Joshua Schank, Director of Transportation Policy Research, Bipartisan Policy Center.
RSS
"It's a huge task, not least because Congress has this pile of 'free' money which they look upon as being theirs to bring home to their constituents," he says. "What we're urging is that transportation funding becomes more rational and not be based on political power. That's not in Congress's interest; they'll talk about the idea being a good one but the reality is that we face a lot of resistance."
"The Interstate system provides a perfect example. It was authorised in 1956 but had its origins back in the 1930s. It was completed in the 1990s, so took a period of about 60 years all told to come to fruition. Hopefully what we're aiming for won't take that long but pork barrel funding and attitudes are particularly acute in transportation, which is so inherently local.
It means that every dollar spent goes to some Congressman or Senator. Healthcare and energy, by comparison, tend to be national." However, he says, there needs to at least be a final destination and there is a lot that can be done within the next Transportation Reauthorization Bill which can set the US on the right path.
"There's a lot of data collection to be done," he continues. "An example is user charging; before we even get to the final political barrier, that of actually getting people to pay for vehicle miles travelled, we need testing at the federal level to see whether it is in fact possible. That takes time in itself, several years, and over that time we can work to see attitudes change.
"I'd summarise what we're working on as 'long-term proposals which take substantial political lifting over a sustained period of time'.
Although this would seem to push safety and the environment, the more accepted aims of a successful transportation infrastructure, to the bottom of the pile in terms of importance, Schank says that the choice of the goals' order was both pragmatic and deliberate. It reflects the fundamental realisation that economic prosperity is in many ways a transportation network's raison d'etre; without the need to live, journey and prosper there would be no need for mobility.
"US transportation policy has often taken a 'build and then worry' attitude to energy security and the environment. We're after a sea change, a move to 'worry when we build'. Energy isn't first and neither is safety but there was a consensus among the members of the panel who put the report together that the purpose of transportation is to allow the economy to function. That's not at odds with other goals.
"However, if anything current funding mechanisms support carbon emissions. States at present get more money the greater their number of lane miles, miles travelled and amounts of fuel consumed. These are very poor proxies of need.
"Also, if you're a member of Congress looking to bring money back to your district it's easier to spend that money on roads. It's harder to gain funding approval for public transport. New rail starts, for example, are subject to much greater up-front scrutiny than new roads.
"We need formula factors which don't reward consumption."
"It's helped make people think and there's no question that we need to do that.
"We've been talking to those writing the current Transportation Reauthorization Bill but there's only so far you can go; from the states' perspective reform of federal transportation policy isn't perceived to be a national priority.
"We don't necessarily have all the most revolutionary ideas but we do have influence and there's certainly been movement. For instance, the House Bill is in committee and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is a big proponent of what we've come up with. He has already submitted amendments to various bills supporting what we do, particularly when it comes to matters such as data collection. That's especially useful as we don't yet have the information we need - we need to put in place the data-gathering technologies necessary to support future decisions.
"We've already embarked on a series of national 'Town Hall Forums' intended to take the report to local stakeholders. Thus far, these have taken place in Seattle and Detroit. Minneapolis was in November and New York will happen in January. We'll probably also host something in Chicago and Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Our aim is to get leaders and elected officials outside DC interested and excited." As well as generating that interest, there will be an emphasis on getting that additional research and data gathering under way. Schank is particularly concerned that if the focus of the next Transportation Bill is on job creation, which is a distinct possibility given the current state of the US economy, we will only see more 'pork'. His words echo the concerns of many in the ITS sector who have voiced disquiet at the non-appearance or eventual destination of economic stimulus funding announced to date.
"Looking to create construction jobs is not the same as looking to create access to new jobs," he says. "We shouldn't just look to put people to work; we should look to put them to work on things which will make a difference."
RSS
Joshua Schank, Director of Transportation Policy Research at the Bipartisan Policy Center, on why US transportation policy needs to start over if the country is going to be able to address its current infrastructural shortcomings in any meaningful sense.
