highway trust fund Archives - Page 2 of 3 - Transportation For America

T4America statement in response to Senate adoption of stopgap to avoid Highway Trust Fund insolvency

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate today approved a House-passed measure to transfer $10.8 billion from the general fund to cover the looming shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund until next spring. The stopgap bill, which now heads to President Obama’s desk, comes one day before a deadline to avoid significant funding cuts during the height of construction season.

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

“We are relieved that thousands of communities, more than a half-million workers and their families, and millions of commuters will be spared the pain of drastic cuts in promised federal funding to build and repair our bridges, roads and transit systems.

That said, 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. Perhaps the most important outcome of this go-round is that members of both parties, in both chambers, have voiced a growing discomfort with hastily crafted, short-term fixes along with a desire to find a long-term funding solution.

In truth, they have bought themselves only a few short months to grapple with an issue they have delayed for years. We look forward to working with leaders in both houses as they make good on their promise to work in earnest on a long-term solution to fund the infrastructure our economy and daily lives depend on.”

Senate passes plan to postpone transportation insolvency to the end of the year, sends it to House

Late Tuesday evening, the Senate modified and approved a measure transferring about $8 billion from the general fund to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent until the end of the year. But because two amendments were made, it’ll return to the House for further action before any final deal can be approved on postponing insolvency of the nation’s transportation program. The House will have to act fast: the long August recess is scheduled to begin in just three days.

Conventional wisdom had held that the Senate would adopt the House-passed bill as-is so they could finish up well before recess begins later this week. However, a strong bipartisan group supported amendments to eliminate the most controversial accounting gimmick and cut the length of the patch in half to keep the pressure on to find a long-term fix as soon as possible.

“Today’s votes held some positive signs for the future of our nation’s transportation system,” said James Corless in T4Amercia’s full statement after the vote tonight. “The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a move to dismantle our key infrastructure fund, and instead challenged themselves to take up a long-term funding solution this year.”

Two of the four amendments considered were approved before the final bill was passed. The first, from Senators Wyden and Hatch and approved 71-26, replaced the House revenue sources with the bipartisan ones agreed to by the Senate Finance Committee several weeks ago.

Once this first amendment passed, guaranteeing that the bill would return to the House, it might have made it easier for Senators on the fence to support the second amendment. That second amendment, from Senators Carper, Corker and Boxer, entirely eliminated the controversial “pension smoothing” provisions from the House bill, cutting about $2.9 billion from the patch and keeping up the urgency on finding a long-term funding solution.

The most passionate speech of the day came from Senator Bob Corker on that very topic. Senator Corker, who is also pushing an actual long-term funding plan with Senator Murphy to raise the gas tax — was incredulous at the idea that the Senate and specifically his Republican colleagues would support a plan to take ten years of funds from an accounting maneuver like pension smoothing to pay for ten months of an extension, calling it “generational theft.”

“We’re taking a finance gimmick out of this bill. … It forces us to deal with a long-term solution, which we should have done a long time ago,” he said.

An amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to dramatically defund the federal program by cutting the gas tax from 18.4 to 3.7 cents failed overwhelmingly, drawing only 28 votes. Lee argued, correctly, that the existing program is out-moded and fails to give local communities the resources and latitude to meet their needs, but we — and a large majority of the Senate, clearly— strongly disagree that the solution is to take the resources away altogether.

The solution — one that we would hope to see as part of any long-term funding discussion — is forward-looking policy reform that gives local leaders more of a say in how the money gets spent. Local results and accountability are what will win and keep support for the program among the American people.

We are pleased to see so many Senators take a principled stand in support of the highway trust fund and an ongoing federal role in supporting our communities and their economic future. We especially recognize the leadership of Senators Wyden, Hatch, Carper, Corker and Boxer in forging their plan and rallying support. We hope this can spur the conversation to find a long-term solution as soon as possible, and we look forward to working with the leaders in both chambers.

Action will move back to the House tomorrow in these last few days before recess begins, so stay tuned.

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.

Senate, House committees approve short-term rescue of trust fund; long-term solution still needed

The Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees today each passed similar short-term patches to keep the Highway Trust Fund in the black at least through early 2015. If adopted by the full House and Senate, the move to transfer $10.8 billion to the trust fund will avert immediate disaster, but there’s still heavy work needed to find a long-term funding solution.

Wyden Finance markup

Without this stopgap — if approved — worked out by Chairman Wyden and Chairman Camp and their respective committees, reimbursements to states would have been cut as much as 28 percent starting in just a few weeks, according to the U.S. DOT. But Congress has bought itself only a few months to address the larger problem of long-term solvency.

