aashto Archives - Transportation For America

The highway trust fund isn’t on life support—it’s been dead since 2008

Our failing federal transportation program is supposed to be completely paid for with gas taxes, but since 2008, Congress has taken an additional $275 billion from taxpayers (on top of all gas taxes) to cover the difference between gas taxes and their spending. And it’s only getting worse.

You may have heard about the looming “fiscal cliff” for the country’s federal transportation trust fund in 2028. We can climb a cliff—but this is more like a chasm: The Congressional Budget Office projects that, by 2027, the gap between trust fund revenues and spending will reach $40 billion annually, resulting in an overall deficit of more than $240 billion by 2033. To put that $40 billion gap in perspective, the entire federal-aid transportation program spends about $77 billion per year.

This deficit is happening for one basic reason: Congress keeps spending far more than the gas tax brings in.

But first, how did we get here?

There’s a much longer version of this story, but let’s start with the shorter one.

Every time you buy gas, 18.4¢ per gallon (and 23.4¢ for diesel), as a “user” of the transportation system, you pay into a protected federal trust fund for transportation called the Highway Trust Fund.¹ (Despite its name, the fund also has a Mass Transit Account because transit benefits drivers too by taking all of those potential drivers off the road.) There are other small fees on tires and related things, but 90 percent of the trust fund’s money must come from fees charged to the users of the system.²

Here’s how trust funds work: Users pay fees directly into a protected trust fund over a long period of time, and then those funds must be spent to benefit those users. The users (those who buy gasoline) pay directly for the system (roads and transit systems.) This allows the transportation program to be protected from the typical annual appropriations fights over a program’s funding levels. Gas taxes roll into the trust fund and then get distributed back to states via a multi-year authorizing law, usually five years for transportation. For example, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 allocated those anticipated user fees for five years.

Since its inception, the bedrock principle of our federal transportation program has been that the user (through the trust fund) covers 100% of the cost of the federal transportation program for highways and transit. And, other than a rocky start in the 1950s and 60s, users did cover that full cost for years. Until 2008.

The trust fund is not “threatened”—it died in 2008

In 2008, after rosy projections of growing gas tax revenue by Congress in the 2005 surface transportation reauthorization law failed to materialize as growth in driving slowed, Congress was forced to make an emergency bailout of the trust fund, transferring $8 billion in general funds into it to keep it from becoming insolvent. ³ But this September 2008 bailout just turned out to be just the first of many. Flash forward to 2025, and Congress has now made a total of nine transfers totaling $275 billion—taken from all taxpayers, regardless of how much they drive or how much fuel they purchased—to keep the “trust fund” solvent.

To put that number in perspective, the total price tag for the entire five-year 2005 federal transportation law (SAFETEA-LU) was only $244 billion. The reality looks even worse if you start to consider its status without those nine transfers:

The “user pays’” principle isn’t on life support—it died a long time ago.

Here are two basic reasons why:

First, the gas tax hasn’t increased since 1993, even as the fuel efficiency of vehicles has improved, and inflation has steadily reduced its purchasing power. ⁴

This means that annual gas tax revenue declined by $10 billion per year from 2010 to 2025. There’s also compelling evidence that the largest factor in the erosion of gas tax value “is the massive increase in road construction costs—the cost-per-mile of the United States highway system grows larger each year.”

Second, 2008 was also the beginning of a structural imbalance created by how much the gas tax was bringing in and (most importantly) how much money Congress was committing to spend each year. Rather than keeping overall spending matched 1:1 to the amount of gas taxes projected to come in, Congress has continually committed to spending far more than the gas tax brings in. State DOTs received 50 percent more in flexible formula funding in the 2021 IIJA compared to the 2015 FAST Act, which was itself a 15 percent increase over MAP-21 in 2012. All while gas tax revenues were failing to grow at the same rate.

Everyone has paid to fill the gap since 2008, whether you’ve ever bought a gallon of gas

Back in the late 2000s and early 2010s, the loudest debate during reauthorization was about the states who received more gas tax revenue back than they paid into the program. But because of the $275 billion taken from all taxpayers to plug the gaps in the trust fund, this phenomenon simply no longer exists. Every state is receiving more than they paid in gas taxes. The Congressional Research Service estimates that more than a quarter of all “trust fund” spending has come not from users but from general tax dollars or other sources since 2008. That number has gotten worse in recent years: when it expires in 2026, close to a third of all IIJA spending will have come from sources other than users.

And despite what you will surely hear about the #1 problem being that we spend gas tax revenues on non-highway projects, Congress is spending $20 billion more per year than the gas tax brings in on highway formula programs alone.

One more time: The trust fund and its core concept are not mostly dead; they are completely dead.

