Streetsblog.net

An ambitious new report out today from the TexPIRG -- the Texas affiliate of the national ring of Public Interest Research Groups -- shows that $13 million in contributions flowed from transportation interests to state and federal office holders in the Lone Star State. It's a lot of money.

But then the state alone spends billions each year on transportation projects, so I am not sure the sheer number of dollars should cause any jaws to drop. It is of note that Texas saw more contributions than any other state, with only Illinois even close. (TexPIRG is announcing the new report this morning at 11 a.m., and they've taken sides in the governor's race by inviting candidate (and long-time toll road opponent) Hank Gilbert to speak as well.)

The ambitious part of the report (available here) reveals itself in the group's attempt to link the flow of cash to the decisions by state (and federal) lawmakers to favor new highway projects, for instance, rather than the less glamorous task of fixing and maintaining our existing highways and bridges. From the report's executive summary: "The findings suggest that elected officials often overlook preventative maintenance projects, especially when new capacity projects are encouraged by campaign contributions."

I only just received the report, but the early report from here is that the group fails to make that case. There are a host of reasons why TxDOT, for instance, favors new construction projects over maintenance, and they begin with the fact that that is what the local leaders in population-crazy places like Dallas demand.

Indeed, the fight within TxDOT has been how to preserve maintenance spending, in the face of outright demands by lawmakers to cut back on those efforts and spend more on creating more mobility -- a nice term for reducing traffic congestion. We're reported on this tussle frequently.

Another problem is that the lawmakers -- the folks on the receiving end of the cash flow noted here -- have only an indirect role to play in choosing which projects should be built. The report does nothing to get at how and whether that firewall between political pressure and project decisions is breached.

The folks at PIRG are certainly right about this: Lawmakers, especially from urban areas, have been screaming for more transportation dollars. And what they want done with those dollars are new projects, not simply fixing old ones -- at least not until the bridges really do start to crumble.

To be fair, the report looks beyond just state lawmakers. It counts up the federal earmarks and comes away with a gloomy finding: Only 10 percent of the funding for earmarks -- some 74 projects -- was reserved in 2008 for bridge repairs.

They've certainly highlighted a truth about our transportation system: We ought to invest more in our bridges, as the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis in 2007 indicated.

But to suggest that the preference for new construction rather than maintenance is caused by the flow of dollars, well it's a claim that isn't proven in this report. For one thing, maintenance projects are expensive too -- meaning that plenty of companies get paid to do that kind of work as well. (Just ask the folks repairing the Minneapolis bridge how much they're making.)

But more importantly, the new projects are favored -- at least in North Texas -- because they provide new benefits. Lawmakers and local elected officials know that people get more excited about a new car in the driveway than a new engine in the old clunker -- never mind which decision is the wisest. So to say that those decisions are made because of the contributions is a leap that requires more proof than the mere existence of two facts: A) there are lots of contributions by highway interests and B) most of the state and federal funds for highways go to new construction.

I recommend you read the report, if for no other reason to remind yourself just how a business transportation is in Texas, and how many firms get paid big dollars to build those roads. Is there a connection between the contributions and the state and federal spending? I can't imagine that not being the case. But this report, while useful, doesn't explain how.