Ending Transportation Neglect in America

From its earliest days, our nation’s history has included a strong federal role in transportation. The framers of the Constitution, familiar with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, understood the important role of the federal government in carrying out three essential duties of government: to provide security, to preserve justice, and to erect and maintain public works to facilitate commerce. The Articles of Confederation failed, at least partially, because there was no means for Congress to regulate commerce between states which culminated in the dispute between Maryland and Virginia over navigation rights on the Potomac River. However, the first real comprehensive national transportation policy did not emerge until after World War II when President Eisenhower’s leadership led the federal government to invest US$25 billion over 10 years in national transportation infrastructure through the Federal Aid Highway Act (FAHA) of 1956 (Weingroff, 1996). The FAHA also established the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to disburse federal transportation funds mostly generated by an excise tax on motor fuels that covered 90% of project costs leaving states to cover the remaining 10%. This provided the administrative framework for states to capitalize on the availability of federal funds to improve interstate connectivity as planned for by state transportation engineers with little or no input from local transportation or land-use planners. Historically, public administrators such as Thomas McDonald (chief of the Bureau of Public Roads) and Thomas Cooley (chairman) and organizations such as the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and state departments of transportation have struggled with implementing transportation policy in this complex federal system (Goddard, 1996).

Although President Eisenhower made a strong case for building a national highway system, funding for long-term highway maintenance was largely disregarded, and lackluster political support for maintenance of our transportation infrastructure persists today. The federal HTF has been operating at a deficit since 2008 and has required US$34.5 billion from the General Fund to remain solvent. Increased fuel efficiency standards and political resistance to fuel tax increases have diminished the HTF sustainability. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that by 2015, the HTF will be operating under steadily increasing budget shortfalls (Puro, 2013). Although the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission recommended increasing the gasoline tax by 15 cents-a-gallon, Congress has resisted any increases to the 18.4-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax that was last raised in 1993 (Nagourney, 1996). Recent suggestions from House Republicans have included replenishing the HTF by limiting what mail the U.S. Postal Service would deliver on Saturdays or transferring funds from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund, neither of which addresses the underlying problems with the HTF. President Obama’s proposed transportation bill, the GROW AMERICA Act of 2014, suggests supplementing current revenues with US$150 billion in one-time transition revenue from pro-growth business tax reform; but this does nothing to solve long-term issues associated with the HTF. Policy that ensures the transportation system’s long-term sustainability remains out of reach.

Not surprisingly then, with virtually every transportation bill authorization or reauthorization there is a call to devolve the authority for transportation policy making to states (legislation passed in 1988, 1991, 1998, 2005). The notable exception is Dick Netzer (1992) who called for the federal government to circumvent the states in favor of local and regional governments. Netzer, an advocate for locally focused planning practices, argued that American transportation infrastructure was indeed under-funded and that the impact of this neglect was mainly felt at the local level. He pointed to state officials as the most influential actors in transportation financing and the lack of taxation uniformity between states as a major contributor to reduced highway capital. The goal of his approach was to increase state transportation revenue while circumventing state politics and empowering local officials. However, Netzer was unable to convince his critics that local control of transportation would result in a national system that supported a complex multimodal network that would bring global products to America inexpensively.

Much of the function of our daily lives is wrapped up in passenger and freight transit that we are oblivious to the high costs and convoluted policy involved in our simple commute to work or our quick trips for shopping and other purposes. Transportation-related goods and services account for 10% to 11% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP); nearly one third of our GDP is derived from international trade and 98% of that trade passes through the nation’s ports (USDOT/Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2013). The majority of product manufacturing takes place in countries most Americans will never visit and our consumption habits have become increasingly reliant on intermodal freight transportation systems. Public administration must play a role in engaging citizens beyond the current superficial understanding of how orders placed online are delivered to their doorstop. It is essential that administrators understand the importance of our transportation system and support it, so that effective policy change can occur.

Furthermore, as U.S. dependence on global trade continues to increase, there is good reason to revisit Netzer and push for more local control in transportation planning. Although we primarily think of ports when discussing international trade, local streets and state highways also play a significant role in supporting the movement of goods from the global marketplace. A list of the busiest ports in the United States and our most populous cities is nearly identical (e.g., Los Angeles/Long Beach and Oakland, CA; New York City, NY; Norfolk/Virginia Beach, VA; Houston, TX; Seattle/Tacoma, WA; Miami, FL; Baltimore, MD and the intermodal ports of Chicago, IL; Memphis, TN). The close linkage between the urban environment and the global marketplace is one key reason to empower local and regional public administrators. Another is the stark reality of transportation financing.

