The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: public transportation
Biden’s Big History Lesson For Republicans

Biden’s Big History Lesson For Republicans

Embedded in Joe Biden's first speech to Congress was a crucial lesson in our nation's economic history that every American ought to understand.

Explaining why he proposes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the construction of new power grids, broadband internet connections and transportation systems, the president reminded us of the public investments that have "transformed America" into a prosperous world power. It is a lesson too often and too easily forgotten amid the incessant propaganda, imbibed by almost all of us from an early age, about the "magic of the free market," the "dead hand of government" and various equally hoary conservative cliches.

Markets are marvelous, but government has been essential in growing and regulating the economy from the republic's very beginning. Biden cited the transcontinental railroad and the interstate highway system, the construction of public schools and colleges that enabled universal education, the medical and scientific advances that sprang from the space program and defense industries - but his speech could well have continued for quite a while in that same vein. Political leaders from Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy all have promoted public investment in research, infrastructure and people as the prerequisites of progress, and sometimes even national survival.

What progress requires, however, changes in every generation along with technology and society. Today, we face rapid climate change that jeopardizes the future of human civilization, creating threats that range from flood and fire to pandemic, famine, drought and mass migration. We must swiftly rebuild our basic infrastructure, which is crumbling after decades of neglect. And we have to bring the entire country into the modern digital economy before inequality permanently damages our democracy.

When Republicans say Biden wants to spend too much on a "liberal wish list" and we should do nothing more than repave roads and repair bridges, because that's "real infrastructure," their complaints only expose their ignorance. The expansion of rural broadband is just as necessary as fixing a bridge on a country road, and the replacement of lead pipes in city water systems is just as critical as filling potholes on an urban highway. The long list of projects enumerated in Biden's proposal, from new schools to veterans hospitals, from upgrading water systems to capping old oil and gas wells, and yes, for providing child and elder care — these are harbingers of a future that works.

We ought to have started this transformation years ago, even before the former guy uttered his false promises about infrastructure. But interest rates are still low — and more importantly, the billionaires whose fortunes derive from public investment can certainly pay for its upkeep and expansion. Biden correctly observed that while most Americans suffered from lost jobs and income during the pandemic, the richest families saw their wealth increase by a trillion dollars, after pocketing a Trump tax cut that awarded them trillions more. Are we all in this together? Not unless the super-rich pay their fair share.

It's nice that some Republicans — though not all, apparently — understand that we can't just let everything fall apart because we don't like taxes or we distrust government. Unfortunately, their comprehension of what infrastructure means is quaintly out of date. While the president warmly welcomed Republican proposals because he's interested in achieving a measure of bipartisan agreement, what they have offered so far is absurdly inadequate.

So, he offered a clear warning as well. Doing nothing — like the Republicans and their incompetent leader over the past four years — is not an option.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Is This The Way States Can Sell Tax Hikes For Transportation?

Is This The Way States Can Sell Tax Hikes For Transportation?

By Elaine S. Povich, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — In a conservative Republican state, how does a governor raise taxes, issue bonds and ask local taxpayers to pay even more for transportation? According to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, you do it by building a coalition of business, industry, churches and educational groups united on one goal: moving people around the state.

“You have to set the table and then you have to deliver,” Herbert, a Republican, said.

“Setting the table” involved at least two years of forging a coalition of interested parties, all of which rely on transportation, to support raising money to build and rebuild Utah’s multifaceted transportation system.

And this year, everyone was called on to “deliver.” In March, Herbert signed a bill passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature that raises the existing 24.5 cents per gallon state gas tax by about 5 cents to pay for state infrastructure projects, despite complaints from some quarters that, because the state has a surplus, it shouldn’t be raising any taxes. The new tax is structured to rise with inflation.

In addition, voters in 17 of 29 Utah counties will be asked in November to approve a 0.25-cent increase in their counties’ sales tax to fund local transportation projects that the state doesn’t pay for, such as city street repairs and local interchanges.

Although nearly every state is struggling to maintain and rebuild its transportation system, Utah is one of only seven states where the legislature this year approved an increase in gas taxes to do it, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning research and advocacy group that focuses on policy. Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota and Washington were the others.

Sean Slone, director of transportation and infrastructure policy at the Council of State Governments, a nonprofit research group, says Utah’s method of selling a tax hike wouldn’t necessarily work in all states, but it is a good model for some.

