Teddy Lederer, Author at Transportation For America

Wyoming voters reward elected leaders for raising transportation revenue

https://www.flickr.com/photos/drdad/5107307120/in/photolist-8Mjhtj-djKJmK-djKJCZ-frRDBW-2gqWbk-dKq93k-2dTd-2nPrc-94dgY4-94gmF5-afwTLe-94gkxQ-as5kRp-as7uQN-6Vczp8-dxzjRd-2q6k3u-6yPwoC-94dfYr-bFffEk-4gF27-AgxzE-fWRoFa-as4Swc-22X5LK-SAmcE-ftd8Gq-fsXrJp-mhzNh-232KYE-2Yc8Jb-o8eomT-gMLys-2Y7wu2-a1zsHi-5Basgj-feQk2k-dxHED-fLSPfm-85iraX-8F9XiL-7G3DmM-7G3DoB-7G7zV1-o6mepJ-o8h9zP-nP2Fsy-2QJ3vc-85myTb-cKvdW1

In February of 2013, Wyoming’s state legislature decided to stabilize their state’s transportation fund by passing a ten-cent increase to their gas tax, which is expected to raise an additional $72 million per year for state and local roads. On Tuesday, those elected leaders faced their first primary election since their vote to raise the gas tax by ten cents, which went into effect a few weeks ago on July 1st.

HB 69 passed the House by a vote of 35-24, with 30 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting in favor. In the Senate, the bill passed by a vote of 18-12, with 14 Republicans and 4 Democrats supporting the measure. (Wyoming has a relatively small state legislature with only ninety total members in the Senate and the House — compared to a state like New Hampshire, which has 409.)

Wyoming highway Flickr photo by remster_9

Of the 30 total House and Senate Republicans running for re-election this week that voted yes on the gas tax increase, just 15 were challenged by a primary contender. This may indicate that Wyomans by and large support the position and leadership that these leaders took on the state’s transportation funding. Only two of the 15 supportive Republicans facing a primary opponent lost their races: Dave Blevins (R-Park County) and Kathy Coleman (R-Sheridan County). All six supportive House and Senate Democrats running for re-election won their uncontested primaries.

Based on the primary results, 94.4% of all Wyoming legislators who supported the measure and are running for re-election have won support from their constituents in their primary elections.

It certainly didn’t hurt that the legislation also had Republican Governor Matt Mead’s full support and endorsement:

“Every part of Wyoming’s economy relies on an effective, well-maintained and continually improved highway system. Wyoming Department of Transportation’s projects are planned years into the future – good planning, reasonable costs and effective management can only be achieved through reliable, long term funding.”

Considering that long-term funding certainty is the last thing coming from Washington, D.C right now, this type of teamwork between the Governor and the state legislature helped provide Wyoming certainty for planning and investing in priority projects, including $35.5 million of much needed highway and bridge maintenance and repair throughout the state.

In an environment where Congress is unable to find a stable long-term funding solution for the nation’s Highway Trust Fund, more and more states are taking it upon themselves to fill the gaps and raise additional revenue to provide some stability and invest in much needed capital construction and maintenance projects.

Even though several recent polls seem to suggest that the American public is opposed to raising transportation related taxes, recent state primary election returns from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and now Wyoming tell a different story. In those states that approved a gas tax increase, at least 93% of the representatives backing a tax increase won their primary or kept their seat.

You can read our recent analyses on Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, here. Stay tuned for Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire in the coming weeks.

Congress postpones insolvency, but uncertainty still plagues the Highway Trust Fund’s future

The last-minute patch to the Highway Trust Fund that Congress enacted on the way out the door last week delayed immediate insolvency, but it hardly ends the uncertainty for states or addresses our nation’s long-term prospects.

The House ultimately won the debate with the Senate over the length and funding source for the patch, using the controversial gimmick known as “pension smoothing” and temporarily postponing insolvency until next May. The Senate had passed a patch earlier in the week with enough money (but no pension smoothing) to carry the fund to the end of the year, which could have set the stage for a long-term solution in the lame-duck session.

“Congress is rapidly running out of last-minute budget gimmicks to patch holes in America’s key infrastructure fund, and must immediately begin the task of replacing pretend dollars with the real money necessary to continue to call ourselves a first-world nation,” said James Corless, T4America’s director, in our full statement released after final passage in the Senate. “In truth, they have bought themselves only a few short months to grapple with an issue they have delayed for years.”