What’s next for the trust fund

Because of this looming fiscal fiasco, the loudest refrain you will hear from the transportation industry and lobby groups and Congress over the next two years will be about money. You won’t hear much about making dramatic changes to get better outcomes out of this program, but you will see headlines and quotes about how we need to “find more money,” and “solve the funding issue,” and “address the trust fund’s insolvency.” Indeed, the trade group representing state DOTs has already staked out this position: We absolutely must grow the size of this bankrupt program, and taxpayers (every one of you!) need to collectively find $210 billion for them to keep doing the same thing that fails to deliver results. AASHTO’s proposal:

Why is the default assumption that we have to continue increasing the size of a program that no longer pays for itself while failing to deliver on what matters?

There are only three basic options for moving forward

As Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote a few weeks ago, “the Highway Trust Fund’s looming insolvency is not just a transportation problem—it is a taxpayer problem.” There are three broad options at this point:

Take billions more from all taxpayers (whether they buy gas or not) by deficit spending, transferring billions into the trust fund, and having all taxpayers pick up the tab
Take billions more from taxpayers by raising revenues in some fashion (increasing gas taxes or establishing new taxes)
Cut the size of the program’s spending down to the amount of revenue brought in each year and live within our means

These first two options require taking more money from taxpayers to prop up a federal program that is failing to move the needle on repairing our crumbling infrastructure, reducing congestion, reducing emissions, or improving safety.

It’s time to start thinking about that third option: Scale the program down to the size of what the gas tax brings. Similar plans have been suggested before, including a slightly different 2014 proposal by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and 28 Senate Republicans to mostly phase out the federal gas tax—except for a few cents to fund interstate maintenance and repair only—and leave it to states to make up for the lost funding.

End this program as we know it

There was a time in T4America’s history that we joined the chorus of those who thought Senator Lee’s above idea was a terrible one. Back then, we believed—as a lot of others still do—that we just had to accept billions in destructive highway building and bad outcomes in order to get some transit funding, pennies for bike lanes or sidewalks, or competitive grants for creative, multimodal projects. But we simply cannot continue ignoring this program’s damage and terrible performance.

It’s time to wind down the federal program.

As we say in our platform for reauthorization, “this program doesn’t need a facelift; it needs to be blown up and replaced with something completely new.” It has completely failed to deliver on its promises, and it’s taken obscene amounts of money from all taxpayers above and beyond what vehicle owners pay at the pump to do it.

Scaling the program down to the size of incoming gas tax revenues is probably the best first step toward transitioning to a radically different federal program oriented around setting priorities, picking projects that will deliver on those outcomes, and providing greater accountability for taxpayers. This is the only conversation about funding that T4America will be having: What are the best possible options for scaling down the federal transportation program and creating something new?

This program has been a bad deal for a long time, and it’s time we stop accepting it. It’s not time to rescue the trust fund, it’s time to write its eulogy.

Three critical considerations for evaluating AASHTO’s new Bikeway Guide

As a valued T4A member, we are dedicated to providing you timely updates on transportation topics.

On July 25^th, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) met to consider changes to their Bikeway Guide, including the long-awaited addition of designs for protected bike lanes.

AASHTO deserves credit for creating and updating this guide for building bike infrastructure, but AASHTO is largely responding to the massive, growing interest from cities across the country. Many cities have been the leaders in this area. San Jose, CA, and Champaign, IL, have had protected bike lanes since the 1970s, and Boulder, CO, and Denton, TX, since the 1980s. People for Bikes started the GreenLane project in 2011 to help more cities build protected bike lanes. The result is that — without any formal guidance from AASHTO — almost 300 protected bike lanes exist across the country today.

Flickr CC photo by Zane Selvans

It is important to recognize the limitations of AASHTO’s action and why it’s ultimately unlikely to lead to the significant expansion of new bike and pedestrian infrastructure onto more roadways across the country. Why? Here are three reasons.

First: AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is wholly separate from their standard manual for road design, the Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, also known as “The Green Book”. Unlike this new bike guide, The Green Book is the industry standard that sits on every transportation engineer’s desk.

Second: The Federal Highways Administration adopts The Green Book by federal regulation. Not so for the Bikeway Guide. This reinforces the message to engineers and local policymakers that one document has primacy over the other.

Third: These two documents are not written in conjunction. This often sends designers in different directions.

Flickr CC photo by Spencer Thomas

A local transportation agency interested in building bike facilities might seek out the AASHTO’s Bikeway Guide for assistance. If they do, they will be steered to some very interesting designs, but not the most cutting edge designs being deployed in many cities. For a more up-to-date approach, communities turn to the National Association of City Transportation Official’s (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. NACTO’s authors have analyzed designs across the world, and worked with local governments more likely to build bike infrastructure.

While the AASHTO Bikeway Guide might help design bike infrastructure, the overall guidance in their flagship guide, The Green Book, pushes engineers toward roadway designs that make bike infrastructure difficult at best. The Green Book encourages wide lanes and wide roads with fast-moving traffic, which makes additional right-of-way for bicycles unlikely and creates a hostile environment for those outside of a car.

When these shortcomings in The Green Book are pointed out, many say it allows for flexibility (like this page from the Federal Highways Administration about context sensitive solutions). I work with state DOTs to analyze the barriers in their project development processes that stand in the way of building complete streets (roadways that safely accommodate all users from trucks and cars to transit users and people on foot or bike). In my experience, it’s a persistent challenge for transportation agencies to exercise flexibility that’s theoretical.

