WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new report released today by Reason Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Transportation for America proposes cost-effective recommendations that Congress should consider as part of the pending transportation bill that will stretch our limited transportation dollars, save money in the long run, cut congestion, and better maintain the existing system.

The jointly written report, “The Most for Our Money: Taxpayer Friendly Solutions for the Nation’s Transportation Challenges,” introduces innovative approaches that will expand the efficiency of our infrastructure while keeping costs in check.

“Needless to say, the obstacles facing our transportation system are large, especially given the current state of the economy and difficult funding climate,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America.  “But by making smart, selective choices about how our vital dollars are spent — fixing what we have first and looking for ways to better utilize the system — we can maintain our current network and better meet changing transportation needs.”

The report outlines seven specific tools – some big, some small – that would significantly improve our nation’s transportation system by reducing future congestion, plan for the future, better utilize existing capacity and increase the safety of our roads and bridges.

For example, the implementation of Transportation Scenario Planning would bring together local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and regional councils to assess forecasted data on transportation demands and develop “what-if” scenarios to indicate how potential systems would function as populations expand. Legislators, businesses and the public then assess these scenarios and come to agreement on the most favorable solution. Many communities find that changes to “business as usual” result in a more efficient transportation system at a lower cost. Scenario Planning has been used in various states and regions, and was recently embraced by Chicago in its “GO TO 2040” plan to develop a new transportation system by 2040 that would meet the city’s growing population and transportation needs.

“Staring down the barrel of trillion-dollar budget deficits, federal taxpayers are demanding more bang for their buck, and transportation spending is no exception,” said Erich W. Zimmermann, Senior Policy Analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Our work highlights a number of opportunities to do more with less. For example, scenario planning, modeled on strategic military planning, enables a community to consider various options and choose the one that best suits its fiscal and transportation needs.

Another innovative approach the report recommends is to reduce congestion on the road by expanding the use of High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes.  HOT lanes are reserved for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles. Single-occupancy vehicles wishing to access the less congested HOT lanes pay a fluctuating rate based upon the number of vehicles in the HOT lanes to ensure they keep traffic moving.  These lanes have already been introduced in cities around the country, and in Southeast Florida alone, saved commuters nearly $9 million in just six months.

“While HOT lanes and Bus Rapid Transit are certainly not new or flashy innovations, the purpose of our recommendations is to encourage Congress to rethink the way we finance and design our transportation systems and support the expansion of these types of low cost, efficient solutions,” said Shirley Ybarra, senior transportation policy analyst for Reason Foundation and former Virginia secretary of transportation. “We’re offering innovative ideas, free-market solutions, and simple fixes that will help us get the most for our money.”

The report also recommends five additional strategies, including:

• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT);
• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS);
• Intercity Buses;
• Teleworking; and
• Local Street Connectivity

“It is imperative that Congress seriously consider these tools in the next six-year transportation reauthorization,” said Zimmermann. “Implementing strategies like these is an easy way for Congress to make America’s transportation more effective, efficient and convenient without breaking the bank.”

To view the report, click here.

###

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA (T4) is the largest, most diverse coalition working on transportation reform today.  Our nation’s transportation network is based on a policy that has not been significantly updated since the 1950’s. We believe it is time for a bold new vision — transportation that guarantees our freedom to move however we choose and leads to a stronger economy, greater energy security, cleaner environment, and healthier America for all of us. We’re calling for more responsible investment of our federal tax dollars to create a safer, cleaner, smarter transportation system that works for everyone. www.t4america.org

TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan budget watchdog serving as an independent voice for American taxpayers. Our mission is to achieve a government that spends taxpayer dollars responsibly and operates within its means. We work with individuals, policymakers, and the media to increase transparency, expose and eliminate wasteful and corrupt subsidies, earmarks, and corporate welfare, and hold decision makers accountable. www.taxpayer.net

REASON FOUNDATION is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets and publisher of the critically-acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

On the website of Transportation for America, a group advocating clean transportation and smart-growth planning, there is a ticker that has been counting up since the expiration of the last surface transportation reauthorization bill. Today, the counter hits 365 days — marking a year since states had a long-term funding plan for their transportation projects.