Without this patch, the U.S. Department of Transportation was just days away from beginning to slash reimbursements to states for their current projects. However, with only ten months of full funding promised — if it stretches that far — some states are still shelving projects. Take, Tennessee, for example:

“Because of the uncertainty concerning the future of the Highway Trust Fund, the department took a conservative approach with the projects in this year’s three year transportation improvement program,” said Tennessee Department of Transportation’s Jennifer Flynn in a story yesterday about projects still being delayed there, despite last week’s action. “The most recent program included no new construction starts, and there were many projects throughout the state that did not move forward based on available funding.”

Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has been pushing Congress for a long-term funding solution almost since his tenure began as Secretary.

“The good news is that Congress has avoided bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund,” Secretary Foxx said in his news release following the vote. “The bad news is that there is still no long-term certainty, and this latest Band-Aid expires right as the next construction season begins.”

So what happens next? Assuming Congress punts on the issue during the lame-duck period, a lot could be determined by the political makeup of the next Congress May, as well as other big issues early in the next Congress, including raising the debt ceiling again.

Last week, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) found 28 fellow Republicans who would vote to defund the nation’s transportation system except for a small Interstate maintenance fund, and leave it to states to make up for the lost funding.

It would be a massive hole to fill for states and localities. Many already are struggling to raise additional revenue to make ends meet while Congress continues kicking the can down the road. Would they have the ability or political will to raise the equivalent of millions (or billions) in lost federal revenue? And what would happen to our country if the feds walked away from the national interest in our transportation system that spans multiple modes, state borders and moves goods and people across jurisdictional boundaries every day?

Other GOP members appeared to have grave doubts about such a strategy, and instead argued forcefully for shoring up the program for the long haul.

We believe most Americans would prefer to see our nation continue to make first-world levels of investment in our infrastructure – particularly if more of it comes to their communities to solve their local issues and address their priorities. That’s why we’re fighting for a long-term funding solution that gives local communities more resources and latitude, while ensuring that our bridges, roads and transit networks remain strong and safe across the nation.

Massachusetts is attempting to lead the way on a performance-based system for selecting transportation projects.

Last year, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a landmark bill to fund urgently needed statewide transportation investments over the coming years. But how will the state ensure that those dollars go where they’re needed most and can have the greatest impact? Advocates, state officials and other stakeholders in Massachusetts are in the midst of figuring that out.

To support and encourage them in pioneering a more inclusive, sophisticated approach to picking projects, we partnered with Transportation for Massachusetts this month on a conference in Boston called “Measuring Up: Getting More Bang for the Buck in Transportation Project Selection.” More on the event in a moment, but first a bit more context.

Why institute a process for picking better transportation projects in the first place? With public confidence in the process at alarmingly low levels, it’s more important than ever to quantify the public benefits and let voters know what their money is going to buy — especially when attempts are being made to raise new money for transportation to fill the gap.

Massachusetts’ 2013 funding bill established a new council to develop criteria for selecting projects, with the purpose of ensuring that new state funding will go to the most deserving projects across the commonwealth, not the ones that have simply been in the pipeline the longest.

That panel, the Massachusetts Project Selection Advisory Council (PSAC), has been hard at work gathering public input for their report of recommendations to the legislature. The Measuring Up event brought together members of the PSAC, transportation planners, local leaders and advocates to discuss criteria for evaluating the priorities the PSAC has identified: improving safety, lowering congestion, and helping connect workers to their jobs. Their report of recommendations is due by December 31st.

The keynote speaker, Massachusetts’s Secretary of Transportation, Richard Davey, noted his department had set a goal — known as Mode Shift — to increase walking, transit and biking trips by one-third by 2030. Realizing that goal “will require a strategic approach to project selection,” said Davey. “We just can’t do what we’ve always done.”

“We are honored to convene a group that will tackle this challenge and help balance regional priorities with transportation, environmental, economic, and social concerns,” said Kristina Egan, director of Transportation for Massachusetts. “With limited resources but knowing that transportation investments must last for generations, we have to make smart choices.”

Transportation for America is proud to support this kind of work at the state level that will improve accountability for our transportation dollars and help drive and fund transportation and infrastructure projects based on performance and data.

If you would like to know more about what PSAC has accomplished since they have started working, we have listed some resources below including a handout (pdf) and powerpoint presentation (pdf).

Senate poised to take up House plan to patch Highway Trust Fund until Spring 2015

Sometime in the coming days the Senate is expected to take up and vote on the House’s bill to postpone the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund until May of 2015 via an array of accounting maneuvers to cover ten months of transportation funding.

