infrastructure Archives - Page 4 of 4 - Transportation For America

Ensuring economic prosperity for the future by investing in transportation

We’ve fallen behind the world on investing in transportation and our physical infrastructure, but Building America’s Future lays out a clear path forward to help restore America’s prominence and lay a strong foundation for our economic future.

Falling Apart and Falling Behind lays out the economic challenges posed by our ailing infrastructure, provides a comparative look at the smart investments being made by our international competitors, and suggests a series of recommendations for crafting new innovative transportation policies in the U.S. This report frames the state of our infrastructure in terms of the new economic realities of the 21st-century economy and presents the challenges we currently face.

America’s railroads — once the fastest and most comprehensive in the world — opened up the interior of the country but America truly forged its status as a world economic superpower in the decades following World War II as our booming country awash with wealth embarked upon building new infrastructure, airports and an interstate system that was the envy of the world.

There was a time when we led the world in the very real physical infrastructure that drives economic success in our cities and states but those days are behind us as we’re failing not only to build the next generation of transportation systems, but failing to even properly maintain our past investments to ensure they continue serving us and our economy.

The last great vision for transportation our country rallied behind was a national interstate system laid out in the 1950s, but we’ve been rudderless for the last 20 years since completing that system with no grand vision. While we’ve been treading water and spinning our wheels, other countries have been investing the kind of money we once did in their transportation systems, positioning them to succeed for years to come.

This report from BAF is a concise summary of the problem we face and the perhaps obvious solution staring us in the face: If we want to continue leading the world in economic dominance, we’ve got to lead the world in investing in our transportation networks — and casting a vision for the next 50 years of investment.

Read the report here, and you can see an interview with two of the BAF co-chairs, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor Ed Rendell yesterday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

America’s infrastructure woes signal “life in the slow lane”

The dichotomy between anti-spending sentiment — which a majority of Americans identify with on a conceptual if not programmatic level — and the persistence of pressing infrastructure needs that require real money is the theme of a lengthy piece in this week’s print edition of The Economist, a publication known for its fiscally conservative bent.

Perhaps it takes a penny-pinching persuasion from the across the pond to put our infrastructure shortfalls in perspective. The U.S. has considerably larger highways than most of Europe, yet we spend more time in traffic. Domestic engineers give our roads and bridges failing grades, and the World Economic Forum ranks our infrastructure system 23rd worldwide. We spend dramatically less per capita on infrastructure than many developed European countries, and certainly far less than booming China.

The U.S. also lags behind other wealthy nations in passenger rail service, the magazine notes. Even our fastest and most dependable line, the Northeast Corridor’s Acela, “averages a sluggish 70 miles per hour between Washington and Boston,” while the French TGV from Paris to Lyon “runs at an average speed of 140mph.”

“All of this is puzzling,” they opine, noting that the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy, with its richest citizens. Large public works projects are part of our DNA, dating back to our nation’s founding and the continental railroad. The Economist continues:

Between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways.

Furthermore, the Economist argues, our current system for spending transportation dollars “tends not to reward the prudent”:

A state using road-pricing to limit travel and congestion would be punished for its efforts with reduced funding, whereas one that built highways it could not afford to maintain would receive a larger allocation.

By way of solutions, the magazine points out that we will “need to spend a lot more” on infrastructure and identify new revenue sources. A higher gas tax may not be politically viable in today’s climate, but it could be later. Some have also floated a tax on vehicle miles traveled. And, the National Infrastructure Bank supported by President Obama and others offers some promise as well.

At the state and local level transport budgets will remain tight while unemployment is high. With luck, this pressure could spark a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on infrastructure spending. The question in Washington, apart from how to escape the city on traffic-choked Friday afternoons, is whether political leaders are capable of building on these ideas.

National report and interactive map shows the state of our nation’s bridges

69,223 bridges – representing more than 11 percent of all U.S. highway bridges – are classified as “structurally deficient,” requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement, according to a new T4 America report released today, The Fix We’re In: The State of Our Nation’s Bridges.