That timeline has not been lost on anyone, as calls for a new reauthorization bill have grown stronger and the Obama administration has begun generating its plans.

The trepidation and delays surrounding the reauthorization are nothing new — the massive, six-year bills have typically been late and slow to form. But to TFA President James Corless, it is important that Congress start moving on the bill soon.

“I think everyone still believes the next authorization bill remains one of the best opportunities we have to reimagine the nation’s transportation policy,” Corless said. “This meets a multiple set of really urgent imperatives that country has to take. … We want to put people back to work and transition into a clean energy economy and we think this is one of the best vehicles to do that.”

It’s not just groups like T4 America or industry groups pushing for a long-term bill from Congress. He also pointed out that most transportation officials at the state and local levels would prefer a comprehensive reauthorization to the quick-fixes Congress has continued to pass over the last year.

Congress is almost sure to pass a shorter extension after the elections, but states say they need a full reauthorization to provide the financial security and assurance that allow them to embark on larger projects.

President Obama brought long overdue attention to the nation’s infrastructure during his speech in Milwaukee on Labor Day, calling for a $50 billion down payment to fix roads, bridges, highways and transit systems. More recently, administration officials have signaled their intention to move on reauthorization in early 2011.

There is the potential for real bipartisanship. Ohio Senator George Voinovich, a Republican, has indicated a sense of urgency toward moving on infrastructure and a willingness to look at a number of revenue sources. Previous transportation bills that, while imperfect, made important strides toward investing in multimodal transportation were passed during a Republican Congress, and the last bill was signed by President George W. Bush.

Under the leadership of Secretary Ray LaHood, USDOT has already led the way in identifying a transformative change in direction for the nation’s transportation priorities as we climb out of the 1950′s mindset that guided the last half century of spending. Plautz writes:

LaHood has promised a “sea change” in transportation planning, including offering alternatives to driving like bike lanes and public transit. The administration has also been investing in high-speed rail.

USDOT officials have also been forward-looking in articulating the crucial link between transportation and land-use policies, especially with the transportation sector accounting for nearly 70 percent of the nation’s oil use. “We’re in the climate change business whether we like it or not, so we should probably be in that discussion,” Roy Kienitz, USDOT undersecretary for policy, said in a recent town hall.

“The administration really prioritizes more options and building in more performance measures that include environmental equity and economic indicators,” Plautz quoted T4 America Director James Corless as saying. “It’s a great opportunity to begin to move in a direction that reduces the reliance on oil.”

Help us get moving on a transformation reauthorization bill today.

Do you want the count-up clock for your site or blog? Grab it today.

It seems like everything in Washington these days is politically charged — economic recovery, health care and Wall Street reform, to name a few. Unfortunately and often without good reason, transportation becomes one of them.

William Lind, a respected figure in right-wing circles, is adamant that public transportation shouldn’t be, explaining why in “Rail Against the Machine,” featured in this month’s American Conservative magazine — part of a special package in American Conservative on public transportation with contributions from a host of special authors.

Lind is the co-author with the late Paul Weyrich of a recent book called “Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation” and was featured in a Transportation for America online debate late last year. His argument is simple: there is nothing inherently conservative about favoring highways — and nothing un-conservative about alternatives to the automobile.

For starters, Lind points out, conservatives ride public transportation in large numbers. Among residents in Lake County, Illinois, a Republican enclave in suburban Chicago, 11 percent of those earning more than $75,000 per year use the METRA commuter train. They are using public transportation because they like and it meets their needs. Lind writes:

So why are conservatives using the public transportation we are told they oppose? Because being stuck in traffic isn’t fun, even if you are driving a BMW. On a commuter train or Light Rail line, you whiz past all those cars going nowhere at 50 or 60 miles per hour — reading, working on your laptop, or relaxing, instead of staring at some other guy’s bumper.

