One of the issues facing the new Congress and President in 2009 will be the federal role in our nation’s surface transportation policy. The current transportation bill, SAFETEALU, expires in September of 2009 with the highway trust fund projected to be in a deficit situation by then and the Transit Trust Fund going into the red by 2011.
The debate will occur at a time when energy prices are at historic highs, there is an urgent need for energy independence which is integral to national security, fossil fuels are identified as a major contributor to climate change, an aging population means greater numbers of people looking for alternatives to driving alone, plus a recognition that our transportation infrastructure is literally collapsing and hasn’t the capacity to serve a growing population.
In anticipation of this looming crisis, Congress created the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in 2005, a bi-partisan panel charged with recommending a new approach to building and funding transportation in the United States.
Earlier this year, the Commission issued its report which noted that congestion was costing the American economy an estimated $78 billion in 2005, measured in terms of wasted fuel and workers’ lost hours. The report says “contributing to the scale of the problems is a deeply entrenched over-reliance on the personal automobile for travel in urban corridors. Strategies to shift more trips to public transit will play a large role in any forward-thinking efforts to reduce congestion. Similarly, intercity passenger rail offers opportunities to reduce the reliance on the auto for longer-haul trips. In many places, we also will need new highway capacity as well.”
The commission says to achieve this goal, the nation should spend al least $225 billion annually for the next 50 years to upgrade our existing transportation network to a good state of repair and to add more advanced facilities for the US to remain competitive internationally. “We are spending less than 40 percent of this amount today,” the commission reports.
This report will frame the discussion over the next 18 months about the future direction of federal transportation policy in America. How different this national discussion is as compared to continued proposals in Missouri for more highways and dedicated truck lanes while all signs point toward a greater federal emphasis on public transit and intercity rail.
How will Missouri address its transportation needs of the 21st century in a climate of $4 per gallon gas, the prospect of carbon taxes and the desire for people to live in more energy efficient green areas? While the nation appears to be headed to a more robust multi-modal system that helps mitigate these changes, Missouri could be left at the station if it continues its policy of funding highways, leaving its citizens to endure high gas prices and crowded highways with little choice to live a more energy efficient life.
A recent Post-Dispatch editorial which suggested transferring the meager amount of money the legislature devoted to passenger rail to public transit misses the point entirely. Moving six million dollars from Amtrak to public transit would not nearly address transit needs, while eliminating Amtrak between St. Louis and Kansas City just at the time when passenger rail is booming elsewhere in the country and throughout the civilized world.
What Missouri needs is a new vision for transportation in the 21st century. The Post should have suggested that Missouri needs to help build Kansas City and St. Louis in partnership with the federal government to build light rail lines to all corners of the metropolitan regions. Strengthening the bus and paratransit service throughout Missouri, especially smaller cities, towns and rural communities should be a priority in light of an aging population prone to isolation. New light rail stations could serve as anchors for new and revitalized urban development which we have just started to see near MetroLink stops.
St. Louis and Kansas City should be connected by passenger rail travelling at 110 miles per hour with trains departing each city at least six times a day, providing a much needed alternative to Interstate 70 and Highway 50. Springfield, Mo. and points between should become a part of the state’s passenger rail network with connections to St. Louis, Kansas City and Dallas by way of Oklahoma City. And yes, highways and bridges should be smooth and safe.
A broader multi-modal transportation policy would strengthen the economic well being of St. Louis and Kansas City and provide residents in the state’s smaller communities quick access to the medical, social and cultural centers of our state.
In recent years Missouri voters have turned down on two occasions transportation programs solely focused on highways. Current proposals offer more of the same.
A state transportation program that provides a vision of high quality, multi-modal transportation choices has the best chances of catching the imagination of voters, especially those in the urbanized areas of the state who historically have been more inclined to support taxes in the past has the best chance of gaining voter approval. Recent attempts to pass highway-only measures at the ballot box have failed overwhelmingly. Perhaps it is time to give a visionary “green” multi-modal transportation alternative a try.