Last week, the House passed Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp’s bill transferring $10.9 billion to the trust fund from various sources, with a large portion coming from an accounting method called “pension smoothing.” This allows employers to defer payments to their employee pension plans; resulting in higher revenues for companies and therefore increasing overall federal tax revenue. It’s a controversial idea, lambasted by conservative political groups and the New York Times alike in advance of last week’s vote.

The Senate will likely be taking up the House’s version of the bill this week and voting on it, though several amendments could also be considered.

Finance Committee Chairman Wyden is expected to offer the alternative version approved by a bipartisan vote of the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month as an amendment. This would improve upon the House-passed bill by providing better revenue options, primarily tighter enforcement of tax laws and extension of certain fees.

Another amendment likely to be introduced by Senators Boxer (D-CA), Carper (D-DE), Corker (R-TN) would reduce the amount generated by some of the accounting maneuvers, essentially cutting the length of the patch and forcing Congress to act on a long-term funding solution before the end of the year.

This amendment would have the positive effect of keeping the pressure on lawmakers, as well as avoiding the potentially disastrous effects of pushing this debate to the months and weeks just before the 2015 construction season begins. (NPR took a look at this perpetual habit of “kicking the can” further down the road in a great piece earlier this week.)

While we commend Congress for reaching a short-term agreement to keep important projects from coming to a complete standstill, all this really accomplishes is postponing the inevitable insolvency for a later day. In the words of the letter sent to Congress this week by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx and the last 11! USDOT Secretaries:

We are hopeful that Congress appears willing to avert the immediate crisis. But we want to be clear: This bill will not “fix” America’s transportation system. For that, we need a much larger and longer-term investment. On this, all twelve of us agree. Congress’ work will not be over with passage of this bill; they must continue moving forward and develop a long-term solution for our nation’s transportation funding.

We will continue to update as the Senate moves forward this week.

Follow-Up: Maryland pols raise their gas tax, voters respond supportively

While the conventional wisdom is that voting for a tax increase spells doom for a politician, recent evidence from Maryland continues to show that state politicians rarely lose their seats when they vote for a gas tax hike.

Maryland is one of five states that recently raised or modified their gas tax to raise more money to fund transportation and infrastructure projects. (Be sure to read our first post focusing on election returns in Pennsylvania and Virginia following gas tax hikes/changes.) While zero Maryland Republicans voted “yes” for the increase, we found that out of the 80 Democrats who voted yes and ran for re-election, 94% kept their seat in the June 24th primary.

On the other side of the aisle, 12.5% of Republicans lost their seat in the primaries.

Maryland follows the pattern set by Virginia and Pennsylvania that state legislators who vote for a tax increase – especially one specifically to raise money to invest in transportation – don’t face penalties at the polls from voters.

The five incumbents who lost primaries were all Democrats: Shawn Tarrant (D-Baltimore City), Darren Swain (D-Prince George’s County), Keiffer Mitchell Jr. (D-Woodlawn, Catonsville), Melvin Stukes (D-Woodlawn, Catonsville), and Michael Summers (D-Prince George’s County).

While a majority of those losses were theorized to be due to Maryland’s law of redistricting every ten years, some were also due to misconduct allegations, according to news articles about the races. A quick scan of the postmortems on each race doesn’t include any mentions about voting for the gas tax increase.

The Republicans had their own problems of redistricting and misconduct as well; in fact, the gas tax seemed to be a complete non-issue for this primary.

As primaries unfold in states taking up transportation funding, we will continue to update this story with more primary and general election results as they become available. As it stands right now, three states have proven that a state legislator can vote for a gas tax increase for transportation funding without fear of losing his or her job.

Representative Dina Titus announces bill promoting greater local control at Las Vegas event

At a press conference Monday in Las Vegas, Rep. Dina Titus introduced her constituents to her bipartisan bill to give local communities across the country greater access to federal transportation funds.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act (HR 4726) would set aside a share of each state’s federal dollars for competitive grants that will provide local communities greater access to federal transportation funds that they can invest in innovative projects to help boost local economies.

“It’s about local governments, local entities, business, bicycle groups – everybody coming to the table to decide where the dollars should go,” Representative Titus said at the press conference.

At yesterday’s event, Titus stressed that this bill doesn’t require new money — rather, it just helps existing funds get down to the cities, towns and suburbs where most people live and where constituents can hold local officials accountable for how it is spent to ensure their economies thrive.

