Perhaps you socialize with more people in the public transportation industry than I do.  For you, discussing matters relating to public transportation may not be the #1 way to end a conversation at a cocktail party. For me, such attempts usually end with, “Oh, look!  Tom and Liz have arrived.  Excuse me!”

You do a great job of educating me on the issues that affect your market space. But let’s face it, these issues are not accessible to the general public.   I am always interested in how to communicate to the world the obscure issues you know about that affect all of us every day.  Like anything that has to do with infrastructure, it’s only provocative when it doesn’t work.  Since you do your jobs so well, it’s usually working, right?

In the case of highways, there are certain regions in which the system is generally considered “broken,” as defined by really bad traffic congestion.   Funny thing is, you in the industry can determine when any given system is likely to “break” and plan for it.  However, when the plan requires money, and funding options include toll roads or – gasp! – privatization, the public’s lack of understanding leads to an emotional uproar.

What is causing this unrest?  Is it a market that has not reached its threshold of pain or is it a lack of information?  Both?  Would communicating these matters in a more accessible, non-politically-motivated way be helpful?  These are questions which always interest me; can you tell me what you think?

What is your opinion of this video, produced by reason.tv and hosted by Drew Carey?  Do you think it is too one-sided to be effective?  Do you think it is successful in presenting its pro-privatization point of view?

Speaking of Tolls, perhaps the mafia are engaged in a little P3 activity sans contract:  FBI Raids PA Turnpike, Part 1 and Part 2

Experts Weigh In: What Can Private Infrastructure Owners Teach The Public Sector?

Although not from this week, here’s a look at toll roads in Japan, through the eyes of an American Transportation Planner.

Cap’n Transit explores a world where tolling cars to fund transportation is ubiquitous, and questions if this revenue stream is an incentive to keep people in their cars?

Sonny Corleone wishes he had EZ Pass

I am a little confused by these objections, because I recall that the pricing for the HOT Lanes was to be congestion based/variable, which, if managed appropriately should preclude a “back up at the HOT lanes terminus.”  On the other hand, I can absolutely understand Arlington’s desire to access the operational projections so that they can plan accordingly for the traffic which may flow into their streets as a result of the project. (It’s only mildly ironic that a more highly functioning interstate highway might cause inner city traffic engineers some panic.)

As for the perceived competition the Capital Beltway HOT Lanes will present for mass transit (and carpooling) proponents, isn’t one of the requirements of the project that high occupancy vehicles get to ride the HOT lanes at reduced cost (and in the case of transit vehicles, at no cost)? Is roadway P3 really in competition with Mass Transit?  I’d really like to know how much of this controversy is based on valid concerns and how much of this bruhaha is political fear-mongering.  Anyone on the inside care to chime in?

If you missed the part about WHY we need a new means for funding the maintenance and growth of our transportation infrastructure, then let’s recap:  

First, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which pays for much of our roadway development, is depleted.  At the same time, the revenue to the HTF from gasoline taxes – already not enough – only promises to decline as fuel efficiency increases.   Concurrently, much our infrastructure is at a critical juncture in it’s life cycle — in need of major repair or a complete rebuild.

It’s the perfect storm:  Less money when more is sorely needed.

So, how do we raise more money for the work which needs to be done?  Here are some scenarios swirling around policy war rooms today:

• Reconfigure the gas tax to an ad valorem tax: Setting the gasoline tax as a percentage of fuel purchase instead of a flat, cents per gallon tax would be a better way to index revenue to road use and inflation. However, this idea presents a future conflict of interest to a nation which seeks to incentivize sustainable energy solutions and reduce its dependence on oil.  How can we justify funding mobility from the sale of fossil fuels?
• Toll roads: This classic model will have a new spin in that your toll road might be leased to a private company that has been selected to operate and maintain the road for a specific number of years.  They will recoup their operating costs through tolls to the user, and will be responsible for upkeep and performance as well as all services provided on the facility.  In some cases, the investor will also design, build, operate and maintain the roadway, for which they will be awarded a much longer lease (we’re talking greater than 50 years).  In the business we call this Public-Private Partnership, PPP, or P3, and it’s already a successful model in many U.S. states.
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Given the advent of more fuel efficient vehicles, this idea is meant to recapture monies lost in gasoline sales.   It seems to be a more effective use tax, since it is fairly applied by actual miles driven than by gasoline consumed, and may be a better behavioral incentive for eliminating trips, combining trips, or exercising mode choice.  Since mileage tax is collected by the states, this proposal gets sticky when drivers cross state lines, but I am certain since I’ve last read up on the topic that they have come up with a solution to this problem.  (Anyone?)