The House Ways and Means Committee was first to act this morning, marking up their funding patch to keep the trust fund solvent through May 2015 — five months longer than the Senate’s original plan. Senate Finance resumed discussion of its trust fund bail-out this afternoon after making key changes to match the $10.8 billion in the House provision while striking the language specifying an expiration date.

The upshot is that both measures have enough revenue to carry the trust fund into 2015, although Democrats have been pushing to consider a long-term transportation measure before the end of the year. Sen. Tom Carper offered an amendment to reduce the amount of the patch so that it would expire at the end of December, but it was not approved. Overall, the bill passed with just one “no” vote from Senator Carper.

As passed today, the Senate proposal would transfer $9.824 billion in general funds to the Highway Trust Fund, and $1 billion from fund for leaking underground storage tanks. The Senate bill modified some of the many mechanisms of paying this money back from their original proposal, most notably by including the House’s plan for “pension smoothing.”

The real question is how long this revenue cobbled from multiple accounting gimmicks will hold out. May 15 seems optimistic, given how the insolvency point moved sooner and sooner over the course of this year. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office projected we’d need $8 billion just to make it through this year.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who co-introduced a plan to raise the federal gas tax 12 cents over two years, didn’t hide his disappointment in this plan and how Congress is paying for it. “This disgraceful practice of borrowing money to cover a few months of spending and paying for it over a decade is nothing more than generational theft,” he said in this Transport Topics story.

His comments as well as others made today by members of the House and Senate committees could represent a groundswell to find a real long-term funding fix and end the practice of lurching from crisis to crisis. After all, providing funding just for ten months instead of five months doesn’t actually give States the reliability and predictability they need for multi-year contracts and bigger projects — it just ensures that many projects underway or getting started this summer won’t hit the brakes. Think of it this way: States could resurface a road with some confidence, but that multi-year project to replace the deficient old bridge on the same road? Tough to do when you only have funding through May with any certainty.

Even House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, who also supports the fix through May, said today, “This bill in no way precludes Congress from continuing to work on addressing a long-term funding solution, and a long-term reauthorization bill remains a top priority for the Transportation Committee.”

“We are pleased that Congress has begun to take the situation seriously and will avoid the economic pain of an insolvent trust fund, at least for the very near term,” said T4America Director James Corless.

“Perhaps the most important outcome is that the debate in both chambers showed a growing discomfort with short-term accounting tricks and a bipartisan desire for a long-term solution. In truth they have only bought themselves a few short months to grapple with an issue they have delayed for years. We look forward to working with Chairman Wyden, Chairman Camp and other leaders as they make good on their promise to work in earnest on a long-term solution to fund the infrastructure our economy and daily lives depend on.”

House proposes a trust fund Band-aid through May, 2015, with key differences from Senate

House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI)

A House proposal to shore up the transportation trust fund through May, 2015, is a good news, not-so-good news proposition.

Late yesterday, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) proposed a $10.8 billion infusion to cover a looming deficit in the Highway Trust Fund. The money for the next few months would come mostly from an accounting maneuver called “pension smoothing” over the next 10 years. The remainder comes from extending some customs fees and transferring $1 billion from the fund for leaking underground storage tanks.

The good news is that both Houses are now moving to take seriously the increasingly urgent warnings of insolvency coming from the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Absent action to transfer money to the trust fund, the flow of dollars to the states will be curtailed as much as 28 percent after Aug. 1.

The not-so-good news is that the recent hope for a speedy, bicameral solution seems lost for the moment. The House is taking a different tack from the Senate, whose Finance Committee had delayed its own proposal in hopes of negotiation a bipartisan compromise within both chambers. The Camp proposal covers a different time period – through May 31 versus Dec. 31 in the Senate – and uses different “pay-fors”. The differences mean it will be that much harder to reach a solution before the long August recess.

The other less-than-good news is that the proposal to extend into May of next year would reduce the urgency to address a long-term solution, such as the bipartisan Murphy-Corker proposal to raise the gas tax and index it to inflation. By extending only through the end of this year, the Senate deadline raised the possibility that Congress might move immediately after the election, in a lame-duck session where members feel less political pressure.

“While it doesn’t provide as much funding as I would like – enough to get through the end of next year – it does give Congress and the tax-writing Committees ample time to consider a more long-term solution to the Highway Trust Fund,” Camp said in a statement. However, Camp also indicated he is opposed to tapping the most readily available revenue source, the federal gas tax, calling it “just about the worst tax increase Congress could hit hardworking Americans with.”

The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to consider the legislation Thursday at 10:00 a.m.