In addition to praising alternatives to driving, Lind also dismisses the oft-repeated myth that our preference for automobiles in this country is a free-market outcome. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he writes, pointing out that 100 years ago, Americans relied on a variety of systems, including intercity trains and streetcars, all of which were privately owned and free of government support.

But they were wiped out by massive government subsidies of highways. Today’s situation, where “drive or die” is the reality for most Americans, is a product of almost a century of government intervention in the transportation market.

No one, least of all Lind, is arguing that we should roll back the Interstate Highway system — still the envy of the world though we need to better maintain that investment. Many of the decisions made in the 1950s gave Americans a ticket to greater prosperity and quality of life. But Lind says we should stop pretending that all transit is subsidized, while roads and highways stand on their own as 100 percent paid for.

All transportation infrastructure requires some government support, so we ought to make sure we invest wisely and give people more options rather than less.

Lind’s case for public transportation is very pragmatic and results-oriented, but he appeals to conservatives on a philosophical level as well. Citing conservative thinker Russell Kirk, Lind calls upon prudence as a virtue, adding that “there is nothing prudent about leaving most people immobile should events beyond the pale cut off our oil supply, as happened in 1973 and 1979. …Prudence suggests the first goal of a conservative transportation policy would be to provide options, ways to get around without a car.”

Lind offers several prescriptions. First, he wants to see a National Defense Public Transportation Act that would “seek to recreate that lost network of trains and buses, bit by bit as we can afford to do so,” while giving counties a choice as to whether to participate. He also envisions a revival of urban streetcars and a greater focus on cost control in all new projects, so limited taxpayer dollars are protected and accountable.

The full collection of articles, including columns by our partner Christopher Leinberger, the president of the Congress for the New Urbanism John Norquist and others are available in the current print edition of the American Conservative or here as a pdf.

For more information on Lind’s book Moving Minds, click here.

Monday’s online debate on conservatives and public transportation was billed as a back-and-forth on why the ideological right should embrace public transportation. While differences persisted between our conservative and libertarian panelists about the impact of transit investments, another schism developed over how big a role buses should play.

Monday’s debate hosted by Transportation for America centered around the book Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, written by conservatives William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich.

Lind used his opening remarks to summarize the book and refute the oft-repeated right-wing argument that public transportation requires government subsidies while automobiles and the roads required to support them are somehow a free-market outcome.

“In fact, the dominance of the automobile is a product of massive government intervention in the marketplace,” Lind said, citing decades of federal support for the interstate highway system as streetcars remained privately operated — resulting in crushingly unfair competition. “Conservatives above all people should know what happens when you subsidize one competitor and tax the other.”

“You’re either investing in (both highways and transit) or subsidizing both,” agreed panelist John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. “You can’t have it both ways.”

Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation, was the designated mass transit critic of the debate, which he conceded was “probably accurate” but in need of further clarification. Staley is skeptical about the ability of transit to drive economic development or result in major lifestyle changes.

“I definitely think that transit has an important role to play,” Staley said, “but I think we need to be paying a lot more attention to the conditions under which transit works and when it doesn’t.”

Staley cited the Washington D.C. Metro’s Orange Line, saying transit has succeeded in dense, developed areas like Ballston in Northern Virginia but is less effective when those conditions are missing in places like New Carrollton, on the Maryland side of the District. (Didn’t the changes along the Orange line in Virginia come about largely due to that transit investment?)

Despite his misgivings about mass transit in general, Staley found himself in the unlikely position of defending buses from Lind’s attacks. Lind argued most Americans “don’t like riding buses” and that only trolleys or streetcars would persuade choice-riders to give up their cars, to which Staley responded: “If we discount buses, we’re really doing a disservice to transit generally.”

The final panelist, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) president Bill Millar, also defended buses, saying the industry is rapidly adopting new technologies like bus rapid transit and dedicated lanes, which will appeal to drivers.

Panelists answered a number of interesting questions from listeners on topics such as public-private partnerships, rural transit needs and winning over anti-tax conservatives. Overall, despite differences over the role of buses and transit’s ability to influence broader change, panelists agreed on the general importance of public transportation and the need to make practical decisions not rooted in partisanship.

