of the most exciting new bike infrastructure projects completed in 2022.

January 31, 2023 - PeopleforBikes

Sharrow bike markings on black asphalt two-lane road with snowy trees

Early Sharrow Booster: ‘I Was Wrong’

The lane marking was meant to raise awareness and instill shared respect among drivers and cyclists. But their inefficiency has led supporters to denounce sharrows, pushing instead for more robust bike infrastructure that truly protects riders.

January 26, 2023 - Streetsblog USA

A tent covered in blue and black tarps sits on a downtown Los Angeles sidewalk with the white ziggurat-topped L.A. City Hall looming in the background

L.A. County Towns Clash Over Homelessness Policies

Local governments often come to different conclusions about how to address homelessness within their respective borders, but varying approaches only exacerbate the problem.

February 3 - Shelterforce Magazine

Rendering of mixed-use development with parks and stormwater retention on former Houston landfill site

A Mixed-Use Vision for Houston Landfill Site

A local nonprofit is urging the city to consider adding mixed-use development to the site, which city officials plan to turn into a stormwater detention facility.

February 3 - Urban Edge

Aerial view of downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin at sunset

Milwaukee County Makes Substantial Progress on Homelessness

In 2022, the county’s point-in-time count of unhoused people reflected just 18 individuals, the lowest in the country.

February 3 - Urban Milwaukee

Write for Planetizen

Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools

This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.

Planning for Universal Design

Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.