“It’s intended to empower state stakeholders who are impacted by state transportation investment decisions, but who aren’t at the table right now,” Rep. Titus said.

The legislation is also sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), who held a similar event last month in Normal, IL.

Local officials Kristin McMillan, president and CEO of the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce, Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, and Las Vegas Councilman Steve Ross all endorsed the proposal and attended the event.

As we’ve said before, competition is one way to ensure that money gets spent on the best projects possible — an appealing prospect for many local leaders.

“Another feature I like of competitive grants is that it levels the playing field for midsized urban areas who often lose funding opportunities to their bigger siblings in a state because DOTs just look at population as a starting point to allocated funds and not project innovation and worthiness,” said Lee Gibson, CEO of the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, which is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Reno, NV.

Reps. Davis and Titus have crafted a bill to help the local leaders and organizations who know the most about their communities decide where a small portion of transportation money should be spent — answering one of the most consistent requests we hear from our coalition of local elected leaders, businesses, and chambers of commerce across the country.

“As a former mayor who speaks frequently with local leaders around the country, I can say with confidence that they are more than willing to compete and be held accountable for results, but they need access to resources to meet their communities’ needs,” said Mayor John Robert Smith, chair of Transportation for America and former Mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. “This bill would take a major step toward restoring funding for local needs that was greatly restricted in the 2012 transportation bill, MAP-21,” Mayor Smith said. “Rep. Davis’s and Rep. Titus’s measure will ensure that those closest to the heart-beat of a community have access and opportunity to make decisions on how transportation dollars should be spent, while promoting innovation and efficiency.”

Members of Congress are hearing from their constituents about this bill, and we expect legislators from both parties to jump on board soon and co-sponsor this important piece of legislation.

Send a letter to your Congressman and join our call for action.

Favorable responses and coverage for the bipartisan Senate plan to raise the gas tax

As soon as Senators Murphy and Corker introduced their bipartisan plan yesterday to raise the gas tax by 12 cents, supportive statements starting flowing in and media outlets quickly picked up the news.

The day before the news broke, USA Today’s full editorial board weighed in on the issue and offered their preferred solution for rescuing the nation’s transportation fund: “Raise the gas tax.” They couldn’t have thought they’d see action quite so soon, but the very next day, as we reported, Senator Murphy (D-CT) and Senator Corker (R-TN) responded with a proposal that would do exactly that, raising the gas tax 12 cents to help provide “the trust fund with the stable source of income it so desperately needs.” More from the editorial:

The best way to deal with declining gas tax revenue happens to be the simplest way: Raise the gas tax. … The days of higher fuel taxes being a “third rail” of politics (touch it and you die) are long gone. In recent years, seven states have either raised their own gas taxes or imposed other fees that raise revenue. The political fallout has been minimal.

The proposal quickly made headlines around the country, from the biggest papers down to local blogs. Here’s a quick look at just a few of the responses to the Senators’ leadership.

RollCall
Gas Tax Is Imperative to a Robust Highway Bill | Commentary
With federal highway funding about to run dry this summer, will Congress vote to increase the gasoline tax to refill the Highway Trust Fund? It seems a long shot, but a bipartisan agreement begins with two – and two senators have stepped forward.

The Business Journal
Ready for higher gasoline taxes? Road projects may come to a halt without it
The gasoline tax hasn’t been raised since 1993, so maybe it’s time for an update. Plus, it seems fair to make users of the nation’s road pay for improvements. Congress has violated this principle for the past couple of years, taking $50 billion from the federal government’s general fund — thereby raising deficits — to make up for shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund.

Washington Post
Bump at the pump? Senators propose a 12-cent hike in federal gas tax
A bipartisan Senate proposal emerged Wednesday to rescue beleaguered federal transportation funding by raising the tax on gasoline by 12 cents a gallon.

Streetsblog USA
Senators Murphy (D) and Corker (R) Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase
There are several proposals on the table to stave off the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (which pays for transit, biking, and walking projects too) in two months. Just now, two senators teamed up to announce one that might actually have a chance.

Associated Press
SENATORS PROPOSE 12-CENT GAS TAX INCREASE
Two senators unveiled a bipartisan plan Wednesday to raise federal gasoline and diesel taxes for the first time in more than two decades, pitching the proposal as a solution to Congress’ struggle to pay for highway and transit programs.

CBS News
A bipartisan push for higher gasoline taxes
The timing might seem a bit dubious, considering it’s the height of the U.S. driving season, and Americans are dealing with both geopolitical turmoil and the upcoming midterm elections.

