Aaron Naparstek, Editor-in-Chief of the Online transportation news source Streetsblog, in an interview with Blueprint America about the way transportation is looked at in New York City and the rest of the country.

Streetsblog is a daily transportation blog that also acts as an umbrella to similar online publications throughout the country. Politically supportive of alternative modes of transportation, they are working to transform cities by reducing dependence on private automobiles and improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

By Samuel I. Schwartz and Morgan Whitcomb

The prophet, Yogi Berra once said, “The future ain’t what it used to be.” For those of us in the infrastructure world, Yogi Berra was not only prescient but, as he might say himself, able to predict the future. How else can we explain 100 year storms that occur every 10 years or so, or that bridges built to last 100 years will only see their 60th birthday?

A terrific example of how time ‘sped up’ in the past century, is a review of construction of New York City’s Second Avenue subway now in its 71st year since being proposed in 1929 (there have been many starts and stops). By the time the subway line opens, it will already be at risk for flooding in a storm surge. In 1929, no one could have guessed that global temperatures would rise 1.33°F by the end of the century and are projected to rise 10°F in the next. When tunneling finally began in 1972, only a few scientists were thinking that the world might be in danger. At the time of the most recent groundbreaking in 2007, we had already realized that sea levels will rise and that serious weather events like storm surges and hurricanes will occur with greater frequency.

The 2nd Avenue Subway, along with other transportation and civil engineering infrastructure, are designed against failure events according to their frequency. The 100-year storm is a mainstay in structural design. The 2nd Avenue subway, and most other civil infrastructure, was designed to resist a storm that should occur only every 100 years. Recently, experts are discovering that the “100-year storm” as we thought of it before, will begin happening more often, anywhere from every 40 to even every 4 years.

This and other effects of climate change need to be considered and planned for immediately without waiting for the code to catch up with reality and for lessons to be learned the hard way. Without thoughtful design and planning, great infrastructure projects of today may be investments in future disasters with monstrous repairs and rebuilds.
The infrastructure of yesterday is yet another problem we have to face. A few years ago, the New York City subway system was shut down for hours just due to heavy rain. A Category 1 storm surge would put dozens of subways stations underwater. And it’s not just underground transportation infrastructure that is at risk. There are high winds in storms that will rattle our already shaky bridges and buildings, waves which will send debris into our bridge piers and ports, floods that will wash away our roads and permafrost melting underneath Alaska.

A study released earlier this year written by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and partly by the US Department of Transportation only begins to address these concerns. Its main finding on transportation infrastructure is this: there are no studies in existence which analyze land elevation, population and infrastructure distribution accurately enough for local and region planning and decision-making. It also points out the severe consequences of this lack of knowledge. Even when small stretches of road or rail are hit by floods or storm surges, the effect ripples throughout the region. If a few meters of a highway leading to a major port are closed, the delivery of basic goods is crippled. A storm surge can reduce the clearance under a bridge, preventing imports from reaching our ports. Flooded roads will stop people from evacuating.

States need to know what will happen to their infrastructure when a climate change event occurs, how often events will occur and how to mitigate damages and disruptions and even prevent them altogether. Comprehensive studies, like the ones that the US EPA says we need, can give states the information they require to plan. The plans can include many mitigations, like how and where to evacuate, where will trucks be rerouted, which waterfront areas need to be protected by coastal engineering measures, which roads should be moved, raised, protected or redesigned. Even more importantly, it can also guide current and future infrastructure investments and repairs. Design criteria can be established so we don’t keep building vulnerable transportation infrastructure.

Some places aren’t waiting for anyone to tell them how to plan for the future. Alaska already knows that the effects of climate change will cause $40 billion in replacements and repairs in its transportation and utilities infrastructure by 2030. New York State is using the expertise of universities to find out how much damage will be done to transportation and communications infrastructure from events like storm surges and freezing rain. Studies need to be performed for every state and region and the information gathered should be synthesized and distributed.

