Skip to main content

Tag: Rep Shuster

Rep. Bill Shuster’s infrastructure proposal scores 50 percent

On Monday, July 23, the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, released his proposal to reform transportation investment. While there are some novel ideas in the proposal, it ultimately scores a 50 percent based on our four guiding principles for infrastructure investment.

Local governments and millions of Americans are counting on the federal government to be a partner in rebuilding our transportation infrastructure. In November 2017, Transportation for America released a set of four simple principles to inform and evaluate any potential plans for federal infrastructure investment. The Chairman’s proposal is a serious one, and should be commended for being the first proposal with real funding in more than a decade, advancing the national conversation about our infrastructure. However, on the policy, it fails to meet our four principles.

How the proposal measures up to our principles

Provide real funding 
We need real federal funding, not just new ways to borrow money or sell off public assets to support transportation investments.

The Chairman’s proposal addresses our infrastructure funding deficit through new short term revenue sources and a Highway Trust Fund Commission. While the proposal ultimately eliminates the gas tax, the proposed short-term fixes would include new/steeper taxes on bikes and transit (which we have concerns about). The gas tax would be replaced by a new revenue source (such as a mileage-based fee/road user charge) identified by the Commission. While we believe this proposal generally holds the promise of providing real funding. and we look forward to working together to advance this shared goal.

Fix the existing system first  
We must immediately fix the system we have and fund needed repairs to aging infrastructure.

The Chairman’s proposal does not prioritize maintenance over other investment. The proposal creates a vehicle miles traveled tax pilot with a goal to “steadily reduce the state of good repair backlog in surface transportation.” This is a commendable goal, however it cannot be achieved by a funding source. Addressing the state of good repair backlog requires policy makers to set this as a priority and to dedicate available funding for this purpose. This proposal, like the current program, fails to do that.

Build smart new projects  
Our current approach, largely driven by formula funding, is necessary to ensure baseline investments, but funding that flows automatically for specified purposes does not encourage innovation or flexible action.

The Chairman’s proposal holds the promise of meeting this principle. Through three proposed programs—national infrastructure investments grants, incentive grants, and projects of national significance—the proposal increases the amount of funding distributed through competition. Competition is an effective way to identify the projects that bring the greatest benefits for the investment.

Measure success  
Infrastructure investments are a means to foster economic development and improve access to jobs and opportunity for all Americans.

Unfortunately, the Chairman’s proposal fails to ensure that communities measure the success of their investments or connects what they measure to their investment decisions. Congress started a performance measures framework in MAP-21; however, those measures miss major community priorities (like improving access to work) and fail to connect results to funding and thus lack real accountability.

Our four principles cannot be considered independently of each other. Well crafted programs that are underfunded miss the mark. More money spent ineffectively is certainly not the point. Bringing our infrastructure up to a state of good repair requires both real funding and refocusing the program on maintenance (as opposed to expanding out the highway system).

While Chairman Shuster is the first to propose real funding in quite some time and we thank him for providing real leadership, we can not just spend our way to our goals without other reforms. The proposal therefore scores only a 50 percent, far from a passing grade in the classroom or for something as long-lasting as infrastructure.

We appreciate the chairman’s thoughtfulness and determination and we look forward to working together to ensure that future proposals ultimately spend taxpayer money wisely.

Updated House passenger rail bill is identical to last year’s promising compromise bill

It’s back! After the encouraging release of a compromise bill to govern the nation’s passenger rail policy in the last Congress, a nearly identical bill was introduced and passed out of committee this month and could be debated on the House floor as early as next week.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio on the House T&I Committee, and Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano on the rail subcommittee, the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act was introduced and advanced through the full House committee.

This new version is identical to the bill from the last Congress; a compromise bill that recognizes the benefits of a truly national passenger rail system and seeks to improve it rather dwell on drawbacks.

Most importantly, it preserves a national system of state-supported and long-distance routes and authorizes funding for the system that is consistent with the recent appropriations for Amtrak. While passenger rail certainly needs far more investment than it’s getting to truly prosper and meet the burgeoning demand, we were encouraged to see representatives who once had a hard time finding common ground agreeing on some important fundamentals.

We’re hopeful that this important issue will be debated on the House floor in the coming weeks.

