Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Hoeven (R-ND) recently introduced the Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project (TRIP) Bonds Act of 2011 which the National Association of Manufacturers supports. While TRIP Bonds will not solve the problem of shrinking balances in the Highway Trust Fund or a replacement for fuel tax revenues that fund critical transportation investments, the one-time $50B in new funding through bonding will provide much needed relief to states charged with building and maintaining a national network of transportation infrastructure.

Multiple modes of transportation would benefit from the bipartisan Wyden-Hoeven proposal, including roads, bridges, rail, transit, ports, and certain aspects of the inland waterway system (excluding locks and dams).  The TRIP Bonds proposal recognizes the enormous infrastructure gap facing the nation and seeks to use innovative financial tools to help meet long-term infrastructure needs. 

TRIP Bonds will be 100 percent targeted to eligible transportation projects and allocates 2 percent of the $50 billion to each state using State Infrastructure Banks as the primary vehicle to issue the bonds. The fair distribution of bonding authority avoids contentious equity issues among the states and also prohibits the practice of earmarking.  

Given the important role manufacturers play in supporting the transportation infrastructure supply chain (equipment, machinery, steel, asphalt, drainage systems, etc.) and the billions in unmet infrastructure needs that must be addressed in order to remain globally competitive, we encourage House and Senate leaders to advance this proposal during the ongoing surface transportation reauthorization discussion. 

While other nations are building and modernizing roads, bridges, transit systems, airports and ports at a rapid clip to serve manufacturing economies in Asia, South America and Europe, we need all the practical solutions we can find to help our economy prosper and grow. 

Robyn Boerstling is director of transportation and infrastructure policy, National Association of Manufacturers.

The National Journal has joined the few media outlets giving attention to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s recent policy pronouncement of a “sea change,” that the federal government would now treat motorized and non-motorized equally. In the online “Expert Blogs” feature, the publication today asks:

LaHood called the new policy a “sea change,” but is it a good one? Should non-motorized modes of transportation be treated as equal to other modes, particularly when modes like driving and mass transit are at least partially, if not primarily, self-funded? Or is it the essence of DOT’s evolving 21st-century mission to give people more mobility options that, according to LaHood, are relatively fast and inexpensive to build, are environmentally sustainable, reduce travel costs, improve safety and public health, and “reconnect citizens with their communities?”

We’ve already pointed out (here, here and here) that 80 percent of U.S. freight moves by truck and argued that LaHood’s pedal parity is nonsensical for a modern industrial nation.

In his expert response, Greg Cohen, President and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance, also raises the important point that the public overwhelmingly believes funding for bike paths and the like is primarily a city and county responsibility, followed by the state. Cohen cites a 2008 survey by Fabrizio McLaughlin and Associates:

[Only] 4% of Americans felt that the federal government should take the leadership role in funding bicycle paths. 78% said that county and city governments should lead on bicycle paths and 17% said state government should do so.

These statistics point to a continuing question of the appropriate, limited role of the federal government in transportation. The survey results indicate that most Americans believe that the federal government should take a leading role in keep our major highways and bridges safe and efficient. Our founding fathers explicitly recognized an essential federal role in the regulation of interstate commerce in the Constitution, 127 years before the first federal-aid highway act of 1916. As our major highways and bridges age, meeting this primary federal responsibility becomes a serious and growing challenge. Currently, the Highway Trust Fund is insufficiently funded to even meet these basic federal responsibilities and that is why so many highway user groups are on record in support of increasing our own user fees.

Since Secretary LaHood made his enthusiastic announcement, the federal government has moved to add another huge spending obligation, $940 billion for health care, and at some point the taxpayers will be tapped out (have been tapped out). Interstate commerce and post roads are a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Bike paths?

Cohen concludes:

The reality is that under any realistic transportation system in every community in the United States, the overwhelming amount of travel will continue to be in motorized vehicles over roads. And 88% of Americans believe it is in our national interest to combat congestion on our roads. New capacity for bicycle and walking paths should not come at the expense of highway capacity. Bicycling groups create an unnecessary dispute with motorists when they oppose new highway capacity or advocate reducing motorized travel. Bicycles may be a realistic option for some trips under the right conditions, but cars and trucks will remain absolutely essential to our economy and provide a significant net positive effect on our quality-of-life.

Awfully realistic of you, Greg. Glad someone is.

From the Department of Transportation, a news release, “U.S. Transportation Mary Peters Announces Steps to Delay Highway Trust Fund Shortfall, Calls on Congress to Pass Legislation to Address Problem“:

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters today directed the Federal Highway Administration to take immediate steps to protect the solvency of the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund and called on Congress to act quickly to finally address this long-predicted problem.

“Time and again, the President has warned Congress of the pending shortfall and submitted fiscally prudent budgets to close the gap,” said Secretary Peters. “Americans cannot afford to have Congress play ‘kick the can’ with highway funding for another year, another month, or frankly, another week.”

She called on Congress to provide immediate short-term relief by passing pending legislation, already approved by the House of Representatives, that would make an additional $8 billion available for the highway trust fund. She urged Congress, however, to avoid adding pet projects, new earmarks or unrelated provisions on the “must pass” legislation and to get the bill done by the end of next week.

The Secretary said the legislation was needed now because Congress had failed to heed over three years of warnings from the President and the Department about the long-predicted highway trust fund shortfall. She added that the recent and sudden decline in American driving and the resulting decline in gas tax revenue during the summer had accelerated the predicted shortfall.

More…

• US highway fund crushed by cutback in driving CNNMoney.com
• US Highway Fund Needs $8 Billion Bailout This Month (Update1) Bloomberg