Streetsblog Capitol Hill

More committee news…

Yesterday’s field hearing of the House Transportation Committee on high-speed rail in New York City wasn’t officially part of the series of field hearings on the reauthorization. The tentative schedule hits small towns, big cities, and suburbs:

• February 14th – West Virginia (Ranking Democrat Nick Rahall’s home state)
• February 17th – Philadelphia area (Republican committee freshmen Patrick Meehan and Lou Barletta are from the area, as is Democratic T&I member Tim Holden)
• February 18th – Rochester, NY (freshman Republican Tom Reed’s district and not too far for some of Richard Hanna’s constituents)
• February 19-20 – Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, and suburbs of Chicago (within reach of four Republican members’ districts and one Democrat)
• February 21-23 – Portland, OR; Vancouver, WA; Fresno and Southern California (reaching four Republican districts and two Democrat)

The hearings may be focused on specific topics, which haven’t been announced yet. Witnesses must be invited to speak.

Aging infrastructure across the country has become an enormous safety risk. It’s also becoming an economic hazard.

Last year, the Federal Transit Administration announced that the seven largest rail transit systems had a backlog of $50 billion in maintenance needs to bring them into a state of good repair. In June, the agency determined that nationwide, the backlog is nearly $78 billion.

Though these needed repair and maintenance projects may be less impressive to the public than major expansions, they are key to increasing ridership and decreasing costs.

Last week, FTA Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan told the North America Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum that the agency is linking good transit maintenance to its livability initiatives. Keeping systems in good repair, she said, is the foundation of safe, reliable rail service that can help draw new residents to vacated areas.

“When we’re looking at the opportunities for in-fill, particularly in our major urban areas, where we can take advantage of the infrastructure we already have, this is where State of Good Repair becomes a very key piece of a livability initiative,” McMillan said. “So it’s not just about building the new stuff into greenfield. It’s about investing and making transit a real value-added as part of these strategic re-investments in communities.”

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority boasts the oldest transit system in America, said Richard Davey, who heads up the MBTA. So maintenance is no small task for them. Ninety-nine percent of the MBTA’s five-year capital plan is for repair and maintenance, which is projected to decrease their debt burden.

Bringing existing infrastructure up to code isn’t always the most popular use of money, especially when agencies have to choose between maintenance and investments that riders perceive more easily. Jeffrey Knueppel of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) said his agency even takes heat for focusing on safety. “At times we are criticized for not expanding the system, and also at times for not doing the customer amenities projects that other agencies have done,” he said.

But he said prioritizing maintenance is by far the most efficient use of funds. Looking at SEPTA’s bridges, Knueppel said, “We have an opportunity now to rehabilitate most of them, rather than replace them. If we continue to defer spending on our bridges we’ll end up spending a lot more money later to replace these structures.”

So how to pay for it?

Several agencies, including the MBTA, SEPTA, and New Jersey Transit, are looking at their parking assets to augment existing income streams. They’re considering leasing or selling off some of their parking lots. In the Philadelphia suburbs, towns that find themselves short on nighttime parking want to enter into an agreement to use the SEPTA lots during the off-peak hours.

Meanwhile, the FTA is developing proposals on the issue and is beginning to train grantees on asset management, but access to money for repairs is still a difficult prospect for many transit systems.

As the Senate opened its second round of climate change hearings today, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter delivered the urban case for climate legislation, outlining an array of infrastructure improvements and green reforms that would be made possible by federal action to reduce carbon emissions.

Testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Nutter singled out his city's "complete streets" policy as a key element of the local revitalization that has attracted more private investment and new residents to Philadelphia:

Over the past five decades, Philadelphia lost jobs and residents. The pulls that caused people to leave our city and others like it were driven in part by government policies that valued highways over transit and new tract housing over older row homes. But, in recent years, Philadelphia has begun to witness a rebirth ... people and jobs are moving in and private investments are being made. People again view our walkable neighborhoods and public transportation systems as assets to value and nurture.

Nutter also described a series of sustainable infrastructure projects that his city is prepared to launch once long-term funding is secured. The Senate climate bill sets up a new block grant program that would provide that long-term funding, directing money to metro areas for energy efficiency and conservation projects.

Among the Philadelphia proposals mentioned by Nutter were the city's "green corridors" program -- now in line for a $6 million pilot phase -- that would install landscaped sidewalks to collect storm water as well as new energy-efficient streetlights and traffic signals. A parallel effort, known as "green streets," would increase tree cover and install curb bump-outs with sidewalk planters to decrease heat-trapping.

"Our experience ... is characteristic of so many cities that are moving forward with these investments," Nutter told the Senate environment committee, which will hear from more than two dozen witnesses today alone.

Republican witnesses offered a counterpoint to the urban experience, focusing almost exclusively on the high cost that regulating emissions would impose on traditional fossil fuel-burning industries.

"We are in favor of green jobs but not at the expense of the heartland, of red, white, and blue jobs," Bill Klesse, CEO of oil company Valero, told the environment panel.

Today's hearing can be followed live here, courtesy of the committee.

For those just tuning in, economist Ed Glaeser has been writing a four-part series on the potential costs and benefits of high-speed rail at the New York Times' Economix blog. He began three weeks ago with an introduction. The following week he addressed direct costs and benefits from a hypothetical line, and last week he attempted to gauge the environmental benefits of high-speed rail construction.

The whole of the analysis has been highly flawed (see my earlier criticisms here and here). It is overly simplistic, excludes important variables, and relies on faulty assumptions.

Glaeser has quite nearly admitted as much, arguing that he chose the hypothetical Dallas-Houston route -- which is not in the administration's plan for a high-speed network -- in order "to avoid giving the impression that this back-of-the-envelope calculation represents a complete evaluation of any actual proposed route."

But it doesn't take a close read to see that Glaeser wishes to demonstrate that rail investments do not make economic sense. He has not been particularly charitable in acknowledging the shortcomings of his work, and he has therefore left his readers with a very misleading picture of the probable outcome of construction of a high-speed rail system.

I have continued to hold out hope that he'll improve his analysis along the way, but as of today we have the final chapter -- on high-speed rail's potential reshaping of the American economy -- and it, too, is embarrassingly bad.

In his earlier posts, Glaeser did not take population growth into account -- a rather large failing while analyzing a piece of infrastructure we can expect to last for decades. This time around he aims to defuse this criticism by writing:

These numbers suggest that costs will exceed benefits each year by $524 million if the rail line has 1.5 million customers, and by $401 million if the region’s rail demand has a huge rate of growth and attracts three million riders.

It's worth recalling where those numbers come from. Read more...