Fwd: Eight Questions for Transportation Secretary Nominee Anthony Foxx's confirmation hearings

[jbs...@comcast.net]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: jbs...@comcast.net
Sent: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:11:13 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Eight Questions for Transportation Secretary Nominee Anthony  Foxx's confirmation hearings

Some very good questions - I'd love to hear the
answers, perhaps on C-Span. I wish ATRA would
formulate some and send them in to relevant members of the committee.
-----------------------------------

>>
>>Innovation Briefs
>>
>>Vol. 24, No. 8 www.innobriefs.com
>>
>>May 22. 2013
>>Today,  the Senate Commerce Committee will hold
>>a confirmation hearing for Mayor Anthony Foxx,
>>President Obama's designated choice for the
>>next United States Secretary of Transportation.
>>Confronting Sec. Foxx during his tenure  will
>>be the challenge of steering the federal
>>transportation program through another
>>reauthorization  while facing a climate of
>>severe budget constraints and managing a
>>program that no longer has a clearly defined
>>mission or purpose.  Reproduced below are eight
>>questions,---as formulated by the Heritage
>>Foundation's Emily Goff, and reprinted with her
>>permission--- that would test Foxx's
>>willingness to break with the past and lead in a new direction.
>>
>>
>>Eight Questions for Transportation Secretary Nominee Anthony Foxx
>>
>>by Emily Goff
>>
>>
>>----------
>>
>>If confirmed as the next Secretary of
>>Transportation, Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx
>>will have opportunities to break with the
>>business-as-usual transportation policy that
>>revolves around Washington and special-interest
>>politics. It is important to the confirmation
>>process to understand Foxx's position on
>>existing programs and to what extent he agrees
>>with the Administration's centrally run,
>>command-and-control transportation policy.
>>
>>Thus, at the upcoming confirmation hearing,
>>members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and
>>Transportation Committee should ask Foxx the following 8 questions:
>>
>>1. What is the appropriate federal role in
>>transportation policy? Could Washington hand
>>over certain activities to states or
>>localities? The federal government currently
>>dictates much of states' transportation
>>policy---for instance, requiring prevailing
>>wages under the Davis-Bacon Act (which
>>increases construction costs) and mandating
>>that states spend a portion of their share of
>>federal gas tax revenues on "transportation
>>alternatives" such as bicycle paths, sidewalks,
>>scenic overlook construction, roadside
>>landscaping, and preservation of historic
>>transportation facilities, even if states have
>>more pressing highway or bridge project needs.
>>The next Transportation Secretary should
>>support policy reforms that turn control over
>>and flexibility in how highway dollars are
>>spent to state and local officials, because
>>they know their legitimate transportation
>>priorities better than Washington bureaucrats do.
>>
>>2. How do you believe Highway Trust Fund
>>revenues should be spent? What do you think the
>>goals of the federal highway program should be?
>>Federal highway funds should be spent on
>>programs that improve mobility and safety and
>>mitigate traffic congestion cost-effectively.
>>The motorists and truckers paying the gas tax
>>that supports the highway program should get
>>something in return---increased highway
>>capacity and safe roads, not local projects
>>such as bicycle paths and trolley cars, which
>>do not alleviate traffic congestion.
>>
>>3. Do you think spending on transit is an
>>effective use of federal taxpayer dollars?
>>Despite receiving federal subsidies for three
>>decades, transit has failed to relieve traffic
>>congestion, which actually has worsened over
>>the life of the federal transit program,
>>evidenced by increased peak travel times in the
>>nation's 51 metropolitan areas. Further,
>>supporters overstate the economic activity,
>>jobs, and environmental benefits produced by
>>transit projects. Misguided federal spending on
>>transit has diverted funding away from highway
>>and bridge projects, which would more
>>cost-effectively mitigate congestion and boost
>>safety. Transit itself is largely concentrated
>>in just six cities (New York, Boston, Chicago,
>>Philadelphia, Washington, and San Francisco), making it truly a local program.
>>
>>4. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
>>described his livability initiative as a way to
>>"coerce people out of the cars." Do you endorse
>>such government intrusion into Americans'
>>lives? LaHood defines livability as "being able
>>to take your kids to school, go to work, see a
>>doctor, drop by the grocery or post office, go
>>out to dinner and a movie, and play with your
>>kids in a park, all without having to get in
>>your car." To reach this goal, the
>>Administration must herd Americans into denser
>>urban living, deter them from using
>>automobiles, and nudge them onto streetcars and
>>bicycles. Yet livability by this definition