Those are the facts, and 69,000 bridges sure sounds like a lot, but what does that look like in real terms? Where are these bridges? Does your city or state have a lot of deficient bridges, or does the state do a good job taking care of them? Those questions are going to be much easier to answer with our online tools accompanying the report, launching today at t4america.org/resources/bridges.

We’ve taken the whole federal bridge database and put it online in a map, so you can type your address, and see all the bridges within a ten-mile radius. Structurally deficient bridges will show up as red icons. Click any bridge and you’ll get more information about it, including its rating in a box on the right.

Curious about how your state stacks up? Click on “By State” and click your state to see a quick overview of their performance, including the best and worst five counties, as well as their rank nationally and total percentage of structurally deficient bridges.

The national report and all 51 state reports are being officially released today at noon with a national telebriefing, but you can go ahead and check out the map and data now on our site. (Media members? Contact david.goldberg@t4america.org if you want information on the telebriefing.)

Check out the map today and please spread the word about it. We’ll be posting several times throughout the day with more information about the national report, which is available for download now — as well as reports for all 50 states and D.C.

Share this
on Twitter

Share this
on Facebook

Kerry-Hutchison-Warner infrastructure bank would leverage private investment for revenue-generating projects

This month, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced a variation of the national infrastructure bank touted by President Obama.

The BUILD Act is sponsored by Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee from Massachusetts; Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison; and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, a former governor with a history of prioritizing transportation infrastructure.

The infrastructure bank would start out with $10 billion, with the goal of generating private investment to match the federal commitment. Leveraging private capital is a recurring theme in discussions about transportation finance and a notable point of agreement between President Obama and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica.

While the plan resembles what the President had proposed, the Kerry-Hutchison-Warner bill would only include loans, not grants. Only revenue-generating projects would be funded, a concession Kerry has said is necessary due to the current political appetite for less domestic spending. The bank would operate independently of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In an enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal, the New York Times editorialized that the bank would allow officials with limited resources to pursue needed repairs.

By providing low-cost capital to states, cities and authorities, the bank would help these strapped governments kick-start projects that are now unaffordable, while attracting investments from pension and private-equity funds that are looking for stable money-generating ventures in which to invest.

The Times also put the proposal into a broader context, citing the very real possibility of future tragedy absent the proper maintenance, and the misplaced priorities of tax cuts over investment.

…already conservatives are railing against what some have called a “boondoggle,” a phrase used to demonize virtually any public investment. What will these opponents tell voters when the dams break and the bridges fall? Before more lives are lost, lawmakers should ask themselves whether they used their public office only to slash spending (and taxes for the wealthy), or to spend money wisely.

A recent Boston Globe op-ed authored by former Massachusetts homeland security adviser Juliette Kayyem also made a strong case for the bank, and Streetsblog covered the bill’s release here.

Photo courtesy of the Center for American Progress.

West Virginia’s Nick Rahall says we have a “great deficit in infrastructure,” warns against deep budget cuts

Saying we have a “great deficit in infrastructure in this country,” the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee warned this week that ill-considered cuts to domestic spending would hinder the economy recovery and put important projects at risk.

Nick Rahall, who represents West Virginia’s Third Congressional District in the state’s southern corner, rebuked the House Republican budget during the groundbreaking for a public water service extension in Mingo County. He called the prevailing budget in the House a “meat-ax approach” and warned that “we have to be careful or we may be doing our economy and doing the recovery more harm than we can ever envision.”

Rahall also put Washington’s spending-reduction mood in context, saying that while some cuts are necessary, eliminating basic services today does nothing to help future generations of West Virginians or any Americans. Taylor Kuykendall of the Beckley Register-Herald quoted the Congressman as saying:

I have long been convinced, and will continue to preach, that the price of doing nothing, the price of letting our water and wastewater services deteriorate, the cost of our highways and bridges crumbling, the debt that grows as our broadband digital divide widens are not ‘financial burdens’ as some see them. To me, they are the very basic things the people elect their government to fix. Put simply, these are investments in our country’s future.

