 |
| Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton online.com |
Monday evening's debate was a lot fun was it not? Blogger supposes that if you were cheering for Democratic nominee Secretary Hillary Clinton, you had a grand time. On the other hand, if you were rooting for Republican nominee Donald Trump, maybe it was just not your night. Either way, one subject that was touched by the candidates was infrastructure. In this case, investing on infrastructure as a way to create jobs and move America forward. This is not a big surprise, given that terrorism and trade have taken center stage. If you paid attention, issues related to transportation have been ignored or barely received any air play. Mr. Trump dismissed American airports as "Third World" airports, without offering any remedy. Blogger begs to differ with Mr. Trump's grim dismissal of American airports. Blogger's recent experience at Los Angeles International Airport was anything but "Third World."
 |
| Road work equipment world.com |
When it comes to subjects connected to funding mass transit, bicycling, and the environment, both major parties have laid out starkly different platforms for the future of America's transportation system. The Democrats propose an "...expansive increase in federal support for transportation investment, with a focus on building access to opportunity, bolstering access to non-automobile, reducing the impacts climate change, and maintaining the role of unions." However, the Republican platform is less specific. It proposes, "...no increase in federal spending,..., an elimination of the federal role in funding non-automotive transportation, an emphasis on pollution-spewing modes and energy sources, and a reduction in the roles of unions.
 |
| Side-by-Side Comparison of infrastructure investment by both parities Holly Fisher Skillin (@hfisher) twitter.com |
Before getting into the specifics of each of the parities's policy proposals, it is important to stress that the respective platforms and positions of Madame Secretary and Mr. Trump is no guarantee of enactment; there is a world of difference between agreeing on a proposal; and actual legislation. Mr. Freemark observes, "In many ways. the Democratic and Republican platforms in 2016 are quite similar to those in 2012, and much of the suggestions then have not even been discussed in the halls of Congress, let alone been implemented." For any real change to take place, presidents DO need the support of Congress (regardless of what Mr. Trump may think), who may come from the opposite party and may not care about the same issues.
 |
| Donald Trump at a groundbreaking ceremony theatlantic.com |
The Republican platform on transportation leads off,
Our country's investments in transportation and other public construction have traditionally been non-partisan. Everyone agrees on the need for clean water and safe roads, rail, bridges, ports, and airports...
(http://www.gop.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
This bipartisan sentiment is frequently repeated by supporters of infrastructure investment as an argument for setting priorities and cajoling lawmakers to work across the aisle. Yet, if you look at the chart above left, the differences between both parties on investment demonstrate that transportation is a political issue. An issue that produces contrasting policy remedies.
 |
| Shipping lanes US Transportation infrastructure cfr.org |
The difference between how each party thinks about transportation is a mirror of how they each see the role of the federal government.
No surprise, the Republicans use their platform to further their view of a limited role for the federal government in infrastructure investment. They narrowly define the role of government,
We propose to remove from the Highway Trust Fund programs that should be the business of the federal government... (Ibid)
Specifically, "The federal government should only spend transportation money on automobile commuters..." Citing the Republican assessment of President Obama's approach to transportation:
The current Administration has a different approach. It subordinates civil engineering to social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit, Its ill-named Livability Initiative is meant to 'coerce people out of their cars.'
 |
| 710 Freeway North msreagentia.com |
By contrast, the Democrats take a broader view of the role of federal government. The Democratic party platform on transportation reads,
We need major federal investments to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of Americans back to work...we will dramatically increase federal infrastructure funding for our cities-making significant investments in roads and bridges, public transit,... (http://www.demconvention.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
Secretary Hillary Clinton's position on transit is vastly opposite of the Republican and can be summed up:
This underinvestment is particularly costly for many low-income communities of color, as a color, as a dearth of reliable and efficient public transportation options often creates a huge barrier to Americans attempting to build better lives. Clinton will prioritize and increase investments to public transit to connect Americans to jobs, spur economic growth, and improve the quality of life in our communities... (http://www.hillaryclinton.com; date access Sept. 28, 2016)
Jonah Freemark writes, "The Democratic platform explicitly connects the need to rebuild and expand the nation's multimodal transportation system as an effort not only to improve mobility but also to add jobs, 'expand the middle class,' address 'the climate emergency, and improve quality of life in the nation's cities and suburbs." In short, the Democrats see federal government as not only expanding in size but also including the role of transportation plays in the lives of those affected by transportation, beyond infrastructure investment.
 |
| Transportation funding Photography courtesy of The Texas Tribune hartbeat.har.com |
Both Madame Secretary and the Democratic party are on the same page when it comes to funding the national transportation system. The party platform suggested an increased federal and more federal funding, as does Madame Secretary. More to the point, her position calls for a $275 billion increase in funding over a five year period, of which $250 billion would be directed toward public infrastructure investment. This is similar to the funding allocations put forth by President Obama over the past eight years and would approximately double funding earmarks for transportation in the United States. Like the previous Obama Administration proposals, this prescription would paid for by business tax reforms, user fees like gas tax, as typically has been the case.
 |
| Madame Secretary going through a subway turnstile the guardian.com |
...continue to support the interest tax exemption bond... (http://www.demconvention.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
Both of which would permit municipal governments to fund more transportation investment at the local levels.
Madame Secretary also stressed the potential expansion of the TIGER grant and TIFIA loan programs, which have been manna from heave for cities, nationwide, investing in local projects such as the Cincinnati Streetcar to the Chicago Riverwalk. In addition, Madame Secretary cites to the possibility of revolutionary change by suggesting the
...launch [of] a pilot program to explore new ways of getting formula funding, including formula funding, including formula highway funding, directly into the hands of local governments." (http://www.hillaryclinton.com; date access Sept. 28, 2016)
This would give cities and counties the transportation allocation funds directly from Washington without being funneled through the states.
 |
| Example of transportation funding allocations spur.org |
...with most of the states increasing their own funding for transportation, we oppose a further increase in the federal gas tax...
(http://www.gop.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
Jonah Freemark writes, "While the platform does recognize the importance of infrastructure, it suggests that the federal government should be paying for any more of it, rather focusing on 'remov[ing] legal roadblocks to public-private partnership agreements...expand the carrying capacity of roads and bridges.'" (Ibid)
Naturally, Mr. Trump expressed a contrarian view of the federal role on transportation infrastructure investment. Mr. Freemark recalls a debate Mr. Trump participated in which the Republican nominee noted that "the U.S, should have spent the money it used on wars on infrastructure." Noble sentiment. Mr. Trump said,
...if we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems...we would've been a lot better off.
Mr, Trump went on to describe to Eric Levitz of New York (http://www.nymag.com) a trillion-dollar rebuilding plans...one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken. In typical Trump fashion, it was bereft of details.
 |
| Nashville BRT Nashville, Tennessee metro-magazine.com |
Ever his own person, Donald Trump has expressed opinions contrary to the RNC with respect to transit and light rail. Mr. Trump expressed delight over Chinese high-speed trains, while deriding American trains. He insists that
we have to spend money on mass transit...we have to spend a lot of money...
Meanwhile, his own party strongly opposes funding transit, declaring,
...we propose to phase out the federal transit program...arguing, mass transit [is] an inherently local affair that only serves a small portion of the population, concentrated in six big cities... (http://www.gop.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
Mr. Freemark corrects this assumption, "This is an exaggeration (the top ten transit cities account for 47 percent of U.S. transit commuters)..." It worth mentioning that in recent years, Republican candidates have received fewer votes from urban dwellers, typically dominated by registered Democrats, thus a possible reason for the cutbacks in transit investment.
Intercity rail is held in similar low regard; the Republican party platform notes that taxpayers
...must subsidize every [Amtrak]...we reaffirm our intention to end federal support for boondoggles like California's high-speed train to nowhere... (Ibid)
Alright, in all fairness, California's high-speed train has become a boondoggle Yours truly would prefer the money be spent on improving local and regional transportation.
The Republican policy advocates ...private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor (Ibid; one of the more profitable Amtrak lines).
The Clinton campaign offers,
...buil[ding] a faster, safer, and higher-capacity passenger rail system to meet rapidly growing demand and build a more mobile America..." ( http://www.hillaryclinton.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016). To emphasize this point, speaking at a campaign rally in Florida, Madame Secretary affirmed her support of the "Sunshine State's" canceled project. She told the audience,
...we're going to do more to fight climate change by getting more cars off the road and more passengers into high-speed rail...(Ibid) Secretary Hillary Clinton also observed significant support for public transportation. Her campaign website states,
...Hillary will increase investments in public transit to connect Americans to hobs, spur economic growth, and improve the quality of life in our communities...(Ibid)
Jonah Freemark notes, "She has made no such commitment to investing in highways or roadway infrastructure."
 |
| Ciclavia in Boyle Heights boyleheightsbeats.com |
Have any of the candidates addressed funding for non-motorized transportation, i.e. bicycles and walking? No, they have not. Blogger was asking a rhetorical question. Be that as it may, bicycling and walking has the potential to play an increasing role in the national transportation system, if our candidates actually made some effort to highlight them in planning and funding. Mr. Freemark writes, "Between 20 and 40 percent of all trips in European countries are conducted by cycle or by foot, and this is a model a federal transportation policy could emulate if the political conditions were right."
