The mantra in the infrastructure world is that public works aren’t Democratic or Republican or even Independent. Bridges, sewers, water mains are by their very nature non-partisan — perhaps that may explain their neglect for the past half-century. However, all of a sudden, a chorus of Republicans (Schwarzenegger, Hagel, Crist and others) has joined with Democrats (Rendell, Dodd, Oberstar and others) and Independents (led by Bloomberg) in championing an increased federal role in infrastructure management.

Yet, in this year’s presidential election, infrastructure barely gets a mention. As I delve beyond the sound bites and into the candidates’ historical references, utterances, and platforms, distinctions between the two candidates become significant. Here we focus on transportation:

McCain’s Transportation Policy

No Pork
Senator John McCain has made it crystal clear that he opposes earmarks or “pork barrel” spending. His contention is that without pork, money can be used more efficiently. In a September 2007 statement he said, “The federal and state governments must prioritize transportation spending to focus projects with the most need rather than building ‘bridges to nowhere.’” He is just one of only four senators who did not vote for the current transportation bill (passed in 2005) saying that it was too laden with pork.

Lower Gas Tax = Less Money for Highways
He has also voted several times to reduce the existing federal funding source for most highway projects: the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by the federal gas tax. In 1998 and 2000 he voted to reduce or eliminate the gasoline tax. When gas prices hit $4/gallon earlier this year, he proposed a “gas tax holiday” which would have reduced the trust fund by $8-10 billion.

Pro Airports, No Trains, Pro Alt-Energy
In 2003, as Senate Commerce Committee Chair, he sponsored a bill increasing funds for airport construction. McCain has made it clear that he would eliminate federal support for Amtrak and “allow for its privatization.” He is supportive of alternative energy research and proposed a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for cars.

Obama’s Transportation Policy

Infrastructure Fund
Senator Barack Obama has called for a National Infrastructure Bank funded by the federal government to the tune of $60 billion over 10 years. The intent is to leverage the investment through bonds and private sector participation to about a quarter trillion dollars. He would also use some of the revenue associated with winding down the war in Iraq.

Pork Adjustment, Pro-Trains, Efficiency Measures
His approach to pork barrel items is to shed light on them by disclosing the legislator who sponsors the earmark and require written justification 3 days in advance of Senate approval. Obama is a supporter of Amtrak and has called for high-speed rail between urban centers as well as strengthening our domestic rail freight capacity. He is in favor of federal support for urban transit and has called for reforming the tax code to give transit riders equal benefits to drivers. Obama would require the Department of Transportation to “consider” energy conservation as a condition of receiving federal transportation dollars. He has called for greater efficiency in air travel by getting the FAA “to work cooperatively with the frontline air traffic controllers.” He also supports modernization of the shipping channels on the Mississippi and Illinois rivers.

The Candidates’ Platforms

Candidates are at opposite ends of the spectrum

The two candidates’ positions are nearly each others’ antithesis. McCain wants little or no federal government participation in transportation except for air travel and on interstate highways. Obama sees transportation, even urban transportation, as a national issue. McCain has not formally articulated his transportation or infrastructure program. Obama released a platform paper “Strengthening America’s Transportation Infrastructure” (pdf). There was only one mention of transportation (by Obama) during the debates and there was scant mention of public works during the conventions.

This is the time great leaders stand up

The reflex reaction, especially now amidst a gargantuan economic downturn, is to freeze spending–including infrastructure–but that would be a mistake. Public works spending, especially on well-needed infrastructure, has been shown to have as much as a 4:1 economic benefit. Since civic works are largely done locally (no outsourcing to Asia for repaving a road) the money tends to stay local. Construction workers eat at nearby delis and restaurants, they buy their kids shoes and clothes at neighborhood shops, and rent or own within the community. Thomas Jefferson knew this when he launched a great road building program in 1806, which set the precedent for all future federal public works projects: Teddy Roosevelt in 1905 with the creation of the Office of Public Roads (predecessor to today’s FHWA); FDR during the great depression with the WPA program; and Dwight D. Eisenhower with the Interstate Highway System.

Here are six measures I urge the next president to include in his first “State of the Union Address.”

In fact, I have made it easy, and written it for him. Take a look:

The State of the Union Address 2009

“We know our country is in a great crises of confidence in our economy and our crumbling infrastructure. I intend to solve both of these problems simultaneously while dramatically reducing greenhouse gases.

Public works projects put people to work on Main Street, Elm Street and Wall Street. We will create 2 million new jobs annually through the ambitious program I unveil now:

I am announcing my support for the National Infrastructure Bank (pdf) as proposed by Senators Hagel and Dodd. I will commit $20 billion/year for my first term, a total of $80 billion which will be leveraged through bonds and public-private ventures to more than a quarter trillion dollars.