With the fate of the fiscal year 2011 budget — and, with it, millions of cuts to crucial transportation — unresolved and the potential for a new transportation bill later this year, we hope this sort of emphasis on the infrastructure deficit rather than just the fiscal deficit will inform future discussions.

Photo courtesy of Congressman Nick Rahall.

Americans want Congress to ‘fix it first’, invest in and improve our transportation system

I-5 Repair Originally uploaded by WSDOT to Flickr.

In the midst of the fervor about the House’s budget resolution for 2011 released Friday, and the President’s budget proposal for 2012 dominating the news today, a new bipartisan poll from the Rockefeller Foundation contains compelling arguments from a majority of Americans in favor of increased and accountable investment in transportation.

The poll shows unequivocally that voters from across the political spectrum are tired of bickering and want Congress to seek compromise. And almost nowhere else is their desire for cooperation and solutions greater than with the issue of transportation infrastructure.

Americans largely see investments in transportation as a way to improve the economy and make communities safer, while improving the quality of life for more people. They clearly see a need for reform when it comes to paying for and choosing the transportation projects we need, according to the results.

This poll shows that we believe strongly that providing a safe transportation systems that works is a primary role of our government, and that it should be above partisan divisions, more than most other issues. The Administration’s budget proposal, released this morning, also delivers on the desire reflected in the poll to prioritize the maintenance of what we’ve already built, and for giving local communities more say in how they solve their transportation issues and build for the future.

It’s fitting that the release of this poll is sandwiched between the House’s 2011 plan to gut transportation spending and the Administration’s 2012 plan to invest more money in transportation (within a budget laced with overall cuts). This poll makes it abundantly clear that the House 2011 budget resolution – which would cut support for communities that want better public transportation and safer streets — is at dramatic odds with the desires of a majority of Americans.

Here are some of the detailed top-line findings from the poll:

Should Congress find some way to work together on the issue of transportation? 71 percent of voters say there should be common ground on this issue — higher than other major issues — while 19 percent say leaders should hold fast to their positions, which is lower than other major issues.

The connection between investing and building the economy: Four in five (80 percent) voters agree that federal funding to improve and modernize transportation “will boost local economies and create millions of jobs from construction to manufacturing to engineering.” Just 19 percent disagree with this. 79 percent agree that “in order for the United States to remain the world’s top economic superpower, we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure and keep it up to date.” Only 19 percent disagree.

What should greater investment on transportation net us in the end? What would the benefits be? Voters’ top goal by far is “safer streets for our communities and children.” 57 percent say this should be one of the top-two priorities if more money is invested in infrastructure. The second-highest priority for voters overall (32 percent) is “more transportation options.” In addition, 85 percent agree that “spending less time in traffic would improve quality of life, make communities safer, and reduce stress in people’s daily lives.” Moreover, the vast majority also believe the country (80 percent) and their own community (66 percent) would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system.

What should we change about how we invest money in transportation? Two-thirds of respondents favored 9 of 10 reforms offered, with 90 percent supporting more accountability and certification that projects are delivered on time and fit into a national plan. Among the specific reforms to the system that were proposed, 86 percent supported a “fix it first” policy that focuses on maintaining existing transportation systems before building new ones.

This poll was conducted by two Republican and Democratic polling firms from Jan. 29-Feb 6 2011. Disclosure: T4 America is a grantee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

More infrastructure investment will create jobs, boost economy, according to Treasury Sec. Geithner

U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner hammered on the job-creation and economy-boosting effects of the Obama administration’s plan for infrastructure investment in a blog post on the department’s website.

Writing the same day Vice President Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood were in Philadelphia promoting a $53 billion, 6-year passenger rail package, Geithner argued that investing in our nation’s roads, bridges, rail and transit systems creates “both immediate and long-term economic benefits.”

Treasury Department analysis reveals an unemployment rate among American workers building infrastructure at 15 percent, significantly higher than the national average. Investing in infrastructure would create jobs in construction, manufacturing and retail trade, all sectors hard hit by the economic downturn, and nine out of ten jobs created would pay middle-class wages.