To use that flexibility, a project designer must first make up their own design without guidance from The Green Book, then undergo a challenging and strict review process for approval. For engineers judged on delivering a project quickly, this flexibility is really a Hobson’s choice.

I am excited to see AASHTO recognize the need for guidance in bike infrastructure design and support separated bike lanes, which are essential for making biking safe, convenient and attractive for far more people. Protected bike lanes appeal to seven times more people than unprotected bike lanes, according to People for Bikes. But, for AASHTO to demonstrate true enthusiasm for bike infrastructure and become a partner in building safer roads for non-motorized travelers, the organization needs to bring these designs and concerns into its flagship document, The Green Book.

So what do you want from transportation?

We noticed that the folks at AASHTO are asking all their visitors to weigh in and “tell Congress” what they want to see in a transportation bill, and more broadly, what they think we need to be building and doing with our transportation dollars.

During the six-week campaign, people can use AASHTO’s Facebook page to post YouTube videos and written comments about their transportation priorities, ideas, and personal stories. Already a number of people have weighed-in on their concerns, from traffic congestion and safety, to high-speed rail and job creation through greater investment in transportation projects.

To view or post your comment, go to http://www.transportation.org/IToldCongress.

We like their idea and encourage you to weigh in with them.

As some of our polls and other groups’ polling have shown, Americans have a pretty good idea what we want to spend our money on. We want to have more options for getting around. Nobody wants to be stuck with only one way to get where they need to go. We need to do a better job of fixing what we’ve already got before we spend money on a lot of expensive new things. Travel should be safe, no matter whether we’re in a car, on a train or on foot or bike. Our communities need to have the power to build what we need to get us where we need to go.

So go and tell AASTHO: What do you want?

Reports from AASHTO and U.S. PIRG highlight an unsustainable transportation status quo

Two reports out this week speak, in quite different ways, to the urgent need for a fresh approach to federal transportation policy.

In “Road Work Ahead”, U.S. PIRG sounds the alarm on the escalating deterioration of America’s infrastructure and the need to get serious about repair and restoration. The “Unlocking Gridlock” report from AASHTO, the trade association of state Departments of Transportation, emphasizes the problem of congestion in our increasingly urbanized nation, offering highway expansion as the solution.

The subtext of the PIRG report is that expanding highway capacity – whether by widening or building new roads — is generally a bad idea, because it comes at too high a cost: Deferred maintenance on existing roads and bridges, perpetuation of over-reliance on cars with an associated dependency on oil and other problems.

For AASHTO, congestion comes at too high a cost, and the report marshals a compelling case that people should have a way to avoid those costs. However, the report comes up short in two respects: It does not adequately explain how we built a system that functions so poorly for many commuters, and it offers only one solution — more of the same.

We believe strongly, and our polling shows most Americans agree, that maintaining existing roads and bridges in top condition is our first priority. This doesn’t mean we think highway expansion is over for good. But it cannot continue to be the default solution, simply because it is the only tool that current federal policy supplies to the entities that get most of the money – the state DOTs.

The real crux of the two reports is that we have a national policy that is decades behind the reality of this century: Whether in states with low or high population, Americans are concentrating more and more in urban areas, both large and small. Yet our national policy seems almost to be designed to thwart urban mobility. Roads and bridges in our towns and metro areas take the worst pounding, and are most in need of repair and maintenance, but don’t get the resources they need. Metros plagued by congestion need a full array of tools: fixes to bottleneck-creating highway designs, rail and busways, congestion-management technology and planning and land-use approaches that minimize impact on highways and maximize transit investments.

But as we said before, the DOTs have one tool: bigger highways. You know the old saw: When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The figures are startling and compelling. By AASHTO’s estimates, poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, which comes out to an average of $335 per motorist. According to the USDOT, 12 percent of America’s bridges are “structurally deficient,” and in some states that figure is higher than 20 percent. Among federal highways, 45 percent are in poor, mediocre of fair condition.

The traffic gridlock resulting from inadequate transportation options has hindered quality of life and slowed the economy, as AASHTO has pointed out. Drivers with a 30-minute commute lose 22 hours (roughly three full work days) sitting in traffic, and travel on U.S. highways has increased five-fold over the past several decades. Expanding capacity in a smart and targeted way has been and will continue to be a part of the solution.

Our continued challenge will be to draw from every tool we have to make our transportation system smarter, safer and more sustainable. Although PIRG and AASHTO come at transportation issues from a different perspective, both agree that the status quo is unsustainable, and our team at Transportation for America couldn’t agree more. We look forward to working with AASHTO, PIRG and all interested groups toward a reauthorization bill that increases affordable and efficient transportation options, creates benchmarks to ensure accountability for taxpayer dollars and makes our roads safer and less congested. Only with an “all of the above” approach that says yes to safer highways, yes to transportation choices and yes to accountability can we truly say our system has met 21st Century needs.