On C-SPAN, T4A’s Beth Osborne finds agreement with Heritage on HTF, walkability

Beth Osborne appearing on C-SPAN July 3, 2014. Click the image or here to watch the full video

Our compatriot Beth Osborne engaged in a spirited discussion on gas taxes and the crashing highway trust fund this morning on C-Span’s Washington Journal. Her co-panelist was Curtis Dubay, taxes and economic policy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Dubay took less of a hard line than have some of his colleagues, who have suggested we could wind down the federal program and make the states take on everything themselves. (As an aside, can you imagine the gory fights in 50 legislatures as they try to raise gas taxes as much as 20 cents a gallon to replace the federal tax, on top of state gas taxes, which some have recently raised? How many legislative sessions would it take, and how many would just punt and let the highways, bridges and transit go to hell?)

As taxes go, Dubay said, the gas tax is a “good one”, because the people who use the resulting system are paying for it. Most people agree that infrastructure in a primary government responsibility. He even agreed a higher tax might be warranted, but only if it is restricted to highway construction.

Dubay complained that the gas tax has been diverted to “non-infrastructure purposes” like subways, ferries and road safety projects that save the lives of pedestrians and bicyclists (and motorists). To which Osborne responded:

Transit is a form of infrastructure. The purpose of the federal program is to move people and goods efficiently, not to require that people move a particular way. From the driver’s perspective it’s just as helpful to get somebody out of their way, particularly [those traveling] short distances. And it can be cheaper to move them outside their cars. … We’re looking for efficiencies and good outcomes in the program. These taxes are being used to move people the way they want to move.

There are lots of good reasons why federal gas tax dollars should be used to build and maintain a truly complete network. Transit projects in major cities make the morning commute possible for drivers, plain and simple, because without it gridlock would be absolute. Federal dollars were used to build roads that cut through neighborhoods without providing for the safety of people walking along or across them, and need to be fixed. Ferries, in states such as Washington, are part of the highway system, connecting roadways across bodies of water. These are not “diversions” from our surface transportation infrastructure; they are key components that must be part of a complete system that offers fair access for all.

In terms of who’s paying the federal gas-tax “user fee”— it’s everybody. You’re not exempt if you only use local roads and no federal highways in your commute. The cost of transporting goods, including gas and diesel taxes, is in the price of everything you buy. In the name of fairness, our taxes should be buying the safest, most efficient, most accessible system possible for all Americans – well-off or poor, young or old, whether living in cities, suburbs or small towns.

Today, market and demographic changes are demanding a new focus for our transportation investments, and that’s because … well, lets give Mr. Dubay the floor:

The market is solving the livability and walkability issue. People are moving in closer to cities. It’s a generational shift… . They are not living in the suburbs as much as they used to, largely because people don’t want to drive like they used to. Having a car and driving isn’t as romantic as it once was, that’s for sure.

If, indeed, people are going to be living in higher concentrations – and they are doing so in both cities and older suburbs – they will still need to get around. What they will need is a seamless, fully integrated network. Many will still own cars and drive them when it makes sense for them, paying gas taxes when they do. They will hope that when they need to use the highway, enough of their fellow residents will be using transit that there is actually room for them on the road.

The local leaders we work with know this, and that’s why they are trying to save the nation’s infrastructure fund from insolvency and win reforms that give them the latitude to do what they need to do. We’re glad to see folks at Heritage acknowledge the changes, and we hope that soon they will join us in declaring an end to the days of the government mandating a top-down, single-mode approach.

A broke Highway Trust Fund means job losses equal to Denver’s population, President Obama warns

Speaking today at the Key Bridge in Washington, DC, President Obama called on Congress to save the Highway Trust Fund from its pending insolvency, and to adopt a long-term transportation bill on the scale of his proposed four-year, $302 billion program. [Full text here.]

In doing so, he retraced the bipartisan history of transportation funding in the U.S.:

Soon, construction workers will be on the job making the Key Bridge safer for commuters and for families, and even for members of Congress to cross. (Laughter.) This is made possible by something called the Highway Trust Fund, which Congress established back in the 1950s, and which helps states repair and rebuild our infrastructure all across the country. It’s an example of what can happen when Washington just functions the way it was supposed to.

Back then, you had Eisenhower, a Republican President; over time you would have Democratic Presidents, Democratic and Republican members of Congress all recognizing building bridges and roads and levees and ports and airports — that none of that is a partisan issue. That’s making sure that America continues to progress.

Now, here is the problem. Here is the reason we’re here in the heat. If this Congress does not act by the end of the summer, the Highway Trust Fund will run out. There won’t be any money there. All told, nearly 700,000 jobs could be at risk next year. That would be like Congress threatening to lay off the entire population of Denver, or Seattle, or Boston.