Because this bill is basically identical to last year’s version, our summary of that bill from September 2014 can be found below.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 (PRRIA) does indeed lower the authorized amount of funding for Amtrak by 40 percent from in the level last adopted in 2008, capping it between $1.4B and $1.5B for each of the next four years. Although that looks like a step backward, in reality Congress never appropriated the full amount of authorized funds. Because there was no dedicated revenue source passenger rail funding was subjected to a contentious debate over general fund spending each year. The new bill yields to that reality and sets funding at the levels of the last several years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that we’ve had budget proposals in the House over the last two years that appropriated between $1.0 or $1.1 billion for Amtrak — $400-500 million less than this reauthorization proposal from the same chamber.

There are some other interesting and positive changes worth highlighting.

The bill authorizes new competitive grant programs for the Northeast Corridor and for the national network. These programs are authorized at $150 million each for the next four years. The NEC program requires that states put up their own money equal to the federal grant, and the projects that can be funded must be on a priority project list to be developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The bill will take the important first steps toward restoring rail service to the Gulf Coast, a region that has been disconnected from the national network since Hurricane Katrina forced the suspension of rail service along the coast. It’s an encouraging sign that the committee recognizes the value not only of preserving our current rail network, but expanding it to serve additional regions.

Some of the overall structure for funding also changes under this bill. Congress currently funds Amtrak under two programs: operating, and capital/debt service. This year, Congress funded these two programs at $1.39 billion. The bill restructures these programs into a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund and a National Network Account at a total of $1.412 billion. The NEC account may be used only for that corridor and permits Amtrak to reinvest operational revenue there. The idea of privatizing the Northeast Corridor is off the table, at least for now.

The bill includes several requirements intended to create greater transparency in Amtrak’s financial reporting, increasing accountability and oversight over budgets and financial decisions. Calls by some members of Congress for increased competition in passenger rail were answered with a new pilot program (limited to two routes) that will allow rail carriers that own track used by Amtrak to submit a competitive bid along with Amtrak to provide the same level of passenger service there. The winning bidder would receive the right to provide passenger service for 5 years, with subsidies that would decline over time.

This bill does not contain everything that Transportation for America has called for, however.

For example, there’s still no dedicated funding source identified, which means that Amtrak will still have to fight for funding every year in the annual appropriations process. And some of the provisions related to Amtrak’s finances and operations could lead to changes in service down the road, such as the requirement that Amtrak contract with an independent entity to develop a new methodology for determining which routes to serve.

Still, in a Congress marked by partisan gridlock, we’re hopeful that this encouraging compromise in the House can lay the groundwork for creating a dedicated funding source for rail service that will put it on the same footing as other transportation modes.

Rep. Shuster and Sec. Foxx address the importance of local control in today’s Twitter town hall

The chairman of a key House transportation committee and the nation’s transportation secretary today held a “Twitter town hall”, and what rose to the top? Among other things, local access to the federal resources that too often fail to trickle down to them.

Shuster Foxx Twitter town hall 2

Rep. Bill Shuster (D-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx took tweeted questions (hashtag #StuckInTraffic) for about an hour after Fox appeared at a committee hearing on the next transportation bill.

Representative Rodney Davis (R-IL) kicked things off with a question that gets at the heart of the issue many have with the federal transportation program: How do we get more money in the hands of communities to address the local issues taxpayers care most about?

Admittedly, the question was somewhat rhetorical. Rep. Davis is a key champion — along with Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) – of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, , which would give local communities greater access to federal transportation funds to invest in their homegrown transportation plans and projects.

Without endorsing the bill per se, Chairman Shuster (R-PA) implied that he also wants to see local communities get access to the resources they need; from the money they pay into the federal program:

During the earlier hearing, Rep. Davis brought up the importance of local officials having control over decisions of their communities while asking questions of Secretary Foxx.

“I had a lot of input from my local officials, and they want more local control. They want a dedicated funding source for more local projects, so that they can work together with our federal officials. And with that more local control of transportation dollars is a top priority of mine. And in the new highway bill where do you see local communities to share in funding?”

The current federal program doesn’t always work for local communities. Local governments are too often at the mercy of decisions being by the state, made far from where they live. The Davis-Titus proposal would bring the federal program closer to the people by allowing local governments more decision-making power and greater access to resources.

