Faster, Better, Safer Transportation for the 21st Century

by Tom Donohue

The failure of the U.S. transportation network to meet the needs of a growing population and economy is already having an impact on everything from safety to the environment, from quality of life to economic growth. We must immediately reform the approach we take for funding, planning, and building infrastructure so that we can keep people and goods moving across the country and around the world.

Evidence of failure is overwhelming. Safety suffers as a result of poorly maintained roads that contribute to a third of the almost 42,000 fatalities that occur each year on our highways. The environment is adversely impacted by the 2.9 billion gallons of fuel wasted annually as a result of congestion. Congestion also diminishes our quality of life; Americans lose a total of 4 billion hours annually in traffic jams. And in the global economy, our transportation infrastructure is quickly becoming a competitive disadvantage.

A serious effort to modernize our infrastructure comes with the realization that existing funding is insufficient to meet our needs. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recommended an annual investment of at least $225 billion annually over the next 50 years to finance a surface transportation system capable of sustaining strong economic growth and individual mobility. 

However, infrastructure investment in 2005 only totaled $155 billion, a $70 billion shortfall. Solving this problem is going to take more money, and every option must be on the table, including privately financed projects and user fee increases. We must also stop the diversion of dedicated transportation funds to nontransportation purposes.

To address infrastructure needs, it will take a fundamental shift away from the piecemeal approach currently employed to an approach driven by economic need and regional mobility. Policymakers must put the needs of citizens and the economy ahead of local political interests by directing financial resources to where they can do the most good, while reducing funding for pet projects.

If we take the right course, our transportation network will be the foundation of a 21st century economy that can move people quickly and safely, easily handle a growing volume of freight, and minimize the release of pollutants.

In this election year, it is crucial that voters ask candidates about their plans for modernizing our infrastructure. No matter who is elected this November, the next president and the next Congress will have the responsibility for rebuilding America. Our prosperity and our way of life depend on it.

Comments

[Gordon Pettus]

I agree with the comments about reinvesting in transportation infrastructure, but to me, an even more important issue is energy. I think we need a new national energy goal--as I described in an article I wrote recently.

A new national goal.

Every great civilization is recognized by their accomplishments. The United States has several accomplishments of which we can be proud. One of the most memorable was the goal to send a man to the moon and return him safely.

Today, we need a new goal. Many of our societal problems are related to the cost and availability of energy. Also, many of our citizens are concerned about pollution and global warming. Much of the concern is related to coal, gas and oil fired electricity generating plants.

There is an excellent, viable alternative—wind power. The U. S. Department of Energy estimates that there is enough wind in the United States to provide 1.6 times all of our current electrical energy needs. Even if that estimate is overly optimistic, there should still be ample generating potential to satisfy the vast majority of our electrical needs. Together with hydro electric power and other non-polluting and renewable energy sources, the U.S. could satisfy all, or almost all, our electrical needs for a very long time to come.

I believe we should have a national goal to have at least 80 percent of all our electrical needs satisfied by renewable, non-polluting sources—with the majority of the electricity coming from wind power.

There are some technical challenges to achieving this goal. The main problem is that the majority of the wind is in the central states and would need to be transmitted to other locations. There would be transmission losses and environmental issues to deal with. But, all these challenges can be overcome.

The major stumbling block is with the environmental and political issues. The creation of massive wind farms and the building of transmission lines from the wind source areas to the consumers would create some environmental damage, but it would undoubtedly be less that that created by massive oil spills—such as the Exxon Valdez—and the constant pollution caused by oil and coal fired plants.

As an example, San Diego is currently wrestling with several options for generating electricity for future needs. One of the options is to build more gas and oil fired plants locally. Another option is to build transmission lines to the east to connect with power generating plants there. If we had a national goal to develop our wind resources, as well as solar and geo-thermal, the solution would be much simpler. We would need to build transmission lines to the east to take advantage of the power generated in the wind and solar resource areas.

Although the above goal would be somewhat expensive, it would be less expensive in the long run if we made the investment in the wind generating infrastructure. This could be done by having our tax dollars subsidize the electricity generated so it is competitive with current oil and gas fired plants, and by establishing a national political and social goal on which local energy suppliers could base their future energy plans.

An additional benefit could also come from such an energy program. Currently, there are thousands of gas stations distributed around the nation to supply our vehicles with gas. If we implemented the above national goal, we could expand our electrical use to include cars and other small vehicles. Most people drive fewer than 40 miles per day and could easily switch to an electrically powered vehicle if cars and electrical charging stations were available.

There are several major and many minor issues associated with the above goal, e.g., independence from foreign oil, air pollution, other environmental damage, the actual development of the wind farms and transmission lines, financing, etc. All of these could be resolved if we had a national goal to make clean, renewable electrical energy a priority.

Recently, the volatility of oil prices has exacerbated the above oil resource issues and has made alternative fuel sources more economically viable. But, this has been a change in degree, not in fundamental direction. When we consider the effects of these changes, it seems to be more viable to shift much of our transportation from air to fast rail. This would require a significant change in our surface transportation infrastructure.

It all comes down to a couple choices. Do we want to continue to spend money on oil related resources, or are we willing to invest in long term renewable energy infrastructure. Considering the volatility of fuel prices and the effects of oil and coal pollution, I think the renewable energy plan is highly preferable.