|
Courtesy of the Sierra Club
FIX IT FIRST
Background Information
ROCKY ROADS AND RICKETY BRIDGES
In its latest report on America's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers rated our roads a "D" grade and our bridges a "C." It's no wonder. One in four bridges nationwide is in bad shape and in need of repair, and one in six miles of interstate are in bad condition and need attention. Click here to see how your state's roads and bridges fare.
All of those rocky roads and rickety bridges create major safety problems for American families and commuters. According to the Federal Highway Administration, outdated and substandard road and bridge design, pavement conditions, and safety features are factors in 30% of all fatal highway accidents. Non-fatal accidents are also more common, and when any accident occurs, more hazardous road conditions and traffic congestion are created.
American families are paying the price for bad roads and bridges in other ways. Driving on roads in need of repair costs U.S. motorists $54 billion per year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs--$275 per motorist.
PORK WINS, WHILE POTHOLES WAIT
Right now Congress is setting its transportation priorities for the next six years. But instead of fixing what we have, Congress is expected to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on expensive pork projects we don't need.
The poster children for these misplaced priorities are two "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska being promoted by Congressman Don Young (R-AK), who chairs the House Transportation Committee. The proposed mile-long Gravina Island Bridge would connect Ketchikan, an area with a population of 7,800, to an island of 50 residents. This bridge would come only twenty feet short of the length of the Golden Gate Bridge and would be 80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. Currently, a reliable ferry serves the island and runs about every 10 minutes. The House of Representatives has already earmarked $175 million for this $315 million project.
Another project, the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, would be more than 2.5 miles long, and would connect Anchorage to land that almost no one lives on. Traffic engineers have never been able to justify this project. But the House of Representatives has other ideas and already budgeted $200 million for this project that will eventually cost an astounding $2.3 billion.
Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of thousands of roads and bridges that aren't getting the attention they deserve, and families and commuters are paying the price.
FIX WHAT WE HAVE FIRST
We need to put some common sense in our transportation policy by fixing existing roads and bridges that hundreds of millions of Americans already use before wasting tax dollars on "bridges to nowhere" or other pork projects we don't need.
Even though the House of Representatives has already made its move, the Senate and President Bush should make it clear that with soaring national deficits, any transportation bill that includes such massive and unnecessary pork projects like the Gravina and Knik Arm Bridges will not be tolerated. Even better, they should allocate the money from those pork projects to repair America's most dangerous roads and bridges.
"With oil prices above $50 a barrel, having risen by 80 percent this year, the West is indeed relying on more Saudi crude. This is delusional says Simmons. Saudi oil output may soon start declining - imminently, in my view, in the next six to 36 months."
"But the conventional wisdom, Simmons says that we can rely on Saudi oil indefinitely is driven only by 'group-think' and vested interests."
"So what of US government claims Saudi will pump 22 million barrels per day by 2025? If by some miracle, they find some huge fields that have defied discovery for 50 years, Simmons says, it might happen. Then again I could be living on the Moon in 2025. I would say the probability of me living on the Moon is higher than Saudi reaching 22 million barrels per day."
COLORADO TRANSPORTATION FINANCE
Albert G. Melcher MS, APA 3/24/2007
1. Governor Ritter’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation
Finance and Implementation
• Kicks off April 2007, for one year (?)
• A result of Federal Act (below)
2. Federal National Surface Transportation Policy and
Revenue Commission
• Created under Section 1909 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
• Future changes in mpg, VMT etc = revenue changes
and reductions
We are in a non-sustainable situation
• July 1, 1935: HUTF (purpose: farm-to-market)
• Built-in decisions (lobbying power)
• We created a roadway monster demanding
more and more “feed”
• Infrastructure neglect
• Ignoring externalities, especially sustainability
of resources
The “Gap”:
Statewide Transportation Funding,
CDOT 2030 Plan
|
Scenario: 25-year time frame |
Revenue |
Gap |
|
CDOT Forecast Revenue |
$28 Billion |
|
|
Others (Local gov.) Forecast Revenue |
$36 Billion |
|
Total Forecast Revenue |
$64 Billion |
|
CDOT Cost to Sustain |
$67 Billion |
$39 Billion |
|
Others Cost to Sustain |
$56 Billion |
$20 Billion |
|
Total Cost to Sustain |
$123 Billion |
$59 Billion |
|
CDOT Vision (Enhanced) Cost |
$94 Billion |
$66 Billion |
|
Others Vision (Enhanced) Cost |
>$73 Billion |
>$37 Billion |
|
Total Vision Cost |
>$167 Billion |
>$103 Billion |
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
• The following slide is from a study I did in 1998 after a Statewide Blue Ribbon Panel showed the needs-revenue gap for 1995.
• I analyzed documents from my term as CDOT Commissioner to explore how 20-year highway needs gaps compared to population growth and to growth in Vehicle miles of travel, 1967 and 1995.