Geithner emphasized the administration’s commitment to spending federal dollars in a targeted and fiscally responsible way, writing: “our strategy is designed to make crucial investments in infrastructure while bringing our deficits down to sustainable levels.”

Simply increasing spending levels is unacceptable, Geither wrote, adding “we must also reform the ways in which we invest.” He continued:

Not all infrastructure investments are good investments, and too often we have seen transportation projects exemplify the worst of Washington – the bridges to nowhere that rightly make American taxpayers cringe. The President’s Budget recognizes this and will make some difficult choices, proposing significant spending cuts, including to some programs we would preserve in better times.

President Obama’s plan includes a National Infrastructure Bank, which would “select projects on the basis of rigorous analysis,” Geithner explained. The Bank would evaluate and fund projects that generate the best return on investment, leverage private capital to do it and promote increased transportation options along the way. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica, a key player in Congress, has cited securing private capital for projects as a key priority for federal transportation spending.

Infrastructure investment benefits all Americans, even in ways we do not always think about. Upgrades and additions to the New York City subway system allow millions to “get to work faster, increasing their productivity and quality of life by decreasing the amount of time lost to commuting,” Geithner notes. But it also means that “the far-away Kawasaki plant in Lincoln, Nebraska that manufactures the subway cars will increase production, putting Nebraskans to work.”

You can read Secretary Geithner’s entire post here.

Photo: Washington Post

President Obama calls for fixing 20th century infrastructure while building for the 21st

The theme of President Obama’s State of the Union address last night was winning the future, and investing in America’s infrastructure was an integral part of it.

“The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America,” the President said, after discussing his vision for innovation and education. Other nations have outpaced our investment in roads and railways, and our own engineers have graded our infrastructure a “D,” he noted.

President Obama rightly emphasized the need for a 21st century transportation system on top of fixing what we built in the 20th. He also pointed out that we create more jobs and greater opportunity when we embrace an array of transportation options. The transcontinental railroad, rural electrification and the Interstate Highway System did not just put Americans to work in construction, he said. Jobs also came from “businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.”

“We were thrilled to hear the President come right out and say that investment in transportation and other infrastructure is central to rebuilding and growing our economy,” said Transportation for America Director James Corless. “An upfront investment in the most needed, clean transportation projects is a great opportunity to create near-term jobs and lay the groundwork for the future economy.”

The President also reiterated his strong support for high-speed rail, with the goal of giving 80 percent of Americans access to the system within 25 years. “This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car,” he said.

“For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down,” he added, to laughter.

Although he did not identify the program by name, President Obama endorsed the principles behind an infrastructure bank, saying we ought to “pick projects based (on) what’s best for the economy, not politicians.” And he vowed to harness private capital to help pay for new projects, a goal shared by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, a Florida Republican.

A number of groups, including business and labor, hailed the President’s focus on investing in the future. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue echoed Obama’s call for “a world class infrastructure” and called for “common ground to ensure America’s greatness into the 21st century.” ALF-CIO’s Richard Trumka said, “We strongly support the President’s vision on infrastructure to create good jobs and succeed in a global economy, and working people are ready to work with him and hold him to his promises.”

AASHTO, the trade group representing state departments of transportation, was “encouraged that President Obama supports investing in America’s transportation infrastructure – recognizing the role it plays in creating jobs, growing the national economy and balancing the federal deficit,” according to Executive Director John Horsley, who added that he looks forward to working with the Administration and Congress on a reauthorization bill.

The Equity Caucus at Transportation for America said that “smarter transportation investments can unleash the under-realized economic power of communities across America.”

T4 America echoes these sentiments, and we are especially pleased with the President’s dual commitment to job creation today and economic prosperity tomorrow.

“The President’s vision for infrastructure is not just about near-term construction jobs,” Corless said. “It is, as he said, about growing new businesses, livable neighborhoods and dynamic regions that can attract a young and mobile workforce and compete internationally.

“It’s about jobs associated with new transportation technologies and manufacturing modern transit vehicles, everything from real time information systems to make our highways and transit corridors smarter, to the new rail cars being built today by United Streetcar in Oregon that can breathe new life into our cities and suburbs,” he added.

