As both the House and Senate debate federal surface transportation bills, Washington is abuzz with debate regarding the merit and scope of the federal programs.  Below, I provide answers to 5 frequently asked questions.

What is the condition of our transportation system?

By any measure, the U.S. transportation system is failing. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), nearly one-third of roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and one-fourth of the nation’s bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. U.S. transit systems earned a D rating in the ASCE’s annual Infrastructure Report Card. Despite these facts, there’s a popular myth that our transportation infrastructure system is finished. It’s not. To support a 21^st century economy, our highways, bridges and public transportation systems need to be kept in good condition and support growing and shifting populations and trade.  Our infrastructure must be dynamic and improving.  It’s what our competitors around the world are doing every day to gain a competitive edge.

Some members of Congress want to eliminate federal transportation programs altogether and leave the responsibility to states. Is that a good idea?

Absolutely not. States need a strong federal partner to ensure that interstate commerce, international trade policies, interstate passenger travel, emergency preparedness, national defense, and global competitiveness are adequately supported by the nation’s infrastructure. Without federal support for an interconnected transportation system, several large, less-populated rural states would be unable to afford the costs of sustaining their roads and bridges. Many of our nation’s conservative visionaries, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, understood the proper role of the federal government in meeting these needs, as Pete Ruane, president of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, notes in today’s Washington Times. Even today, some of the most vocal opponents of federal spending recognize the importance of transportation investment. Rep. Paul Ryan points out in A Roadmap for America’s Future that transportation is a core government responsibility: “Governments must provide for a limited set of public goods: they must build roads and other infrastructure, foster the protection of property rights, and maintain internal and external security… this ‘core’ government spending tends to foster economic growth.”

If we accept that the federal government must play a role in transportation, aren’t existing revenues sufficient?

Without new revenue, the federal programs will need to be cut by over a third. 

What would be the economic impact if the federal programs were cut back?

The federal government is responsible for about 45% of all investments in highways and public transportation around the country, and this funding directly supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. It’s not even an option at this point in time. In the past five years, not one, but two Congressionally-mandated blue ribbon commissions have come to the same conclusion regarding federal highway and public transportation investment: it needs to be growing. We have to adopt policies, including an increase in users fees, to bolster revenues. President Reagan himself recognized the economic importance of the federal programs and approved an increase in the gas tax to support them.

What about claims that there’s lots of waste in the federal transportation program?

We agree that Congress needs to cut waste, and both the Senate and House bills address the issue. The Senate bill would eliminate or consolidate programs that are duplicative or not in the national interest, slicing the number of highway programs by two-thirds – from nearly 90 to less than 30. It would also establishes performance measures and targets to help focus transportation investments on outcomes. For its part, the House bill would consolidate or eliminates nearly 70 duplicative programs, streamline the cumbersome environmental review process, and allow states to fund their most critical infrastructure needs.