On June 3, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a proposed green infrastructure bill. The INVEST in America Act would add nearly a half-trillion dollars in funding over the next five years for highways, transit, rail, and vehicle safety — coupled with significant additional regulations.
The reaction by infrastructure industry groups has been what the trade publication Transportation Today politely described as “mixed.”
On the positive end of the spectrum, American Public Transportation Association President Paul Skoutelas said, on behalf of his organization, “We strongly support the bill.” On the more negative end, the Association of American Railroads provided a statement to the Washington Examiner in which President Ian Jeffries pronounced, “America’s railroads are extremely disappointed in the House surface transportation reauthorization.”
Skoutelas called INVEST “forward-thinking legislation that will transform our nation’s infrastructure,” with more transportation jobs, “better mobility options for millions,” and a start to “addressing the environmental and sustainability challenges facing our nation and the world.”
Jeffries explained why his organization is not so wild about the legislation: “When all of us should be working together toward common-sense solutions, this partisan legislation falls far short of what this moment demands. Smart policies have helped railroads continue to deliver for their customers during this pandemic. Now is not the time to retreat from these — much less impose wish-list policy riders or unnecessary operational requirements such as mandating crew sizes, barring the streamlining of operations, and constraining the already limited capacity of the rail network. Now more than ever, we can and must do better together.”
A source close to the rail industry spoke to the Washington Examiner on condition on anonymity. “We take issue with the bill as a whole and with the rail title specifically. Freight railroads were singled out more than any other industry — remarkably ironic given that we privately maintain our infrastructure and didn’t seek or receive federal bailout money amid the pandemic,” the source explained.
The source called the bill “a partisan piece of policy” and a “far cry” from its “bipartisan” counterpart the Senate is considering. “It speaks volumes, and maybe says all that needs to be said, that [the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials] opposed the bill. They would be major beneficiaries but came out against it.”
AASHTO Executive Director Jim Tymon told Transportation Today, “It is disappointing that this legislation was not developed in a bipartisan manner.” AASHTO did not reply to requests by the Washington Examiner for additional comments by press time.
American Trucking Associations President Chris Spear chose not to focus on INVEST itself but on the hoped-for eventual legislative outcome. “While we may not agree on every provision therein, this is a real and commendable step on the part of the committee to advance the process in the House and ultimately arrive at a negotiable solution with the Senate. Roads and bridges are not Democrat or Republican. We all drive on them,” Spear said.
Marc Scribner is a transportation policy analyst with the libertarian Reason Foundation. When asked by the Washington Examiner whether the House bill has any chance of passage this year, he said, “Maybe some of the state-of-good-repair stuff.”
Scribner explained that “to pay for the House bill through traditional means, they would need to double the gas tax to 36.6 cents per gallon.” He speculated that “no one wants to go into election season with a vote for doubling the gas tax in a deep recession during a once-in-100-years pandemic.”