I will ensure safety in our infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge that collapsed in 2007, killing 13 and injuring over 140, was one of 75,000 U.S. bridges identified as structurally deficient (pdf map). I will set a goal to have no federal bridges rated structurally deficient by 2025, and no local bridge deficient by 2035. This will take about $10 billion/year.

We will rebuild our existing passenger and freight rail systems and build new systems so that the dominant form of transport between clusters of cities less than 400 miles apart will be rail. This includes bullet trains for the Northeast Corridor, and high-speed links along the California coast, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest Regional and Southeast corridors. We will set a goal to complete these systems by 2035. This measure will directly benefit air travel by reducing short-haul trips, extend the lives of our pavement and bridges by moving fewer tons by truck and lessen congestion by significantly reducing the number of car trips between cities. (ed note: emissions by aircraft can be far more damaging bc they occur closer to the ozone layer)

In addition to increased rail service lightening the load for air travel, I am calling for the adoption of Next Generation (NextGen) Air Transportation System using satellite-based navigation by 2020. This will further increase air travel safety and allow for greater capacity at our airports.

Our ports need to be modernized, and our great rivers, the Mississippi and the Illinois, must be improved, allowing farmers and other suppliers to ship their goods more economically.

I will direct the IRS to change their playing field which encourages commuting by car today to one which offers incentives to transit users, biker riders and other low polluting low energy consuming modes.

These are all big-ticket programs, and it’s important that we do not saddle our children and their children with the costs of the poor planning of our generation. This will require some sacrifice today.

The National Infrastructure Bank will assemble a portfolio of projects for investment by the public and private sector. I will follow the formula developed by the renowned economist Felix Rohatyn so that any project seeking over $75 million in federal support would be required to submit a proposal to the bank. The submission would include the contribution to be made by the state and local governments, user fees and a plan for maintenance. The bank would then decide to fund the project outright, or through credit guarantees for state bonds or loans against future revenues from user fees and other sound financial strategies.

The federal government will favor cities that introduce congestion pricing. A recent study by the Brookings Institute found that more than $100 billion could be raised annually by road pricing in the 98 largest metropolitan areas. We will adopt the previous administration’s call for a dedicated Metro Mobility (MM) Program (pdf) for metropolitan areas with populations greater than 500,000. These are the battle grounds for congestion, fuel inefficiencies and production of greenhouse gases.

The gas tax is a dinosaur (pun intended). As long as it remains a flat tax at 18.4 cents per gallon and gas consumption decreases (a goal of my administration) it will be a dwindling source of revenue. I propose that the tax, like most other taxes, be indexed against the sale price. This way, when foreign influences raise the price of gas, some revenue will be returned to the taxpayers in public works projects. I propose a 5 cent/gallon increase over present levels, the first increase since 1993, to generate about $10 billion annually. But, if the price of gas goes down, and I hope it does, the tax will go down accordingly.

The private sector is at the ready to design, build, operate and maintain our infrastructure. So-called public-private partnerships, P3’s, have been very successful in Europe and Australia in generating the needed revenue up front for a refurbishing or building anew great public works. We, in the U.S., are just getting started. Chicago and Indiana have concessions for their toll roads. Chicago is looking to lease Midway Airport. I support these initiatives, but I will require close scrutiny and independent audits on an on-going basis of all P3’s that obtain federal support to ensure not only a sound financial plan but to see that our assets are being maintained in a state of good repair.

Our nation’s infrastructure is the physical legacy we leave our children. They will be facing a world where China invests 9% of its GDP in public works projects, India 5% and most of Europe 3-5%. The U.S. traditionally invested 3% or more of GDP into infrastructure. It is only in the past thirty years that we have fallen so far behind to just a 2% spending level. I will re-establish 3% as a goal. We must restore our tradition as a can-do country; it’s the least we can do for our children.”

I may be dreaming, but our elected officials must wake up to the fact that second-rate public works actually cost more in the long run and greatly inconvenience people in the short term–while exposing them to greater risks. It is a question of generational ethics: will we continue to consume our infrastructure like disposable bottles and leave our children with a poorly-functioning and costly transport system, or will we stand up and make our contribution to the future of our great country?

About the Author: Sam Schwartz is one of the leading transportation engineers in the United States, the New York traffic commissioner who coined the term “gridlock” in the 1980s, author of the daily “Gridlock Sam” column in the Daily News, founder of a traffic consulting and design firm that has been involved in many of NYC’s largest planning issues, including congestion pricing and construction of the new Mets stadium– and formerly a cab driver.