Subscribe to our free, weekly email newsletter!


Rockefeller and Lautenberg introduce new transportation infrastructure bill

By Jeff Berman, Group News Editor
March 04, 2013

So far in 2013 there has been a flurry of activity regarding transportation infrastructure on multiple fronts.

Here are a few quick examples:
-“The President’s Plan to Make America a Magnet for Jobs by Investing in Infrastructure” introduced by the White House in mid-February;
-the Department of Transportation’s National Freight Advisory Committee; and
-an atypical triumvirate of Washington power players—President Barack Obama and two always-at-each-other’s-throats power brokers representing business and labor—U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka—all backing a “Fix-it-First” infrastructure improvement program, which is a core component of the aforementioned White House plan

But not to be outdone are Senators Jay Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security Subcommittee whom last week introduced a bill—The American Infrastructure Fund Act of 2013—that they said would leverage federal investment to rebuild and expand transportation infrastructure and create American jobs.

At the heart of the bill is a $5 billion fund that would incentivize private, state and regional investments in transportation projects around the country by providing eligible projects with financial assistance.

The major aspects of The American Infrastructure Fund Act of 2013 include:
-establish within the Department of Transportation (DOT) a Fund designed to leverage federal dollars to incentivize private investment in transportation projects that maintain American economic competitiveness, which would be authorized at $5 billion for fiscal years 2014 and 2015;
-using a variety of tools, such as loans and loan guarantees, to provide financial assistance to eligible projects that would be evaluated in an objective and transparent manner to encourage private, State, regional, and local entities to make capital investments into these critical projects;
-defining eligible types of projects including rail lines, marine ports, pipelines, airports, highways, bridges, public transportation systems, and other transportation-related projects. The Fund would be designed to allow it to broaden its investment portfolio in the future into other infrastructure projects, including telecommunications, energy, and water projects; and
-authorize a multimodal National Infrastructure Investment Grant program within DOT at $600 million for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, which would provide funds to build new or improve existing transportation infrastructure.

As previously proposed bills and plans have done, this one is also replete with good ideas and concepts to rebuild what needs to be rebuilt but to also help spur economic growth as well.

Given the interminable partisan bickering in Washington, D.C, much of which has simply morphed into “noise” by many, good ideas and welcome and can often be quick to notice.

What has not been slow to notice, clearly, have been the ongoing stops and starts regarding our nation’s transportation infrastructure and how to properly execute on a plan to again make it a national asset.

Funding, if course, is always an issue and will continue to be. We all know the federal gasoline tax has not been raised for some time now, right? Grin.

But it really is not a laughing matter at all.

As the Senators point out, investment into U.S. transportation infrastructure has “lagged in recent decades and America has developed an infrastructure investment backlog.” They were quick to point out, too, that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates a cumulative 5-year investment need of $2.2 trillion into the country’s rails, roads, bridges, ports, transit systems, and other infrastructure.

What’s more, the ASCE gave U.S. infrastructure a “D” grade. And on top of that, it estimates that if this investment backlog is not dealt with in a meaningful way (i.e. if the money is not there, which more or less is the current predicament), then the U.S. will cumulatively lose more than $3.1 trillion in GDP and $1.1 trillion in total trade. Significant numbers to be sure.

It is not all doom and gloom, though, we all know what the challenges are and really have for some time now. Legislation and calls for action are good steps. What is needed now is execution. Last summer’s MAP-21 was a step in the right direction. Now we need Washington to keep it going in the right direction. Is that asking too much? Stay tuned.

About the Author

Jeff Berman headshot
Jeff Berman
Group News Editor

Jeff Berman is Group News Editor for Logistics Management, Modern Materials Handling, and Supply Chain Management Review. Jeff works and lives in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, where he covers all aspects of the supply chain, logistics, freight transportation, and materials handling sectors on a daily basis. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


Subscribe to Logistics Management magazine

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your
entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Recent Entries

Working with research partner, The Economist Intelligence Unit, the IBM Institute for Business Value surveyed 1,023 global procurement executives from 41 countries in North America, Europe and Asia.

U.S. Carloads were down 7.8 percent annually at 259,544, and intermodal volume was off 15.7 percent for the week ending February 21 at 213,617 containers and trailers.

The Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Logistics (BTS) reported this week that U.S. trade with its North America Free Trade Agreement partners Canada and Mexico in December 2014 was up 5.4 percent annually at $95.8 billion. This marks the 11th straight month of annual increases, according to BTS officials.

While the volume decline was steep, there was numerous reasons behind it, including terminal congestion, protracted contract negotiations between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and other supply chain-related issues, according to POLA officials.

Truckload rates for the month of January, which measures truckload linehaul rates paid during the month, saw a 7.9 percent annual hike, and intermodal rates dropped 0.3 percent compared to January 2014, which the report pointed out marks the first annual intermodal pricing decline since December 2013.

Article Topics

News · All topics

Comments

Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.


© Copyright 2015 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc • 111 Speen Street, Ste 200, Framingham, MA 01701 USA