“Part of it is we have good leadership in the (state) House and the Senate,” Herbert said in explaining how he accomplished his goal during a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., recently.

But that’s only part of it. The leadership needed its courage bolstered to vote for an increase in the gas tax, which hadn’t been raised in 18 years. To help build that courage, Herbert and his allies fanned out across the state, roping in business and industry.

“We have great Chamber of Commerce members who say, ‘For us to be successful in business, we have to have infrastructure that works,'” Herbert said. “We heard loud and clear from the business community that we need to have a transportation infrastructure that gets us from point A to point B with little discomfort and congestion.

“It made it easier politically, for the Legislature to do it with the support of the business community and the Chamber of Commerce, education and others out there who are stakeholders and endorsed a commonsense adjustment in our taxation for transportation.”

Herbert also had the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan, which sets out what needs to be fixed or built over the next five years to keep up with growth and prioritizes the requirements for transit, highways, bridges and rural roads in the state. The plan also includes transportation projects in national parks, national forests and Indian reservations. These are important in a state where the federal government owns 70 percent of the land.

“They sort of have a unique process in Utah,” Slone said. “They got a lot of different stakeholders to weigh in and produced a document that is guiding their decisions, and their goal to raise these additional funds and commit these dollars to transportation. It was a universal effort, and legislators and other folks really tout this as a founding document.”

Utah’s transportation program isn’t all about repairing what it has.

The state’s population is expected to nearly double by 2050, from 2.9 million to nearly 5 million people, a combination of large, growing Mormon families and an expected influx of new industry and accompanying residents from other states. So accommodating additional traffic from newcomers was important in planning and selling higher taxes in a state that relies on more than 43,000 miles of roads and 5,800 miles of state-maintained highways.

In addition, the Salt Lake City metro system — which is known as TRAX and transports about 68,100 riders daily — is slated for expansion.

Utah couldn’t count on the federal government to solve its transportation needs.

Between 2001 and 2012, federal funds made up 34.6 percent of Utah’s transportation budget — the lowest of any state, according to a study by Transportation for America, an interest group made up of political, business and civic leaders pushing transportation funding.

Congress also has left the federal gas tax, 18.4 cents per gallon, untouched for 21 years, passing stopgap highway funding measures in recent years with no comprehensive plan to keep federal highway funding apace with inflation. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates the federal gas tax has lost nearly 40 percent of its value since the last time it was raised.

In a February report, “Funding Challenges in Highway and Transit,” The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew funds Stateline) said that state gas tax revenue to fund transportation also has declined by 15 percent from 2002 to 2012.

This isn’t the first time Utah has sought to tackle its transportation needs. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Utah “by almost any measure” has one of the “most successful transportation organizations in the country,” winning praise for how it has helped people move around the state.

As far back as 1997, the state came up with a plan for future transportation funding that did not count on the federal government and its gas-tax-funded Highway Trust Fund. With its eyes on the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah designated 42 highway projects that would not have been completed without more funding and increased the gas tax from 19 cents per gallon to 24.5 cents per gallon, putting the money into a special highway fund. Most of the projects were completed before the Olympic flame was lit.

In 2009, Utah issued $2.2 billion in bonds to pay for projects, including a $1.7 billion reconstruction and expansion of Interstate 15, the major north-south artery between Salt Lake City and the Provo-Orem area in Utah County, one of the fastest growing counties in the nation.

Utah also has led in construction innovation. Consider the Sam White Bridge demolition and reconstruction, which was part of the I-15 project and is considered a model for building bridges quickly so that traffic isn’t disrupted for days, weeks or months.

The old two-span bridge was torn down and a new bridge moved into place in less than 24 hours in 2011. The new bridge was constructed on a “bridge farm” on the east side of I-15. Then, hydraulic jacks on wheels, controlled by a joystick, were used to lift the 3.8 million pound bridge, move it across eight freeway lanes, and lower it into place. It was done overnight and the bridge was bolted down and ready for traffic by 7 a.m.

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a 38-year Senate veteran, said that the population in his state is growing rapidly and the state is constricted by federal land, giving rise to innovation.

“Utah is way ahead of most states,” the Republican senator said. “We have an electorate that believes we want to have a good state and have things that work.”

