I for one agree with you that, unfortunately, these TIGER grants are a mere blip in the radar and that, in the future, we will probably be returning to the ‘business as usual’ kind of spending that prefers highways over rail, and rural over urban areas.

Regarding your concerns about freight rail, I also agree, but it extends beyond rail. Not only is government picking up the tab to improve privately-owned freight rail infrastructure, it has already been doing so with the nation’s air traffic infrastructure. For example, American and United Airlines are in a dispute with the city of Chicago over who will pay for certain aspects of OHare’s future expansion, and more than likely the brunt of the cost will continue to fall on the city taxpayer, despite the fact that these two airlines will benefit most from the expansion.

All that said, the only way I can justify spending taxpayer money to improve privately owned freight railroads is through the side benefit of improving taxpayer-run passenger rail. I can’t speak to the project in the Southeast, but when completed, CREATE is supposed to significantly reduce delays on both Amtrak and Metra.

The other factor, of course, is that the FTA’s cost-effectiveness index was a poor measure to begin with – it had an unnecessarily broad definition of costs and didn’t allow for local governments to pay for add-ons on their own dime, and it had an even worse definition of ‘effectiveness,’ as BeyondDC notes above.

Quantitative metrics are great, but we run into massive problems when we do not recognize the limits of those measurements and adjust the weight accordingly.

For instance, there was very little support for light rail in St. Louis when the first light rail alignment opened; it was built on the cheap, through donated rail ROW and 75% on the federal dime. But now that it’s here, people love it, use it, and want more of it all over the region. I think TODs and bus & pedestrian improvements would get the same reception, but only after people have a chance to see it in action. This is, after all, the Show-Me State.

Whether this change is good or bad is a separate matter, but that doesn’t change what actually happened.

1. Congress enacted legislation adopting a scoring system for justification of New Starts applications. The scoring system was broken down like so:
20% economic development
20% mobility improvements
10% environmental benefits
10% operating efficiencies
20% time savings cost effectiveness
20% land use benefits

2. Ignoring the adopted law, the Bush administration issued an order that all ratings be ignored except time savings cost effectiveness. In effect, changing the above list to:
0% economic development
0% mobility improvements
0% environmental benefits
0% operating efficiencies
100% time savings cost effectiveness
0% land use benefits
This was at best legally questionable, but no one challenged it.

3. The Obama administration reversed the Bush order and reverted to the original law, where time savings cost effectiveness is 20% of the foruma.

So it important to note two key facts:

A) The “cost effectiveness” guideline was NEVER a valid measurement of cost effectiveness. The ONLY benefit it measures is travel time savings.

B) It has NOT been eliminated, but merely adjusted to be 1/5 the formula.

You don’t have to take my word for this. HERE is an FTA briefing on the subject.

But in reality, US freight rail is about as independent as the defense industry. Nominally it’s private, and the profits go to shareholders, but there’s a huge body of industry-specific regulations, special laws such as the rule forbidding states from using eminent domain on railroad property, and a history of collusion with government. Conversely, the local governments view the railroads as a source of windfall revenue, much like federal land or military pork.

Congress will not much like either choice, as it leaves legislators out of the loop from influencing the process. (Like it or hate it, that is the raison d’etre for legislators.)

An infrastructure bank could take many forms, and policymakers are trying to develop a U.S. format.

The second format, opt-out-and-audit, would be for a local or state agency to enter into a compact with the federal government to agree to spend the same or greater amount of money on a public good without having to pass the money through federally.

The compact is a contract, so one condition would be for the agent to not only meet the terms of the deal but also to document and audit the findings.

Theoretically, let’s say Indianapolis receives $100 million from the federal government for funding capital and operations of IndyGo.

Local and state leaders approach your senators and representatives to work out an agreement that IndyGo would forgo federal funding if the money that would go to the feds stays within Indiana and is levied within the state.

It’s not a tax increase or decrease. The money is revenue-neutral. Indiana agrees to fund IndyGo for the equivalent amount it gets from the federal government, and will produce documentation to show the funds are being spent in the right place.

But then what would be gained? Well, locally, the money can be spent more flexibly. The cost of vehicles would come down, as buses and train cars would not have to be purchased and run by FTA life-cycle standards. Also, less of the money is lost through bureaucratic overhead and can be spent directly on services.