Smith put it well: “As mayor, I never found a pothole or a railroad crossing that identified as a Democrat or a Republican.”

If you missed the webinar or want to listen again, you can do that with any of the links below, or on the webinars page:

• Audio/video of session with presenter slides (click to launch in a new window)
• Full audio file (.mp3)
• Full downloadable video file (.mp4)
• Read more about the Moving Minds book.
• Buy the book from Reconnecting America

This is the final post in a three-part series on Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, the subject of an online debate later today (at 3 p.m. Eastern, register now!) Panelists include co-author Lind, mass transit critic Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation; John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi; and Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

The authors identify four elements to their conservative vision for good public transport: coverage, frequency, ease of connection and a preference for rail over buses.

In a previous post, we noted the community-building element of public transportation and how that exemplified a conservative value few would fault. There is also the element of preserving — or, in some cases, reviving — what has worked in the past. Many of America’s greatest cities not only have a tradition of robust transportation infrastructure, but they also contain a historic built environment with untapped potential.

“As conservatives, we want to revive America’s older, industrial cities,” the authors note. “Older cities have lots of infrastructure that can be built on. Conservatives prefer building on what exists to creating vast systems from nothing (at vast cost).”

While lining up with many traditional conservative principles, the notions of preserving resources, building on existing traditions and making good use of what we have are goals most can support.

As conservatives, Weyrich and Lind do not speak the language of visionary social programs and even say they “desire no new technology.” Yet they reach the same conclusion as others in increasing public transportation investment as a means to achieve both economic and social ends.

We hope you’ll join us at 3 p.m. today.

UPDATED: This session has been rescheduled for 12/14. If you already signed up with the link below, you won’t need to do a thing, and should get an email from us.

“As conservatives, our first principle is the reality principle,” wrote William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich in Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation. “Public policy must be based on reality, not on the fairy-tale wishes so beloved by liberals.”

Left-leaning transit advocates need not be insulted.

The authors are simply trying to talk about public transportation in ways that appeal to right-of-center allies. If your interest is piqued, you’ll definitely want to join us for an online debate next Monday, December 7, December 14th in which a handful of experts, including co-author Lind, will discuss — and debate — the ideas contained in the book. Register for the debate here.

Reality-based planning can find appeal across political persuasions because everybody relies on America’s transportation system in one form or another. Even people who don’t use public transportation on a regular basis receive numerous benefits from its expansion, the authors point out. The reason? More rail passengers means less traffic congestion and faster commute times, a win-win.

In Salt Lake County, Utah, for instance, supporters of a referendum on light rail developed a campaign aimed at non-transit riders with the simple message: “even if you don’t ride it, you use it.” One ad focused on an automobile wheel moving along faster because of less crowded roads, while another emphasized the advantages of less traffic congestion, the authors noted.

They offer three concrete reasons in the book for why transit is good for non-riders. The first is the reduction in road gridlock. The second is “the big football game” or the car being in the shop or some other circumstance that creates the need for an alternative. The third reason is that lower congestion and better transit access actually raises property values and improves quality of life.

The authors make several peripheral points as well, such as the influence of heavy subsidies and market distortions on the prevalence of auto-oriented, low-density growth — a concept getting some notoriety in the last week.

“Every urban and suburban area should offer two alternate building codes, one the current ‘sprawl’ code and the other a code that allows traditional neighborhood design, where living, working and shopping are all close by each other,” the authors argue. “Which code will prevail? Let the market decide!”

Weyrich and Lind also reject the oft-prevailing wisdom that the “obvious” solution to traffic congestion is building more roads or lanes. When more lanes are made available, people who would not have driven otherwise make additional trips, inducing demand and resulting in yet more gridlock — the exact problem that the lanes were supposed to solve.

There is no unanimity about public transport among conservatives. One right-leaning mass transit critic is Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation. He will appear alongside Lind in Monday’s debate, along with John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi; and Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

We hope you’ll join us too. Register today.

