New York City fumbled with Congestion Pricing and missed out on $354 million in federal funds. California happily makes a home for the leftover money with Congestion Pricing for downtown Los Angeles. The plan includes plenty of IT potential......

On April 25, 2008, $213 million in federal transit funds aimed at relieving congestion in urban areas was warmly received by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and California Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials. These funds will be focused in the Los Angeles region in an effort to enhance speeds on three log-jammed freeways by 2010.

What Work Will be of Interest to INPUT Members?

INPUT member will be interested in the following work related to Congestion Pricing:

• Wireless communications
• Sensing technologies
• Video vehicle detection
• Electronic toll collection
• Emergency vehicle notification systems
• Computational technologies
• Signal management
• Electronic ticketing
• Wireless metering

The Argument at Hand: Does Congestion Pricing favor wealthy commuters?

One of the main reasons why New York City's Congestion Pricing model sank is because most politicians involved felt that wealthy Manhattanites were the overwhelming beneficiaries of the proposed plan. It is almost undeniable that Los Angeles will experience similar opposition but it has been stated that 'Congestion pricing benefits all because it provides more options to commuters from all walks of life. Each commuter may select which mode makes the most sense to her or him in terms of cost and travel time. At certain times of day, the least expensive travel options--ride sharing and transit--may also be the fastest.' The initial benefits of Congestion Pricing focus on increasing the speeds of traffic within a region by implementing a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane which varies per the congestion level of a highway and vehicle passenger occupancy. Also, the longer term benefits of the model will help enhance the modes of transportation typically used by less affluent citizens. Although LA's structural and financial dynamic is significantly different than that of New York City's where Manhattan is vital to the area's entire economy, the LA project will have the ability to serve as a model to the majority of other urban centers throughout the country as most cities are also working to make their downtown more vibrant and livable.

Continued Utilization of Congestion Pricing

The 'Building America's Future' coalition which seeks renewed federal investment in the nation's aging infrastructure was established by Governor Schwarzenegger, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in January 2008. In February, 13 more governors from across the nation joined the coalition. This indicates the potential of Congestion Pricing throughout the country.

INPUT is already tracking the related Los Angeles Congestion Pricing initiative with Opportunity 47632 and has identified the primary points of contact overseeing this effort within the Los Angeles region.

Read the related articles for a more in depth look at the LA Congestion Pricing situation:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Congestion Reduction website

Daily Breeze: Feds OK Grant for Toll Roads

Los Angeles Times: MTA Votes for Tolls on Some Carpool Lanes by 2010

Video and article of LA's acceptance of the $213 million in federal funds

While the Illinois legislature explores ways to help fund Chicago's mass transit agencies, its spending reveals these agencies used nearly $700,000 of taxpayers' dollars to contract with lobbyists. Given their success, lobbying state governments could be a trend worthy for vendors to imitate.

According to a report by government watchdog, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR), local governments and public agencies in Illinois spent more than $5 million in 2007 seeking advice and services of lobbying firms to influence decisions of state government officials.

Chicago's four mass transit agencies spent $700,000 in lobbyist services, more than all governments surveyed by the ICPR. The outcry by local taxpayers followed findings disclosing that the Chicago Transit Authority and the Regional Transportation Authority combined dedicated lobbying contracts of nearly $444,000. It will be interesting to see how this information will affect discussions in the Illinois legislature, currently debating over mass transit reform and "much needed" funding for these two transit agencies.

According to a recent article, some might not disagree over the necessity of public spending on lobbying. The Regional Transportation Authority claims the lobbying services were essential in preventing potential fare increases and services cuts by the transit agency in 2007.

It is up to Chicagoans to determine whether or not these services are vital to the operations of the transit agencies. Nonetheless, the work of the ICPR must be praised. Although their efforts shine light in an area and scope never researched before, it is important to point out that it took the group six weeks to get responses from Freedom of Information Requests filed with cities and counties participating in the survey. A process that could have taken no more than a couple of hours if this information was readily available online and to anyone interested in tracking public spending on lobbying.

The success of agencies lobbying state governments must also be an approach vendors should used to attempt to influence decisions by governors, state government officials and legislators on major initiatives related to IT and laws affecting procurement practices.

In Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell is expediting a plan to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the highest bidder. The plan includes a 75-year lease to a private consortium, which may be a foreign company. If this lease is completed, will outsourcing our toll roads become a trend across the United States?

