Skip to main content

Senators unveil bipartisan plan to rescue the federal transportation program by raising the gas tax

Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Bob Corker (R-TN) today announced their bipartisan plan to raise the nation’s gas tax by 12 cents over two years to rescue the nation’s Highway Trust Fund, which is headed for insolvency before the end of the summer.

Senators Murphy and Corker introduce their proposal to raise the gas tax by 12 cents and index it to inflation on Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Senators Murphy and Corker introduce their proposal to raise the gas tax by 12 cents and index it to inflation on Wednesday, June 18, 2014. Photo courtesy of Sen. Murphy’s office.

Unveiled at an event at the U.S. Capitol this morning, The Highway Funding and Tax Reduction Proposal would increase the federal gasoline and diesel taxes by 6 cents in each of the next two years for a total of a 12-cent increase. The taxes would then be indexed to inflation, so that transportation funding keeps in step with construction costs. (The federal gas tax has lost about a third of its purchasing power since it was last raised in1993.)

These two simple changes would provide funding to sustain current spending levels, plus inflation, over the next 10 years. The Murphy-Corker plan proposes to offset some of the increased costs to individuals by permanently extending a handful of tax breaks that benefit ordinary households.

Since 2008, Congress has transferred more than $50 billion in general funds into the Highway Trust Fund to maintain investment levels, and the fund’s spending is currently projected to outpace revenues by over $160 billion in the next decade. Just to have enough money to continue the program for next year would require finding an additional $18 billion before Oct. 1.

But now, for the first time in this Congress, a legitimate, bipartisan plan has been offered to solve the shortfall of the nation’s transportation trust fund. No temporary patches, no swapping funding between programs, no general fund transfer or accounting sleight-of-hand.

“Proposed short-term patches using accounting gimmicks have been all but shot down in both houses,” said T4America Director James Corless in our full statement released this morning. “Senators Murphy and Corker are showing real leadership – as well as concern for their constituents’ jobs and safety – by championing a long-term solution that recognizes the gravity of the situation and addresses it head-on. … The alternative is to allow our transportation system to crumble along with an economy hobbled by crapshoot commutes and clogged freight corridors.”

“By modestly raising the federal gas tax, we can address a crippling economic liability for this country—the inability to finance long-term improvements to our crumbling national infrastructure,” said Senator Murphy in the Senators’ joint statement this morning.

“I know raising the gas tax isn’t an easy choice, but we’re not elected to make easy decisions – we’re elected to make the hard ones. This modest increase will pay dividends in the long run and I encourage my colleagues to get behind this bipartisan proposal,” he said.

Senator Bob Corker, who certainly understands how important transportation investments are down at the local level as the former mayor of Chattanooga, TN, stated emphatically at the event that “if something is important enough to have, it’s important enough to pay for.”

“Congress should be embarrassed that it has played chicken with the Highway Trust Fund and allowed it to become one of the largest budgeting failures in the federal government,” he added in his official statement. “If Americans feel that having modern roads and bridges is important then Congress should have the courage to pay for it.”

As our recent post on support for gas tax increases at the state level shows, voters may be more accepting of higher transportation taxes than conventional wisdom suggests. And any move to stave off crisis and stabilize the federal program for the long term brings cheers from the local officials who represent home-state constituents.

“We certainly support Senator Murphy’s efforts to put our transportation trust fund on a sound footing,” said Lyle Wray, executive director of the Capitol Region (Hartford) Council of Governments in Murphy’s state of Connecticut. “We have seen two bridge closures in just the last two weeks on the Metro-North line, the busiest commuter line in the country. Repairing and replacing bridges is just the start of our communities’ needs. We have been doing all we can to stretch dollars and use debt financing, but we have gone as far as we can go without additional funding. Raising the gas tax is the best solution we see for stable funding for critical infrastructure in the near term.”

And in Franklin, TN, a southern suburb of Nashville, Mayor Ken Moore offered Sen. Corker — a prior mayor of Chattanooga — his support for the proposal.

As mayor of Franklin and chair of the mayors’ caucus of Middle Tennessee, I can say we have been supportive of raising the gas tax because we recognize this is what funds our highways and our transit, and we can’t allow our infrastructure to deteriorate. We have to stabilize the trust fund and provide consistent funding.

Middle Tennessee is the economic generator now for Tennessee, one of the fastest growing regions in terms of creating jobs. While that is a good problem, it creates a burden on our infrastructure. It’s important to make sure we have the certainty of funding so we can continue to support this economic development

As a mayor I can see the handwriting on the wall. Without this we will be tremendously challenged to avoid congestion and gridlock. The number one calls and emails I get are about traffic and congestion. I think voters will support it if they know it will go towards relief and supporting that economic growth.

So there you have it. The first legitimate, bipartisan transportation revenue proposal is on the table. Senators Murphy and Corker deserve great credit for their leadership and courage to propose a real fix to the transportation funding crisis.

We will have more on this proposal as we track its progress closely over the next few weeks and months, so stay tuned.

Part three: Crucial transportation projects could be halted if Congress fails to rescue transportation funding

Congressional inaction on saving the nation’s transportation fund would have tangible impacts on projects planned for next year and beyond, forcing many long-awaited projects to halt indefinitely as soon as this summer. Illinois’ six-year plan for transportation improvements could be threatened, and one long-awaited enormous project on the border with Iowa could be a casualty.