UPDATED: This session has been rescheduled for 12/14. If you already signed up with the link below, you won’t need to do a thing, and should get an email from us about the change.

Everyone has to get from point A to point B at some point each day. Though most people don’t rate it as one of their most important issues, transportation is something that affects everyone, whether we realize it or not.

If you are not convinced that the need for transportation reform is an issue that transcends labels and partisanship, you’ll definitely want to join us for what should be an interesting online debate/discussion on Monday, December 7 December 14. A handful of experts from differing perspectives are going to discuss the viewpoints shared in a recent book by William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich called “Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation.”

William Lind, one of the book’s co-authors, will be expanding on the arguments made in his book; that public transportation is something conservatives should embrace, because it can protect national security, promote economic development, support tight-knit communities and reduce congestion; and how many libertarians and conservatives often ignore the fact that our interstate highway system has been a massively subsidized project, made possible only through heavy government intervention.

Sam Staley, a critic of mass transit who serves as director of urban and land use policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation, will provide an alternative perspective to Lind. We’ll also have John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi; and Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Join us online for the debate on Monday, December 7 December 14 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern)

The tone of the book by Lind and Weyrich, published jointly by the Free Congress Foundation and Reconnecting America, is perhaps best captured by former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, a Republican, who writes in the forward: “why do academic conservatives seem to believe that all transit is bad, when as a real-world conservative, I know it isn’t?”

Weyrich and Lind do a thorough job of knocking down myths peddled by some right-wing groups, like the “decline” of bus and light-rail. Many of these numbers are attributable to policy choices that gave preference or hefty subsidies to the automobile. Building codes and tax policy, for instance, have effectively subsidized auto-oriented growth for decades.

The authors are also unafraid to take a jab or two at some of the libertarian think tanks that regularly oppose funding for public transportation. Many of these critics decry support for light rail and bus systems as “subsidies,” but when offering their own proposals, often ignore the evidence that building more interstates or highways requires massive government support as well.

While critics like to label light rail projects as social engineering, it is hard not to look at our current transportation system without coming to the same conclusion, Weyrich and Lind argue.

“In no other society in history have places to live, places to work and places to shop been separated from one another, separated so widely that you need a car to get from one to another.”

There’s a old argument that transit must be a waste of money, because it carries only a small percentage of all trips. As Lind points out in the Streetfilms video below, the critics are disingenuously comparing apples to oranges. 1/2 of all Americans have no access to transit. And of the half that do, 1/2 of those say that the service is inadequate or unsatisfactory. If you break it down to a corridor where transit is available as a viable option to automobile travel (“transit competitive trips, as Lind calls it”), public transportation may be carrying a number closer to 40% of the total trips.

Weyrich and Lind make a thorough economic case for public transportation, offering superb guidance for making a compelling case to a conservative for supporting public transportation. But they also introduce a cultural element that is equally compelling. To them, reviving downtown streetcars or beefing up bus service does more than bring people to their destination and fuel development. It adds “flavor” and lifeblood to urban centers, spawning community. This may be a conservative sentiment, but it’s one that appeals to a broad audience.

Streetfilms had a chance to interview William Lind at the recent Rail~Volution conference in Boston about his book and produced this terrific short video that is a must-watch.

Stephen Lee Davis contributed to this post.

In Spring of 2009, we held a series of online discussions with several of our key partners about how reforming federal transportation spending is connected to reducing America’s oil dependency, helping the nation compete and thrive in the 21st century, and bringing opportunity to all Americans. (All other webinars and online discussion are also stored on this page.)

As we mentioned last week, Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, Mississippi came to Washington, DC last week to help Transportation For America officially launch our full platform with a special event in the Cannon House Office Building.

Mayor Smith provided a stirring keynote address, evoking Eisenhower’s vision of a connected America — a vision realized over the last 50 years through our interstate system that was once the envy of the world.