That’s a lot of people. It would be a bad idea. Right now, there are more than 100,000 active projects across the country where workers are paving roads, and rebuilding bridges, and modernizing our transit systems. And soon, states may have to choose which projects to continue and which ones to put the brakes on because they’re running out of money. Some have already done just that, just because they’re worried that Congress will not get its act together in time.

We spend significantly less as a portion of our economy than China does, than Germany does, than just about every other advanced country. They know something that I guess we don’t, which is that’s the path to growth, that’s the path to competitiveness.

We share the President’s frustration at the lack of progress, but we are encouraged by recent glimmers of bipartisan interest in a solution. Just last week we saw a bipartisan proposal for a long-term solution in the form of a 12-cent gas tax increase over two years. To us, that is far preferable to a last-minute accounting trick to get us through the election, which seems to be the betting of conventional wisdom at the moment. And it strikes us more sustainable than the one-time infusion from a tax holiday for offshore profits the Administration has proposed.

Still, we are glad to see the President use his bully pulpit to call attention to an issue that remains something of a sleeper for a public largely unaware that the trust fund that their safety, convenience and economy depend on is seriously threatened.

Attempts for bipartisanship slow down Senate Finance plan for short-term trust fund fix

The Senate Finance Committee plan to rescue the nation’s transportation fund through the end of the year took a slight detour today as Chairman Wyden (D-OR) made some key changes and deferred debate on potentially contentious amendments in the name of trying to reach bipartisan agreement.

Between yesterday and today, Chairman Wyden amended his Preserving American’s Transit and Highways (PATH) Act, which would provide a short-term extension of the federal transportation program and come up with the necessary funds (about $9 billion) to the keep the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) solvent through the end of the year. (The HTF is expected to become insolvent before the end of August.)

The amendments came in the form of a Chairman’s mark – a single package of amendments or legislative language put forth by the Chairman of a committee — which was agreed to by (bipartisan) unanimous consent today in committee, but final consideration was postponed until after the July recess.

“On the Finance Committee, all the Democrats and all the Republicans do not want to slam the brakes on 6,000 road projects, putting thousands of Americans out of work,” said Chairman Wyden this morning. “These modifications move the committee closer to bipartisan agreement.”

But it may yet be difficult to find agreement between the two sides and move a truly bipartisan package out of the committee that staves off insolvency of the trust fund. In the House, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) has said, “There is no way tax hikes to pay for more spending will fly in the House.”

All along, Republicans especially, but also Democrats, have asserted that it’s important to protect the historic principle of “user pays” for the trust fund — ensuring that the people using the transportation system are the ones paying for its upkeep or expansion. Yet, the most significant change made to the Chairman’s mark today was removing the increase in heavy truck fees — the only “user fee” in the handful of revenue increases included in the PATH Act that was introduced by Chairman Wyden two days ago. The other four methods of raising money are changes to tax code or accounting maneuvers, which were all largely modified as well.

The Republican ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) made it clear that his party understands the urgency to do something, but are still unlikely to support a plan that won’t pass the House. “It’s important for the committee to get something done, but it’s even more important that we get it done right,” he said.

And, “The last thing we want is for state departments of transportation to be left holding the bag in August,” said Sen. Thune (R-SD).

The Senate Finance Committee is planning to resume discussions on this package again after the congressional recess for Independence Day. Amendments that may be considered at that point include plans for a gas tax increase and indexing it to inflation, creating a new multimodal account, ending the federal program as we know it, and an amendment to defund the extremely popular program that helps get money down to the local level for safer streets (TAP).

We’ll continue to track the developments.

Senate Finance Committee considers a trust fund stopgap, with long-term funding unclear

The Senate Finance Committee Thursday will take up a proposal from Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent through Dec. 31 with a $9 billion transfer from the general budget. The needed revenue would be raised by increasing the allowable tax on heavy trucks and four accounting maneuvers unrelated to transportation.

Chairman Wyden’s stopgap proposal would prevent the projected August insolvency of the nation’s key infrastructure fund and buy time until after the November elections, when Congress could consider a longer-term fix to the beleaguered trust fund.

Unfortunately, the proposal does not have bipartisan support. The top Republican on Senate Finance, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), has indicated he would like the trust fund fix to rely more on spending cuts. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who is co-sponsoring a proposal to raise the gas tax with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), called the proposal “a complete sham” .

However, with the clock ticking toward an end of promised federal payments to states for their transportation spending, it is the only proposed stopgap on the table that would avoid idling thousands of workers and stalling key projects throughout the country. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, urged her colleagues on the Finance Committee to pass Wyden’s proposal. “I’m here to send an SOS to Congress because we are facing a transportation government shutdown,” Boxer today said at a press event.