There are federal guidelines for “State Climate Action Plans.” The plans are focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is an imperative. But we are already beyond a few climate milestones and change is coming, no matter how many bus fleets we convert to hybrid electrics, how many bikes lanes we create or how many states adopt taxes on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). These action plans need to react to the consequences of climate change, in addition to efforts to slow it. The federal guidelines can include guidance for completing the studies that are necessary for local planning and options for subsidizing or funding these studies. States can also be compelled to act responsibly. To stir the movement toward responsible planning and design, federally funded transportation projects should be required to have the effects of climate change considered in the design. If we don’t act soon to understand how our transportation infrastructure will be impacted by climate change we could, quite literally, be under water.

Originally aired: May 29, 2009

We work for an engineering consulting company specializing in infrastructure. Everywhere we go people are asking us about how much of a boon the stimulus plan (formally the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (ARRA)) has been for us. They seem surprised when we respond it has had little or no impact on our business. For us it conjures up the image of the famed Wendy’s commercial from the 1980’s used to blast the size of its competitors’ hamburgers with the question, “Where’s the beef?” Walter Mondale, on his way to the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination attacked opponent Senator Gary Hart with the same query.

In searching for the beef, one finds that although ARRA is a $787 billion program only about $130 billion or 17% is for infrastructure. Because construction takes more time to “rev up” compared to social programs, the 2009 share for public works is even less. The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) latest bi-monthly report on the Recovery Act estimates that by the end of the 2009 fiscal year, 6% of recovery spending would be given to Highways Infrastructure Investment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reallocated $61-million (1.2% of 2009 fiscal year spending) to the Federal Transit Authority for transit projects. The bulk (76%) of the spending is going towards Medicaid and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

ARRA has clearly created a windfall for paving contractors. Almost half the highway funds go towards pavement improvement, and 23% to pavement widening and new pavement. Another 12.5% goes toward bridge construction, replacement and improvement. The amount outlaid to highways this early in the game is not a surprise given the “shovel ready” requirement of the Recovery Act. The GAO points this out and observes that most of these pavement projects can be planned, engineered and executed within three years. Repaving the country clearly puts people to work (The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee attributed 48,000 jobs to ARAA by June 30th) but does it improve our country and help the economy in the long run?

We maintain that the shovel-ready paving jobs most likely were the easy ones to do (i.e. the road surfaces were a little cracked and uneven); really “bad” roads (having subsurface problems, safety hazards, going over bridges) would have required time-consuming engineering and are probably left to rounds 2 and 3 of ARRA. We offer reservations on the long-term economic impact of current ARRA spending on infrastructure for two main reasons. The current transportation bill just expired on September 30th and it could take months or even a year or longer for a new bill to be passed. Simultaneously, in a penny-wise pound foolish approach, half the states are cutting their transportation programs due to dire finances. This double-whammy could cause a drop in overall spending.

The good news for our quality of life is that nearly half the states are looking to improve and add rail transit. In July, states had submitted “pre-applications” for $102.5 billion to the Federal Railroad Administration for ARRA dollars. In August, about 20 states had submitted applications totaling around $7 billion. The ‘winners’ will be announced in October. But still rail spending appears to be a pittance compared to highway expenditures.

This is a shame, because the rail apportionment is the most forward-looking of the programs, and allows for work to continue for a decade. As opposed to the “shovel-ready” requirement of the FHWA dollars, it provides money for advanced planning, but only 50 cents on the dollar compared to 100% federal funding for construction. We think this is a mistake. It is the advanced planning and engineering that unleashes the progressive ‘big bucks.’

The ‘sexiest’ projects to come out of ARRA will be the high-speed rail corridors. Texas, surprisingly, has taken the lead in this race with the $1.7 billion “Texas T-Bone” plan connecting Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. California, New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania are among the states in the “hunt” for high-speed rail.