Our new report we released yesterday chronicles the tangible financial impacts that the expected insolvency of the nation’s transportation trust fund would have on state and local transportation budgets beginning in the upcoming fiscal year. No new projects with a significant federal share will be able to get underway in the new fiscal year, which begins this October, if Congress fails to act.

What would that really mean for projects around the country?

In Illinois, Governor Quinn recently announced a six-year transportation plan to complete dozens of key projects, including the Englewood Flyover freight and passenger rail project, bridge replacements along the Stevenson Expressway, repaving and repair on I-74 in Decatur and reconstruction of Rte. 2 in Rockford. But because the plan anticipates using $6.99 billion in federal funding to match $1.16 billion in state funding and $450 million in local funding, projects may not make it off the drawing board without the certainty of that federal contribution.

Just last week, in the Quad Cities on the border of Iowa and Illinois, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx visited the site of a bridge replacement and accompanying corridor improvement that could face significant delays if new work can’t be started next year.

Quad Cities I-74 Bridge

The I-74 bridges connecting Iowa and Illinois carry nearly half the traffic each day between the cities of this bi-state region where one of five workers crosses the river to go to work. The narrow, obsolete bridges date back to 1935 and were never designed to be part of an interstate highway system. This stretch of road sees more than three times as many crashes as comparable corridors and increased traffic on the bridge has created a critical bottleneck that also affects freight passing through the middle of the country on the national freight network.Replacing the I-74 bridges have been a top priority for regional leaders for the last two decades.

When Illinois and Iowa DOTs released a construction plan for coming years including more than $800 million programmed for the central bridge span, The Quad City Times editorialized that “The Quad-Cities’ biggest public construction project in history seems to suddenly move from planning to action.”

Yet collapsing federal funding would threaten that progress. Illinois’ improvements on adjoining streets have begun and Iowa is scheduled to begin construction next year. Beyond just next year, though, the long-term funding uncertainty created by the insolvent trust fund jeopardizes the progress of the entire corridor project,which will depend on reliable federal contributions.

Sec. Foxx with Bustos and Loebsack at I-74 bridge
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx tours the existing I-74 bridge site with Representatives Cheri Bustos (IL-17) and Dave Loebsack (IA-2) last week. Photo courtesy of Rep. Loebsack’s office.

We’ve heard many stories like this about the important projects that would come to a stop if Congress fails to rescue the nation’s transportation fund. But Congress must do more than just save the transportation fund. The local leaders we’ve been speaking with have made it clear that if Congress wants support for raising more revenue for transportation, they need to give these folks at the local level more reasons to believe that it will be to their benefit.

Last week we released a policy road map showing how we can resuscitate and reinvigorate the program in exciting ways, so that it better suits the needs of people in the communities where they live. It’s a great place to start.

—-

Fiscal Cliff Promo Graphic

Download the Report Visit the Report Home

States already scaling back planned work for next year in anticipation of funding crisis

Congressional inaction on saving the nation’s transportation fund would have tangible impacts on projects planned for next year and beyond, forcing many long-awaited projects to halt indefinitely as soon as this summer. Numerous states are already beginning to make plans for a year where no federal money is available for new projects by scaling back plans and tentatively canceling projects.

The report we released yesterday makes it clear: Starting this fall, every dollar of gas tax revenues collected will be needed to cover the federal share of projects already promised to states, regions, and transit agencies. That means no new projects with a significant federal share will be able to get underway in the new fiscal year which begins this October.

Some states are doing their due diligence and preparing plans and budgets for next year in light of the possible reality of no new money to invest in transportation projects that require a federal share or matching funds.

Tennessee stops work on new projects 

Because of uncertainty about future federal funding, the Tennessee Department of Transportation has already halted engineering on new projects for next year (and beyond).

TDOT Commissioner John Schroer reports that with a loss of federal dollars, the department would need to pare back its plan to work “exclusively on the maintenance of our existing pavement and bridges rather than new projects.” Limited funding could jeopardize projects that many regional leaders have planned to limit congestion and maintain quality of life as population booms.

Arkansas bears up under bad bridges, needed maintenance

Ten bridge replacement, road repair and highway expansion projects set to go forward this summer have already been pulled by the Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department because of uncertainty about federal reimbursement. Arkansas has nearly 900 structurally deficient bridges that carry a total of more than 1.5 million vehicles a day.


Those are just two of many stories we’ve heard about the real impact in states and local communities if Congress fails to rescue the nation’s transportation fund. But they need to do more than just save the transportation fund. The local leaders we’ve been speaking with have made it clear that if Congress wants support for raising more revenue for transportation, they need to give these folks at the local level more reasons to believe that it will be to their benefit.

Last week we released a policy road map showing how we can resuscitate and reinvigorate the program in exciting ways, so that it better suits the needs of people in the communities where they live. That’s a great place to start.


We’ve had terrific response already to this new report, but help us spread the word! Links to share are below, and be sure to view the report if you haven’t already.

Fiscal Cliff Promo Graphic

Download the Report Visit the Report Home

Which highly anticipated transportation projects in your community would go back on the shelf next year?

