Published Saturday, June 18, 2009, by The Economist

Transport spending
Delays ahead

Ambitious plans for American transport run into reality

The biggest shift in transport policy since the 1950s is due, supposedly, this
summer. February's stimulus package provided about $48 billion for transport, a
pittance in comparison. As The Economist went to press on June 18th James
Oberstar, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
was about to present a blueprint for a new transport bill. The old act expires
on September 30th; the new one would span six years and authorise $500 billion
in spending. More important, the money would be spent differently. The way
Americans move and live might change too.

The trouble with a bold, $500 billion plan is that it requires $500 billion. The
Highway Trust Fund provides federal money for transport. It will be broke by
late August. On June 17th Ray LaHood, the transport secretary, said that he
wants to postpone the bill's reauthorisation.

Few would defend America's current transport policy. Each year congestion costs
more than $78 billion in wasted hours and petrol. Washington's main transport
strategy has been not to have one. The Department of Transportation (DoT) runs
108 different programmes. But an integrated system for planning -- one that
includes passenger rail, freight, highways and mass transport -- does not exist.
Full analyses of projects' costs or benefits are rare. Too much federal funding
for transport is just a blank cheque to the states, reckons Robert Puentes of
the Brookings Institution, a think-tank. Though America's 100 biggest
metropolitan areas account for 75% of the country's economic output, transport
money is seldom focused on them. The stimulus plan, with its need to create jobs
quickly, did little to alter this.

Concerns over volatile petrol prices, congestion, climate change, ageing
infrastructure and wasted money have prompted calls for change. Now a strategy
is emerging at last. Mr Oberstar would spend $450 billion on roads, bridges and
mass transport, 38% above current levels, and devote $50 billion to high-speed
rail. The federal government would set clear objectives, such as reducing carbon
emissions from transport, and track states' progress towards meeting them. The
108 spending programmes would be rationalised. New schemes would ease congestion
in metropolitan areas and freight networks. The review process for new projects
would be streamlined to reduce delays. A national infrastructure bank would seek
to leverage additional investment.

Such ambitious plans, however, may have to be postponed. Mr LaHood wants to
extend the old transport bill by 18 months. Even without a new bill, there may
be room for progress, says a hopeful James Corless of Transportation for
America, a reform group. The transport secretary says he would send more money
to metropolitan areas and use cost-benefit analyses to guide investment. The DoT
is already encouraging plans to build housing near transport, expand access to
buses, subways and bicycles, and reduce emissions in the process.

Still, a main question remains unanswered. The Highway Trust Fund will soon be
empty. There is no consensus on how to fill it. The gas (petrol) tax, the main
source of revenue for transport, has remained flat since 1993. Revenues have
declined as travel has ebbed in the recession and cars have become more
efficient. In the long term, congestion pricing is the best solution, but it
could take years to adopt. In the meantime the Obama administration is loth to
raise the gas tax. Siphoning money from general funds is an easy but
unsustainable answer. There may be a new vision for transport, but it will never
progress until someone is willing to pay for it.