Not all ARRA funding is going towards hot-shot transit projects through the rail grant. We call for a leveling of the playing field when it comes to funding bus rapid transit (BRT) versus light rail. Until now buses were less efficient and more polluting than rail. But, the 2010 BRT vehicles match light rail for speed (when dedicated right-of-way is provided), pollution and energy use. They can be built at about a third the cost of light rail, and it is possible to take these projects from concept to completion in a short amount of time. Nonetheless, light rail can be a better choice for very heavy used corridors on city streets, like Manhattan’s 42nd Street, for the fact that on-street rail is less likely to be blocked by cars than bus lanes.

Highway projects can also have some pizzazz if they are thoughtful and reflect the need for our country to become more energy efficient and to lower our carbon footprint. We urge a “complete streets” approach to highway construction in which transit, pedestrians and bike riders are seriously considered in the design. Complete streets are also a smart investment (i.e. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act), as economic returns from transportation investments which are multi-modal and connect people to regional cores can have returns up to 100 more than other investments. Had Robert Moses, New York’s legendary bridge builder in the mid-twentieth century, thought in complete streets terms he would never have built the Verrazano Bridge in 1964 with no rail, bike access or sidewalks. As a sidebar, every major New York City bridge built prior to 1910 had rail; no bridges built in the past century have had rail! New streets design should also address other 21st century threats to quality of life, by being built completely from the sub-ground up, with trees to improve air quality and porous pavements or water capturing systems to prevent flooding and water pollution.

Speaking of bridges, we have a hefty bill just to get our bridges out of the “structurally deficient” categorically (12% of the nation’s bridges or more than 72,000 structures are rated as such). The federal program has historically supported the very expensive rehab of bridges but not the very efficient low-cost maintenance programs. We urge the feds to reinforce good maintenance for federal dollars.

ARRA has reached the six month milestone with mixed results for the public works of our country. The beef may be thin but we are guardedly optimistic that thicker burgers are on their way. And in our opinion we will have lots of toppings offered for rail passengers, bus riders, pedestrians, bikers and bridge builders. This may just be the best burger ever!

President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood || photo: White House / streetsblog.org

UPDATE

Late Wednesday, the Senate, in conjunction with a House vote last week, passed a one-month extension of the 2005 transportation law, which would have expired at midnight.

*  *  *

At midnight Wednesday, the federal transportation law funding national highway and transit programs will expire. Amid a lack of consensus in Congress on what to do—as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been at odds with both the Senate and the Obama Administration—the current law will almost certainly be extended for one-month. However, it is a short-term fix — an even shorter-term fix than the three-month extension passed in the House last week or the proposed 18-month extension in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The federal transportation law is supposed to be re-authorized every six years, although extensions have become commonplace in this process.

House and Senate appropriations committees agreed to the one-month reprieve as a legislative failsafe in order to keep federal transportation funding mechanisms going at 2009 levels, including the Highway Trust Fund, until lawmakers can complete the new budget. The House approved the resolution on Sept. 25. The Senate is expected to pass it sometime before the Wednesday deadline.

That said, there is nothing to suggest that the Congressional impasse that led to the one-month extension will be solved in just a month’s time. The current transportation law, which was finally passed in 2005, had a dozen similar extensions. Simply, Oct. 31 could look a lot like Sept. 30.

Still, more important than Congress and the Administration agreeing on a three-month or 18-month extension is a consensus on a new transportation law. Already, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.) has introduced a $450 billion dollar bill that not only increases current federal transportation funding but also restructures some funding practices and reorganizes the Department of Transportation. But, as Congress remains in similar gridlock over healthcare, the Administration has opposed any action on Rep. Oberstar’s legislation. As a result, the majority of the Senate, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has sided with the President. Moreover, neither the Senate nor the Administration has put forth their own bills to reauthorize federal transportation funding. Though Rep. Oberstar’s bill was introduced in June, nothing guarantees it will be the legislation that passes one-month, three-months or 18-months from now.

More to lose down the road

Even if the one-month extension is approved in the Senate Wednesday, a measure to dissolve $8.7 billion in un-obligated federal highway assistance will be triggered Thursday unless lawmakers act to correct the matter. But, as the one-month resolution is a conference report, both houses must pass it without amendments.

The 18-month extension proposed by Sen. Boxer would repeal the measure, but action on her bill is unlikely to happen before the deadline. There is no companion language in the House extension.

The loss of the $8.7 billion could lead to project cancellations nationwide. Some states can draw on their own reserves to continue work. Overall, states could lose some $3 billion.

Rep. James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Every six years the law authorizing national transportation policy and funding needs renewal. The current law expires Sept. 30 — in nine days.

Without some kind of action, legislation to extend the current transportation law by 18 months — already in place in the Senate and endorsed by the Obama administration — would almost certainly have to pass in order ensure transportation funding past the end of the month.

Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is staunchly against an 18-month delay. As a result, it is likely he will propose a three-month extension later this week.

This comes after months of pushing for his own plan, to not only reauthorize the transportation bill, but also increase federal funding (from $286 billion in 2005 to a proposed $450 billion) and restructure the practices of the Department of Transportation.

Still, with time running out to pass this new legislation, supporters of Rep. Oberstar’s bill are beginning to accept the idea of an extension of the existing law.

After months of opposing a delay, for example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, recently said a three-month extension would be “reasonable”.

That said, three months may not be enough time to move a spending bill of this size through a Congress already in gridlock over the health care debate. The House Ways and Means Committee, which must determine the legislation’s funding, has yet to set a date to hear the bill. Moreover, the bill has not been marked up in Rep. Oberstar’s own committee.

With Congress back after a summer recess, President Barack Obama, in an address before both the House and Senate on Wednesday, again made clear that the government’s business at this moment is health care reform.

As a result, major climate legislation has been delayed twice in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the same time, similar legislation in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — a $450 billion bill to overhaul transportation funding and policy nationally — has not been put off, at least by Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.).

But the Senate, led by Sen. Boxer, has legislation in place — and much farther along than the House transportation bill — to authorize just under $30 billion to extend the current transportation law by another 18 months. This would effectively delay Rep. Oberstar’s legislation with or without his support.

One way or another, action on federal transportation policy needs to come by the end of the month as the current law, which funds transportation projects and programs from mass transit upgrades to road and bridge repair to high speed rail development, expires Sept. 30.

Last month, while on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, Rep. Oberstar said:

It is disappointing that after eight years of a Bush administration that said no to robust investment in transportation now the Democratic administration says ‘well not now … 18 months’. The nation doesn’t have 18 months… People need jobs now.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman continued:

We’ve reported our six-year bill out of subcommittee and the week when we come back after Labor Day we’ll report it from full committee… I expect to have it on the floor by the third week of September; $450 billion over the next six years and the administration’s either going to come along or we’re going to roll them over.

Still, a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal suggests that Rep. Oberstar sees passage of his bill unlikely this fall and that an extension of the current transportation law is likely.

Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

In mid-June, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on behalf of the Obama administration, offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation – THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 – aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

The current transportation authorization law is set to expire at the end of September. While only an extension is supported by the Administration and the majority of the Senate, Rep. Oberstar’s bill is gaining moment from members of the House — Republicans and Democrats — and special interest groups, including the Chamber of Commerce.

But, the new transportation legislation must be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee first — and Healthcare reform, not transportation, is their mandate for the moment. Still, the Minnesotan politician is not backing down.

In April, before the House transportation bill was introduced, Rep. Oberstar talked with Blueprint America about the legislation:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What needs to happen with the national transportation system?

Handwritten transportation bill outline by Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee || Photo: MinnPost.com

REP. JIM OBERSTAR: The end of the interstate era and the beginning of a new period of transit — to give people in America something more than where the road goes, but where the people (want) to go.

We need to transform the entire Department of Transportation to make it work.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: How did America get to this point?

REP. OBERSTAR: Let me tell you how it all started. In 1894, a group of bicyclists upset with the ruts being caused in their bicycle trails by the newfangled horseless carriages got 150,000 names on a continuous petition, wrapped it on one of those telephone cable devices, put it on a flatcar, hauled it to Washington, rolled the cable device to the U.S. capitol from Union Station, presented it to the Appropriations Committee and asked for $10,000 for a study of paved roadways for the horseless carriages.

The Congress complied. The funds were appropriated. The study completed. It resulted in the establishment of the Bureau of Road Inquiry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1896. A few years later, that became the Bureau of Public Roads.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: That was how it all started, why do we now have to transform the entire Department of Transportation to make the national transportation system work?

REP. OBERSTAR: We have to have a larger goal. What we have after the interstate era, is if there is a roadway here, we build and expand on that road. Because you have an 80–20 funding formula for highways — 80 percent federal funds, 20 percent state funds — and, on the other side, a transit funding program that is project-oriented — some projects might get 50 percent federal funds, some might get 60 percent, some might get only 40 percent — if you are a state department of transportation managing funds, you look at the formula and you say, “Well, we get 80 percent of the money if we build the road. We only get 50 percent or less if we invest in the transit system.”

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why was the system built this way — to favor highways over transit?

REP. OBERSTAR: Funding is skewed away from transit and into highways because transit grew up in a different environment. It was a spin-off of railroads. It was during the 1960s, just before the creation of Amtrak. The railroads wanted to get rid of their passenger service. And they wanted to pass it off as a transit program. And secondly, transit was considered something to help the elderly and the disabled and the poor — it was a social program instead of a transportation program.

For example, Los Angeles had one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country. But, they tore up the tracks, put in highways, roadways, streets and paved to accommodate the car. We have suburbs because we have the car. We have exurbs because of the car. Now, we have to transform our thinking in America.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, who made this choice — the government or the people?

REP. OBERSTAR: Those were conscious decisions by the American public who wanted the freedom, the mobility of the automobile to go where they wanted, to travel where they wanted and so roads were built to accommodate public interest. People made choices to move away from the public transportation system to a private, personalized transportation. And that resulted in sprawl.

We have to now transform our thinking — to link land use and development to transportation. And not require transportation to go where the land use went.

In an urban setting, a mile of freeway may cost in the range of $46 to $50 million. The same mile of urban light rail will cost $26 million and move twice as many people — or three times as many people. And that is what we need to impress.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What then will your transportation bill change?

REP. OBERSTAR: (This) has to be a transformational chapter in transportation — we need to restructure the way we deliver transportation. We have to take all these years of cumulative programs and adding to the responsibilities of states, and restructure it to transform the way transportation is delivered in America — to deliver projects faster and to assure that livability is high on the agenda.

So, take the 108 categories through which Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars are funneled out to the states and condense those into four great program areas. And give the states responsibility to set objectives over a six-year period and interim six-year goals to achieve their long term objectives that are national as well as state objectives. And report annually on their progress and show how they are achieving those goals. And we’ll measure them on that performance.

Also, we need to insist on intermodalism — to have an Assistant Secretary for Intermodalism who will bring together, at least once a month, all of the modal administrators: Aviation Administration, Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Transit Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Bring them all together and talk about safety, mobility, livability and how they can all work together for the benefit of this country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, this will require an investment from the American people — an increase in taxes even while the country is in recession. How do you get public support?

REP. OBERSTAR: In 1956 Congress enacted the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a three cent gas tax, or user fee as it was called. Three cents on a gasoline price of 30 cents. That was 10 percent of the cost of fuel. Passed the House readily. The following year it was clear that more funding was needed for the system. And the Bureau of Public Rolls proposed an additional penny. It passed the House on a voice vote.

There was a sense of greater vision, of a greater need in America for safety, for mobility, to move people and goods and our economy more efficiently, more effectively. And the public understood that that penny was going for those roadway improvements. We need to rekindle that same spirit and understanding in America and show that an additional user fee will make life better.

If we show the American public we are going to move goods more efficiently in the urban and interurban environment, we’re going to move people more efficiently — less congestion and a better road surface — they will understand. They will accept it. We have an intelligent public. We have to show them that this is going to be a better way to move goods and people in our society.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The Obama Administration is not willing to raise the gas tax to fund your transportation bill — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said as much. What do you do without the Administration’s support?

REP. OBERSTAR: In the end, the Congress decides, not the Administration.