Any plan of such magnitude and significance is unlikely to be sought without opposition, and it appears, in this case, that the resistance is coming from within Gov. Rendell's own party. Democratic Representative Joe Markosek, chairman of the Transportation Committee, opposes the lease. Despite the opposition, Rep. Markosek favors placing tolls on Interstate 80, a bill which he sponsored.

State lawmakers insist that Gov. Rendell release additional information on the bidders, not just the name and bid from the highest offer. Furthermore, legislators seek additional discourse and "extensive hearings throughout the state" before the mid-June vote that Gov. Rendell is seeking. Many view the mid-June vote as unreasonable and require additional time to sort out the details of the lease.

The turnpike is managed by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, which would soon be obsolete, putting many out of jobs, some of whom are friends and relatives of politicians. While this may be a hard pill to swallow, it will provide long term assurance that the turnpike will be kept safe and at the same time, generate approximately $12-18 billion dollars for the state. The state is in desperate need of funds to improve nearly 6,000 structurally deficient bridges and state-owned highways that are in poor condition.

While to some, leasing such an important road to a foreign entity seems irrational in the short term; in the long term, such a move would benefit the state greatly. The move will provide the state with much needed funding for road improvement. As we have seen with the recent Minneapolis bridge collapse, more attention is needed on roads and bridges throughout the country. Leasing the road to a private, and possibly foreign, consortium is the first step in establishing a new means of obtaining funding to fix America's ailing highway system. In the future, we may see more state's jumping on the leasing bandwagon, providing safer roads for everyone.

This is one of the many projects that INPUT estimated great potential for vendors, but now that potential is gone. Without funding and state support, it is unlikely that this project will be revived.

All hope was lost on April 7, 2008, when the New York State Legislature killed Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan. The plan called for an $8 fee for driving south of 60th street in Manhattan. Its goal was to reduce traffic in all five boroughs, remove some of the largest constraints to their economic growth, help New York City achieve the cleanest air of any big city in the United States, cut their global warming emissions, and provide funding for critical enhancements to their mass transit system.

The city will miss out on roughly $850 million dollars in funding for this project. That includes $354 million in immediate federal funding, which will now be allocated to other cities and states across the country, plus $500 million annually. This funding would have been used to pay for new bus routes, traffic mitigation measures, and most importantly, subway expansions and mass transit improvements.

It is very disappointing to see a project like this collapse in a matter of days. It was only a week ago that the New York City Council approved the congestion pricing plan. Many people were very optimistic about the fate of this project and felt that it had great potential. However, this optimism turned to cynicism as Mayor Bloomberg and many others expressed their disgust with state legislators.

This is one of the many projects that INPUT estimated great potential for vendors, but now that potential is gone. Without funding and state support, it is unlikely that this project will be revived. The congestion pricing plan, part of PlaNYC, was a year in the making and was going to be Mayor Bloomberg's greatest accomplishment. It is unlikely that a project of this nature will be brought forward in the next five years as political agendas will definitely change over that time.

Rebellious states set out to duel with DHS and challenge the agency by not filing a request for an extension to comply with Real ID. After sparring with states that tested the waters, DHS shockingly granted non-consensual extensions, allowing his agency to claim victory.

All states had the compelling pressure to file an extension by March 31st or state citizens would face not being able to use their existing driver license to board commercial aircraft and enter federal buildings. Therefore governors felt pressure from citizens to not be inconvenienced, but with DHS if they failed to file an extension. The waiver allow states until December 2009, (2014 for citizens over 50 years of age), to reach compliance and full issuance of Real ID drivers license cards to everyone by 2017. Below is a review of the five states which had decided not to participate in Real ID, but were granted unrequested extensions by DHS anyway.

Maine

Maine was the last of the rebel states holding out to request a waiver to DHS for REAL ID compliance. Governor Baldacci wrote to DHS in late March and identified what the state has done to increase security measures in the course of issuing driver's licenses. Assistant secretary for policy, Stewart Baker responded and apprised him that the "U.S. is only as secure as its weakest link," and that "Maine's licenses offer far less security than its neighbors do." Baker indicated Maine had not taken sufficient action to address needed measures for compliance. He also explained the position DHS had taken with some other states in granting extensions, even though legislation against Real ID had been passed; his assessment was simply those states were at least meeting the spirit of the law. Senator Collins from Maine engaged in the match to ensure communication was maintained between Baldacci and DHS, until an agreement was reached.