Which highly anticipated transportation projects in your community would go back on the shelf next year? Will it be a bridge replacement years in the making? New buses to meet growing ridership? A multi-use trail along a key highway that bike commuters are hoping to use? Improvements to make your Main Street safer and more pleasant for people who shop and work there?

Construction mosaic for fiscal cliff report

If Congress does nothing in the next few months, the nation’s transportation fund will be bankrupt before the end of the summer. The new report we published this morning chronicles the heavy financial toll that states and metro areas will face if federal transportation dollars for any new projects drop to zero starting this fall.

The bottom line if that happens? The feds will be unable to commit to funding any new projects, depriving states and localities of resources critical to maintaining and improving the infrastructure that makes our economy possible. That’s unacceptable. Will you join us and call on your representatives and senators?

Poof.

There goes a long awaited bridge replacement in downtown Boise, ID, to replace a narrow, deficient 1938 bridge with a modern structure that is safe for all modes of transportation; the order of 29 new buses for Columbus, Ohio’s transit agency; and the replacement for the nearly 80-year-old twin I-74 spans in the Quad Cities on the border between Iowa and Illinois — where one in five workers crosses the river each day for work.

The list goes on and includes hundreds if not thousands of new projects for next year that would be delayed without a fix for our country’s transportation fund.

Join us and call on your representatives and senators and tell them you support raising the revenues we need to fix the transportation trust fund and refocus our country’s transportation program on innovative, locally-driven transportation solutions.


Fiscal Cliff Promo Graphic

Download the Report Visit the Report Home

Crucial transportation projects could be halted if Congress fails to act

Barring congressional action, the nation’s transportation fund will be insolvent later this year and the federal government will be unable to commit to funding any new transportation projects next year. This would have significant impacts on projects that have been planned years in advance across the country.

As the report we released this morning makes abundantly clear, starting this fall, every dollar of gas tax revenues collected will be needed to cover the federal share of projects already promised to states, regions, and transit agencies. That means no new projects with a significant federal share will be able to get underway in the new fiscal year, which begins this October.

What does that really mean for projects around the country? We asked around to a few of the many elected officials and business/civic leaders we’ve been talking to over the last couple of years and found a few specific examples of the types of projects that would stop in their tracks in FY2015 if Congress does nothing to rescue the nation’s transportation fund.

Bridge out ahead – Boise, Idaho

The Broadway Bridge in downtown Boise (pictured below) has the lowest structural rating of any bridge in the state of Idaho. (Deficient bridges are something we know a thing or two about around here.)

On game days at Boise State University right on the south side of the Boise River from downtown, thousands of people crowd the narrow 4-foot sidewalks to cross the critical choke point for traffic in the area on their way to and from the famous blue turf. Given its degraded and deficient condition, the bridge could require weight restrictions or closure at any time — one of the perils of continuing to operate a deficient bridge that’s past its recommended lifespan.

broadway bridge boise idaho

The Broadway Bridge replacement, scheduled for 2015, is one of just a few new construction projects in a state transportation plan dedicated almost entirely to maintaining existing roads.

The Idaho Transportation Department is partnering with the city of Boise on the design to ensure the new bridge serves the needs of city residents and will enhance the neighborhood — as well as the needs for regional connectivity on an important artery through the city. Sidewalks will be expanded to 10 feet and bicycle lanes will be added on the bridge and adjoining sections of Broadway Avenue and there will be new connections to the Greenbelt, a regional recreational trail that passes under the bridge.

Aerialwalltexture1

Because the insolvency of the trust fund would mean that no new transportation projects with a federal share could break ground in FY2015, the much-needed Broadway Bridge project would come to a halt.

Columbus, Ohio: Waiting on the bus

CC photo by Derek Rust /photos/drust/181587661

Passengers pack an existing COTA bus line in Columbus, Ohio.

Columbus, Ohio, home to a major university and Ohio’s state government, is a growing region with a projected 22 percent growth in transit ridership this decade.

To accommodate the growing demand, the Central Ohio Transit Authority has been planning to add 29 new buses to its fleet in 2015, replacing some of its dilapidated buses and adding 12 buses to the peak-time fleet. New buses are critical to get residents across the region to work.

Residents in the region support their community’s transit service through a voter-approved local sales tax and the agency is using primarily local funds to rehab a garage to service the new buses. But the agency is counting on the expected federal matching funds to purchase the new buses that they need to meet their needs. In addition to adding service on existing routes, COTA is planning the region’s first bus rapid transit corridor on Cleveland Avenue.

Those are just two of the many stories we’ve heard of important projects that would come to a stop if Congress fails to rescue the nation’s transportation fund.

But they need to do more than just save the transportation fund. The local leaders we’ve been speaking with have made it clear that if Congress wants support for raising more revenue for transportation, they need to give these folks at the local level more reasons to believe that it will be to their benefit.

Last week we released a policy road map showing how we can resuscitate and reinvigorate the program in exciting ways, so that it better suits the needs of people in the communities where they live. That’s a great place to start.

—-

Fiscal Cliff Promo Graphic

Download the Report Visit the Report Home

When the trust fund goes bust: Report shows how much your states and city will lose

Photo via WSDOT/Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/8670279118

Unless Congress adds new revenue to the nation’s transportation trust fund, the federal government will be unable to commit to funding any new transportation projects, depriving states and localities of resources critical to maintaining and improving the infrastructure that makes our economy possible.