Secretary Foxx noted that the overwhelming popularity of the TIGER program is another signal that the federal program should do more for these places.

I think this one of the reasons why having a strong, robust TIGER program continue is very important, because that has been an area where local communities have had the ability to reach for federal funding directly and get it. As you well know, local communities are becoming very creative when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done. We should continue to encourage that experimentation.

While states and local communities are “very creative when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done,” they shouldn’t have to be. Last year, applicants for TIGER requested 15 times the $600 million available for the program, or a total $9 billion for needed transportation projects.

Without passing legislation like the bipartisan Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, these problems are only just going to get worse. We’re hoping that Rep. Shuster and Sec. Foxx heard that message loud and clear today.

TODAY at 12 p.m. EST: Tweet your thoughts to Secretary Foxx and Chairman Shuster

As we inch closer to MAP-21’s expiration date and the insolvency of the nation’s transportation trust fund, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is partnering with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) to host a Twitter “Town Hall” today at 12 p.m. EST to hear from the public on the issue.

You can participate by following along using the hashtag #StuckInTraffic and by following Secretary Anthony Foxx (@SecretaryFoxx), Rep. Shuster (@Transport), and Transportation for America (@T4America) on Twitter.

This is a great chance to pepper these two influential leaders with some smart questions on the future of the country’s transportation program. While Rome wasn’t built in a day, we know that hearing a few recurring themes for an hour today will definitely have an impact.

So help us fill their timelines with smart questions. While you certainly should ask anything you like, would you consider amplifying a consistent theme by tweeting some of these sample messages we’ve created?

Both of these leaders have made it clear they want a long-term transportation bill with stable funding, but the time is now to start talking about smarter policies for spending those dollars.. Stay tuned with us at @T4America to follow along today.

Polemics give way to compromise on House rail bill

For the last few years, congressional debate over the nation’s passenger rail system has been a discordant tug-of-war between visions of high-speed rail and moves to privatize popular Amtrak corridors and kill operational support. The logjam appeared to break last week with a unanimous committee vote on reauthorizing passenger rail. The compromise bill recognizes the benefits of a truly national passenger rail system and seeks to improve it rather dwell on drawbacks.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by Michael Patrick. /photos/michaelpatrick/110090972

Flickr Creative Commons photo by Michael Patrick. /photos/michaelpatrick/110090972

Most importantly, it preserves a national system of state-supported and long-distance routes and authorizes funding for the system that is consistent with the recent appropriations for Amtrak. While passenger rail certainly needs far more investment than it’s getting to truly prosper and meet the burgeoning demand, T4America was encouraged to see representatives who once had a hard time finding common ground agreeing on some important fundamentals.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 (PRRIA) does indeed lower the authorized amount of funding for Amtrak by 40 percent from in the level last adopted in 2008, capping it between $1.4B and $1.5B for each of the next four years. Although that looks like a step backward, in reality Congress never appropriated the full amount of authorized funds. Because there was no dedicated revenue source passenger rail funding was subjected to a contentious debate over general fund spending each year. The new bill yields to that reality and sets funding at the levels of the last several years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that we’ve had budget proposals in the House over the last two years that appropriated between $1.0 or $1.1 billion for Amtrak — $400-500 million less than this reauthorization proposal from the same chamber.

There are some other interesting and positive changes worth highlighting.

The bill authorizes new competitive grant programs for the Northeast Corridor and for the national network. These programs are authorized at $150 million each for the next four years. The NEC program requires that states put up their own money equal to the federal grant, and the projects that can be funded must be on a priority project list to be developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The bill will take the important first steps toward restoring rail service to the Gulf Coast, a region that has been disconnected from the national network since Hurricane Katrina forced the suspension of rail service along the coast. It’s an encouraging sign that the committee recognizes the value not only of preserving our current rail network, but expanding it to serve additional regions.

Some of the overall structure for funding also changes under this bill. Congress currently funds Amtrak under two programs: operating, and capital/debt service. This year, Congress funded these two programs at $1.39 billion. The bill restructures these programs into a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund and a National Network Account at a total of $1.412 billion. The NEC account may be used only for that corridor and permits Amtrak to reinvest operational revenue there. The idea of privatizing the Northeast Corridor is off the table, at least for now.

The bill includes several requirements intended to create greater transparency in Amtrak’s financial reporting, increasing accountability and oversight over budgets and financial decisions. Calls by some members of Congress for increased competition in passenger rail were answered with a new pilot program (limited to two routes) that will allow rail carriers that own track used by Amtrak to submit a competitive bid along with Amtrak to provide the same level of passenger service there. The winning bidder would receive the right to provide passenger service for 5 years, with subsidies that would decline over time.

This bill does not contain everything that Transportation for America has called for, however.

For example, there’s still no dedicated funding source identified, which means that Amtrak will still have to fight for funding every year in the annual appropriations process. And some of the provisions related to Amtrak’s finances and operations could lead to changes in service down the road, such as the requirement that Amtrak contract with an independent entity to develop a new methodology for determining which routes to serve.

Still, in a Congress marked by partisan gridlock, we’re hopeful that this encouraging compromise in the House can lay the groundwork for creating a dedicated funding source for rail service that will put it on the same footing as other transportation modes.

T4America statement in response to passenger rail reauthorization bill

press release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today released a long-awaited update to the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, the law that funds passenger rail.

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

“We are pleased that Chairmen Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Jeff Denham (R-CA) and Ranking Members Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Corrine Brown (D-FL) were able to work together to draw up a bill that preserves funding for our national rail network.

Reliable intercity rail is critical to our nation’s future economic success. It not only provides key links among large population centers, it also serves as a lifeline to smaller communities without air or intercity bus service.

Even as it strengthens the prospects of long-term federal support for our national passenger rail system, the bill also invites states to become stronger partners with investments that will further solidify the national network and its future. We hope the renewed commitment demonstrated by this bill opens the door for Congress to create a dedicated funding source for rail service, putting it on the same footing as other transportation modes.”

SOTU followup: Does transportation offer a glimmer of bipartisan hope?

As we noted in our statement after the State of the Union address Tuesday night, it was good to hear the President again cite the need to steer new revenue toward “rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes”. He didn’t say much beyond that, of course, but given other developments in the background, we have reason to be somewhat encouraged.

140125121707-obama-sotu-2013-story-top

Though his transportation remarks were limited, what he did propose was a bit more concrete than past references to diverting billions saved from winding down various wars. This time, he called for making changes to corporate taxes – moves with at least some support in both parties – that could yield a temporary infusion for infrastructure investment.

It would be a welcome near-term boost, but as his transportation secretary has repeatedly pointed out, we need a long-term fix for the ongoing shortfall in our beleaguered transportation trust fund. The U.S. DOT will run out of money to reimburse states before the end of the fiscal year, with deep cuts likely in following years. Simply put, rising construction costs and falling gas tax revenues from an increasingly efficient vehicle fleet have us on course for a “transportation fiscal cliff”.

As the President surely knows, this bodes ill for much of the strategy he outlined for easing the burden for work-a-day Americans. It won’t do much good, for example, to train a low-wage worker for a job in the suburbs if he or she can’t get to it. Efforts to revive manufacturing will falter if producers can’t move their goods through bottlenecks on overburdened and deteriorating urban highways.

As the expiration of MAP-21 nears this fall, we are hoping the Administration will put forward a transportation bill that lines up with Obama’s economic strategy. But when it comes to raising the revenue to boost the trust fund to levels sufficient to repair and modernize our infrastructure, the President cannot go it alone.

The good news is he may not have to.  In recent days, the chairs of two key infrastructure committees, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – representing both chambers and both parties – have sounded the call to save our transportation fund from insolvency and make smart investments for America’s future.

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

“This problem must be addressed in this Congress,” said Senator Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. “A strong transportation system is vital to ensuring our nation’s economic competitiveness, and this requires maintaining federal investments in our infrastructure.”

Rep. Shuster, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also has been bold and articulate on the need for a “strong federal role” in creating the infrastructure to sustain our economy and quality of life, and the need for local leaders to speak up for it. In opening a hearing this month on “Building the Foundation for Surface Transportation Reauthorization”, he said: “We can’t afford to be stuck in the past or we’ll be left behind. We should encourage our federal partners to think outside the box on how to address our transportation challenges [and] promote innovation.”