In the United States, one can expect that in the future there will be a more direct correlation between transportation mode of choice and individual burden/cost.  This means there will be a different and very direct price to fly, drive, bus, rail or bike it.  The user will certainly weigh this price against available time and budget, then make choices accordingly.  The biggest change will be in the cost to drive…and it may change the way you move forever.

How do you believe these hypothetical changes will affect your own travel behavior?  What cultural/societal shifts do you predict will occur as a result of such changes?

Special Thanks to Contributing Researcher & Writer Crystal Pendergrass, civil engineer/jobseeker, and to Contributing Editor, Donald Galligan, AICP, all around nice guy.

Where does the money to build and fix roads come from?  Since 1956, U.S. roadway infrastructure projects have been largely funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).  Money is pooled into the HTF via an 18.4 cents per gallon gasoline tax (24.4 cents on diesel).  Other sources of income include taxes on tires, and the sale of heavy trucks and trailers.   Once collected, these revenues are placed in a dedicated account, The Highway Trust Fund.  Monies from the HTF are then re-distributed to individual states according to a formula based upon linear highway miles, population, and the amount of gas tax revenues originally contributed by the state to the HTF. ¥

This is all fine and dandy, but is it sustainable?  The answer has proven to be “No.”

In recent years, a confluence of factors has led to an emergency-level shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund.  These factors, while not in and of themselves bad, are individually daunting and collectively catastrophic to our antiquated funding mechanisms.  They include:

• high gas prices which have forced motorists to drive less,
• popularity of cars that get better gas mileage,
• the emergence of alternative fuels,
• the federal portion of the gasoline tax has not changed since 1993
• the rising expense of road maintenance, materials and construction

It is difficult to argue that this 50-year-old funding mechanism anchored in a time of cheap land, labor and materials is adequate to satisfy the needs of a modern nation.   In my next post, I’ll address a number of alternative proposals which are swirling about for replacing/upgrading our transportation infrastructure funding mechanisms.

(¥ Wow…does anyone else see how this promotes an SUV culture and ever more asphalt?)

Special Thanks to Contributing Researcher & Writer Crystal Pendergrass, civil engineer/jobseeker, and to Contributing Editor, Donald Galligan, AICP, Transportation Planner all around nice guy.

• One-third of the nation’s highways – interstates, freeways and major roads – are in poor or mediocre condition.
• More than one-quarter of major urban roads, which carry the brunt of national traffic, are in poor condition.

To surmise: Our roads and bridges are falling apart, just like my nearly 90 year-old house.  And like my house, maintenance costs are going up.  But wait – it’s worse than that.  As the roads deteriorate, our dependency upon them is increasing due to population growth and trends to dispersion (i.e. suburban living).  This heavy use means serious maintenance is in order; and, coupled with a demand for more roads, our auto-centric lifestyles are quickly outstripping the funds available to keep us moving in our personal, four-wheeled castles.

Take a look at the American Society of Civil Engineering’s 2009 Infrastructure Report Card, where the nations’ infrastructure receives an overall grade of “D.”  Do these films describe an economic powerhouse or the dilapidated third world?  Is this not perceived as a crisis to the general population because we can’t see or feel the problem unless we experience a failure?  (P.S. intolerable traffic = failure.)

ASCE Film Credits

Special Thanks to Contributing Researcher & Writer Crystal Pendergrass, civil engineer/job seeker, and to Contributing Editor, Donald Galligan, AICP, Transportation Planner and all around nice guy.