The Republican party platform is dismissive of non-motorized methods of transportation, calling them "outside of the federal purpose." The GOP Platform recommends,
...bike-share programs, sidewalks, recreational trails, landscaping... (http://www.gop.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016) be no longer federally funded. Instead, the Platform suggests that,
...these worthwhile enterprises should be funded through other sources... (Ibid). Given the platforms overall tone, this means all these worthwhile enterprises should be funded by the individual states.
Secretary Clinton's campaign policy offers an entirely different point of view. The campaign websites states,
...she will also support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure-reducing carbon emissions, improving public health and safety, and further providing Americans with affordable transportation options... ( http://www.hillaryclinton.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
Yonah Freemark notes, "Given Ms. Clinton's overall campaign message supporting a continuation of Barack Obama's presidency, it seems likely that this could come in the form of TIGER grants and an emphasis on multimodalism in other grants."
 |
| Climate change climate.nasa.gov |
Yonah Freemark cites, "Transportation accounts for about 20 percent of world carbon emissions from fuel, and while the U.s. has made substantial progress over the past few decades in improving the efficiency of household appliances, electronics, lighting, and power plants, the transportation industry continues to be a major polluter." To combat this, the current administration has required "...significant increases in automobile fuel economy," a crucial step but more action is necessary if America is to achieve the goals agreed upon in the 2015 Paris agreement.
The Democratic platform incorporates climate change (referred to as "climate challenge") as an essential issue. This is acutely emphasized throughout and the wording is quite strong in the transportation section. The Platform notes,
....we will protect communities from the impact of climate change and help them to mitigate its effects by investing in green and resilient infrastructure...We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boiler, ships, and trucks. We will make new investments in public transportation and build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across our urban and suburban areas...reduc[e] greenhouse gas emission more than 80 percent below 2005 by 2050... (http://www.demconvention.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
Predictably, the Republican Party has consistently refused to acknowledge the existence of climate change, However, this election cycle's platform strikes a softer tone, noting that,
...climate change is far from the nation's most pressing national security issue... (http://www.gop.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
While appearing to recognize the rising global temperatures, the document suggest that the prescription is no action; scant mention of the role of transportation in increasing pollution. Further, the document appears to encourage additional use of pollutants for powering growing electrified transportation systems, observing,
....the Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource... (Ibid)
 |
| Project Management bigscreentechnology.com |
Project management
Amazingly, both Madame Secretary and the Republican Party's platform suggest a plan to streamline permitting to reduce transportation construction costs. The Republicans specifically say that they
...would reform the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act... (Ibid)
In a rare show of support for organized labor, the Red Team stress a,
...repeal of the Davis-Bacon law... (Ibid) which mandates that federally supported projects pay workers "prevailing wages, that are frequently higher than non-union wages. Naturally, the Blue Team ...support high labor standards...and the right to form or join a union... (http://www.demconvention.com; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
One item worth mentioning is the "Buy America" rule, a federal regulation that requires transportation projects to include-i.e. requires most of the construction components be made in American-which can, in some cases, increase costs and reduce the level of quality.
 |
| Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.) cnn.com |
Never at a loss for words, during his Republican National Committee Convention speech, Governor Chris Christie took Madame Secretary to task over her refusal to support the Buy America rule. He was right in saying that neither Madame Secretary and President Obama did oppose the Buy America rule. However, what got lost in all of the Governor's convention bluster was the fact that he vetoed Buy America-related legislation. Thus, both parties have supported the Buy America rule and will continue to do so in the future.
How about the other parties?
Both the Green and Libertarian Parties have not received as much attention as they would like during the course of this endless election cycle. The reality is no third party candidate has ever won a U.S. presidential election. Nevertheless, both third parties do have a position on infrastructure investment. Given that both major party candidates have high disapproval ratings and third party candidates could play an important role in the the upcoming election on NOVEMBER 8, yours truly would be remiss in ignoring them.
The Green Party Platform states,
The Green Party supports a transportation policy that emphasizes the use of mass transit and alternatives to the automobile and truck for transportation. We call for major public investment in mass transportation, so that such systems are cheap or free to the public and are safe, accessible, and easily understandable to first-time users. We need ecologically sound forms of transportation that minis pollution and minimize efficiency... (http://www.gp.org: date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
The Libertarian Party has virtually nothing to say specifically about transportation. Rather it calls for,
...call[s] for the repeal of...all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution...
and states that governments should not incur debt... (http://www.lp.org; date accessed Sept. 28, 2016)
This implies that the Libertarians would call for the dismantling of all roads and highways with the exception of "post road" (The United States Constitution; Article 1; Section 8). Based on this premise, party's candidate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson would not support federally funded mass transit projects.
No comments:
Post a Comment