MSNBC
A Republican who’s willing to raise the gas tax
To fix America’s crumbling roads and bridges, Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker says he’s willing to do what’s become unthinkable for most congressional Republicans: raise taxes.

WBBJ Eyewitness News Channel 7 (Jackson, TN)
Corker proposes increase to gas tax
For the first time in more than two decades, federal taxes on gasoline and diesel could be raised.

Johnson City Press/Kingsport Time News (TN)
Corker proposes higher fuel tax to pay for repairs to highway infrastructure
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker pitched his legislation Wednesday to fix up the nation’s highway infrastructure by raising federal fuel taxes by six cents twice in the next two years and paying for the hike with provisions in the so-called “tax extenders” bill.

Chattanooga Times Free Press (TN)
Bob Corker eyes 12 cent gas tax to help shore up federal road funds
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., on Thursday proposed a bipartisan plan to raise federal gas and diesel taxes for the first time in more than two decades as an answer to long-standing funding woes threatening to stall the nation’s highway, bridge and transit programs.

The Daily Times (Blount County, TN)
Sen. Bob Corker pitches gas tax hike
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker is part of a bipartisan plan to raise the federal gas tax by 12 cents over the next two years.

Laborers’ International Union of North America
“It’s Time to End the Pothole Penalty”
LIUNA applauds Sens. Murphy and Corker for their continued bi-partisan progress in the U.S. Senate to make our roads and bridges safer and strengthen our economy by addressing the failing Highway Trust Fund with a long-term, full-investment solution.

Governing Mag on the compelling case for more local access to transportation dollars

As the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund looms over the nation’s transportation projects, more and more local leaders are asking for the chance to be heard when it comes to doling out federal transportation money.

In this superb recent article by Governing, they reported on this growing chorus of local leaders asking Congress to give them more access to transportation dollars and give them a seat at the table as decisions are made.

Governing writes:

The 2012 federal law put more money toward big highways and less toward local roads. It cut money for bridges and roads that are not part of the National Highway System by 30 percent. Local governments own more than half of those smaller roads. The law also gives states a greater role in determining how to spend federal money on everything from run-down bridges to bike lanes and sidewalks.

Chris Abele, the county executive of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee County, said this week that the current funding system is like federal and state officials passing an envelope full of taxpayer money for transportation along a line, with localities at the end.

“Sometimes, by the time the envelope gets to us, there’s nothing left,” he said. Local officials, especially those from urban areas, worry that their top priorities could be lost or ignored at the statewide level.

Click through to read the full article.

Local officials know best what their communities need, and the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act would give those local leaders — the ones usually held accountable by their residents when roads are potholed or bridges crumbling — a seat at the table to ensure that they’re part of the decision-making process when it comes to investing those federal transportation dollars.

A closer look at Rep. DeFazio’s bid to replace the gas tax with an oil fee

With the Highway Trust Fund rushing toward insolvency, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) this week stepped up by proposing a policy to address this issue by replacing the gasoline pump tax with a per-barrel oil fee and indexation of the diesel tax that together is sufficient to keep the federal program solvent.

The “Repeal and Rebuild Act” would create a per-barrel fee on oil headed to refineries, with a refund for non-automotive uses and diesel fuel. Although consumers would no longer pay directly, Rep. DeFazio’s office says, this would preserve the “user pays” feature of the highway and transit program by continuing to collect based on fuel use.

“What if we got rid of the tax that people don’t like,” Rep. De Fazio told The Oregonian newspaper, “and move it upstream to something that most people don’t like — the oil industry?”

A barrel tax of $6.75, combined with indexing the diesel tax to rise with inflation, would raise $314 billion over 10 years, Rep. DeFazio’s office says. The proposal includes repeal of the current truck tire excise tax. The barrel fee would rise over time, because it would be “double indexed” to match the growth of the U.S. DOT’s Highway Construction Cost Index and to replace revenue lost as CAFE standards require greater fuel efficiency. Together with indexing the diesel fuel tax, DeFazio’s proposal would raise $104 billion more over ten years than continuing the existing gas tax.

But the changes would not help with the near-term shortfall, Rep. DeFazio acknowledges. The first year would actually raise less than the current gas tax, providing some short-term relief to consumers and oil companies. In fact, it will take until 2017 before we start seeing any positive revenue from this bill.

To cover the short-term gap, Rep. DeFazio would bond $89 billion against future receipts, repaying it over 10 years with the additional $104 billion raised under his proposal.