You can read T4 America’s entire statement here. You can learn more about the Equity Caucus at Transportation for America and read their entire statement here.

Photo: AP

Two former secretaries of transportation stress renewed focus on infrastructure, better ways to pay for it

Former secretaries of transportation Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner want less talk on infrastructure and more action.

The two have a working relationship that dates back to the early 1990s, when Mineta was a Democratic Congressman from San Jose serving as chair of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, and Skinner was DOT Secretary under President George H.W. Bush. Mineta went on to head USDOT under President George W. Bush.

In a briefing on Capitol Hill yesterday, the duo called for increased attention on the nation’s infrastructure and declared the existing gas tax an insufficient funding source for the future.

“Transportation policy is very important in this country,” Mineta said. “It is the basis of everything that happens.”

Added Skinner: “We have to find new and creative ways to invest in infrastructure and generate the revenue to do so.”

Ashley Halsey of the Washington Post summarized some of the report’s key findings:

If Congress were to do the report’s bidding, the task would be far broader in scope than simply coming up with trillions of dollars in long-term funding to rebuild a 50-year-old highway system.

The experts also advocated adoption of a distinct capital spending plan for transportation, empowering state and local governments with authority to make choices now dictated from the federal level, continued development of high-speed rail systems better integrated with freight rail transportation, and expansion of intermodal policies rather than reliance on highways alone to move goods and people.

Mineta and Skinner’s bipartisan report also cited “nurturing livable communities” as a smart, needed strategy for reducing congestion and improving quality of life. They wrote:

Creating communities conducive to walking and alternative modes of transportation, especially in dense metropolitan areas, should be an important goal of transportation policy at all levels of government.

That a bipartisan duo of transportation secretaries, both of whom worked in Republican administrations, would cite livability and walkable communities as key goals for a 21st century transportation system speaks volumes. It tells us that there’s nothing partisan about getting out of traffic and getting home in time for dinner.

Ezra Klein, a Post staff writer and domestic politics blogger, echoed a similar theme over the weekend, pointing out that the low interest rates and cheaper construction and labor costs resulting from the recession present a unique opportunity to make needed infrastructure investments today at a massively reduced cost. “Delaying a dollar of needed infrastructure repairs is no different than racking up a dollar of debt,” Klein wrote. He goes on to affirm what we already know about the transportation spending process: it’s too political, not accountable, and Americans think it’s broken.

The problem is that the way we choose our infrastructure projects is an embarrassment. About 10 percent of infrastructure spending comes from politicians securing earmarks. Most of the rest depends on a formula in which the government just hands money over to the states. There’s no requirement for cost-benefit analysis or rate-of-return calculations. The decisions are horribly politicized.

If taxpayers are going to make a huge investment in our nation’s infrastructure, then we’re owed an assurance that policymakers are choosing the best projects. That suggests a grand bargain, in which more infrastructure money is tied to reforms ensuring a better process for spending that money.

The report, titled “Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda,” was sponsored by the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and can be downloaded in its entirely at the InfrastructureUSA website.

USA Today on infrastructure spending: what do Americans want?

USA Today had a timely graphic up yesterday, considering the continuing media coverage around President Obama’s recent proposal for infrastructure spending and a reformed long-term transportation bill.

First, the graphic:

Though we can’t see the rest of the questions or the context, it affirms a few things we already know about Americans’ attitudes about transportation — as evidenced in our own 2010 national poll — and how to fund what we need.

While Americans are actually voting in favor of taxing themselves to improve transportation in state and local ballot measures at a rate of about 70 percent, they often know exactly what they’re going to get in those cases: a new bridge, an expanded transit system, a system of repaired roads, or the like. But the federal program is much fuzzier in most people’s minds. The current system is broken and unaccountable, and putting more money into a broken system is like trying to bring more water up from a well using a bucket with a hole in it.