Photo: When traffic gets this bad and roads deteriorate, the government needs to step in — even if it’s politically unpopular. REUTERS/Mike Blake 

Lower Fares No Substitute For Higher Wages

Lower Fares No Substitute For Higher Wages

The idea of helping low-income people by subsidizing their fares on public transportation sounds noble. It truly does. But as a means of confronting the national problem of meager paychecks, it’s rather misdirected.

All eyes are now on Seattle, which has started offering discount fares to riders whose household income does not exceed twice the federal poverty level. The growing gap in wealth between the affluent and the working poor is a national woe — especially in boom cities like Seattle, where rising real estate values are forcing lower-paid workers to commute from the suburbs.

“It’s people doing really well and people making espresso for people who are doing really well” is how King County Executive Dow Constantine, also head of Sound Transit, described the situation.

But one might then ask, Why aren’t the people making espresso doing better?

Public transportation is typically funded through the fares users pay and considerable government subsidies. So the Seattle area’s reduced-fare ORCA Lift program is being supported by the taxpayers and the better-off passengers.

On one level, that sounds reasonable. But on another, it amounts to an accommodation of inadequate pay. The public is easing the market pressure on the employers to boost pay.

Walmart has never been shy about connecting its low-paid workers with Medicaid or food stamps — in effect asking the taxpayers to subsidize its labor force and its bottom line. Four of Sam Walton’s heirs currently sit in the top 10 on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, with a combined net worth of close to $160 billion.

There’s been much heralding of Walmart’s recent decision to raise its entry-level wage to $10 an hour (because of a tightening labor market). That’s still less than the federal minimum wage in 1968, which would be $10.58 in today’s dollars.

Back in Seattle, Basro Jama, a Somali immigrant supporting two children, earns less than $25,000 a year after taxes working a full-time job, according to The New York Times. She commutes from her home in Tukwila to her assignment in downtown Seattle cleaning offices. Thanks to her new reduced-fare card, she saves $10 a week, or nearly 2.5 percent of her paycheck.

Why in heaven’s name is a full-time worker in an expensive part of the country taking home only $25,000? The real estate barons charging sky-high rents to top-paid professionals can darn well hand their workers another $10 a week so they can travel to the job. They’re the ones who should be giving Jama a 2.5 percent raise.

Or perhaps they’d like to vacuum and clean the office tower toilets themselves.

San Francisco has long run a reduced-fare program for the poor, but few people have signed up for it. That’s largely because the means-testing adds a messy layer of bureaucracy to what should be a simple transaction of buying a ticket or fare card.

Obviously, the applicants must provide documentation of their low income. The ORCA Lift program requires different income verification documents — if you are in certain benefits programs, if you have no income, if you are employed — plus basic identification. And other people must be hired to oversee the process of issuing the cards.

A higher minimum wage makes so much more sense than means-testing for certain public services. Seattle has been a national leader in raising its minimum, currently $15 an hour. That way, the beneficiaries of the workers’ labor are paying for it.

There’s been an unfortunate mindset across the land that employers of low-skilled workers have a right to labor at a fixed low price. Let’s not validate it.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: Lee LeFever via Flickr

More Buses Bring More Scrutiny From State Regulators

More Buses Bring More Scrutiny From State Regulators

By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org

WASHINGTON — As the number of bus passengers approaches the number of U.S. airline passengers, transportation experts are taking a closer look at the widely disparate state efforts to make sure buses are safe.

States are responsible for enforcing federal safety laws for buses that cross state lines, but they take very different approaches. Nearly half the states require annual inspections; the rest do not. Some spend almost all of at least $165 million in federal inspection money to look at trucks, while others focus more heavily on buses.

Others are more aggressive at conducting roadside inspections.

States also have different rules for buses that do not fall under federal jurisdiction, because they operate only within the state.

Industry leaders and safety advocates want more consistent enforcement among states and within states, although they differ on the tactics. Congress has also asked the U.S. Department of Transportation to study whether more uniform state laws are needed.

“We want to make sure everybody who is in the business is performing at the same level,” said Peter Pantuso, president and CEO of the American Bus Association, which represents about 1,000 bus companies.

The discussion over state enforcement methods comes as federal regulatory efforts are under scrutiny. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in particular, came under fire after 28 people died in motor coach accidents in 2011.