Photo via WSDOT/Flickr httpswww.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/8670279118

The idea of getting any new projects underway in FY 2015 (like this ongoing project in Washington State) could be history without a fix for the trust fund.

America is at a crucial decision point for transportation. The nation’s transportation trust fund is facing a crisis. The gasoline tax that has sustained the federal transportation program since the middle of the last century is no longer keeping up with investment needs.

Transportation for America has released a new report that shows the tangible financial impact that the trust fund’s expected insolvency would have on state and local transportation budgets beginning in the upcoming fiscal year.

But there is a ray of light: The crisis presents an opportunity, because it comes at the same time as Congress must update the federal transportation program, MAP-21. Last week we released a policy road map showing how we can resuscitate and reinvigorate the program in exciting ways, so that it better suits the needs of people in the communities where they live. Absent such action, though, the bottom line is a bleak one: Starting this fall, every dollar of gas tax revenue collected will be needed to cover the federal share of projects already promised to states, regions, and transit agencies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That means new transportation projects with a federal share will be shelved — perhaps indefinitely — starting as soon as this summer.

The End of the Road? The looming fiscal disaster for transportation covers the crisis in detail, complete with tables of the exact amounts states and urban areas stand to lose, and the share of state transport budgets that federal funding represents.

While every state raises their own transportation funds through some taxing mechanism and local governments contribute their own funds, federal funds account for the lion’s share of many major projects in the country, from a key bridge replacement or highway rehab to new rail cars and buses. Federal dollars account for half or more of the transportation capital budget in all but 15 states, and for many the share is two-thirds or more. (It’s more than 90 percent in Alaska and Rhode Island, for example.) Metro regions like Miami, Seattle, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Philadelphia, Minneapolis-St. Paul – to name just a few – could be out $100 million or more.

We’ll be featuring some of the key projects that could be shelved and states that are scaling back their transportation plans throughout the course of today and tomorrow. There are surely hundreds if not thousands of affected projects all across the country.


Fiscal Cliff Promo Graphic

Download the Report Visit the Report Home

As feds OK funding, critical legislators move to block Nashville’s planned transit investment

Opponents in the Tennessee legislature have put forward an amendment designed to stop Nashville’s bus rapid transit line, eliciting howls of protest over legislative intervention in a local project previously approved by the state DOT.

Last updated: 4/12 1:24 p.m. at bottom. You may recall our profile of Nashville and it’s vision to get ahead of rapid growth by investing in bus rapid transit network.  Nashville struggles with some of the worst congestion in the Southeast along with some of the longest peak-hour travel times in the nation.

Nashville Amp Map crop

That’s in part because the region’s economy has led the nation in rate of job growth. As population surges, metro leaders have been working to grow in a way that will continue attracting and retaining top-flight talent while avoiding the challenges that have plagued larger peers like Atlanta.

Their first big step toward a more sophisticated transit network is The Amp, an east-west line through the heart of the city that would connect diverse neighborhoods, major employers (including two hospitals and a university), and heavily visited tourist destinations.

Just last week they received the encouraging news that the Federal Transit Administration recommended $27 million in federal funding, the first installment  of a potential $75 million match to state and local contributions.

That good news for supporters was overshadowed by an unexpected amendment explicitly crafted to require Nashville get the approval of the state legislature before being able to move ahead.

According to Nashville’s daily, The Tennessean, the amendment to a bill on crosswalk safety  “says no rapid bus project in a metropolitan form of government, such as Nashville, could be built without the permission of the … General Assembly.”

In the same article, Nashville Mayor Karl Dean’s office called the move an “overreach” into a project that enjoys public and federal support. A followup piece further explored the issue of legislative intervention with Michael Skipper, executive director of the Nashville Metropolitan Planning Organization:

The Tennessee Department of Transportation is part of the MPO, which approved $4 million in Amp funding in December, and the governor or his designee sits on the agency’s board, Skipper said Friday.

“My position is that the project’s already approved by the state, and the governor’s concurrence is there,” he said. “These are typically executive branch decisions. …

“Giving the state legislature veto authority over projects that are already approved sort of undermines the federal law that requires the state and the locals to make these decisions together.”

The business community seemed to be shocked that the state would attempt to overrule local control on a plan that represents a key pillar of the local economic development strategy for a place so important to the state.

“You’ve got the largest regional economic contributor to this state, and it’s the only target of this limiting legislation,” said [Ralph] Schulz, president and CEO of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

The amended crosswalk safety bill could move through the Tennessee legislature as early as Wednesday. The Amp coalition is urging supporters to make phone calls to their state representatives and the leadership to ensure that they hear all the voices from Nashville residents (see below.)

We’ll be keeping a close eye on what happens this week, but follow us on twitter @t4america for more regular updates.

UPDATED (4:57 p.m.) The Nashville Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Middle Tennessee Mayors Caucus sent a letter today to the chairs of the Tennessee House and Senate transportation committees letting them know that “mayors and county executives see the legislation as an overreach that reduces our ability to make local decisions,” urging them to reconsider “any legislation that would interfere with TDOT’s ability to work with local communities to plan and select projects, particularly those that advance infrastructure improvements aimed at managing congestion and fostering economic growth in metropolitan areas.”

