As even Paul Krugman notes: Talleyrand and the gas tax holiday
"I’m on record as saying that Hillary Clinton’s advocacy of a gas-tax holiday, while it wasn’t good policy, didn’t rise to the level of a crime.
Judging from last night’s results, however, it was worse than a crime: it was a mistake."
If it wasn't a crime, perhaps Clinton should suggest a "social security tax holiday", to give taxpayers a break.
From TPM, an article on Don Young's Earmark for the I-75 - Coconut Road interchange in Lee County, Florida. Don Young (Republican) is from Alaska, about as far from Florida as you can get and still be in the United States.
From Christian Wolmar's blog: Why are roads favoured by the right and trains by socialists?
An interesting question, I posted a reply, repeated below.
"From the US, I think part of the problem is the definition of "subsidy". Here, auto users pay a user fee, most of which is in the form of a gas (petrol) tax, that is dedicated (hypothecated) to road construction, and pays in most places essentially 100% of the cost for major roads (freeways, state highways). (Local roads are largely paid for with property tax, but you would have these even without cars). So rather than thinking about it as a public subsidy, it is a service in exchange for a fee.
In contrast public transit users pay about 1/3 of the operating cost (and about 0/3 of the capital cost) in most systems, the remainder is paid for out of general funds, dedicated sales taxes, and from highway user fees. The system is thus more subsidized by non-users.
Also in the US 90+% of taxpayers are regular auto users, about 1% to 2% are regular transit users, so the cross-subsidy from transit users to highway users when using general revenue is relatively small and the cross-subsidy from highway users to transit users is relatively large.
All of which sets the stage for the left/right divide. Things that are subsidized by the general public for the disadvantaged few (and riders of buses generally have much lower incomes than average, trains are different) are consistent with a "left"/Democratic point-of-view. People left to their own devices paying for what they use is a more "right"/Republican point-of-view.
Trains, especially commuter trains, have attracted Republican support. This is because the users are well-to-do suburbanites who often vote Republican. Transit advocates endorse this as a way to broaden the base for transit support (though of course it will take resources away from other transit investments).
-- David Levinson, http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/
"
From the campus Minnesota Daily: Oberstar talks transportation on campus
The London Mayor's race is "hotting up" (not heating up, as in American English). Each of the candidates, current mayor Ken Livingston (labour) and Boris Johnson (conservative) have issued "transport manifestos".
While Ken Livingstone may now be somewhat well-known to Americans interested in congestion pricing, Boris Johnson is himself a celebrity of sorts in the UK, a British version of a young William F. Buckley perhaps? He manages to attract publicity for whatever he does.
An article on Ken Livingstone's campaign and manifesto are linked to from here:
London: Mayor & More: Livingstone's Transport Policy Launch
Boris Johnson's Manifesto can be found here:
Transport : Back Boris for Mayor of London
One of the major issues is "Bendy Buses" (Articulated Buses), which have in recent years been introduced to London's streets, and are not terribly popular, especially with cyclists.
Johnson has also called for reconsideration of the western extension of the congestion charging region implement in 2007.
From Streetsblog: Obama Endorses Pricing as “Thoughtful and Innovative” after meeting with Mayor Bloomberg. (Obama/Bloomberg 08?)
With both major parties support, maybe pricing will become mainstream rather than fringe. (Still leaving private roads to the Libertarians).
From BUYO The Really Revolutionary Engine
Funny, especially for the Thomasistas in the crowd.
Harry S. Truman was one of the leaders of the "Good Roads" movement. He inherited this interest from his father John, who was road overseer in Washington Township Missouri in 1913. Harry Truman later became county judge in Jackson County, and was in charge of appointing road overseers. After losing re-election in 1924, he sold memberships in the Kansas City Automobile Club and then became President of the National Old Trails Road Association. After being re-elected in 1926, he helped get Jackson County out of the mud, with one of the largest local road-building programs in the US ensuring an all-weather (i.e. paved) road served every farm.
Ultimately as President, he could have been father to the Interstate System, which was planned, but not funded during his administration, had the Korean War not intervened and made funding scarce.
References:
EETimes.com - 'Jihad' study roils engineering
It has been noted here (and here before that Osama Bin Laden and Yassir Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were all Civil Engineers, but according to sociologists, that is not mere coincidence, it is a sociologically predictable phenomenon.
I have long said Transportation Engineering is the last bastion of socialism in the US (almost all the roads are state-owned, and queues are quite common due to undersupply and lack of a price signal, attributes of a socialist economy), but who knew we civil engineers were also the source of Islamo-Fascism. Of course, to a post-modernist those are both the same, as being parts of "totalizing narratives" as my Marxist Geography professor would have noted (not that he was a post-modernist).