The gas tax that currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon and the diesel tax that currently stands at 24.4 cents per gallon funds our country’s transportation system. The gas tax has remained at that rate since 1993 and has since lost nearly 40 percent of its purchasing power because of inflation. As costs have risen, revenue has dropped as vehicles grow more efficient and an increasingly urbanized population drives fewer miles per person. Congress has had to transfer more than $50 billion from the general fund to the transportation fund since 2008 stave off insolvency.

A skeptic might wonder whether it will make a difference to consumers if oil companies simply pass the cost on down the line to the pump. But Defazio believes the oil companies might actually end up taking some of the fees from their profits. “Why are they [the oil companies] fighting so hard against it if they could pass on every penny of it?” he asked.

Rep. DeFazio’s proposal has merit, being as it is an all-too-rare effort to address the longterm solvency of the transportation’s trust and our ability to maintain and build a 21st century network. While it takes courage to lead on raising transportation revenue, recent experience indicates voters may be tolerant of the notion. In two states were revenues have been raised recently, Virginia and Pennsylvania, more than 95 percent of legislators were returned to office after voting for a gas tax increase (more here).

We commend Rep. DeFazio and look forward to his peers joining him to pass the “Repeal and Rebuild Act”.

To read about other current proposals from both sides of the aisle, you can click on our recap here. There is also a summary of the differences between the House and the Senate legislation here.

In state elections, voters decline to punish pols for raising transportation taxes

UPDATED: July 14, 2014

Raising the gas tax is a political death sentence, right? Well, not necessarily. In at least two states where legislators raised gas taxes or other fees in the last two years, voters have responded by sending almost all of the supportive members of both parties back to their state houses. Could it be that voters are more supportive of raising revenue than we think?

States are finding it more and more difficult to find funding for transportation and other infrastructure. The 2012 MAP-21 law kept federal funding essentially flat, even as the lingering effects of the long recession have left states in desperate need of infrastructure repair and renovation. Meanwhile, gas taxes are not yielding what they once did, thanks to rising construction costs, growing fuel efficiency and a drop in miles driven per person. With no other solution in sight, some states have concluded they have little choice but to increase gas taxes to maintain and build a 21st century transportation system.

In the last two years, at least seven states have done the “unthinkable” and either increased their gas tax or otherwise changed their revenue model to raise transportation funding: Maryland, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. (For a complete run-down of state revenue moves, see our tracker here.)

With expected insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund occurring as soon as next month, its important that Members of Congress take a scan of what is happening in their states and districts. Of the seven states that raised taxes for transportation, Pennsylvania and Virginia have had primary or general elections since passing those bills. We took a look at how legislators who voted in favor fared in those contests to see if the mantra that gas tax votes lead to an early end to political careers is true.

In 2012, before the legislation passed, Pennsylvania was faced with transportation cuts creating worries of an increase of structurally deficient bridges under weight restrictions, road mileage rated in “poor” condition, and a decrease in transit service throughout the Keystone State. At the time, it led the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges with 4,700.

Pennsylvania’s changes to fuel-related taxes and fees gave the Department of Transportation $2.3 billion to repair and maintain the state’s roads, bridges and mass transit system. The revenue package amounted to a 40 percent increase in the department’s budget, and created an annual $20 million statewide multimodal competitive transportation fund accessible to local governments and businesses. The measure passed 113-85 in the House and 43-7 in the Senate.

Of the 156 aye votes, 90 of the favorable votes were Republicans and 66 were Democrats. Thirty-two of the members that voted “yes” were not on the ballot for reasons such as retirement, seeking different elected office or term not yet expiring, leaving 124 “yes” vote members on the primary ballot on May 20, 2014. Of the members on the ballot, just 5 lost their primary, meaning that 96 percent of those who voted for the transportation revenue won their election. Just one Republican lost his primary Republican Representative Michael Fleck (R-Huntingdon) — but he won the Democratic primary through a write-in campaign. Fleck will be on the November general election ballot, but doesn’t have plans to switch parties. Four House Democrats did lose their seats: Leanna Washington (D-Montgomery) and J.P Miranda (D-Philadelphia), who were both indicted for misusing campaign funds; Erin Molchany (D-Alleghany County) who was re-districted and lost her seat to a Democrat who had voted No on the legislation; and James Clay (D-Philadelphia).