Read the full letter here, also posted by The Tennessean. (pdf)

UPDATED 4/12 1:24 p.m. Another letter in opposition to the legislation was sent to the same state House and Senate committees from the mayors of the biggest four cities in Tennessee — Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis and Nashville — cities that collectively account for 80 percent of the state’s GDP and 91 percent of the state’s job growth over the last year.

This concentration of economic activity, in turn, generates important tax revenue that funds services and infrastructure in all corners of our state. We plan to continue to grow, prosper, and serve as the economic drivers of our great state. And in order to do that, we need the ability to make decisions about infrastructure solutions in our communities, especially in the area of transportation, as mass transit is the only long- term solution to the increasing traffic congestion that accompanies our economic growth.

Read the full letter. (pdf)

NPR: 19 states (and counting) creating plans to raise more transportation dollars

More than a third of all U.S. states have plans of some sort to raise new money for transportation to help cover yawning budget shortfalls and keep up with maintenance and new construction of their state transportation networks.

NPR picked up the story this week that we’ve been following very closely and spent some time talking to T4 America director James Corless about the growing trend of states stepping out on their own to raise their own money for transportation to augment the federal funding that did not increase with the last transportation bill.

One major reason federal transportation funding did not increase is that “cars are getting more efficient, and people are actually driving less,” James Corless told NPR. “So that has conspired really to put less revenues into these state and federal funds — trust funds out of the gasoline tax. So purchasing power is declining, and so states are getting creative,” he said.

Listen:

From the story:

According to figures released by Transportation for America, which advocates for modernizing the nation’s infrastructure, 19 states have approved or are considering legislation to increase transportation funding.

One creative approach was taken by Virginia, which actually eliminated its gas tax while raising sales taxes and imposing a tax on wholesale fuel. The state is also allowing the congested Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads areas to raise their own tax revenue.

Republican William Howell, the speaker of the Virginia House, helped broker the deal. “It was a true compromise,” he says. “As with most any compromise, no one’s 100 percent happy with every feature of it. There are some things that I’m not crazy about. I’m sure there’s some features that other people don’t relish. But we had to do it.”

Though a third of all states do have some sort of proposal in the works, they’re all certainly not created equal. Ohio is looking to borrow more than a billion dollars against future turnpike revenues to build yet more roads. Gov. Walker in Wisconsin wants to borrow $1.2 billion and repay it with dwindling trust fund dollars and general tax revenue. A bill in Indiana would allow Indianpolis counties to tax themselves and invest that money in transit. Massachusetts has a plan to raise as much as a billion dollars a year for multimodal needs, including budget relief for their amazingly indebted transit agency.

Want to learn more and see what your state is planning, if anything?

Visit our home for state plans here.

Rethinking the gas tax: Suddenly it’s the theme of 2013

Is the per-gallon gas tax going the way of the full-service filling station?

To look at the flurry of proposals coming out lately, you might think so. Since the start of the year, major new proposals from industry leaders, governors and state legislatures have sparked a new debate over the ways we collect revenue collection for transportation — at the federal, state and local levels.

Earlier this month, the outgoing head of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, John Horsley, proposed replacing the per-gallon federal tax with a sales tax on fuel. Although he didn’t specify a level, an AASHTO press release indicated it should be set “at a level that restores solvency” to the transportation trust fund, meaning it would have to take in at least $15 billion more a year just to keep spending at current levels. While some no doubt will deride it as a stealth tax increase, Horsley said, “The cost of the reform to taxpayers would be less than $1 per week, per vehicle.”

At the same time, 2013 already has seen several ambitious proposals for funding transportation outside of the excise tax on gas.  Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick in his state of the state address proposed raising his state’s income tax rate from 5.25 to 6.25 percent and lowering the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 4.5 percent, while earmarking sales tax revenue for infrastructure, with a significant share dedicated to public transportation.  Patrick said those moves would raise $1.02 billion in new revenue per year on average for the next ten years – none of it from a per-gallon gas tax.

Last week came a report from Pennsylvania that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is preparing to a release plan to add nearly $2 billion to the state’s transportation funding pot. Though the details are speculative pending a public unveiling next week, he has pledged that the money won’t come from an increase at the gas pump.

These proposals come on the heels of the month’s most controversial, headline-grabbing pitch from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell to scrap his state’s gas tax altogether.  Instead, he would raise the state’s sales tax from 5 to 5.8 percent – ironically on everything but gasoline – while increasing vehicle-registration fees and adds an annual $100 charge for drivers of alternative-fuel cars. Those changes would raise an extra $3.1 billion over five years, he said.

At bottom, the recent move away from gas taxes as the go-to source of transportation funds is a nod to new realities: Their earning power is shrinking every year, and car-dependent voters will not stomach increases commensurate with their desire for a robust transportation network.

At the same time, both the highway lobby and environmentalists are seeing their long-held arguments undermined by experience. Environmentalists have contended that gas taxes should rise to slow consumption and speed the transition away from oil. The political reality is that gas taxes can’t be imposed in the U.S. in a way that changes behavior. Behavior now is changing, but for other reasons.

