Can America improve the cost and quality of its transportation system? The average cost per mile for U.S. transit projects is more than three times the global average, and the cost per highway mile has increased more than threefold from the 1960s to the 1980s. America’s buses are extremely expensive, and local roads can be remarkably rough. Over the last year, a joint project brought together a series of scholars to write policy idea papers aimed at improving transportation in the United States. These papers present actionable ideas to enhance the quality or cost of mobility in America. Four of these papers focus on federal policy and may be relevant for future transportation legislation. The fifth paper relates to state policy and the recharging of electric vehicles.
One proposal aims to improve the permitting environment for infrastructure projects by reforming the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970. Environmentally based opposition, often expressed through the courts, has frequently stymied infrastructure projects and boosted their costs. The proposed reforms include selectively shifting legal power away from project opponents, facilitating popular decision-making or effective negotiation between project builders and the community, improving state capacity and streamlining processes, and improving and standardizing public participation. These reforms are designed to speed up the construction process while maintaining environmental protections.
Another proposal suggests establishing a “Priority List” of infrastructure projects. These projects would be exempt from certain regulations, and states and cities funding these projects would be allowed to use preferential financing tools. The federal government would detail a team of experts to help project sponsors with both planning and management. The projects on the list would be chosen by Congress, the secretary of transportation, and local leaders. This approach allows reformers to leverage the prominence of the biggest projects to change the politics of infrastructure delivery. While many might wish for wide-ranging reforms that would reduce costs and delays for all projects, this proposal embraces a pragmatic realism that recognizes that cost-saving reform for a modest number of big projects is better than no reform at all.
A third proposal argues for making it easier to privatize airports in the U.S. Outside the U.S., private airports are ubiquitous. Studies find that airport volume, efficiency, and quality improve substantially under private equity ownership. These facts suggest that there may be benefits to leveling the playing field between municipally owned airports, which have access to tax-preferred debt, and privately-owned airports, which do not. Two methods of reducing the borrowing advantages of public airports are proposed: removing the requirement that tax-exempt airport bonds must be paid off before there is a change in control, such as a long-term lease, and expanding the scope of successful surface transportation tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) to include airports and other transportation infrastructure. Even a modest experiment with either reform would provide evidence on whether privately run airports can improve performance on American soil.
A fourth proposal focuses on reducing the costs of buses within the U.S. The cost of diesel buses has remained constant for forty years, despite vast improvements in automobile technology. Outside the U.S., a 36-foot Hyundai electric bus can be bought for $350,000, but the median price of an electric bus bought by a U.S. transit agency in 2024 was $1.1 million. The proposed reforms include improving incentives for cost containment by scaling the amount per bus that federal grants will contribute to the 25th percentile of similar buses. Transit agencies can spend more than the cost of the 25th percentile bus, but they will receive no federal support for that extra spending. Another proposal is to work towards bus standardization by encouraging small agencies to purchase essentially standardized buses together with larger agencies and establishing a ‘bus formulary,’ or a list of bus models that are standard, with set prices that fall over time. Additionally, modifying or waiving certain Buy America requirements is proposed to create a glide path for new entrants to manufacture buses in the United States. All of these proposals are meant to enhance competition and standardization with the ultimate goal of reducing bus costs.
Finally, a proposal aims at improving the charging experience for electric car owners. Charging stations are frequently out of order or busy, making information about the availability of open spots particularly valuable for long-range electric drivers. However, across six of the busiest interstates, traversing 40 states, only 34% of EV charging stations make real-time data available to major charge-finding apps, creating gaps of up to 1,308 miles with no charger status data. The proposition is for all fast chargers on highways to post their chargers’ real-time data to an application programming interface (API), where software developers could access it. This would make long-range electric vehicle trips much more attractive by effectively eliminating range anxiety, which would in turn make electric vehicle ownership much more appealing. States could ensure that data is posted either by law for all charging stations or to make posting such data a requirement in order to receive public subsidy. If enough charging stations post, this may tip the market outcome to the information-sharing equilibrium, which would offer far more information to consumers.
Mientras que América ha producido durante mucho tiempo maravillas de transporte, como el Canal de Erie, el Ferrocarril Intercontinental y el Modelo T de Ford, parece haberse convertido en una nación de altos costos y a menudo infraestructura de calidad mediocre. No hay mucha posibilidad de que esto cambie si se acepta el statu quo. Las cinco ideas recopiladas por este proyecto no son las únicas propuestas posibles, pero son cinco ideas que merecen ser consideradas.
Propuestas para mejorar la infraestructura de transporte en Estados Unidos
Entre las propuestas se encuentran la creación de un sistema de transporte público eficiente, la inversión en infraestructura de alta velocidad, la implementación de tecnologías de transporte sostenible y la mejora de la conectividad entre ciudades y regiones. Estas ideas pueden ayudar a reducir los costos de transporte y mejorar la calidad de la infraestructura en Estados Unidos.
Además, se deben considerar las implicaciones económicas y sociales de estas propuestas. Por ejemplo, la creación de un sistema de transporte público eficiente puede generar empleos y estimular el crecimiento económico en áreas rurales y urbanas. La inversión en infraestructura de alta velocidad puede mejorar la conectividad entre ciudades y regiones, lo que puede aumentar la competitividad de la economía estadounidense.
En resumen, las propuestas recopiladas por este proyecto pueden ayudar a mejorar la infraestructura de transporte en Estados Unidos y reducir los costos de transporte. Es importante considerar las implicaciones económicas y sociales de estas propuestas y trabajar hacia la implementación de soluciones sostenibles y eficientes.