GROWTH OF PROJECTED
COLORADO HIGHWAY FUNDING NEEDS
“A”: Elements of Relative Growth of
Projected Highway Funding Needs
(Creating “Infrastructure Debt”)
1. Deferred expenses, primarily maintenance
Result: accumulating inadequate funding
Inadequate forecasting of needs)
2. Off-book and unrecognized liabilities
• Safety (example: median barriers were just
starting to be desirable, we are paying now)
• Induced travel and induced growth creating future
liabilities associated with congestion
• Upgrading needed to higher geometric and other
standards
“A”: Elements of Relative Growth of
Projected Highway Funding Needs (Continued)
3. Abandonment of fully-amortized but economically cost-effective modes & facilities
Result: “Vicious Circle”:
build highways  promote low-density land use
Exponential increase in VMT $ needed for infrastructure to facilitate growth.
4. Erosion of purchasing power of un-indexed revenue
How Do We Get Out of this Situation?
• Moderate and Manage Growth
• Fiscal prudence as fiduciary agents (“Prudent Man” Rule)
• Multi-purpose funding
• Avoid unintended consequences & adverse side effects
• Preserve existing infrastructure
• Decisions for economic efficiency
“B”: Elements of “Needs Management” to Moderate
Projected Highway Funding Needs
1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
• Ridership shifts to transit.
• Car-pooling, telework, etc.
2. Land Use
• Density, TOD, infill.
• Urban Growth Boundary policy on funds
allocation; similar land consumption methods.
3. “Fix it First”: Do not build new infrastructure that
cannot be maintained.
4. Use cost-effective decisions
• Direct & Indirect Benefits & Costs.
• Use the most cost-effective modes.
5. Economic incentives and disincentives:
• Fuel costs at pump: fuel product increases and tax
increases at pump.
• Financial incentives for enhancing TDM.
6. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and
Intelligent Transportation Drivers (ITD).
7. Continuity of funding with multimodal flexibility.
8. Secure high ratings (‘AA’ or higher) for bonds such
as TRANS and RTD.
9. Comply with Federal law on energy conservation.
10. Integrate National Environmental Policy Act with
transportation/land use planning.
SUSTAINABILITY
"Sustainable development: Development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." - - World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report).
"The problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them" - - Albert Einstein.
"Then I say the Earth belongs to each (succeeding) generation during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of debts and encumbrances, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." - - Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789.
Our present transportation system is not sustainable:
– Economically and financially.
– Functionally.
– Environmentally and in resources.
We Need to Develop Institutions, Policies & Practices that “Connect The Dots” in our decisions.
Essential for:
• Long-term Sustainability
• Avoiding “Law of Unintended Consequences”
• Avoiding adverse side effects
American Planning Association:
Criteria for Funding
1. Revenue sources must have long-term continuity and stability because capital and operating costs cannot be subject to short-term political processes.
2. The mix of public sources at all governmental levels and of private sources must be maintained.
3. Funding must improve and not damage equity, community integrity, and sustainability.
4. True multimodal flexibility in use of funds is essential.
5. Cost effectiveness of both capital and M&O costs, and not predetermined highway mode, must determine project choice
Transportation and other infrastructure are all in trouble and are competing for limited dollars, with future “Infrastructure Debt” to be paid by future generations.
AVOIDING INFRASTRUCTURE DEBT
From “PUBLIC WORKS, PUBLIC WEALTH - - -
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE”
A Report of the “Center for Strategic and International Studies”
Public Infrastructure Project (Nov. 2005)
“But the risk of under investment is only part of the equation. Of equal or greater concern is the prospect that the investments we make are not the right ones.
Our nation's infrastructure policy favors new construction even when maintenance, renovation, and improved management offer better responses to the problem.
Infrastructure policy favors politics over sound investment principles. It ignores emerging needs - - while securing funds for programs whose objectives have largely been met, such as the interstate highway system.”
FIDUCIARY and PRUDENCE CONCEPTS
• A fiduciary agent is a person or organization acting on behalf of and/or with the authorization of another person.
• The fiduciary is required to invest trust assets as a "prudent man" would invest his own property with the following factors in mind: the needs of beneficiaries, the need to preserve the estate (or corpus of the trust) and the amount and regularity of income (“net benefits”).
• Assume that a public official responsible for public monies is a fiduciary agent.
• Assume, therefore, that our official wants to give the public the biggest and longest-lasting bang for the buck.
• Also, to avoid “hidden” and “indirect” costs, such as more people in the hospitals, many at public expense.
• Our official calls this “fiscal prudence.”
Assume that our public officials have (for simplicity) two acceptable alternatives for mobility, both with feasible and comparable capital investment.
• #1: a 20 year-life of the initial project, committing to a second phase of new construction at a very high total cost, with a net life cycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio of O.8 to 1.0.
• #2: a 50-year life with no second phase needed, same mobility result, but a net life cycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio of 1.3 to 1.0.
• Money is not unlimited; there are competing public needs for funds.
• Methods for finding full direct and indirect benefits and costs exist.
Assuming a responsible and informed public, which alternative would the officials and the public select (#1 or #2)?
• Obviously: Alternative 2 as fiscally prudent and economically efficient.
"Conventional Wisdom"
WHITHER?
• Given:
– The need for economic, resource and environmental sustainability
– The need for fiduciary prudence
– The effective bankruptcy of the present system
WHITHER?
How do we develop a system of transportation to improve mobility and ensure economic, ecological and equitable sustainability?
• We cannot accomplish this with “Business as Usual.”
• New approaches are essential - - - - NOW.
• Otherwise, We Are Creating Tomorrows’ Transportation Financial and Functional Problems Today!
WHITHER?
|