The highway lobby has spent years and millions making the case that gas taxes are “user fees” and are rightly devoted to roads. But with experts like DOT Secretary Ray LaHood predicting that nearly every vehicle will be a hybrid or electric a decade from now, most motorists will be paying little or no such “user fee” absent a major change.

That, of course, says nothing about meeting the needs of the vast majority of Americans who will be living in metro regions too crowded for one-person-per-car travel. State gas taxes certainly can’t meet those needs: 22 states have a constitutional prohibition against spending gas tax revenue on anything but roads, and eight states have similar statutory restrictions.

The reality today, though, is that gas taxes only cover half of the bill for building and maintaining our road network, and that ratio is dropping every year. At the local level, of course, nearly all road and transit costs are paid by sales, property or other non-fuel taxes.

While moving away from the gas taxes, all of the recent proposals — coming from Republicans in VA and PA or Democrats in MA, MN and MD – would amount to asking citizens to pay more for transportation infrastructure. That is something that polls show voters increasingly are willing to do when they understand what the money will be used for.

As we have said since the rollout of our “Blueprint” in 2009, we believe all options to increase funding for reinvesting in America’s infrastructure should be on the table.  Back then, T4 proposed a variety of options including a 20 cent increase in the gas tax, converting the federal gas tax to a sales tax, or imposing a per-barrel fee on imported oil.

The gasoline tax has its merits, but given the lack of political will to raise it significantly, and the wide range of needs, it’s time to begin thinking of  infrastructure as a basic government function that can, and should be, funded the full range of available revenue sources. Our global competitors, after all, have recognized this for quite some time, and are moving ahead of us in building a 21st century infrastructure.

Pennsylvania Governor proposes a change to fuel taxes to help close the gas tax gap

On Thursday, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett will release his long awaited proposal for remedying the Keystone state’s daunting transportation funding and policy difficulties. Leaks from several key legislative staffers indicate that his plan will propose a new source of transportation revenue that doesn’t violate his pledge to never increase taxes.

Pennsylvania State House

(This post is by Andrea Kiepe, T4 America’s regional organizer in Pennsylvania. -Ed.)

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Governor “intends to uncap the so-called oil company franchise tax,” allowing this tax to be applied to the full wholesale price of fuel, rather than an artificially limited $1.25 per gallon level. Removing this limit would eventually yield nearly $2 billion annually, according to information from the administration.

Pennsylvania’s key location as a shipping crossroads, rugged topography, cold weather and massive backlog of aging rails, roads and bridges have made the commonwealth a perfect example of the critical infrastructure problems affecting so many states. And like the rest of the country, declining gas tax revenues due to increasing fuel economy standards and/or reduced driving results in less available revenue as needs continue to grow.

Pennsylvania has the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the US, according to our report “The Fix We’re in For.” More than 26 percent of PA bridges – almost 6,000 in total – are in need of significant repairs and maintenance.

Just tackling the state’s vast backlog of road and bridge repair needs could consume every penny of the new funding source, according to 2008 figures from FHWA, gathered in Smart Growth America’s Repair Priorities report for Pennsylvania.

Repair Costs for Pennsylvania’s Road and Bridge Network

  • PennDOT state-owned major roads: 57,307 lane miles
  • Lane miles in “poor” condition 12,357
  • “Structurally deficient” bridges 5,789 (28%)
  • Annual preventative maintenance needs for road/bridge network: $2.9 billion
  • Annual major rehabilitation needs for “poor” and “deficient” roads/bridges: $509 million
  • Total annual road/bridge repair need: $3.4 billion

In light of the Governor’s new plan for funding, Pennsylvania residents and advocates will be wondering: Will this influx of new money fund expensive new roads and added lanes, or focus on repair, as PennDOT has successfully done in the past?

According to Repair Priorities, “The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT), for example, has taken major steps in prioritizing repair and preservation projects … In recent years, PennDOT has steadily increased the portion of highway capital dollars spent on road repair and preservation projects from just 10% in 2004 to 43% in 2008. As a result, PennDOT, which is responsible for some of the oldest road infrastructure in the country, has increased the percentage of its lane-miles in good condition from 26% in 2004 to 29% in 2008.”

Many local advocates are also insistent that any transportation fixes must include funding for public transportation.

Recently, Philadelphia’s transit system, managed by SEPTA, was named the best in the US. Despite these accolades, the legacy system badly needs millions in upgrades and repairs to continue reliably carrying tens of thousands of passengers each day. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh transit system was rocked by massive proposed cuts last year – as much as cutting service by one third. Though the funding gap was resolved without drastic cuts, there’s no long term funding solution for Pittsburgh transit on the horizon.

In a recent opinion piece, business and labor leaders including representatives of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and the Laborers, said unanimously “We believe that additional revenue, if immediately and properly invested, would go a long way toward allowing the commonwealth to repair aging roads and bridges while meeting the capital requirements for our mass transit systems.”

Governor Corbett’s PennDOT Secretary Barry Schoch has issued recent statements that make it clear the Administration values transit and recognizes the need for adequate, stable funding for it.