Joshua Schank has no illusions when it comes to what he and the Bipartisan Policy Center are suggesting in Performance Driven: New Vision for US Transportation Policy. Released in June of this year, this major report (see Sidebar, 'The Shift in Thinking') advocates no less than a root-and-branch overhaul of the way in which the US transportation system is run - how money is allocated and how the beneficiaries of that funding are selected. As its name suggests, Schank and his colleagues are urging senior US policy-makers to shift to a stance whereby transportation policy serves the greater, national interest and in doing so becomes more performance-driven, more directly linked to a set of clearly articulated goals and more accountable for results."It's a huge task, not least because Congress has this pile of 'free' money which they look upon as being theirs to bring home to their constituents," he says. "What we're urging is that transportation funding becomes more rational and not be based on political power. That's not in Congress's interest; they'll talk about the idea being a good one but the reality is that we face a lot of resistance."
The pork barrel mindset
According to the Center, funding allocation has become a product of process rather than need. Schank is realistic and he doesn't see an overhaul occurring in the next transportation bill."The Interstate system provides a perfect example. It was authorised in 1956 but had its origins back in the 1930s. It was completed in the 1990s, so took a period of about 60 years all told to come to fruition. Hopefully what we're aiming for won't take that long but pork barrel funding and attitudes are particularly acute in transportation, which is so inherently local.
It means that every dollar spent goes to some Congressman or Senator. Healthcare and energy, by comparison, tend to be national." However, he says, there needs to at least be a final destination and there is a lot that can be done within the next Transportation Reauthorization Bill which can set the US on the right path.
"There's a lot of data collection to be done," he continues. "An example is user charging; before we even get to the final political barrier, that of actually getting people to pay for vehicle miles travelled, we need testing at the federal level to see whether it is in fact possible. That takes time in itself, several years, and over that time we can work to see attitudes change.
"I'd summarise what we're working on as 'long-term proposals which take substantial political lifting over a sustained period of time'.
Facing realities
The report recommends that the national transportation system be centred around five over-arching goals, these being: economic growth; national connectivity; metropolitan accessibility; energy security and environmental protection; and safety.Although this would seem to push safety and the environment, the more accepted aims of a successful transportation infrastructure, to the bottom of the pile in terms of importance, Schank says that the choice of the goals' order was both pragmatic and deliberate. It reflects the fundamental realisation that economic prosperity is in many ways a transportation network's raison d'etre; without the need to live, journey and prosper there would be no need for mobility.
"US transportation policy has often taken a 'build and then worry' attitude to energy security and the environment. We're after a sea change, a move to 'worry when we build'. Energy isn't first and neither is safety but there was a consensus among the members of the panel who put the report together that the purpose of transportation is to allow the economy to function. That's not at odds with other goals.
"However, if anything current funding mechanisms support carbon emissions. States at present get more money the greater their number of lane miles, miles travelled and amounts of fuel consumed. These are very poor proxies of need.
"Also, if you're a member of Congress looking to bring money back to your district it's easier to spend that money on roads. It's harder to gain funding approval for public transport. New rail starts, for example, are subject to much greater up-front scrutiny than new roads.
"We need formula factors which don't reward consumption."
Next steps
The report has been well-received within the transportation community, according to Schank."It's helped make people think and there's no question that we need to do that.
"We've been talking to those writing the current Transportation Reauthorization Bill but there's only so far you can go; from the states' perspective reform of federal transportation policy isn't perceived to be a national priority.
"We don't necessarily have all the most revolutionary ideas but we do have influence and there's certainly been movement. For instance, the House Bill is in committee and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is a big proponent of what we've come up with. He has already submitted amendments to various bills supporting what we do, particularly when it comes to matters such as data collection. That's especially useful as we don't yet have the information we need - we need to put in place the data-gathering technologies necessary to support future decisions.
"We've already embarked on a series of national 'Town Hall Forums' intended to take the report to local stakeholders. Thus far, these have taken place in Seattle and Detroit. Minneapolis was in November and New York will happen in January. We'll probably also host something in Chicago and Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Our aim is to get leaders and elected officials outside DC interested and excited." As well as generating that interest, there will be an emphasis on getting that additional research and data gathering under way. Schank is particularly concerned that if the focus of the next Transportation Bill is on job creation, which is a distinct possibility given the current state of the US economy, we will only see more 'pork'. His words echo the concerns of many in the ITS sector who have voiced disquiet at the non-appearance or eventual destination of economic stimulus funding announced to date.
"Looking to create construction jobs is not the same as looking to create access to new jobs," he says. "We shouldn't just look to put people to work; we should look to put them to work on things which will make a difference."
RSS