As James Corless wrote in an Infrastructurist guest post yesterday, “Some of the old guard transportation insiders in D.C. would be thrilled with doubling the overall size of our transportation program and pouring more money into the same broken system, but Americans know better. They want more accountability, safer streets, and more transportation options so seniors can maintain their independence and low wage workers can get to jobs.”

It’s also interesting that the sentence to the left of the poll summarizes it as “Americans would rather use tolls than taxes to build more roads,” when it could have just as easily been “Americans are OK with building no new roads if it means raising the gas tax or instituting tolls to pay for them.”

Maybe the poll asks the wrong question?

We’re not in favor of a moratorium on any new roads whatsoever, but this survey clearly reinforces the fact that Americans in urban and rural areas have moved beyond the idea that the solution to every transportation problem can and should be a new road.

We cooperated on a poll in 2009 with the National Association of Realtors, showing that Americans don’t think expanding roads and highways are the best use of scarce transportation dollars:

“As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?”

Maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges	Expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation	Expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges	Not sure
50%	31%	16%	3%

And as our 2010 poll showed, more than four-in-five voters (82 percent) say that “the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved transportation system, such as rail and buses” and a solid majority (56 percent) “strongly agree” with that statement. Fully 79 percent of rural voters agree as well, despite much lower use of public transportation compared to Americans in urban areas.

If you saw this graphic and your curiosity was piqued, perhaps it’s worth going back and poking through our national poll for a fuller picture.

InfrastructureUSA sits down with T4 America Director James Corless

At T4 America, we often lament that transportation policy is a page eight issue as opposed to a page one issue. Groups like InfrastructureUSA help bring our priorities to the forefront.

James Corless, our director, spoke with the folks at InfrastructureUSA on the phone last week about an array of topics, including high-speed rail, reauthorization and articulating an infrastructure vision for the 21st century. Listen to the full audio of the discussion here at InfrastructureUSA, conveniently broken up into shorter bits.

James cited some of the challenges facing transportation advocates in trying to catch the spotlight.

…everybody depends on transportation every single day. In many ways it’s in front of our face, but it’s hidden in plain sight. I don’t think that there is yet enough resonance with the public compared to things like the economy, national security, jobs, the environment, health care, there just hasn’t been enough resonance. At the end of the day, it’s often a very local issue; it’s not seen necessarily as something that rises to the level of national policy. That’s the challenge.

Another factor may be the message itself. James said transportation advocates have “gotten very wonky over the years. We tend to talk in terms of acronyms and funding programs and very arcane and outdated and scientific and very unimaginative language.”

James also discussed the need for high-level leadership, similar to the leadership President Eisenhower deployed in the 1950s to push through an enormous and unprecedented interstate highway system. James praised President Obama for making a signature issue out of high-speed rail, which will do a lot at the state and local level to spur economic development and travel access.

Citing the need for a broader vision, James called on advocates and policymakers alike to stop just asking for more money and start talking about what transportation is going to look like in the coming decades.

I think we actually have to reestablish trust with the American people and give them a new vision for the future, and tell them that this is not merely spending, this is an investment. We won’t do that simply by saying, “boy we’re really short on money and we need $120 billion just to keep pace.” That’s not going to excite people, especially with the kind of fiscal anxieties that exist out there. Asking simply for more money for transportation is putting the cart before the horse. We’ve got to sell people on a vision and we’ve got to reestablish their trust.

Click here for a complete transcript of James’ responses. (PDF)

Rural Senators focus on heartland transit

--Amtrak How could a new transportation bill revitalize rural and small-town America? That was the focus of a Senate Democratic Steering Committee briefing on “Issues and Innovations for Small Towns and Rural Communities” in the Capitol Visitors Center last Friday.

Transportation for America co-chair and former Meridian, Mississippi Mayor John Robert Smith shared his perspective as chief executive of a mid-sized city in a rural area. During his tenure, Smith initiated a renovation of Meridian’s historic train station, sparking growth and economic vitality in the downtown corridor that is now the “life of Meridian.” The improvements that he championed resulted in $135 million in capital investments around the station, and property values quadrupled in an area previously devoid of residents. More importantly, a vital aspect of mobility was restored for all residents of the area. Knowing firsthand how vital Amtrak service was to Mississippians, especially many traveling on fixed budgets, he helped lead the fight to restore the train route between Atlanta and New Orleans, and has continued his advocacy for passenger rail travel ever since.