“Pennsylvania legislators showed political courage in voting for the transportation revenue package in 2013 to guarantee the state’s economy and overall mobility of the population would continue to prosper,” said Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Department of Transportation, Barry Schoch. “In return, Pennsylvania’s voters supported those that stepped up to the plate and took this crucial vote by supporting them in our primary election.”

In Virginia, legislators last year replaced the state’s 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline — which had not been changed since 1987 — with a new 3.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline (6 percent on diesel) that will keep pace with economic growth and inflation. It also raised the state’s general sales tax and gave the increment to transportation, and created a regional funding mechanism that boosted the sales tax to six percent in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads and required those funds to be spent only on transportation projects in those areas. The measure passed 64-35 in the House and 26-12 in the Senate.

The commonwealth’s 100 House Delegates were on last November’s general election ballot, while the 40 Senate seats, whose elections are not staggered, will have their election next fall. Of the 64 House Delegates that voted for the transportation revenue package, 31 were Republicans and 33 were Democrats. Five of the “yes” vote members weren’t on last fall’s ballot due to retirement or seeking different elected office. No Democrats lost their seats and just four Republicans were on the losing end in their elections, including: Joe T. May (R-Clarke), Mark Dudenhefer (R-Prince William), Beverly Sherwood (R-Frederick), and Michael Watson (R-James City). Of the 183 elected officials who showed the courage to support necessary infrastructure in Virginia and Pennsylvania, just 9 lost their general or primary elections representing less than 5 percent of those who voted “yes” in these states.

As Wyoming, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Hampshire have their primaries throughout the summer, we will be keeping tabs and will let you know if this trend holds true. But to this point, all indications are that a Congress facing a deadline to salvage our nation’s transportation program can safely follow state legislators’ lead on transportation revenue. In return, they are more likely to earn gratitude than ire from constituents eager to ensure a sound transportation infrastructure.

We recently published the results from Mayland’s primaries and the results following their gas tax legislation.

Transportation funding: summer’s biggest blockbuster

Suddenly, transportation funding is the topic de jour.

Last night, the House debated the measure that will set transportation spending levels for the coming fiscal year, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. Among other controversial provisions, the bill would cut the popular TIGER grant program from $600 million today to $100 million. (You can read our full summary of the bill here.)

The TIGER cuts drew opposing statements from 13 Democrats and from the Obama Administration, which has called for an increase of TIGER funds to $1.25 billion. The Administration Monday declared its opposition to the THUD measure, citing in part a TIGER funding cut that “would reduce an already highly competitive grant program and its ability to support innovative projects across the United States.”

Meanwhile, both the House and the Senate are scrambling to find new ways to keep the highway trust fund solvent. With tax increases off the table in an election year as an expected shut-off of funding for new projects looms, both houses appear to be searching for short-term measures to plug the gap between lagging gas tax receipts and current spending levels.

As you may have heard, House Republicans have proposed to find the money by eliminating Saturday postal service and applying the savings (potentially up to $2 billion a year) to help fund the Highway Trust Fund. Interestingly, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, who has himself pushed to cut Saturday service, told interviewed by the Washington Post earlier this week that he was delighted by the idea.

However, this plan is not widely supported by either party. More than three-dozen House Republicans have signed a letter stating their opposition to five-day delivery service, and House Democrats do not see this as a viable fix for the funding gap.

In the Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) have created a bipartisan plan that includes a one-time tax “holiday” for multinational corporations to bring profits home from overseas with a lucrative tax deduction. Such a move would yield a windfall of $20 billion to $30 billion over the next two years, they estimate.

While that would be enough to cover the projected trust-fund shortfall for a year or two, it would not solve the longterm problem. It also has drawn opposition from other key leaders who fear a longterm hit to the treasury if the profit repatriation is not tied to comprehensive corporate tax reform – changes that are far too complex to work through before the looming deadline.

Stay tuned. It’s going to an interesting summer.

Finally, a bill to give locals more access to their federal transportation dollars

Normal, Illinois’ Uptown Station project represents what can happen when the local leaders behind an ambitious vision are able gain access to the resources needed to bring that vision to life.

Most taxpayers would agree that the level of government closest to the people should have more control over how transportation dollars get spent in their local communities. Yet local cities, towns and counties control less than 15 percent of all federal transportation dollars.

If you think that needs to change, then stop what you’re doing and ask your representatives to cosponsor this critical, bipartisan bill. It would give local communities more access to federal transportation funds that they can invest in homegrown transportation plans and projects that they control.

(You can read more in-depth about Representative Davis’ bill on our blog here or check out the Congress.gov page for H.R. 4726 here.)