“Mr. Schoch also said the governor’s plan will address all modes of transportation, including a long-term strategy for funding public transit agencies like the Port Authority…’We actually subsidize rural roads at a much higher rate than we subsidize mass transit. If you think about a two lane road – if it doesn’t carry at least 10,000 vehicles a day, it’s being subsidized.’ Schoch says most rural roads carry fewer than 2000 vehicles. And he says most of PennDOT’s revenue comes from vehicle fees and gas taxes; the lion’s share of which is paid by residents in Pennsylvania’s urban areas.”

Finally, Schoch also has indicated that the Governor will also propose new legislation creating new ways for cities and regions to raise funding for transportation improvements. This could be a great opportunity for beleaguered urban areas to use innovative financing mechanisms like TIFIA to fund system improvements.

Will this be the only source of revenue on the table? The Governor’s TFAC Commission report identified dozens of potential revenue sources, everything from LED signal light conversion to a host of increased fees and fines. Will the Legislature make repair a priority?

Many critical decisions still need to be made.

USA Today on infrastructure spending: what do Americans want?

USA Today had a timely graphic up yesterday, considering the continuing media coverage around President Obama’s recent proposal for infrastructure spending and a reformed long-term transportation bill.

First, the graphic:

Though we can’t see the rest of the questions or the context, it affirms a few things we already know about Americans’ attitudes about transportation — as evidenced in our own 2010 national poll — and how to fund what we need.

While Americans are actually voting in favor of taxing themselves to improve transportation in state and local ballot measures at a rate of about 70 percent, they often know exactly what they’re going to get in those cases: a new bridge, an expanded transit system, a system of repaired roads, or the like. But the federal program is much fuzzier in most people’s minds. The current system is broken and unaccountable, and putting more money into a broken system is like trying to bring more water up from a well using a bucket with a hole in it.

As James Corless wrote in an Infrastructurist guest post yesterday, “Some of the old guard transportation insiders in D.C. would be thrilled with doubling the overall size of our transportation program and pouring more money into the same broken system, but Americans know better. They want more accountability, safer streets, and more transportation options so seniors can maintain their independence and low wage workers can get to jobs.”

It’s also interesting that the sentence to the left of the poll summarizes it as “Americans would rather use tolls than taxes to build more roads,” when it could have just as easily been “Americans are OK with building no new roads if it means raising the gas tax or instituting tolls to pay for them.”

Maybe the poll asks the wrong question?

We’re not in favor of a moratorium on any new roads whatsoever, but this survey clearly reinforces the fact that Americans in urban and rural areas have moved beyond the idea that the solution to every transportation problem can and should be a new road.

We cooperated on a poll in 2009 with the National Association of Realtors, showing that Americans don’t think expanding roads and highways are the best use of scarce transportation dollars:

“As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?”

Maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges Expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation Expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges Not sure
50% 31% 16% 3%

And as our 2010 poll showed, more than four-in-five voters (82 percent) say that “the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved transportation system, such as rail and buses” and a solid majority (56 percent) “strongly agree” with that statement. Fully 79 percent of rural voters agree as well, despite much lower use of public transportation compared to Americans in urban areas.

If you saw this graphic and your curiosity was piqued, perhaps it’s worth going back and poking through our national poll for a fuller picture.

LA residents rally for transit, jobs and an economic boost for region

Thousands rallied last Friday at the Los Angeles City Hall in support of the jobs that could be created by a visionary program to fast track a slate of planned public transportation projects — if the federal government will do what’s necessary to help a metro area that’s helping itself.

At the rally, Transportation for America’s deputy director Lea Schuster stood shoulder-to-shoulder with prominent labor leaders and California lawmakers to tell Washington to help speed up the 30/10 Plan – a plan to build 12 major local transit projects in 10 years rather than 30. The plan would spur economic growth and protect the environment, create 166,000 jobs, ease congestion, and reduce air pollution and dependency on oil.

LA Labor Rally Denny: Lea Originally uploaded by Transportation for America to Flickr.
Move LA’s Denny Zane speaks at the podium, flanked on his right by T4 deputy director Lea Schuster, holding the Move LA banner touting the 30/10 plan for the LA metro area.

If Congress establishes the programs needed to move 30/10 forward, cities and regions around the country that have local transportation tax measures could receive up-front loans from the federal government to speed the construction of vital public transportation projects and programs. Fast-tracking the projects and speeding up the timetable would save millions in escalating material costs, while creating thousands of new jobs in the short run. Guaranteed and preapproved local tax revenues would then be used to repay the loans.

In the case of Los Angeles, voters approved a measure at the ballot box (Measure R) to tax themselves for 30 years to pay for transportation. Implementing 30/10 would allow them to get the money up front to build 12 projects over 10 years and pay back the loans over 30 years.

Speakers supporting the effort to establish the federal lending programs included Senator Barbara Boxer, AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LA County Federation of Labor leader Maria Elena Durazo, and Move LA’s Denny Zane.

All the speakers cited 30/10 as a job creating and environmentally progressive transportation model for the rest of the country. As Senator Boxer said, “We know if we do embrace this notion of 30/10, we will create thousands of good-paying union jobs and we will reduce our billion-dollar-a-day addiction to foreign oil.”

LA area Representatives Jane Harman and Judy Chu both stated their support for the initiative with Jane Harman declaring, “30/10”’ will be my number one priority in Congress. And LA labor leader Richard Slawson hailed it as “our stimulus package.”