South Carolina

Another contentious state is South Carolina; Governor Mark Sanford communicated with DHS Secretary Chertoff, claiming he had specific concerns about Real ID including funding issues and what he perceived to be an expansion of federal powers, as well as his belief that the initiative creates of a national network of driver's license databases. Sanford requested that DHS not "needlessly penalize" South Carolina in spite of the state's lack of support for Real ID. Chertoff in turn responded to Governor Sanford as one would expect, defending the program, and surprisingly considered the measures that South Carolina has taken to improve security were sufficient to address the intended purpose of Real ID. He commented that actions demonstrated by the state "will in fact meet the principal security requirements of Real ID". The end result, Chertoff considered Sanford's letter as a request for an extension of the deadline and therefore granted the extension.

California

California DMV Director George Valverde weighed in with DHS by indicating the state's request for an extension was not a commitment to implement Real ID, but instead provides the state an opportunity to assess the final regulations and subsequently move forward with policy prior to a final decision on compliance.

Montana and New Hampshire

DHS met obstacles with Montana and New Hampshire as well; however, in spite of their rebellion against, Chertoff''s office granted extensions. Numerous states have openly declared in the course of requesting an extension, doing so was simply intended to buy time until they can lobby the next Congress and White house for further funding and flexibility.

DHS held a loose interpretation of what constituted a request for extension. One could surmise that DHS simply has a single agenda on this effort – to move it forward to the next administration. Recent events paint a picture that DHS is living in a fantasy attempting to rewrite a happy ending to the first voyage of the Titanic. Regardless of Real ID's destiny, state Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) agencies do have compelling reasons to ensure the identification process is secure. The fact remains that a driver's license is the most widely used form of identification. State governments use the driver license card as an integral part of many processes for establishment of identification, social service programs as an example. Given states are experiencing tighter budgets and are attentive to fraud, state governments have many reasons to ensure driver license are valid. DMV operations will modernize their systems for issuing secure driver's license. The question at this point remains whether states or the federal government will be in the driver's seat in the process and therefore what impact Real ID legislation ultimately bears.

The collapse of the I-35 Bridge in St. Paul, Minnesota this past summer is a distressing remainder to state legislators of the fragile condition of most of America's roads and infrastructure. Jim Read, NCSL's Transportation Program Director, joined NCSL's Top 10 Legislative Issues for 2008 podcast series to discuss the challenges legislators will face this year to allocate funds and creatively look for ways to increase revenue in efforts to fix roadways.

Roads and bridges underlie entire state economies, therefore funding sources to fix infrastructure is a critical mission for legislators. Read explains that the decline in state gas taxes and purchasing powers are the two main concerns for states - "less money is available for states to spend and states will be looking at variety of ways to increase revenue including tolling and private-public partnerships". According to Read, 23 states have authorization to partner with vendors. For example, Indiana's toll road initiative totaled $4 billion in a vendor partnership to take care of roads.

In addition, states might be playing a bigger role in this issue if Federal spending for reauthorization of transportation programs remains underfunded. This is where partnerships with vendors come into play. Read says "States will look at basic contracting services to selling or leasing toll roads" However, contracts are negotiated behind close doors questioning the protection of public interest.

In 2008, legislatures are expected to take a number of actions on this issue. For instance, Colorado assigned a study commission to closely examine revenue strategies. The commission concluded that increasing gas taxes remains the number one source of funding for the state. Other states will be empowering local governments to pass increases in tax legislation as well as authority to create and maintain transportation infrastructure.

States are also expected to embark on pilot projects to implement innovative strategies to increase revenue. In the case of Oregon, a vehicle-mile-travel-fee system is being tested. Rather than charge a gas tax at the pomp travelers will be charged a fee for each mile they travel. Read confirms the system will probably be implemented in ten years.

INPUT's Take

· The trend of State and Local governments to look to tolls and partnerships with vendors as attractive options to generate much needed revenue is also a major driver for investment in information transportation systems (ITS). INPUT's State and Local IT Market Forecast 2007-2012 provides an detailed analysis of this trend and emphasis that investments of ITS deployments such as traffic signal optimization, electronic sign boards and others are expected by the end of 2012.

· State and local governments benefit from the largest federal funds offered for transportation programs within their communities. Among the several programs funded by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for User (SAFETEA-LU), states will closely follow federal-aid aimed at testing tolling, encouraging private sector investment and promoting the innovation of new technologies.