But times have changed, and while investing in maintenance of what we’ve already built, we now need to kick start an ambitious effort to build the second half of our transportation system: The robust intercity rail, the streets safe for walking and biking, the public transportation that provides congestion relief and transportation choices for Americans far and wide, and the rest of an interconnected 21st Century network that can keep us moving into a prosperous American future.

We were honored and delighted to have him speak at our launch event.

Continue below to read his full speech from last Thursday. Our thanks to Mayor Smith and his office for supplying us with the full text.

Transportation for America Platform Launch Event
Remarks by Meridian, Mississippi Mayor John Robert Smith
February 26, 2009

I want to thank Transportation for America for bringing together more than 200 member organizations throughout the nation to advocate for a new and sustainable transportation system.

It’s a privilege to be among you as we roll out this major bi-partisan effort to help rebuild America’s fractured and dysfunctional transportation system.

The campaign we launch today is the product of so much work by a diverse and representative body of Americans — across the political spectrum — who nevertheless share commitment to this nation.

That commitment mandates that we bring to bear all resources we can muster — federal, state and regional — and drawing on human and financial capital… beginning immediately to reconstruct the nation’s transportation system, especially the long-neglected railroad system we have allowed to atrophy.

To build a system that is indeed a system; an interconnected, functioning whole that can move both people and goods quickly, safely and cost-effectively. So that Americans can once again compete head-to-head with the rest of the developed world and regain the place of leadership we have allowed to slip from our grasp.

In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower understood the critical importance of connectivity in our vast land. And while his vision was limited to the interstate highway system, his words still ring true:

“Our unity as a nation is sustained by communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. Together, the unifying forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear — United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.”

While the federal interstate system was boldly conceived and executed, we have been reminded time and again that highways are only one component of a true transportation network. Yet time and time again we have failed to act on those lessons.

Remember the energy crisis of 1979? Following the Iranian revolution, oil production decreased and widespread panic surged through our nation of motorists. Remember the long lines at gas stations? Proposals to have drivers fill up on odd or even days depending on their tag numbers?

We needed transportation choices.

We did not act.

On September 11, 2001 we experienced the most chilling transportation failure in our nation’s history. Who can forget the photos — with the twin towers burning in the background — of New Yorkers walking across Brooklyn Bridge because that was the only way they could get away from danger.

Streets and roads were in complete gridlock and our air travel system was grounded for the first time in our nation’s history. The sudden grounding of flights reverberated across the nation. Nearly 2 million people had to cancel travel plans. Overnight mail delivery was halted. And 460 usually bustling airports were eerily empty or plunged into chaos. Our nation’s trains were the only public transportation moving in or out of our country’s largest city and our nation’s capitol. Ironically, as the Washington Post reported that day, “Officials urged Americans to consider other modes of transportation.”

We desperately needed to invest in other modes of transportation…but we did not act.

The Madrid bombings of 2004 wreaked havoc on that city’s rail system, killing nearly 200 and injuring more than 1,000 others. This transportation crisis is widely blamed for the political fallout that resulted in the defeat of the incumbent president just three days later.

Once again we saw transportation issues being inextricably linked to a nation’s political and economic stability.

The Amtrak board called for heightened rail security.

We did not act.

In the past year back in our own country…we saw gasoline prices spiral upward to hover at or spike over $4 a gallon. Amtrak ridership soared. Cities with light rail systems reported record ridership.

But for my constituents in Meridian, Mississippi and in countless small and mid-sized cities and rural areas around our country options to $4-a-gallon gas were few or nonexistent. The options were to cut back on groceries and other necessities…or stay home.

We needed transportation options for all our people.

We did not act.

Our transportation atrophy is a result of highways that are overcrowded and highway trust funds in jeopardy, airlines in meltdown, and a passenger rail system that has been shamefully neglected. This atrophy is exacerbated by all the added layers of homeland security, an energy crisis, and urgent calls for sane environmental choices in the face of a deteriorating planet. But out of crisis comes great opportunity.