Wyden’s proposal relies on accounting changes over ten years to amass the “savings” that would be transferred immediately from the general fund to cover the next several months of the trust fund outlays. The largest change ($3.7 billion) would require faster disbursement – and collection of taxes owed – on retirement savings of deceased account holders.

The only transportation-related source comes from raising the cap on the surcharge placed on especially heavy trucks, from $550 a year to $1,100. Set to take effect June 30, 2015, it would be the first change to the so-called heavy vehicle use tax since 1984 and is expected to raise up to $1.4 billion over the next 10 years.

Wyden told Transport Topics that he expects Republicans to offer several amendments at the committee hearing, set for 10 a.m. Thursday. “They indicated informally some rough ideas but that’s why we have opened the process,” Wyden said.

In the House, Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) of the Ways and Means Committee, with jurisdiction over the Highway Trust Fund, has said, “There is no way tax hikes to pay for more spending will fly in the House.” Camp plans to mark up an extension of the transportation program and Highway Trust Fund after the July 4 Congressional recess.

In an encouraging bipartisan move, Senators Corker and Murphy last week proposed raising the gas tax 12 cents over two years, and offsetting that increase by making some current tax breaks permanent. Corker has said the offsets could allow other Republicans to support the proposal because it would not violate Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform pledge.

Any such long-term solution for transportation funding – which we at Transportation for America certainly support – would have to come through Wyden’s Finance Committee, presumably after a stopgap such as that on the table for tomorrow’s hearing.

Raising the gas tax also would have to pass muster with the White House. In comments Monday, Administration officials did not rule out a gas tax hike but reiterated that corporate tax reform is their preferred pay-for.

“The Administration has not proposed and has no plans to propose an increase in the gas tax,” said White House spokesman Matt Lehrich. “It is critical that we pass a [transportation] bill that not only avoids a short-term funding crisis but provides certainty and lays the groundwork for sustained economic growth. So we appreciate that members on both sides of the aisle continue to recognize the need for a long-term infrastructure bill, and we look forward to continuing to [work] with Congress to get this done.”

Here, you can read a Description of the Chairman’s Mark, and the Joint Commission on Taxation’s Score (JCT Score) of the proposal.

Support the Senate’s bipartisan plan to raise the gas tax

A bipartisan pair of Senators says it’s time to raise the gas tax. Let the rest of the Senate know if you agree.
Take action.

After months of hearing from mayors and business leaders and citizens and people of all stripes who are worried about the looming bankruptcy of our transportation fund, a key Senate committee this week at last is taking up a temporary fix to the trust fund for the next six months. But Congress still must find a long-term solution to save our nation’s transportation fund.

As we wrote about last week, two courageous senators have introduced a bipartisan – yes, bipartisan – proposal to save the trust fund for the long haul. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Bob Corker (R-TN) proposed raising the gas tax 12 cents per gallon over two years. It would be the first increase since Bill Clinton was in office and gas cost around a buck a gallon.

Can you send a message to your Senators asking them to throw their support behind this proposal? (Supporters in CT and TN: You can send a message of support to your Senators as well.)

Without new money to save the highway trust fund from insolvency, federal contributions for important transportation projects in your community would stop as soon as August and could shut down completely for the next year.

Some in the Senate are still talking about settling for a temporary bailout, rather than face our crumbling transportation program head-on.

Over the last five years, Congress has scoured the couch cushions to find $50 billion from general revenues to plug holes in the transportation trust fund. Meanwhile, the need for investment is growing as our population grows and infrastructure ages. Not only has inflation eaten away a third of their value, but gas tax receipts also have dropped with gains in fuel efficiency and a decline in the miles driven per person.

Most members of Congress have been afraid even to mention the possibility of tax increases, but as Senator Corker said, “If it’s something worth having, then it’s something worth paying for.” We couldn’t agree more. 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.

Senators Murphy and Corker deserve great credit for their leadership and courage to propose a real fix to the transportation funding crisis.

Let’s let the rest of the Senate know that safe roads and bridges, better transit, and speedier commutes are things worth paying for.

In the meantime, T4America will keep fighting for more reforms to the system to ensure that states are held accountable for their spending and that more money flows to the local level where it’s needed most. But without any new revenue, there’s no need for accountability: Projects and plans will sit on the shelf.

—

What do you think about raising the gas tax? Feel free to let us know in the comments.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

—-

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Aerial walltexture1

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.

—-

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.

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.

Download the Report Visit the Report Home