Rural and small-town residents throughout the country are seeking more transportation options and want to ensure that they’re not left behind. Briefing panelists emphasized that transportation reform, far from leaving the heartland in the dust, can actually encourage growth and improve quality of life.

For one thing, improving rural transportation helps seniors. In 2000, 23 percent of older adults in America lived in rural areas, and as they age, they risk being isolated in their homes in the absence of adequate transportation infrastructure. Broader accessibility is a challenge as well due to long distances some rural Americans must travel to reach employment, groceries and health services. And, intercity mobility remains limited in many parts of the country, cutting people off from friends, family and economic opportunity. During the briefing, Mayor Smith spoke not only about the economic benefits of revitalizing the area around the train station, but also about the transit service that connected low-income residents in Meridian’s HOPE VI housing development, ensuring their access to essential destinations.

Enhancing transportation safety, relieving highway congestion by shifting goods movement to freight rail, investing in public buses and paratransit services and increasing intercity and multi-modal connectivity are some potential solutions for small cities and rural regions. T4 America staff have partnered with National Association of Counties and the National Association of Development Organizations, both of which were represented at the briefing, to help promote these solutions as vital parts of the upcoming transportation bill.

Far from leaving rural America out, a much-needed overhaul to our nation’s transportation policy can in fact provide a needed lifeline and help rural areas and smaller towns succeed as vital, livable places for all.

Rochelle Carpenter of Transportation for America contributed to this report.

President Obama: “I would like to see some long-term reforms in how transportation dollars flow…”

President Obama gave an interview to five columnists aboard Air Force One last week en route to Chicago, and he talked at length about infrastructure, transportation, and the need to make serious reforms in transportation spending this year when the five-year transportation bill is reauthorized. He hinted at how proper investments in transportation and infrastructure can help boost the economy and meet other national goals like reducing energy usage — all while making a downpayment on a 21st Century transportation system we’re all hoping for.

President Obama with his Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. From the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Flickr stream (Creative Commons)

An excerpt from the very long interview:

Q. Mr. President, if I could ask you about infrastructure, You’ve got infrastructure spending in the stimulus package. The need is much faster than that and the money is tight. Do you anticipate any significant further additions in federal infrastructure spending in the reasonably near future, and are you making plans to establish an infrastructure bank?

President Obama: Well, number one, we’ve got the transportation reauthorization bill that’s going to be coming up. So one thing to keep some perspective about on the recovery package is this is supposed to provide a jolt to the economy above and beyond what we’re doing already in the federal budget. And so I expect that Secretary LaHood, working with the various transportation committees are going to be moving forward on a transportation bill. I would like to see some long-term reforms in how transportation dollars flow, and I’ll give you just a couple of examples. I think right now we don’t do a lot of effective planning at the regional level when it comes to transportation. That’s hugely inefficient. Not only does it probably consume more money in terms of getting projects done, but it also ends up creating traffic patterns, for example, that are really hugely wasteful when it comes to energy use.

If we can start building in more incentives for more effective planning at the local level, that’s not just good transportation policy, it’s good energy policy. So we’ll be working with transportation committees to see if we can move in that direction.

The idea of an infrastructure bank I think make sense — the idea that we get engineers, and not just elected officials, involved in thinking about and planning how we’re spending these dollars. I may get some objections from my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, on the Hill about that, but I think there should be some way for us to — just think how can we rationalize the process to get the most bang for the buck, because the needs are massive and we can’t do everything, and if it’s estimated that just on infrastructure alone it would cost a couple trillion dollars to get our roads, bridges, sewer systems, et cetera, up to snuff, and we know we’re not going to have that money, then it would be nice if we said here are the 10 most important projects and let’s do those first, instead of maybe doing the 10 least important projects but the ones that have the most political pull.