Perhaps the critical question is why do would-be terrorists want to have engineering as their back-up job? Is there something about the terrorist mindset that causes engineering to be an appealing second choice should bombing innocent civilians not work out or not pay as well as hoped? Perhaps the skills obtained in trying to make bombs (wiring, systems thinking, etc.) and destroy are easily transferred to making durable structures.
Or maybe we should ask what it is about non-terrorists that make them less likely to be engineers? Clearly engineers are in general useful to society, what personality trait are non-terrorist wannabes missing that discourages them from undertaking an education in engineering.
The original article would appear to be reasonably well-researched given the dearth of data about the nebulous underworld. Yet of course correlation is not causality.
Obama's Transportation Plan is now posted here (pdf).
I quote it in its entirety:
" BARACK OBAMA: STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Strengthen Core Infrastructure: As our society becomes more mobile and interconnected, the need for 21st-century transportation networks has never been greater. However, too many of our nation’s railways, highways, bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic long-term planning. Barack Obama believes that America’s long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. As president, Obama will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority.
Support Amtrak Funding: Barack Obama has been a strong supporter of federal financial support for Amtrak. Obama believes we need to reform Amtrak to improve accountability. In many parts of the country, Amtrak is the only form of reliable transportation. In the U.S. Senate, Obama is a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007, a leading act to provide long-term federal investment to Amtrak. As president, Barack Obama will continue to fight for Amtrak funding and reform so that individuals, families and businesses throughout the country have safe and reliable transportation options.
Support Development of High-Speed Freight and Passenger Rail: Barack Obama supports development of high-speed rail networks across the country. Providing passengers with safe high-speed rail will have significant environmental and metropolitan planning advantages and help diversify our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Our domestic rail freight capacity must also be strengthened because our demand for rail transportation has never been greater, leaving many key transportation hubs stretched to capacity. Obama is committed to renewing the federal government’s commitment to high speed rail so that our nation’s transportation infrastructure continues to support, and not hinder, our nation’s long-term economic growth.
Strengthen Metropolitan Planning to Cut Down Traffic Congestion: Barack Obama believes we must take steps at the front-end as well as the back-end of the planning process to cut down traffic congestion in our large and medium-size cities. Obama supported a measure authored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to mandate states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies that incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of sidewalks and roads. As president, Obama will work to provide states and local governments with the resources they need to address sprawl and create more livable communities.
Strengthen Air Transportation in Underserved Areas: Obama has worked across party lines to protect funding for the Essential Air Service program, which provides vital funds for air transportation in rural areas. Obama supports the continuation of the Small Community Air Service Development Program that helps small and mid-sized communities attract new air service, which is critical to local economic development. Obama will work to improve the effectiveness of these programs and increase the availability of rail transportation options for residents of rural communities.
Modernize Infrastructure on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers: Obama strongly supported the Water Resources and Development Act, which will provide funding for modernizing the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers’ system of locks and dams. The bill will also provide funding for environmental restoration along the upper Mississippi. The decay of existing locks and dams has led to stagnating economic development for areas along the river, including Iowa, because of the decreasing ability of farmers and other producers to ship their goods both domestically and internationally. Obama’s work to pass the Water Resources and Development Act has been praised by the National Corn Grower’s Association and the American Soybean Association. As president, Obama will continue to ensure that the federal government invests in upgrading our national transportation infrastructure for agricultural and commercial goods.
Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: Three-quarters of welfare recipients live in areas that are poorly served by public transportation and low-income workers spend up to 36 percent of their incomes on transportation. Barack Obama has spent years working to improve transportation access for low-income Americans. As an Illinois state senator, he was the chief sponsor of the bill that created the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Transportation, a body that was charged with building public-private partnerships to help connect low-income Americans with jobs. As president, Obama will work to eliminate transportation disparities so that all Americans can lead meaningful and productive lives. Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account. JARC funds have been used to connect low-income workers around the country with job opportunities.
Improve and Modernize Air Traffic Control: Because of an outdated air-traffic control system and overscheduling at airports already operating at full capacity, there were a record number of flight delays during the first half of 2007. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration has failed to work well with our nation’s air traffic controllers, neglecting to treat them with the respect they deserve. There are nearly 1,100 fewer air traffic controllers working in U.S. air traffic facilities today than three years ago, despite increasing air traffic.
Obama will work with Congress to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system and he will direct the new FAA Administrator to work cooperatively with the frontline air traffic controllers to restore morale and improve working conditions and operations at the agency.