With reauthorization for rail, air and a new transportation bill occurring concurrently — and an engaged public concerned over increasing gas prices, global warming and threatened choices for transportation — I believe the confluence of these events provides unique timing for a new transportation vision.

Last summer, the National Corridors Initiative convened by CEO Jim RePass in St. Louis to raise the national profile on the subject of infrastructure, and to challenge the Presidential candidates to pay attention to the deepening economic crisis being brought on in part by our failure to build America in the very fundamental way that the word “infrastructure” implies.

Very few people at that time were talking about infrastructure because it seemed an arcane and obscure concept…best left to economists or academics. The public wouldn’t get it. But we gathered to make the point we make here again today—infrastructure is destiny.

“The St. Louis Statement” that came out of that gathering says in essence:

“The silence of those now running for the office of President on the growing crisis in our nation’s transportation infrastructure is deafening. We have all heard about the crisis in the economy, and changes in the earth’s climate brought on by global warming, but we have heard nothing about one key element that underlies both of those issues: the movement of goods and people, our very freedom of mobility. Yet few national issues offer a greater opportunity for imaginative change.”

And we asked the candidates three questions:

1. Do you understand that transportation must be treated as a system, not merely a collection of competing modes, when setting and executing policy?
2. How do you propose to restore our transportation system to health?
3. And what are you going to do, specifically, to obtain the funding needed to do that?

As the campaign progressed, Barack Obama began to hammer on the theme of infrastructure and its importance to our future. Since his election, the President has continued in that vein and just last week in signing the stimulus bill he committed himself and this nation to rebuilding our crumbling highways, investing in our overtaxed air system, and building a true high-speed rail network that will allow America to once again take its place in the leadership of world economies.

To reach that laudable goal, those of us who advocate for transportation and the business community must work together to get thousands of people back to work now — and build a transportation system for today and tomorrow that will lower the cost of doing business in America, ease the transportation congestion crisis and the wear-and-tear punishment of highways, integrate with major airports across America and help restore our nation to health. And we need the support of a Congress whose members reach out not only across the aisles separating their parties but across the geography separating their states.

It is time once again to reach across the figurative aisle — from south to north and from east to west — and get this country moving again.

And I see great promise. My fellow mayors are the most effective voice for our American cities on Capitol Hill. They understand that transportation is about connecting from city center to city center. I see mayors of cities large and small energized and committed to addressing these issues.

On the state level, I see states like Wisconsin, Illinois, California and North Carolina investing in all modes of transportation.

I see the chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Committee of the Mississippi Legislature passing a bill appropriating state funds to match federal dollars for high-speed rail development in my state.

I see this body convening the best minds in the transportation world in open discussion and debate about our shared transportation future and crafting recommendations for our leaders.

All of these things give me great hope that we will finally see modes of transportation as feeding one another, not competing, as interconnected partners, not isolated silos unto themselves.

To cement those connections and ensure that the modes of transportation can and will support and sustain each other, we must establish clear national transportation objectives that will lead to the attainment of critical goals: Like energy security, climate protection, access to transportation opportunities, and the safety and health of our people.

Consider this simple possibility: A citizen in Newton, Mississippi buys a ticket and boards a bus, his bag with him, and a small container of La-Z-Boy recliners, made in his hometown, on the back of the same bus.

Both passenger and freight travel to Meridian’s multi-modal station where, still using the same ticket, that passenger and his bag board a higher-speed Amtrak Crescent bound for the international airports in either Atlanta or New Orleans, with the container of La-Z-Boys on the same train. At either airport he boards a jet bound for Orly Airport in Paris — still with the same ticket and with the La-Z-Boys in the cargo hold — and when he arrives his bag is with him. What a novel concept.

With the serious and sobering issues facing our country today, the timing is right for this gathering. But if this campaign is merely another convocation to puzzle over transportation’s navel and not act, then we have wasted time and energy.

These issues are complex and daunting… but we must act and act now. Our children and grandchildren will hold us accountable.

To fail them is to leave our great nation… as President Eisenhower warned… “a mere alliance of many separate parts.”

This we cannot do.