The CBO found that state and local governments account for about 75% of total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure—even after subtracting the value of grants and loan subsidies that the federal government provides for such purposes from their gross spending—and the federal government only accounts for the other 25% (USDOT/Federal Highway Administration [FHA] Office of Highway Policy Information, 2000). That split has remained roughly constant over the past two decades, which further supports Netzer’s call for more local authority. What is clear is that we need to shift our transportation investment priorities if we are to maintain our current system, economic well-being, and quality of life. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress still drafts national transportation policy that state and local governments implement and emulate in state policies. Within this framework, how can we as public administrators at the local, state, and federal levels, improve our plans for funding America’s transportation system? The answer may lie in the implementation of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014, which provide an opportunity for public administrators in local and regional governments to influence the future of transportation as never before.

In the summer of 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress Act or “MAP-21.” For the first time ever, federal legislation strives to improve the condition and performance of the national freight network and support investment in freight-related surface transportation projects. Specifically, MAP-21 requires the USDOT to

establish(es) a policy to improve the condition and performance of the national freight network to provide the foundation for the United States to compete in the global economy and achieve goals related to economic competitiveness and efficiency; congestion; productivity; safety, security, and resilience of freight movement; infrastructure condition; use of advanced technology; performance, innovation, competition, and accountability in the operation and maintenance of the network; and environmental impacts. (USDOT/FHA, 2013)

This legislation set aside US$105 billion for surface transportation projects over the next 2 years, which represents nearly 1.4% of proposed 2014 expenditures in the U.S. federal budget (USDOT/FHA, 2012; Weisman, 2013).

With our largest ports located in our largest cities, local and regional public administrators can affect transportation planning and policy implementation through a freight lens that was not envisioned by Netzer (nor one he would likely have found appealing). However, this interpretation of MAP-21 is likely to result in his desired outcome of more local authority. Netzer was strongly opposed to large federal funding initiatives as a cure-all for the nation’s transportation infrastructure woes. In his mind, the federal government could not adequately address local needs and he advocated for a more systemic approach to correct decades of infrastructure disinvestment and ensure long-term infrastructural stability (Netzer, 1992). But what Netzer could not foresee is that with the implementation of MAP-21, we are experiencing a shift in the transportation funding relationship between local governments and federal transportation agencies with local public administrators at the center of all. MAP-21 affords local governments greater flexibility in applying for federal funds to accommodate increasingly global economic activity that relies heavily on freight shipment. The federal government is now recognizing local streets that support additional truck traffic as freight corridors; a designation that opens the door for new federal funding sources, effectively circumventing state transportation planners.

In addition, the federal government is actively encouraging private sector investment to cover the cost of complying with federal regulations. For example, the WRRDA of 2014 maximizes the ability of non-federal project sponsors to contribute their own funds to move studies and projects forward. WRRDA authorizes non-federal project sponsors to provide funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to carry out studies and authorizes non-federal project sponsors to carry out federal water resource development projects. The Secretary of the Army is now allowed to accept funds from non-federal entities to operate, maintain, and improve the nation’s inland waterway transportation system. WRRDA also expands opportunities for non-federal interests with new options for locals to carry out feasibility studies and projects. These changes to federal policy could potentially put the USACE’s priority list out to the highest bidder. It will be imperative that public administrators ensure the equitable delivery of federal goods and services within this new operating landscape.

As more MAP-21 and WRRDA funds begin to flow, the public administrator’s role in the success of resource acquisition and implementation will become more significant. Public administrators can take the following steps to help rectify antiquated and increasingly ineffectual transportation policy in the United States.

The American Society for Public Administration’s (ASPA) Section on Transportation Policy and Administration (STPA) is one of the newest and smallest sections of ASPA, but it will play a pivotal role in educating and supporting these newly empowered local officials. Furthermore, the public administration issues affected by transportation, particularly in urban areas, reach nearly every other section (i.e., public health, international relations, economic development, public private partnerships, budgeting, public policy, planning, ethics, etc.). We have an obligation to ensure that transportation legislation such as MAP-21 and WRRDA, which increase transportation funding options and, thus, the nexus of control to state and local officials, are extended and expanded upon to meet ever-changing U.S. transportation needs.