>>embraces outdated, 20th-century modes of
>>transportation and ignores the reality that
>>trolley cars and bicycles would not help
>>Americans get to work faster or make grocery
>>shopping quicker; increased safety and capacity on roads would.
>>
>>5. Do you agree with the Administration's
>>high-speed rail vision? If so, how would you
>>pay for it? President Obama's fiscal year (FY)
>>2014 budget requests $6.6 billion as part of a
>>five-year, $40 billion proposal to build and
>>maintain passenger rail. Obama sells it as
>>"establishing a world-class High Speed
>>Intercity Passenger Rail system for America,"
>>but much of this spending would only upgrade
>>current intercity passenger rail. If high-speed
>>rail were financially viable, the private
>>sector would not have passed it up in the
>>absence of federal subsidies. Nor would the
>>governors of Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, and
>>Wisconsin have rejected federal funding for
>>high-speed rail lines in their states.
>>
>>6. Do you support subjecting the operation of
>>Amtrak's passenger rail lines to competition to
>>lower costs and save taxpayer money? In FY
>>2013, Amtrak will receive $469 million in
>>operating subsidies, $958 million in capital
>>and debt service grants, and $118 million in
>>Hurricane Sandy disaster relief, totaling $1.55
>>billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Congress
>>should do to Amtrak what the Virginia Railway
>>Express, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
>>Authority, and the Maryland Area Rail Commuter
>>did: open operation of the rail lines to
>>competitive bidding. In all three cases, the
>>winning bids were dramatically lower than Amtrak's bids.
>>
>>7. Do you support federal "stimulus," such as
>>the $50 billion in immediate infrastructure
>>"investments" included in President Obama's
>>budget? "Immediate" does not describe the
>>projects funded by the 2009 stimulus bill,
>>which even the President admitted that were not
>>so shovel-ready. Stimulus does not generate job
>>growth in the aggregate, but it does require
>>Washington to spend money it does not have by
>>borrowing, which removes money from the more efficient private sector.
>>
>>8. Should the federal government create a
>>national infrastructure bank? President Obama
>>and some lawmakers have proposed creating a
>>national infrastructure bank to finance
>>capital-intensive transportation projects, and
>>they have justified it with promises of jobs
>>and economic growth. Banks give out loans,
>>which are repaid, but this bank would also
>>award grants, which are not. Thus, it would not
>>be a true bank, but it would duplicate existing
>>loan and grant programs. This government-run
>>entity would further concentrate transportation
>>decisions in Washington and reduce state
>>flexibility and control. Congress would also
>>have to rely on deficit spending to finance the
>>bank, which the country cannot afford. The
>>government should not be in the banking
>>business, because it would transfer more risk
>>to taxpayers and encourage cronyism.
>>
>>Needed: Fiscal Responsibility and a States-Oriented Perspective
>>If confirmed, Foxx could not reverse course
>>overnight, but he could advocate policies and
>>programs that scale back the federal role in
>>transportation policy in favor of greater state
>>flexibility and control, thus increasing
>>accountability and freeing the states to meet
>>their unique transportation needs.
>>
>>Emily J. Goff is a Research Associate in the
>>Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
>>
>>###
>>
>>Note: the NewsBriefs can also be accessed at
>>www.infrastructureUSA.org
>>;   They are often posted  on
>>www.newgeography.com;
>>www.cascadiaprospectus.org;  heartland.org;
>>and the National Journal Transportation Experts
>>Blog
>>(http://transportation.nationaljournal.com).
>>A listing of all recent NewsBriefs can be found
>>at www.innobriefs.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Please feel free to forward or reprint this
>>item with appropriate citation. All
>>correspondence, including requests to
>>unsubscribe, should be addressed to: C. Kenneth
>>Orski, Editor/Publisher, email:
>>kor...@verizon.net.
>>tel: 301.299.1996;  fax: 301.299.4425. Please
>>make sure that your email account is set up to
>>accept incoming mail from kor...@verizon.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>__._,_.___
>>Reply
>>via web post
>>Reply
>>to sender
>>Reply
>>to group
>>Start
>>a New Topic
>>Messages
>>in this topic (1)
>>Recent Activity:
>>Visit
>>Your Group
>>THE TRANSPORT POLICY DISCUSSION GROUP
>>
>>Sponsored by The Public Purpose
>>
>>http://www.publicpurpose.com
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups
>>
>>Switch to:
>>>>Delivery Format: Traditional>Text-Only,
>>>>Delivery: Digest>Daily Digest •
>>Unsubscribe
>>• Terms of
>>Use •
>>>>on the redesigned individual mail v1>Send us Feedback
>>.
>>
>>__,_._,___
>
>
>- Jerry Schneider -
> Innovative Transportation Technologies
>    http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>


- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
   http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans