Metropolitan Washington Council Of Governments Commuter: Fill & Download for Free

The correct obvious answer is to simple start repairing the existing infrastructure in the USA that has collapsed or is on the verge of failing. $275B for 5 years is only a partial down payment when $1.9T is needed for infrastructure repair over the next 10 years.We should focus on simultaneously fixing all the infrastructure allocating a bit more initial funding to those areas in need of most repair. Fortunately all the analysis of the existing infrastructure state has been complete for years. The real problem is the GOP congress that ignores their responsibility to keep the national economy in good working order.As usual the GOP views infrastructure spending as a cost which is moronic because infrastructure capital investment is a savings allowing for substantially greater more productive economic activity in the USA. I find it typically pointless to discuss capital investments with most Republicans as national infrastructure investment is a requirement for a globally competitive national economy.Below is a list of the existing infrastructure state as well as an excellent analysis from the Financial Times, US Political, Financial & Business News my source for objective impartial information.Thanks GOP! America's Decaying Infrastructure Kills At Least 1 Person In Ohio (VIDEO)Infrastructure, Dammit!As a nation, ours scored a D+ on the latest report card. Blocked by Republican intransigence, we’ve been spectacularly “penny wise and pound foolish.”(It costs a lot more to replace a bridge after it collapses than to maintain it so it doesn’tcollapse — 10 times more so when you account for all the detours and traffic jams for the months required to rebuild.)2013 Report Card for America's InfrastructureESTIMATED INVESTMENT NEEDED BY 2020: $3.6TRILLIONINFRASTRUCTURE GRADES FOR 2013WATER & ENVIRONMENTDams DDrinking Water DHazardous Waste DLevees D-Solid Waste B-Wastewater DTRANSPORTATIONAviation DBridges C+Inland Waterways D-Ports CRail C+Roads DTransit DPUBLIC FACILITIESPublic Parks & Recreation C-Schools DENERGYEnergy D+U.S. Infrastructure Has Been Neglected for DecadesThe United States has underinvested for years, and should spend at least an additional $150 billion a year on infrastructure through 2020 to meet its needs, according to estimates.US: Neglected nation - FT.comFrom decaying bridges to poisoned water, fixing America’s infrastructure could cost trillionsA collapsed bridge near Mount Vernon in Washington stateDrew Galloway picks his way through the bowels of New York’s dingy and chaotic Penn Station, shouting above the din of passing inter-city and commuter trains. The legacy of flood damage to the pair of railway tunnels that connect Manhattan with New Jersey, coupled with record passenger demand, is imposing a mounting strain on America’s busiest railway terminus.Eventually, says Mr Galloway, chief planner for Amtrak’s north-east corridor, the tunnels will have to be closed and refurbished because of corrosion, potentially casting the economically critical artery into crisis.“We are in a race to get new tunnels in place and complete them before we see some very significant disruptions taking place here,” Mr Galloway says, surveying the subterranean spider’s web of railway lines running underneath the station, which serves 600,000 passengers a day, according to Amtrak.Delayed by political dogfights and still beset by funding doubts, the project to shore up services into Manhattan by boring two new railway tunnels under the Hudson River took a step forward at the end of last year, as state and federal leaders backed a new plan.There is, however, a very long climb ahead for what is arguably the most economically sensitive US transport project — a plan costing upwards of $7.5bn that is crucial both to New York commuters and to rail services across the north-east of the country.It comes amid rising public discontent over the deteriorating state of large tracts of US infrastructure, and anger from both sides of the political divide on thepresidential campaign trail. Bridge collapses, train derailments, fires and shutdowns on the Washington DC metro, drought in the west and an appalling lead contamination scandal in Michigan have highlighted the legacy of decades of underfunding, mismanagement and neglect.The American Society of Civil Engineers yesterday projected a $1.44tn investment funding gap between 2016 and 2025, warning of a mounting drag on business activity, exports and incomes.Politicians are demanding action. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, has called for a $275bn spending blitz, including the creation of an infrastructure bank, recalling past glories such as the interstate highway system and Hoover Dam. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is bucking anti-spending dogma within the party by promising major programmes to renew infrastructure and create jobs — albeit without putting forward any detail on how to pay for them.Report finds under-investment will lead to lost business sales, rising costs and dented incomesWithout radical surgery, the decay in tunnels, railways and waterways will cost the US economy nearly $4tn in lost gross domestic product by 2025 as costs rise and productivity is impeded, according toestimates from the ASCE, dragging on a recovery in output that is the shallowest since the end of the second world war.Faced with crimped public resources, President Barack Obama’s administration and some states have tried to fill infrastructure gaps by luring in private investment, including from public-private partnerships or P3s.A number of states and municipalities have lifted petrol taxes to pay for roads and bridges, even as the federal petrol tax that serves as the backbone of transport spending nationwide has remained frozen since 1993. Many argue that the recent fall in oil prices presented the perfect moment to raise petrol taxes.Without breakthroughs in a divided Washington, experts fear worsening decay. “A lot is riding on the election,” says Rosabeth Kanter, an academic at Harvard Business School and author of Move, a book on America’s infrastructure shortfalls. “We need political will.”Squandered opportunityInadequate infrastructure is far from unique to the US. Public investment has been trending lower as a share of GDP in economies including Japan, Germany and France in recent decades. The International Monetary Fund has implored governments with fiscal wiggle room to loosen constraints on investment to combat moribund growth.Anxiety about the topic in the US has become politically explosive. Economists such as Lawrence Summers, former Treasury secretary and Financial Times columnist, argue that increased public investment on infrastructure would essentially pay for itself via improved growth. That is strongly contested by Republicans who want to cut the role of the state as they sabre-rattle over public waste and a national debt of $19tn.The debate is being inflamed by a number of scandals involving decaying infrastructure, at a time when mounting demands are being placed on it by a population set to grow by 60m over the next 25 years. These include the contamination of drinking water with lead in Flint, Michigan, which has been repeatedly cited by Mrs Clinton on the campaign trail as she and other Democrats accuse the Republican governor of the state of neglecting vulnerable citizens.Even in the heart of Washington, Memorial Bridge, a symbolic link between the north and the south of the US, might have to be closed to traffic early in the next decade if major repairs are not carried out. Around the country more than 61,000 bridges were deemed structurally deficient in 2014.Last year US public capital investment, which includes infrastructure, was just 3.4 per cent of GDP, or $611bn, according to the president’s Council of Economic Advisers — the lowest in more than 60 years.In the White House, the inability to do more to improve roads, bridges and other infrastructure is seen as one of the major policy failures since the crisis. Mr Obama last month bemoaned the absence of a major infrastructure programme from 2012 to 2014, when borrowing costs were low and the construction industry was short of jobs.The administration included so-called shovel-ready infrastructure projects in its $800bn stimulus bill after Mr Obama took office, but the spending fell short of what was needed for repairs and to galvanise the economy.Critics see it as a squandered opportunity. However, Jason Furman, chairman of the council, says Mr Obama made repeated attempts to get more money into infrastructure and was rebuffed. “Congress has been unwilling to substantially expand infrastructure investment — it is as simple as that,” he says.Ideological fightThere has been some progress. Last year Congress passed the first federal law in 10 years providing long-term funding for roads and other surface transportation. Yet the five-year, $305bn programme involved fiscal gimmicks, including an extraordinary raid on the Federal Reserve’s capital funds.Given the ideological divisions over public spending, however, some experts are gloomy about significant progress after the election. “There has been systemic under-investment at a state and federal level for over three decades and I see no immediate prospect of that being reversed,” says Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution think-tank. He argues that a “mobilisation of private sector capital” is the most viable answer in an era of budgetary austerity.The administration agrees: “We see a lot of potential with large sums of private capital on the sidelines looking for productive places to invest on one hand, and a significant US infrastructure deficit on the other,” says Anthony Foxx, transportation secretary.One answer is P3 deals, where the private sector provides funding for construction and maintenance in return for a stream of revenue, in theory bringing in better cost and project management than under traditional public sector contracts.The government last year created a one-stop shop for sponsors and funders to smooth the way for more complex deals. A tax change was signed into law to open the door to greater investment by foreign funds.Moody’s, the credit rating agency, predicts that the US could become one of the biggest P3 markets. Major projects such as the overhaul of New York’s LaGuardia Airport are in the pipeline. For the time being, however, P3s remain a small slice of the infrastructure pie, featuring in just 60 projects around the country as of 2015.The US market has lagged behind Canada and some European countries in part because local governments have long been able to raise money cheaply via tax-free bonds — although that market is only slowly reviving after the recession that ended in 2009. A third of US states do not have laws that would allow P3s to be used, and sceptics fear they can be a costly way of delivering public services if poorly structured.“The P3 market is a way to tackle some of those large and complex projects, and we will see more of these,” says Jane Garvey of Meridiam, an investor involved in the Port of Miami Tunnel and other projects.However, she says: “It is a misunderstanding to think that the private sector can solve it on its own. You have to have a revenue stream to pay it back. A strong federal programme is important.”Greg Stanton, the mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, says many local leaders are tired of waiting for a breakthrough in Washington and are instead forging ahead on their own. He says he was accused of being mad when he ran for re-election last year on a platform that included higher taxes to pay for a municipal transport overhaul.Yet a majority of the city’s population voted in favour of the consumption tax increase to fund a 35-year, $32bn plan that includes a tripling in the size of the city’s light rail system. While there is some federal participation, it is smaller than in previous projects.“The relationship between cities and Washington is fairly broken and it is never going back to what it was in the past,” says Mr Stanton. “If we are going to advance as a city we need investment, and that will have to come much more from ourselves than directly from the federal government.”Taxing timesSome 18 states have pushed through increases or reforms to their petrol taxes to pay for infrastructure since 2013, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says. “We are seeing many more states taking the initiative, and finding and identifying revenue streams they can use for infrastructure; that is a big step forward,” says Ms Garvey.Sitting in the depths of Penn Station, Mr Galloway of Amtrak says the plan to build new Hudson River tunnels and refurbish the existing ones — central to a broader regional transport overhaul called Gateway — will probably have to involve the private sector alongside state and federal backers. “When we look at federal funding sources it is very clear that all of them are heavily competed for by other projects,” he says.An earlier version of the Hudson River railway tunnel was scuppered by New Jersey governor Chris Christie in 2010 — a controversial move that many saw as political. The new project’s advocates say it would be calamitous if this plan were to fail as well.For the passengers whose trains rattle through this vital route into America’s biggest city, a huge amount is at stake. “We have to figure out a way to make this happen,” says Mr Galloway.Political roadblock: Projects held up by Congressional battlesBarack Obama used Washington’s crisis-stricken metro system as a weapon to beat Republican opponents last week, as the president accused those in Congress of having an “ideology that says government spending is necessarily bad”.The transit system’s vast problems are not simply a question of insufficient federal funding. It faces rolling closures for long overdue repairs after being rocked by a series of track fires, including a fatal incident last year. On Saturday the Federal Transit Administration issued emergency directives threatening to shut down all or part of the system unless it took urgent action to guarantee passenger safety.The directives highlighted longstanding complaints about mismanagement and poor safety within the rail network, the nation’s second busiest. The National Transportation Safety Board criticised a “lack of a safety culture” after a fatal crash in 2009. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority did not respond to requests for comment on the weekend’s safety notice.Michael Strain of the right-of-centre American Enterprise Institute argues that the problems are not simply a reflection of funding: they also come down to public waste, inefficiency, and mismanagement.A tendency for progressive politicians to marry infrastructure spending to calls for fiscal stimulus has made it harder to get bills through Congress, he adds.An attempt by the Obama administration to strike a tax deal to fund more infrastructure via the repatriation of corporate cash held overseas has faltered. Proposals for an infrastructure bank to leverage up the funds available for new projects — something Hillary Clinton has backed — have also gone nowhere to date.Analysts say it is hard to imagine any policy progress before November’s election. “My sense is we will continue to muddle along until things start to break,” says Mr Strain.

It would be difficult not to gain that impression, particularly from media coverage that usually includes terms like ‘Westminster village’ - the direct equivalent of complaints about ‘the Washington elite’ in the context of remarks about ‘the beltway’ referenced in similar stories about the people who work there having no point of contact with ‘real people’ - who seemingly by definition aren’t allowed to live in, come from or commute to and from capital cities…Having been a lowly deck hand in the ‘mighty ship of state’ that Leonard Cohen famously sang about* I was always astounded to hear such things, as the government departments that most of us worked for hadn’t been headquartered in London for a generation (and some a lot longer).Admittedly most senior managers had done a lengthy stint in the ministerial salt-mines of The Old Smoke but I can’t recall any who were actually from London. (Every single one I met or had dealings with had relocated from their region for reasons of career development, and when faced with the prospect of relocating to another region in the twilight of their career chose instead to take early retirement.)In similar vein all the senior officials - in the sense they or their staff dealt directly with ministers and/or their ministerial offices were obliged to work in London as in government terms it’s a mill town.(At this point some readers, particularly those from London, will be hopping up and down, so I will issue a reminder for the record: ministers are sometimes those who represent London constituencies as their day job.)Given the city, plus the wide commuter belt that extends south all the way to the coast, includes about twenty-odd percent of the total UK population it might be considered odd - particularly by those who would rather die than visit the place - but it’s a fact.Your actual Londoners (who like me could recognise the roofs of their houses in the Eastenders title sequence if they have good eyesight and can afford high-definition TV) are allowed to vote despite only being a bus ride away from Westminster and therefore might unfairly influence events by waving our arms about and holding up banners from a safe distance, and talking to media people looking for a sound bite (even if they generally seem to prefer articulate English-speaking tourists rather than locals who might get excited, start shouting and waving our arms about).In this sense, despite the eccentric architecture, the Palace of Westminster is like the flagship HQ, the eccentrically-styled Portcullis House is the shop floor, but the various ministries are where the real work of government is accomplished… for a given value of reality.If a well-educated, bright well-favoured aspirational sort is deemed worthy they are given the job of PPS, familiar as Bernard Woolley from Yes Minister and, if he or she shows promise in the fullness of time they will rise to the dizzying heights of PS… as brilliantly lampooned in the guise of n Sir Humphrey Appleby, working for some hapless Jim Hacker clone.The aim of the game, as they say, is to win.Which in these terms means the shaping, honing and generally promoting their principle so they go on to even greater and much more rewarding things - preferably becoming Prime Minister, which virtually guarantees the Whitehall mandarin behind the throne gets bragging rights, a gong and, at least according to Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, become insufferably smug.Needless to say none of this has any bearing on ‘real life’ as experienced by us mere mortals.The constant to-ing and fro-ing between the rump London offices of relocated departments, where large numbers of lowly officials did (I retired, and I’m not in touch by choice, though on the bright side I’m not in therapy) the donkey work while the department headquarters set up in former industrial areas made all the decisions meant that it was impossible not to be made fully aware ‘London is out of touch’ by people who theoretically occupied the middle ground, standing between those who dealt with end users and the minister who in theory represented their interests.In practice this ‘standing between’ business was taken a tad too literally, as in practice heroic efforts were made to impeded direct access by either side as… actually I’m not sure what it would be. It was very serious, I know that. Equivalent to treason, perhaps, or attempted arson in a government shipyard.(On reflection it was probably why a glass case filled with shooting medals was in the Departmental HQ: they shot you at dawn.)Ironically this meant that some very basic social issues that actually disproportionately affected densely populated metropolitan areas and thus London - education, employment, childcare - were being planned from afar while being theoretically both centrally instigated and delivered to large numbers of Londoners, sometimes by those who had experience of very different markets.(Long, long ago, when Job Centres were still alive and well, the job market in London was buoyant, word came down from on high that it was vital not to allow the complete and utter absence of vacancies to devalue the brand. Despite vociferous protests vacancies were increasing and the only shortage was a shortage of applicants they were ordered to clear away all the vacancies from windows in favour of posters, because it was policy.(The workaround was that in London - and in other areas which hadn’t suffered an embarrassing downturn - instead of being handed a leaflet about alternatives to paid employment, inquirers who asked ‘What happened to all the jobs, there were hundreds last week?’ were asked what sort of work they were looking for, invited to take a seat and handed a fat four-ring binder to leaf through.I never discovered whether the lack of leaflets in favour of binders of potential jobs was officially sanctioned or a grass roots guerilla fightback, only that posters instead of vacancies in the window became the New Normal… at least until the row about the then-infamous ‘In A Jobcentre No One Can Hear You Scream’ advertising campaign, in which a Jobcentre film set was commissioned instead of filming in, or using props from, the real thing.)Another prime example is the originally American Sure Start initiative, with which I was only briefly involved: it was a most laudable effort with noble aims and one that worked very well indeed in most regions but which struggled somewhat in deprived metropolitan settings, Manchester being one, and London another, having even greater disparity between areas of affluence and deprivation coupled with - I believe - even the most challenging regional startup difficulties by virtue of high property prices.In the light of the above, I couldn’t help but reflect on the more or less constant refrain of You London people are out of touch.In the first instance it was the direct result of transplanting those who demonstrably were in touch (both because they were in the middle of the administration of the nation and because, generally speaking, very few of them were from London in the first place) to some random region while neglecting to also export the entire Westminster apparatus of government to the place the critic came from.If I’m correct in this admittedly subjective, personal and private opinion, the basis is the same argument advanced everywhere, and at all periods in history by those people who feel oppressed and downtrodden because they feel their lives are being ruined by strangers who know nothing about them and couldn’t care less.Speaking as a Londoner I know that feeling well, and I fully sympathise.I have felt much the same myself, sitting in Westminster Hall while bearing mute witness to proceedings, only a bus ride away from all the people who are my neighbours, who despite having the effrontery to live in London also consider themselves to have some small knowledge of the places they were born in, travelled to, worked in, retired to or visit frequently… but who seem to have far less influence on unfolding events than those who live closer to a smaller and more accessible institution, lor obbyists leaning heavily on foreign governments half a world away.(Or even some random tourist whose opinion is aired as an entertaining vox pop and as the charming modern folk saying has it, goes viral.)Unfortunately I doubt matters would be much improved if government were to be devolved, no matter how, or to what level, as those who promote the ‘out of touch’ message can as easily level the same accusation at any and all office-holders, with justice or none at all, and in virtually every case it will be believed by non office-holders because it panders to a popular prejudice:The same principle applies to all institutions I have knowledge of, from democratic sovereign governments through national assemblies - as it doubtless would also apply to some future English regional assemblies - cities, town councils, village committees, every organisation known to mankind worthy of the name…Just as it applies to every person who has ever stood idly by, watching someone else up to his wellies in mud, digging a hole in the road, while privately thinking ‘If I was in charge, that job would be done a lot faster’…* For lyrics, see Democracy (and for the terminally cynical only Everybody Knows.(At this point I’d usually say enjoy, but it not really that sort of experience… )

As a resident of DC for over 40 years, don’t let the current partisan politics of the past five years cloud your understanding of why DC residents after decades of attempting to petition Congress to allow DC apply for statehood, with a carve-out for the federal government: the Mall, the Federal Agencies, NationalMonuments, etc. Which is how the city already functions within a similar arrangement between the local city and the federal governments. In 2016 a citywide referendum was on the ballot to continue to pursue statehood and was overwhelmingly supported by District voters.So, what’s the big deal right? If you were taught American history, you know that in 1776 “Taxation without Representation” was enough to start a Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, the non-representation taxation part didn’t stop with the founding of our country; it’s alive and thriving in 2021.Currently, there are over 712,000 residents of DC, which is more populace than VT and WY; plus, if the current trend continues, four additional states soon join their ranks. However, the more egregious issue is DC returns more federal revenue than 22 other states. Those states have two Senators, and numerous Representatives whose constituents can contact to voice their opinions; as the Constitution instructs US citizens, our voice is our vote.DC HAS NO ONE IN EITHER THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE WHO HAS A VOTE!On top of that indignity, there is the House Sub-Committee for Oversight of the District of Columbia. Obviously, our one token delegate, the same as provided to Guam, US Virgin Island, & American Samoa can vote in committee, but not on the Floor.Yet, if any Representative on the committee disagrees with a DC City Council law or even a referendum passed by the residents of DC, they can have it overturned and make points at home when running for re-election. Ironically, who are we going to call to complain our basic civil rights to self-determination are being hindered.Years ago, DC passed a NO GUN ACT, it was overturned, residents voted 60% in favor of medical marijuana, and a few years later deregulation of marijuana passed by the public, but both overturned by Congress. Sounds like limited Home Rule was a bit more limited than originally expectedIronically, I attended college in DC and have a BA in Policy. Initially, It never occurred to me that it was any big deal to not have a congressional member. Yet, as I got older and was committed to a bill in Congress I can’t explain to you how isolated, violated, and somewhat degraded as an American-born citizen to realize had no voice in the country where I live.There’s no one to call, no one is coming to help. However, I continued to live in one of the highest cost of living cities in the US. This is partially due to being in the only multi-jurisdictional metropolitan area without a commuter tax. Over 1M cars come in and out of DC daily, but due to the VA & MD congressional delegations who represent the districts surrounding the city, future commuter taxes will never happen. So the infrastructure is a mess.Fun Facts:We have two Dakotas, why? = 2 additional Senate seatsDC didn’t get to vote for President until 1964 after the Civil Rights Bill was passed; they were given 3 electoral votes.Historically, two territories are admitted to the United States simultaneously, in order to maintain current caucus numbers in Congress. However, the only other territory close to becoming a state is Puerto Rico (PR). That would give Dems likely 4 new seats, but PR politics are divided into three parties, so it’s not a given.The last PR referendum in 2017 to become either a state, become an independent nation or remain a territory, which was financially a better deal. They voted to keep the status quo. Unfortunately, due to scandals & corruption PR was headed for bankruptcy. After the two hurricanes (and a paper towel toss); plus, our willingness to manage debt, I think they will soon be a state.