We couldn’t agree more, and we can’t imagine that his Democratic counterparts would disagree. We recognize that finding agreement on the revenue source will be a steep climb. We have suggested several possible sources. Perhaps tax reform offers another vehicle to find new revenue for transportation needs.

Meanwhile, “We need your help in educating members of Congress,” Chairman Shuster told the U.S. Conference of Mayors this month. Those members need to hear from elected, business and civic leaders from around the country that there is support – and a demand – for congressional action to provide the infrastructure funding our economy relies on. That’s our mission at T4America: to rally those voices across the country and bring them to their members of Congress. If you can help – either by speaking yourself or by reaching out to a community leader – please let us know!

What the 2012 elections mean for the federal transportation picture

OK, now it’s official: Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) will replace Rep. John Mica (R-FL) as chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee. That much has been resolved after a 2012 election that still leaves a number of key questions hanging in the balance.

It is too soon to say, obviously, what sort of chairman Rep. Shuster will be. His early remarks – seeking to strike a middle ground while avoiding dogmatic statements – appear to put him more in the mold of his father, Bud Shuster, who served 28 years in Congress and chaired T&I for six years in the 1990s. In remarks honoring him in 2002, former T&I Chairman Jim Oberstar praised Bill Shuster’s dad thusly: “His perseverance, patience and willingness to find common ground made him one of the greatest committee chairmen we have seen in recent years in the House.”

However, “Things are different (now),” Bill Shuster told The Hill last week. “To move legislation, I think certainly takes some of the skill set that he had. … But also, you’ve got to make sure that you’re listening to the … committee and the (GOP) conference to move these things forward. I’ve learned a lot from him, but there’s some things that happen around here today that he didn’t have to deal with.”

In other comments, Shuster has said that he does not support rolling back the federal role in transportation or giving the entire job to the states. Rather, he said he wants to find the additional revenue and financing strategies that can help make up the gap between necessary investment levels and a federal gas tax whose earning power is in decline. In a nod to reality, he also endorsed exploring the potential of transitioning to a per-mile fee, or vehicle miles traveled tax (VMT), rather than a per-gallon gas tax.

“Longer term, VMT seems to me to be the only way to stop the decline because we’re all going to be driving cars five, ten years from now that are going 40, 50 miles [per gallon] or more, or maybe not using any gas at all,” he told The Hill. Whatever the revenue source, he and his colleagues will need to move quickly: His committee needs to be ready to adopt the next transportation in just 22 months.


Rep. Bill Shuster, second from left, tours a Corps of Engineers lock facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

But what about raising the gas tax in the meantime?

Suddenly, almost everywhere you look in transportation land, people are talking about the possibility of a gas tax increase, and Shuster himself raised the possibility this week. Some argue that a lame duck session provides the perfect opportunity. They and others also see the potential to include a gas tax increase as part of the debt deal that is expected in the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations.

There is some justification for that argument. A shortfall in expected gas tax revenues already has led Congress to make increasingly large transfers from the over-burdened general fund to the highway trust fund, and was a key reason that last summer’s transportation bill lasts only two years, rather than the typical six. A gas tax increase large enough to cover all the highway and transit funding now coming from general revenues would hardly cure all the budget issues, but it certainly could help, the argument goes.

But will the Obama Administration end its opposition to talk of a gas tax increase? The President had declared it a non-starter as long as the economy is sputtering. Has the U.S. economy stabilized enough – even as fears of a Europe-led global recession lurk in the wings – to allow a gas tax increase to be put on the table?

Whither Ray LaHood?

And speaking of the Administration, if Ray LaHood has the old Clash song “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” on his iPod he’s probably listening to it a lot these days.

A year ago he announced – or rather blurted out – that he planned to step down if Obama got re-elected. The possibility has fueled much speculation as to replacements, but he has been silent since the election.  That didn’t stop The Atlantic Cities from running a recent piece on why a mayor should get the nod for the job. The article quotes yours truly praising LaHood as one of the best to hold that job, and given his support for innovations like the TIGER program, his emphasis on the safety of everyone who uses road and transit systems, his strong support for local communities trying to improve their livability … Well, we’ll stand by those remarks.