Local leaders are the ones who feel the heat when crumbling infrastructure stalls traffic, when workers can’t connect to jobs, streets are unsafe or goods get stuck in congestion. But they lack the access to federal funds that could help them fix those problems and boost their economies, and they have little say in how their state’s federal allocation gets spent.

We have a golden opportunity to change that.

Thanks to the leadership of a bipartisan group of Representatives and Senators, this terrific proposal would set aside a small portion of each state’s federal allotment to create a grant program especially for local communities. The grants would be awarded on merit by a panel with representatives from state and local jurisdictions, ensuring that funds go to well-conceived projects with the most local support.

This program would make a tremendous impact by requiring that more transportation dollars flow to communities — a great way to make good on Congress’s promise of more local control in MAP-21, the current transportation law.

The grants could fund a wide variety of surface transportation projects — such as bridge repair or improvement, highway projects, freight movement, bike and pedestrian safety and transit, to name a few.

This bill represents one of the best opportunities we’ve had in some time to ensure that more transportation dollars get down to where they’re needed most, to be spent on the very best projects that communities need.

Please, send a letter to your representatives and urge them to support this important bill.

—

Did you already send your letters? Then help spread the word! Use the links to share on Twitter and Facebook below, OR, cut and paste the message in the box to send a message to your friends via email.

Shouldn’t the level of government closest to the people have more control over how transportation dollars get spent in their local communities? And shouldn’t they have more access to federal transportation funds?

I think so, and I asked my representatives to cosponsor this bipartisan bill that would give local communities more access to federal transportation funds that they can invest in homegrown transportation plans and projects, and more control over how those dollars get spent.

Will you join me and send a letter? It only takes a moment.

http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=18521

In Senate hearing, local officials stand up for greater access to federal funds

Now that the Environment and Public Works Committee has passed the highway title of the Senate’s next transportation bill, attention shifts to three other committees writing remaining portions of the bill. Last week the Commerce Committee held a hearing on “local perspectives on moving America”, including testimony from T4America’s John Robert Smith, the former mayor of Meridian, MS.

Testifying at the invitation of Senator Richard Blumenthal, Mayor Smith explained how Congress can help provide “the tools and resources to invest in innovative transportation solutions that are critical to [local communities’] economic competitiveness.”

Watch full Senate hearing here

“Every day, my constituents in Meridian would stop me and tell me — whether it was at the grocery store or church — about their transportation challenges,” said Mayor Smith.

“But as mayor, I was frustrated to see limited choices of where I could go to for funding to meet the challenges of the people I served. …In fact, local leaders had almost no access to federal dollars.”

During the Q&A that followed the testimony, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) echoed that sentiment that local leaders like Mayor Smith often have a better grasp on those needs. “It was interesting to me to hear a Democratic member of the United States Senate [Senator Cory Booker] from the Northeast,” Sen. Wicker noted, “saying the very sorts of things that a Republican member from the Southeast would say about the wisdom of local government and the officials that are closer to the people knowing the needs better.”

Accompanied by Mayor Sly James from Kansas City, MO, and Mayor David Martin from Stamford, CT, along with other local stakeholders, Smith recommended that Congress stabilize and increase revenues for the Highway Trust Fund to support all modes of transportation. He urged lawmakers to take advantage of the opportunity provided by reauthorization to make policy changes to allow local communities to compete for and control a larger share of the resources they need to succeed.

Noting the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction over freight and rail policy, his full written remarks stressed the importance of maintaining and expanding the national intercity passenger rail system and providing it dedicated funding, as well as the need to make our freight system truly multimodal. (Read his full testimony here.)

But the most pressing issue before Congress right now is the looming insolvency of the trust fund — a problem that the Finance Committee will have to solve.

“If Congress does not act to provide additional revenues for the Highway Trust Fund, these plans and projects would be stopped in their tracks, with real — and likely lasting — effects on the nation’s economy,” said Smith.

T4America’s proposal to raise revenues has been endorsed by a number of local chambers of commerce, cities, and other organizations, including: MetroHartford Alliance (CT), the City of Gainesville, FL, and the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, among many others.

“The most important message I have to deliver today is that the status quo is not acceptable,” said Mayor Smith in his closing remarks.

“Mayors and local elected officials are doing everything they can to improve their transportation systems and keep their economies strong — which are the base of a strong national economy. But they need a federal partner. Too often, they’re shut out of this process. The federal government can and must do more to help local leaders meet the transportation needs that their citizens require.”