As roads, freeways and bridges have grown increasingly congested and fallen into a state of disrepair and federal transportation funds have become scarce, taxpayers in communities across the country have voted to tax themselves to raise money for long-term transportation programs to expand public transportation and fix aging infrastructure — proving again that Americans will increase their own taxes to pay for transportation if they know what their taxes are buying.

As with 30/10, well-planned transportation programs can provide the immediate economic stimulus needed to put people back to work and provide safe, clean, and affordable transportation options.

As Denny Zane, Executive Director of Move LA and one of the founders of the 30/10 Plan stated, getting the legislation needed to establish the federal lending programs to provide the upfront loans will take a national effort, a national coalition, and national leaders. He cited the success of Transportation for America and its leadership in putting together a coalition of more than 500 organizations and elected officials fighting for federal transportation reform as performing the “type of work that we need” and being the campaign that will “help put the votes together” to establish the programs to ensure that the 30/10 Plan and other initiatives like it become a reality.

Some details on Chairman Oberstar’s transportation proposal

Read T4 America’s official statement on the release of the summary outline by Chairman James Oberstar.

We’ll have a number of posts today and tomorrow breaking down some of the notable spending levels and reforms proposed in Chairman Oberstar’s outline of the transportation bill. In the meantime, we thought we’d give you a few details that we’ve looked over while scanning the outline of the bill this morning. Note that today’s 11 a.m. press conference — which will included a longer version of the proposal — has been delayed until 2 p.m. due to “House votes.”

According to Oberstar’s summary, the upcoming bill will restructure and transform federal transportation policy away from multiple “prescriptive programs” into a “performance-based framework” “designed to achieve specific national objectives.”

The outline calls for terminating and consolidating more than 75 of the 108 total programs into a few broad large program areas, but it maintains current funding silos between separate modes. Here’s a quick breakdown. (Remember that these numbers are not final, and could be very different when the bill is released next week.)

  • Highways: $337.4 billion (75%) of $450 billion
  • Transit: $98.8 billion (22.2%) of $450 billion
  • Safety Programs: $12.6 billion (2.8%) of $450 billion

Its important to note that the $98.8 billion in proposed transit funds is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how much money public transportation would receive in total. Oberstar’s outline includes $50 billion for a new “Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program,” which will “provide significant funding to help the largest metropolitan regions address congestion,” and a refocused “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (CMAQ). While money for both of these programs are included in the highway allocation, it would be possible under the proposal to spend these funds on public transportation projects to achieve the stated goals of CMAQ and the Metropolitan Mobility programs.

Chairman Oberstar’s outline also calls for $50 billion to develop high-speed rail — in addition to the money in the stimulus package and yearly appropriations bill for this year — an area of transportation that has never received funding in previous transportation legislation.

Oberstar told Congressional Quarterly this morning that he is still planning on releasing full bill text and marking up the bill in his Highways and Transit Subcommittee next week.

Check back later today for more details and analysis.

What do Americans really think about spending on transportation?

Parade Magazine has an article about transportation up on their website that includes an online poll. They question asks readers, “should America divert some funding from highways and bridges to invest in public transit?

There are many problems with this question, but even with the false framing of this debate, results are currently split near the 50/50 mark. The most glaring issue with the poll is that it makes it seem like there’s something written in stone determining that federal transportation money is “roads” money — instead of money that should be spent on whatever can best keep us moving and give us the most bang for our buck.

Spending money on public transportation or other transportation options won’t prevent us from repairing and maintaining our existing roads and bridges. In fact, our roads and bridges aren’t in poor shape because we don’t spend enough on roads overall — it’s because we’ve neglected to maintain our existing roadways and instead spent taxpayer dollars on more new roads and highways, whether or not these were the best investments of our transportation dollars

Regardless of where we’ve spent money in the past or “what we used to do,” people are ready for something different.

Rather than asking Americans if we should “take” money from roads, what happens when you ask Americans a more basic questions: “Where should we spend our transportation money?”

Earlier this year, Transportation for America and the National Association of Realtors did just that in our own poll. (Background on the poll here and here). The bottom line? An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over road-building alone.


Given that the U.S. population will increase by one-hundred million people by 2050, which of the following transportation approaches do you prefer to accommodate this growth?

Build and improve rail systems, such as commuter rail, light rail, and subways Build new highways and freeways Not sure
75% 20% 5%


I’m going to mention types of transportation, and I’d like you to tell me which one or two you think are not getting enough attention and emphasis from the federal government.

Trains or light rail systems Roads Buses Bike paths or trails Sidewalks None Not sure
56% 27% 21% 15% 14% 2% 3%


Many communities experience traffic congestion. I’m going to read you two statements about traffic congestion and I’d like you to tell me which of these is closer to your view: A) Some people say that we need to build more roads and expand existing roads to help reduce traffic congestion. B) Some people say that we need to improve public transportation, including trains and buses, and make it easier to walk and bike to help reduce traffic congestion. Which of these is closer to your view?

Improve public transportation Build more roads and expand existing roads Not sure
67% 27% 6%

Which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your area?

Improving public transportation Developing communities where people do not have to drive as much Building new roads Not sure
47% 25% 20% 8%


As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?

Maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges Expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation Expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges Not sure
50% 31% 16% 3%