Since then, federal regulators have stepped up inspections, tried to better identify rogue operators and started requiring seat belts on new buses.

The scrutiny comes as industry studies show American buses provide more than 700 million passenger trips a year, compared to 720 million on airlines. There are about 4,000 bus companies providing interstate service, according to federal regulators.

Federal regulators targeted companies last year that they deemed to pose significant risks. As part of that eight-month effort, they shut down 52 bus companies and removed 340 buses from the road.

The number of people who die in bus accidents has remained steady in recent years at around 20 a year. But when crashes do occur, they can be devastating, because of the number of passengers on board.

Indiana state Senator Tom Wyss was surprised what he learned about his state’s bus safety laws after a church bus crash in Indianapolis last summer left a youth pastor, his pregnant wife and a chaperon dead.

The Republican senator, who chairs his chamber’s transportation committee, started looking into the state’s inspection requirements, because the driver initially blamed faulty brakes for the accident. Investigators later found no mechanical problems with the bus, and determined that high speed was a cause of the accident.

Wyss discovered bus owners in Indiana do not have to show the state that their vehicles were inspected in the last year.

He was particularly worried about buses owned by churches, scouting groups and other nonprofit organizations, which face less scrutiny under federal regulations than commercial buses.

“When you get on a Greyhound or some other bus, you know that puppy has been inspected. But what about this one here? It turns out … we don’t check buses that are private buses,” he said.

So Wyss pushed a bill through the Senate requiring bus owners to show state police proof of inspection when they get their license plates renewed. The bill passed the Senate 33-14 and is now in the Indiana House.

“The state has a responsibility, if we’re going to license [buses], to make sure they are as safe as can be,” Wyss said.

If the bill passes, about 2,100 private buses would need annual inspections, legislative analysts estimate. Wyss’ bill would allow buses to be evaluated by private inspectors, although the Indiana State Police could set up its own program. The state police already inspect school buses, and did 16,000 of those inspections last year.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia required commercial vehicles to undergo state-approved annual inspections in 2012, according to J.J. Keller and Associates, Inc., a private company that consults with businesses on regulation compliance. Bus owners in other states must still have their vehicles inspected for federal purposes, but do not have to report results to the state.

Besides applying only to buses that cross state lines, federal rules are also less strict for the owners of private buses — like a musician’s tour bus or a church bus — when it comes to keeping records of annual inspections.

Nearly two years ago, Congress told the U.S. Department of Transportation to study whether to require states to put in place mandatory inspection laws. The provision was part of the larger highway bill Congress passed in 2012. It set a deadline for the report to be issued by next year.

Pantuso, the bus association’s president, said a uniform standard would be fairer, because it would discourage unscrupulous companies from registering in states with low standards to avoid scrutiny.

Will Schaefer, director of vehicle programs at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Association, a group of agencies that inspect trucks and buses, said federal officials should also standardize the criteria for evaluating whether a truck or bus passes inspection.

“Unfortunately, the way the federal regulations have evolved, we don’t have a very specific guideline of what needs to be accomplished during that inspection,” he said.

Many safety advocates want buses inspected, not just in garages, but on the roads they travel.

“Annual inspections are a snapshot,” said Henry Jasny, vice president for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “On-site inspections are not expected. … You can get a much better feel of how [a bus] is used. It is a more real-world test of whether the company is following all of the rules, the driver is fit and the bus is in good shape.”

A federal law passed in 2005 prohibits police from pulling over buses with passengers on board for the sole purpose of an inspection. Random inspections are supposed to take place only at a route origin or destination to protect passengers and prevent delays.

Police can order an inspection on the road for a bus carrying passengers, but only when they have already stopped it for a violation, such as speeding or a broken tail light.

The restrictions on roadside inspections make it harder to keep tabs of carriers that want to avoid attention, Jasny said. “It’s a moving target. Companies change the locations of where they pick up or drop off passengers,” he said.

Trucks, which are subject to many of the same laws as buses, can be randomly inspected by police at weigh stations.

Pantuso, the bus association president, said states with effective inspection programs, such as California, Connecticut and Massachusetts, regularly inspect the records and buses of companies of all sizes. “The ones that do it right, do it consistently,” he said.

Photo: Seattleye via Flickr