SAFEGUARD TRANSPORTATION FROM TERRORISM
Protect Transportation Infrastructure from Terrorism: The federal government’s National Asset Database, which is intended to guide homeland security priorities, lists 77,069 potential U.S. targets including petting zoos and popcorn factories. Experts say this database is not useful for homeland security planning. Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security will develop a meaningful critical infrastructure protection plan across the nation and will work with the private sector to ensure that all high-risk targets are prepared for disasters both natural and man-made.
Bolster Airport Security: Between October 2005 and January 2006, Government Accountability Office investigators were able to smuggle bomb components past federal screeners at all 21 airports they targeted. And airline passengers are still not screened against a comprehensive, accurate terrorist watch list. As a result, almost six years after 9/11, we still have a security system that results in eight-year olds and grandmothers being repeatedly questioned and even stopped from flying. Developing a comprehensive, accurate list must be a priority and used in a way that safeguards passengers' privacy while ensuring the safety of air travel. As a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Barack Obama believes we must redouble our efforts to determine if the measures implemented after 9/11 are adequately addressing the threats our nation continues to face from airplane-based terrorism. Obama has supported increased numbers of federal airport screeners and improved funding for aviation security.
Safeguard Mass Public Transportation: Every weekday, Americans take 34 million trips on public transportation systems to get to work, school and beyond. Even though recent attacks have happened on public transit in Madrid, Mumbai and London, the Bush administration has invested only a small fraction of the $6 billion that transportation officials have said is necessary to implement needed security improvements. Barack Obama believes that this critical hole in our homeland security network must be addressed. He will fight for greater information-sharing between national intelligence agents and local officials and provide local law enforcement agencies with the everyday tools they need to protect their transportation systems. As a U.S. Senator representing Chicago, Illinois, one of the nation’s major rail transportation hubs, Obama has consistently advocated stronger rail and transit security programs. "
Obama's transportation plan is long on "strengthening" "improving" and "modernizing". It is a little short on "funding", or on tying revenue to benefits. As a proponent of transparency in government, Obama should be in favor of direct user charges where possible and against hidden subsidies (which lead to over-consumption and economic externalities).
John McCain looks to be the Republican nominee for President in 2008.
What are his transportation policies?
As with Obama, there is no explicit transportation policy tab on the candidate's web page. But we can ascertain a few things from his website and other sources: (quotes from website unless otherwise attributed)
(1) He is against earmarks. The good people of Arizona have been blessed by a Senator who refuses to bring home bacon on moral grounds.
"Ending Pork Barrel Spending: Year after year, powerful members of Congress divert taxpayer dollars to special interest pet projects with little or no national value. This practice is especially egregious during wartime, when any federal spending wasted on parochial programs to satisfy special interests represents a failure by the federal government to properly steward tax dollars. John McCain has steadfastly fought to reform this broken system and end the self-serving largesse that defines the current budget process.
As president, John McCain will oppose spending money on projects that siphon away tax dollars collected to fund these important commitments. Setting priorities, and keeping them, is a crucial step toward fiscal restraint and an important priority for a McCain presidency. Every dollar irresponsibly spent by Congress is a dollar diverted from pressing national priorities including lowering the tax burden on working Americans, supporting the men and women fighting the war on terror, making good on the nation's financial commitments at home, including to senior citizens, and paying down the national debt."
To wit: McCain voted against SAFETEA-LU, the last surface transportation bills on the grounds of pork. He does not however oppose in principle federal highway spending (McCain's statement) , rather the specifics of the particular legislation, which he argues was inequitable.
(2) John McCain is a conservationist who is for clean air and believes in the existence of global warming (for a Republican, this is progress) and who "has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share."
(3) John McCain supports space exploration
"John McCain is a strong supporter of NASA and the space program. He is proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President's vision for the space program, which includes a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. He believes support for a continued US presence in space is of major importance to America's future innovation and security. He has also been a staunch advocate for ensuring that NASA funding is accompanied by proper management and oversight to ensure that the taxpayers receive the maximum return on their investment. John McCain believes curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, for which he will continue his strong support. "
(4) He seems to oppose Amtrak funding, which is not surprising given Arizona's lack of service, and its consistent money-losing nature, see here , and supports state flexibility on using federal funds.
(5) He has generally opposed federal subsidies for ethanol, though he supports it if the price of oil is high enough to make it economically efficient.
From The Page - by Mark Halperin , Senator Obama is proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank today:
"For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.”
This may be based on the Hagel-Dodd bill: National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. Full text
The claim is that there is an under-investment in infrastructure, and this would channel some additional money that way. Clearly infrastructure investment levels as a share of GDP have been declining over time. This follows from it being a maturing sector of the economy, and if we had not had a decline in infrastructure spending as a share of the economy, we could not have a concomitant increase in the shares of other faster growing sectors (information technology for instance).
The key for a bank though is that it loans money and is repaid with interest. It tries to maximize return on investment. First, it needs to be depoliticized, which is promised by the Hagel-Dodd bill, but needs to be guaranteed. Second, there needs to be payback. It is not clear how "free" roads will be able to pay back loans for their construction. (No mention is made of toll roads or other repayment mechanisms). Clearly they may generate some economic growth, but with proposal suggesting that " 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." it seems more like additional federal disbursement than a conventional bank that gets a direct return.
The bill aims at large projects, the risk is they turn into mega-projects (like the Big Dig), whose benefits are elusive and costs are real. The opportunity is they do something great (like the original Interstate Highway System).
The key to note is that existing infrastructure is aging, and much of it does need to be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced. One hopes this money is directed toward existing problems, rather on speculative new infrastructure. The United States highway system is mature. Until it can be replaced with something better (as railroad largely replaced canals), it needs to be maintained, and to some extent grown slowly, but if we are to make major new investments, they should lie along a new technological trajectory, not more of the same.
One of the positive attributes of such a bank however is that it moves infrastructure funding from a "pay-as-you-go" model (as with the current highway bill based on the gas tax) to one based on bonding. This helps temporally spread the costs across beneficiaries, and is how large long-term capital projects should be financed. (See my paper here (Published in Journal of Urban Planning and Development American Society of Civil Engineers 127(4) 146-157 (Dec))))
I am supporting Barack Obama for President.
What are his transportation policies?
The first thing to note is that Obama's campaign does not have a written statement devoted to transportation, clearly few people vote for President on transportation issues. So his positions need to be gleaned from a variety of sources.
From his website:
"Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: As president, Obama will work to ensure that low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs. Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account."
Given that there are federal public transportation dollars to be allocated, they should go to places with the highest need. Far too many public transportation dollars are spent trying to attract choice riders rather than better serving those who actually rely on the system. Serving reverse commutes with public transportation is quite difficult (you are going to very dispersed destinations, generally not the most easily served areas by transit). If there are jobs going unfilled in the suburbs with unemployed workers living elsewhere, there is a spatial mismatch. There may also be a salary mismatch. Transportation is one solution, others include changing locations of origins and destinations, and changing the skill levels (human capital) of the workers, or the skills required and salaries provided on the other end.
Obama has a very progressive space policy supporting continued exploration and expansion of scientific research. Space is important for the long term future. Eventually (and I am talking really long term), we may need to leave the planet. (Not even because we destroyed it through irresponsible human behavior (environmental catastrophe, nuclear war, though that may accelerate the day). Space exploration is a very expensive endeavor, with a possible benefit for a low probability (at least short term) but potentially very dangerous outcome (e.g. large asteroid crashing into the earth, or the sun going supernova). In addition to all of the scientific benefits, it is about ensuring flexibility and keeping options open.
Obama adopted most of the Democrat positions on energy policy. While Obama supports cap-and-trade as opposed to a carbon tax (i.e. regulation of CO2 emissions via quotas rather than taxes), he at least acknowledges there will be costs associated with it. For a discussion see Greg Mankiw's Blog. For a variety of reasons, I believe carbon taxes are more efficient, they give the market the right incentive, without establishing arbitrary property rights in pollution, and without specifying how carbon emissions be reduced, either carbon tax or the more burdensome cap-and-trade is an improvement over the current system giving a free ride to polluters.
Obama also has most of the "smart growth" positions on local transportation (see Streetsblog). It is a bit prescriptive and top-down in my view, as well as focusing on lots of micro-issues that divert attention from big policy shifts that could significantly affect transportation or environmental outcomes (among them real road pricing, appropriate carbon taxes, and decentralized decision-making and true federalism).
Selecting a President is not about rationally deciding which collection of written policies most closely matches your own preferences, but rather about how you believe an individual will react to events that emerge, and how they can shape those events, and provide leadership to shape people's reactions to them in a positive direction. Understanding how candidates stand on transportation policy is an interesting indicator of how they may act and react to events. Politics is about matching the ideal with the possible, I am not a politician so my view of the possible is not shaped by the hall of mirrors that constitute the state houses and government buildings throughout the country. However, I have found little evidence that experience is a virtue. Experience hardens the mind, and makes it more difficult to think in new ways. We need leaders who are open to ideas, not leaders who recoil at them.