 |
| Theme Building at Los Angeles International Airport (1961) Los Angeles, California waterandpower.org |
It is time for the weekly edition of Blogger Candidate Forum. Yesterday we looked at how transportation is a feminist issue. Today we are going to look at what American transportation policy will be under President Donald Trump. Once again, we are guided by Laura Bliss and her CityLab article "What U.S. Transportation Policy Could Look Like Under Trump." On the campaign trail, Candidate Trump promised to create a "yuge" infrastructure spending plan. Ms. Bliss writes, "...Donald Trump has described, repeatedly and proudly, how infrastructure spending, especially on roads, bridges, and America's 'third-world' will create jobs and stimulate the economy..." What will POTUS's spending plan look like and how will it be implemented? What types of projects will receive funereal funding and who will it benefit? We can only speculate on the answers. Fasten your seat belt and brace for impact.
 |
| President Donald J. Trump donaldjtrump.com |
Of course POTUS has plans to pay for infrastructure. Did you think otherwise? There is no reason to expect the Trump administration to raise the gas tax, which has been the primary source of the trust fund used to subsidized federal highway projects. In the weeks prior to the election, the Trump campaign quietly put forth an infrastructure plan that essentially calls for full-on privatization. The Trump administration "would provide $137 billion in tax credits to private companies interested in building and managing highways, bridges, airports, and water systems." POTUS's advisors argue, in a policy paper, that it "would be thusly incentivized to spend some $167 billion in initial equity and use that as cushion to reduce their risk as they borrow even more from private investors." Blogger can just hear the groans.
In that very same paper and in previous statements as a candidate, the Trump campaign also put forth a proposal to repatriate corporate money from foreign accounts by offering a "one-time tax holiday charging just 10 percent (rather than the current 35 percent) to bring their money back to the U.S." Between that and the privatization scheme, "the policy paper estimates the plan would generate $1 trillion in infrastructure investments-with only $137 billion of that coming from the feds." Therefore according to Trumpian logic, this would be offset by the increased tax revenue in infrastructure proposals would hopefully generate via jobs an sources like highway tolls and rate payments."
 |
| Hollywood Freeway near downtown Los Angeles (1953) Los Angeles, California dot.ca.gov |
Deep breath in and slowly exhale. These are not necessarily bad ideas. Really, pay attention. The repatriation plan might not be a deep fountain of funding but it make additional moneys available for transportation projects. David Levinson, a transportation professor at the University of Minnesota, told Laura Bliss,
It's like a free lunch.
Privatizing select infrastructure projects can work under circumstance, which could appeal to the tight fisted Congressional Republicans.
However, there are problems with privatization as a mechanism to pay for most projects. Ms. Bliss points out, "First, there's not much money in infrastructure building for private investors, unless they get to build and operate a toll road with a big price tag for driver-which is all but guaranteed to face resistance from constituents." Infrastructure project that are in the public benefit, but they lack immediate financial gain-for example, any transit proposal or new water lines in a place like Flint, Michigan. They are less exciting to new investors, given that any revenues would be generated by increasing rates to unaffordable levels. Thus, the projects would still have rely on federal subsidies.
 |
| Hoover Dam pbs.org |
Harder deal will be drawn which might not go well for states.
Speaking the states, thy control the highways not the federal government. Unless the federal government somehow manages to take over control over the road-which would be a complete anathema to Republican ideology and possibly unconstitutional-state DOTs are not simply going to go along with any plan to sell off highway projects, even with federal encouragement. Moreover, there is not guarantee that Congress would be willing to play along-"it's faced opposition to road pricing in the past, especially from the trucking industry." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) stated shortly after the November election that "infrastructure spending in general will not be a top priority for Congress." Period. End of sentence.
 |
| The Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco, California commons.wikimedia.org |
Sounding a grim note, Prof. Levinson forecasts "a different potential cash bucket that could pay for Trump's infrastructure plans: a major stimulus plan much like like the Recovery Act of 2009, which will 'tie in well with the new recession that will be coming up shortly." Prof. Levinson predicts tens of billions primarily dedicated to dedicated to infrastructure. He said,
Trump is a builder...He likes his big highly visible infrastructure objects and his ribbon-cutting ceremonies. He will go for the quick wins where he can get them.
All of this is exclusive of that Wall which, at last check, POTUS is still insisting that Mexico will pay for.
 |
| Bell System International System switchboard, 1943 en.wikipedia.org |
Certain projects-and select communities-may be favored
Where those "quick wins" will be and who will benefit, aside from POTUS and his related enterprises, are all valid questions. Laura Bliss previously reported (http://www.citylab.com) "there are reasons to wonder whether federal matching funds for mass transport will be cut by a GOP Congress which has clearly articulated a lack of support for public transit subsidies." This and the fact that Republicans are gaining governorships in more states (except the firmly Blue California), it is worth considering how much power states have in facilitating these projects. according to Yonah Freemark a transportation consultant and MIT doctoral student. Case in point, the Cincinnati streetcar project struggled under Governor John Kasich (R-Ohio), who slashed state funding set aside for it. Laura Bliss notes, "The line did get built, thanks to a groundswell of local support, but in a diminished form." Another example, in North Carolina, the light rail between Chapel Hill and Durham is under threat from state budget battles. Mr. Freemark told Ms. Bliss,
The degree of control by conservatives is now so overwhelming that the fate of progressive initiatives like public transportation is not clear.
 |
| Olive Switching Station 1916-17 Los Angeles, California waterandpower.org |
Funding decisions will be more overtly political.
Laura Bliss writes, "As infrastructure spending bills get earmarked, federal funds may wind up more concentrated in Republican districts." Therefore, a brand new commuter light-rail proposal in a more conservative county near Minneapolis is more likely to be showered with federal funding than a similar proposal in the city itself. No surprise, it could mean that the very people who form the core of American transit ridership (low- to moderate-income urban Americans who do not own cars) might come up short.
Speaking of economic equity, Blogger would like to refer you to yesterday's post on transportation as a feminist issue. The current Department of Transportation administration has emphasized the role of public transit in environmental justice with spending and support for initiative such as Ladders of Opportunity. Under newly installed DOT Secretary Elaine Chao, can we expect a more conservative approach? Susan Shaheen, a shared mobility expert at the University of California Berkeley, believes that a business-oriented administration will support growing partnership between public transit and ride share companies like Uber and Lyft, as way to reduce public spending. Ms. Shaheen said,
A shared mobility system that could help fill gaps between public and private services is not necessarily counter to the instincts of a Republican administration.
Be that as it may, these prospective partnerships do raise serious equity concerns. It is still too early in the Trump administration to give any careful thought about how to entice riders who possess neither smartphones or bank accounts to access these services.
It is also extremely unlikely that climate change skeptic President Donald Trump will consider the global-warming impact of the transportation-sector. During his transition, POTUS chose climate-change denier and conservative pundit Myron Ebell to head the Environmental Protection Agency's transition. Further, the president nominated Oklahoma attorney Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. Mr. Pruitt is well-known for filing lawsuits against regulations and clean up efforts by the agency he hopes to run.
Is there a silver lining in all of this? Yes, there is. Infrastructure moneys will most likely be allocated to highways. However, transit projects for the very people who genuinely need it, will suffer. The biggest loser is planet Earth. For the ecologically minded, local funds and leadership matters now more than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment