View all Articles
Commentary By Alex Armlovich

How Trump Can Compromise on Transportation

Cities Infrastructure & Transportation

The presidential election result was surprising to many not only for its result, but for the blunt demonstration of the cultural, political and economic "coming apart" of rural and urban America. The American electorate has a lot of baggage to sort out, but in the meantime, the election did bring good news at the local level, both rural and urban: Some 49 state and local transportation proposals worth $200 billion went before voters, of which 34 passed. This general trend toward local investments in transportation is a healthy one.

“Trump should devolve more control of transportation funding to the state and local levels, but should continue and even expand the availability of federal cost-benefit analyses for large state and local projects.”

Too many issues today are decided or predominantly funded at the federal level. Transportation is one of many possible examples: The Interstate Highway System dominates the modern popular impression of how infrastructure investment is done. Yes, it makes sense to have federal coordination and planning of major transportation networks that cross state lines. But commuter transportation networks — especially transit systems — are inherently local.

Transit directly benefits two main groups: users and local property owners. If a transit project creates net value for them, it should be able to recover its costs from a combination of user fees and "value capture" — the sale of denser development rights or collection of extra property taxes on land near the rail or bus rapid transit stations.

Even when transit funds are raised from taxes levied on a local area beyond the direct beneficiaries — like with a city or county sales tax — the voters in the jurisdiction are still motivated to consider the net value of the project. Higher local taxes make a city less attractive, and that has to be offset by the value of the transit investment to the local area's commute, built environment and general livability. Local voters and local politicians are often in a better position to decide that value judgment, and to be held accountable for it, than the proverbial "Washington bureaucrats."

Not only that, "use it or lose it" federal funds restricted to particular projects can tempt local entities into making weaker...

Read the entire piece here at the Washington Examiner

______________________

Alex Armlovich is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

This piece originally appeared in Washington Examiner