Skip to main content

Tag: highway trust fund

RELEASE: When the Highway Trust Fund goes bust: Report shows how much states and metros will lose

FOR RELEASE: 12:01 a.m., April 30, 2014
CONTACT: DAVID GOLDBERG, 202-412-7930
david.goldberg@T4America.org

Congress has an opportunity to save the transportation program and recommit to investing in the repairs and improvements our communities and businesses need

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Most states and dozens of metropolitan areas will lose the majority of the money they need to maintain and improve their transportation networks when the Highway Trust Fund goes broke this summer, according to a report released today by Transportation for America.

The report, The End of the Road? The Looming Fiscal Disaster for Transportation, shows the dollar amounts that each state and metro will be forced to forego if Congress does not act to avert the insolvency of the transportation fund, expected to be exhausted in July. The shortfall is a result of lower than expected collections of revenue from a gas tax that has not changed since 1993, despite rapidly rising construction costs.

Unless Congress adds new revenue to the 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.

“America is at a crucial decision point for transportation,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America.  “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. We believe we have a chance to 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.

While nearly each state raises their own funds through some sort of taxing mechanism and local governments contribute their own funds, federal funds account for the lion’s share of almost any major project 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 capital transportation 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.)

Regions like Miami, Seattle, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Philadelphia, Minneapolis-St. Paul — to name just a few — could be out $100 million or more.

Suspension of federal funding will affect communities of all sizes. It would shelve plans for 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 project to replace 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.

“Over the last nine months we have met with local leaders in regions all over the country, and they all tell us the same thing: They believe their constituents would be willing to pay more for transportation, if they know those dollars will come back to benefit their communities,” Corless said.

The suggestions and desires of those local leaders have been compiled in a platform for updating the transportation program, available online at https://t4america.org/policies.

How much federal transportation money will your region lose this summer?

Fiscal Cliff Promo GraphicThe Highway Trust Fund—which provides most of the funding for highway projects in the United States—is slated to run bankrupt later this year. If that happens, the program won’t be able to pay for any new projects next year and many federal transportation projects will come to a grinding halt.

What will that mean for state and metro regions? On Wednesday, Transportation for America will release a new, original report looking at what will happen to communities across the country if the trust fund goes bankrupt.

The End of the Road? The Looming Fiscal Disaster for Transportation discusses how we got into this problem, what the impact will be, and what we can do to get out of it.

Join us on Wednesday at 3:30 PM EDT for a webinar kicking off the new research. Hear the results of this research from Transportation for America’s experts and learn about tools to help your community advocate for change.

Register for our webinar here: http://bit.ly/T4AEndoftheRoad

A funding crisis can be averted, but only if Congress acts to increase funding for transportation aimed at repairing and preserving our aging infrastructure and supporting locally driven projects that spur economic growth. Join us on Wednesday to learn more.

T4America applauds President and House tax chair for efforts to fix the transportation funding crisis, as local leaders plead for help

Today President Obama and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) introduced separate proposals that would prevent the looming insolvency of the nation’s key infrastructure trust fund.

President Obama today unveiled a proposal for a four-year, $302 billion transportation bill, with a windfall from business tax reform covering the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund for that period. Chairman Camp proposed tax reform measures that would include staving off insolvency of the transportation fund for eight years. James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

“We are encouraged to see the threat to our nation’s transportation network begin to get the attention it deserves. With the bankruptcy of our transportation trust fund just months away, this can’t come soon enough. Just today, local leaders from across the country came to Capitol Hill to tell Congress what a robust federal investment in their transportation networks would mean for their economic development and long term prosperity. (See our blog post on today’s events here.)

These local leaders are putting their money where their mouth is, going to their voters for tax increases to pay for infrastructure they need. But as they said today, and as I reiterated in remarks to members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, their plans count on a dependable federal partner. Today’s actions by the Administration and key House leaders show the message may finally be getting through.

With the current transportation program expiring at the end of September, we look forward to working with Congress and the Administration on a fully funded program that promotes innovation, rewards initiative and gives local communities the latitude to solve their infrastructure challenges.”

In Hill event, local leaders make case for federal support for transportation needs

Before a packed room on Capitol Hill, local leaders from three very different communities shared one very specific message with a handful of Congressmen and at least four dozen staffers: If Congress doesn’t act to shore up the nation’s transportation fund before it goes insolvent later this year, their cities and communities would bear the brunt of the pain.

Ways and Means briefing overall

Along with Reps. Richard Hanna (R-NY) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Transportation for America helped to bring local leaders to Washington to talk about what the looming insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund means for their communities. As we’ve noted here, states and local governments stand to lose nearly all access to federal transportation support next year if Congress doesn’t act to shore up the nation’s transportation fund sometime before the end of the summer. (The details of which were explored at length in a presentation by the day’s last panelist, Sarah Puro, Principal Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.)

In between appearances by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, as well as comments from Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington and Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, three local officials painted pictures of their ambitious transportation plans, and what the lack of federal investment would mean for them.

Normal, IL, Mayor Chris Koos shared the story of how city leaders revitalized their town’s core — and how federal support was the only way they could make it a reality. (Read that full story here.) He noted that the private sector has since followed through with millions in new investments, but that they were unwilling to invest in Uptown Normal until they knew the public sector was truly committed.

 

Rep. Rodney Davis, a Republican from the 13th District that includes Normal, came up and offered his support for Normal Mayor Chris Koos and expressed pride in this project in his district — a model for how the federal government could support a smart local vision that also had strong local and state funding and support.

Koos and Davis

Rep. Rodney Davis (right) greets Mayor Chris Koos of Normal, Illinois after the Mayor shared the story of the revitalization of Uptown Normal — made possible by a federal TIGER grant.

While Mayor Koos was speaking in one hearing room, Transportation for America director James Corless was telling a different group of more than 20 members of Congress the same story from Normal, Illinois.

He was testifying alongside many of the transportation industry groups in an invitation-only congressional roundtable hosted by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to discuss the next transportation bill. He told the 20-plus members of Congress there, along with transportation lobbyists and advocacy groups, that because local economies are the heart of the American economy, the federal program should support more local initiatives like Normal’s.

“Normal should be “normal,” not the exception,” Corless said.

While Normal is a small college town, Nashville, Tennessee is a much larger, booming metropolis. They’ve been adding jobs and people over the last ten years, and are expected to add a million more in another 20-plus years.

Marc Hill, Chief Policy Officer of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, explained how the business community and the chamber got together years ago and recognized that congestion threatens that economic prosperity.

“Six years ago, the Chamber began focusing on transit as a top priority — second only to improving public education.”

Marc Hill from the Nashville Chamber of Commerce

Marc Hill from the Nashville Chamber of Commerce

Why? They’ve certainly been inspired by watching and learning from some of their neighbors’ mistakes. “We don’t want to be another Atlanta. We don’t want to start working on transit 10 years after we’re in gridlock,” he said.

The business community is leading the way for making bus-rapid transit a reality in Nashville — and they hope that The Amp’s first line through the center of town is just the first component of what could be a wide-ranging regional bus-rapid transit system, the first of its kind in the South.

But, “there’s simply no way a local community can pull off something like this without a federal partnership,” he said. If the trust fund goes belly up and the federal contribution is curtailed for next year, Tennessee could be out $900 million and Nashville would lose $40 million.

Down in Florida, Tampa Bay is home to the 15th largest port in the nation and the closest to the Panama Canal in sea-miles. Charlie Hunsicker, director of the Manatee County Parks and Natural Resources Dept and also speaking on behalf of the Manatee Chamber of Commerce, urged the Ways and Means members to consider freight as they mull how to rescue the trust fund from insolvency.

“Ports constitute the most important first mile, or last mile, in world trade,” he said.

Charlie Hunsicker

Charlie Hunsicker, Director of the Manatee County Parks and Natural Resources Department.

The recurring theme today was clear: No matter how motivated and inspired, the American public and business community cannot do this alone.

Nashville is working on their local funding sources for The Amp, and hoping for the feds to support this region that’s “an economic driver, not just in Tennessee, but for the mid-South,” as Marc Hill put it. “There’s no lack of will locally to invest to be a full partner, a majority partner, but we absolutely can’t do it without that federal support.”

Messages and stories like these will continue to flow into Washington, DC from cities and towns and counties and districts all across the country.

But the ball is in Congress’ court, and especially the Ways and Means Committee that’s responsible for funding a transportation bill. Without a solution to the funding crisis, writing great new transportation policies will be like crafting a beautiful saddle without the horse.

These local leaders are counting on Congress to come through for them.

—

Photos from the event

Sarah Puro of the CBO gives a presentation at the briefing organized by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Sarah Puro of the CBO gives a presentation at the briefing organized by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Richard Hanna speaking at the briefing organized by his office and Rep. Blumenauer, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Richard Hanna speaking at the briefing organized by his office and Rep. Blumenauer, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Earl Blumenauer speaking at the briefing organized by his office and Rep. and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Earl Blumenauer speaking at the briefing organized by his office and Rep. Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Jim McDermott speaking at the briefing organized by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Jim McDermott stopped in to say a few words at the briefing organized by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) at the briefing organized by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) at the briefing organized by Reps. Blumenauer and Hanna, with Transportation for America. 2/26/14

JRS at Ways and Means Briefing

Transportation for America’s John Robert Smith — himself a former mayor — kicks off the briefing with a few remarks.

 

Shining a spotlight on the nation’s strapped transportation fund this Wednesday

It’s not a new story by now: states and local governments stand to lose nearly all access to federal transportation support next year if Congress doesn’t act to shore up the nation’s transportation fund sometime before the end of the summer. So far, we’ve mostly talked about this as a national story, but make no mistake: insolvency would have huge impacts on local communities.

To explore the issue in that light, we’re supporting a bipartisan briefing pulled together by two key House members, Reps. Richard Hanna (R-NY) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), on the upcoming expiration of the current transportation law (MAP-21) and the aforementioned shortfall of the Highway Trust Fund. The panel this Wednesday for Hill staffers and media will include three local leaders who understand that investments in transportation are catalysts for development and economic success, using their perspective to localize the impacts of this story.

One story to be shared is the same one featured right here today in this new profile on our website:

Normal, Illinois

A medium-sized city in central Illinois was one of the first to utilize a new, experimental program of competitive federal transportation grants to help implement a city-backed, city-led plan for revitalizing their downtown with a new transportation and civic centerpiece for the town. It’s a successful model of exactly the kind of investments the federal transportation program should be supporting, and proof that it’s not always just big projects in big cities leading the way. Read the full story here

What Mayor Koos from Normal, Illinois shares in that profile is the same message all three local leaders will bring to Washington on Wednesday: No matter how motivated and inspired, the American public and business community cannot do this alone. They need a federal partner that ensures their plans can be realized to provide businesses the opportunity to compete in today’s global economy and allow people to efficiently access jobs and markets.

Also at the briefing will be Sarah Puro, an expert from the Congressional Budget Office, who will share a CBO analysis of the status of the Highway Trust Fund and the choices facing Congress regarding spending from and revenues collected by the fund.

Briefing panelists include The Honorable Chris Koos, Mayor of Normal Illinois; Marc Hill, Chief Policy Officer of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce; Charles Hunsicker, Director of Manatee County Florida Parks and Natural Resources, and Sarah Puro, Principal Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Be sure to follow us on Twitter on Wednesday from 10:30 a.m. – 12 p.m. to hear a few highlights, and watch this space for a short wrap-up after the briefing.

CBO: Highway Trust Fund hole even deeper than expected

New revenue projections for the Highway Trust Fund released this week from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that, not only is the nation’s transportation fund going in the red sooner than expected, but the gap to maintain promised funding levels has increased by about $5 billion.

On Tuesday, CBO released its biannual projections of the Highway Trust Fund as part of their much larger “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024.”

The gloomy news from the CBO report is twofold: (1) The “transportation fiscal cliff” is likely to come before the end of September; and (2) fully funding MAP-21 for another year after it expires this September is projected to now require $19 billion — $5 billion more than originally thought.

Though the news from CBO is worse than many in DC expected, the bottom line hasn’t changed: If Congress doesn’t act sometime in the next eight months, nearly all of the federal transportation program will be halted in fiscal year 2015.

CBO Highway Trust fund annual shortfall projections Feb 2014

Specifically, the CBO report estimates the Highway Account of the Trust Fund will run out of cash to pay for day-to-day operations before the expiration of MAP-21 on September 30th. This is due in part to the fact that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is supposed to reimburse states every business day, but gas tax receipts are deposited in the Trust Fund only twice a month. The uncertainty between gas tax receipts and cash outlays will require FHWA to slow payments to states and/or pay smaller sums should Congress not address the “transportation fiscal cliff” in a timely manner.

These forced actions by FHWA will result in states and local communities stopping investments in transportation projects that are critical to their long-term economic development. As a result, communities across the country that are raising their own taxes and hoping for a strong federal partner to support their efforts might have to shelve their ambitious plans.

Looking past the expiration of MAP-21 this September and into the future, the CBO report also gives us a sobering picture of just how much additional transportation revenue is needed to move forward. To fund a six-year authorization bill at the same spending levels as MAP-21, the trust fund needs an additional $100 billion in tax receipts or, however unlikely, transfers from the general fund for the fiscal period from 2015 to 2020. To fund a two-year bill similar to MAP-21 would require an additional $35 billion more than the trust fund currently brings in.

This picture won’t magically get any better, either. Inflation marches on and cars will continue using less and less gas. The roughly $39 billion of incoming gas tax revenues of today aren’t projected to grow a dime ten years from now, and many intelligent people think this projection could be too rosy, considering that the previously mentioned shifts in fuel efficiency and driving habits are expected to persist.

We absolutely must invest more money in America’s transportation system, and Transportation for America’s alliance of elected, business and civic leaders are working to move Congress toward timely action on this vital issue. Please read Transportation for America’s plan for an increase in federal transportation funding that rewards smart, locally driven transportation projects and guarantees local communities get the money they need to fix an aging system while also building the new infrastructure their economies depend on.

SOTU followup: Does transportation offer a glimmer of bipartisan hope?

As we noted in our statement after the State of the Union address Tuesday night, it was good to hear the President again cite the need to steer new revenue toward “rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes”. He didn’t say much beyond that, of course, but given other developments in the background, we have reason to be somewhat encouraged.

140125121707-obama-sotu-2013-story-top

Though his transportation remarks were limited, what he did propose was a bit more concrete than past references to diverting billions saved from winding down various wars. This time, he called for making changes to corporate taxes – moves with at least some support in both parties – that could yield a temporary infusion for infrastructure investment.

It would be a welcome near-term boost, but as his transportation secretary has repeatedly pointed out, we need a long-term fix for the ongoing shortfall in our beleaguered transportation trust fund. The U.S. DOT will run out of money to reimburse states before the end of the fiscal year, with deep cuts likely in following years. Simply put, rising construction costs and falling gas tax revenues from an increasingly efficient vehicle fleet have us on course for a “transportation fiscal cliff”.

As the President surely knows, this bodes ill for much of the strategy he outlined for easing the burden for work-a-day Americans. It won’t do much good, for example, to train a low-wage worker for a job in the suburbs if he or she can’t get to it. Efforts to revive manufacturing will falter if producers can’t move their goods through bottlenecks on overburdened and deteriorating urban highways.

As the expiration of MAP-21 nears this fall, we are hoping the Administration will put forward a transportation bill that lines up with Obama’s economic strategy. But when it comes to raising the revenue to boost the trust fund to levels sufficient to repair and modernize our infrastructure, the President cannot go it alone.

The good news is he may not have to.  In recent days, the chairs of two key infrastructure committees, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – representing both chambers and both parties – have sounded the call to save our transportation fund from insolvency and make smart investments for America’s future.

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

“This problem must be addressed in this Congress,” said Senator Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. “A strong transportation system is vital to ensuring our nation’s economic competitiveness, and this requires maintaining federal investments in our infrastructure.”

Rep. Shuster, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also has been bold and articulate on the need for a “strong federal role” in creating the infrastructure to sustain our economy and quality of life, and the need for local leaders to speak up for it. In opening a hearing this month on “Building the Foundation for Surface Transportation Reauthorization”, he said: “We can’t afford to be stuck in the past or we’ll be left behind. We should encourage our federal partners to think outside the box on how to address our transportation challenges [and] promote innovation.”

We couldn’t agree more, and we can’t imagine that his Democratic counterparts would disagree. We recognize that finding agreement on the revenue source will be a steep climb. We have suggested several possible sources. Perhaps tax reform offers another vehicle to find new revenue for transportation needs.

Meanwhile, “We need your help in educating members of Congress,” Chairman Shuster told the U.S. Conference of Mayors this month. Those members need to hear from elected, business and civic leaders from around the country that there is support – and a demand – for congressional action to provide the infrastructure funding our economy relies on. That’s our mission at T4America: to rally those voices across the country and bring them to their members of Congress. If you can help – either by speaking yourself or by reaching out to a community leader – please let us know!

America’s infrastructure improves slightly over 2009, still a failing grade

America’s civil engineers raised the grade given to our country’s infrastructure from four years ago, but unfortunately, it’s still a failing grade for America.

With the $3.3 trillion dollars needed by 2020 (according to ASCE) unlikely to arrive in this current climate of reduced budgets and austerity, is there a way forward that can make smarter decisions with the money we have and knock back our maintenance backlog while still investing in the 21st century infrastructure our country needs?

The latest edition of the every-four-years report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gives America a “D”, up from the “D-minus” we received in 2009. Improvement is always good, but a failing grade is still unacceptable, like a baseball player who hits a homer in a game his team loses.

“While our country’s association of civil engineers continues to do the yeoman’s work of sounding the alarm on our country’s infrastructure,” said T4 America director James Corless this morning, “it’s a sad reality that little has changed since the last Report Card in 2009.”

The truth is that few should be surprised at the state of things when they log on to the fantastic new ASCE interactive report card app (available on the web as well as for Android, iPhone and tablets) and sift through the national and state data.

ASCE Report Card App

Few would be surprised, because has anything here in Washington changed to drastically improve the condition of our roads, bridges and transit systems? Last summer, Congress finally passed a replacement to the transportation bill that expired just a few months after the last ASCE report card was issued — in 2009. Though a definite sign of progress in some areas, the new law provided no new dollars for transportation in the two years to come. The program dedicated to repairing our country’s 69,000 structurally deficient bridges was eliminated after making steady progress on reducing the backlog over the last 20 years.

Beyond the federal bill, which only represents about a quarter of all transportation spending, state and local revenues in many places are falling rapidly (MAP-21 held federal funding level at least) leading many Governors and state legislatures to float alternate plans for raising for revenue to make needed repairs and build anew.

While we certainly believe we need to increase the amount of money that we spend on infrastructure (especially transportation), simply increasing the amount of money is no panacea — ASCE is certainly right that we need to change how the money is spent — it’s not enough to pour more money into a cup with a hole in the bottom.

ASCE has some encouraging recommendations in this year’s report card moving the discussion in the direction of smarter, more transparent spending on infrastructure. We do need more leadership, more transparency, and a “focus on sustainability and resilience,” as they say in their recommendations. And we can no longer ignore growth patterns and things like a housing-jobs mismatch when making transportation decisions, affirmed by ASCE’s insistence that “infrastructure plans should be synchronized with regional land use planning.”

Some states aren’t waiting for billions that are unlikely to come and are already far ahead of the curve, thinking about ways to make their dollars do more. Like Massachusetts, where the DOT director issued a goal of tripling the number of trips taken by foot, bike and public transportation — reducing the load on roads and bridges that are among the oldest in the country. Or Tennessee, where the state DOT has taken a long look at their list of their proposed projects to see if they’re really necessary at a time when funding is dwindling, resources are scarce, and residents are looking for options to sitting in traffic.

Pushed between a rock and a hard place with forced austerity through reduced budgets yet being asked to do more with less, it’s time for a different approach.

With $1.7 trillion in needs by 2020 for surface transportation identified by ASCE and MAP-21 funding levels only due to bring in about $400 billion in that same time period, it begs the question: Who’s going to pay the difference? While ASCE avoids the question specifically, they do assert, much as we do, that there will continue to be an important role for the feds in planning and paying for infrastructure. “Federal investment must be used to complement, encourage, and leverage investment from the state and local government levels as well as from the private sector,” the report says. But it doesn’t stop there. “In addition, users of the infrastructure must be willing to pay the appropriate price for their use.”

Will we be willing to pay for what we need? Or do too many people think that we need to make the spending smarter before we make it bigger? However you answer, there’s not really an option other than smarter spending for the next two years, because MAP-21 didn’t provide any new money to states.

Yet MAP-21’s expiration is already on the horizon and the Highway Trust Fund is still headed towards its own fiscal cliff. The Senate budget resolution and the President have both suggested big increases in transportation spending. But where will the money come from? Despite key questions about where that revenue would come from, the simple fact that the 113th session of Congress has started with a number of proposals to increase investment in infrastructure, along with supportive comments from new House Transportation Chair Bill Shuster, have given transportation advocates a reason to be hopeful.

“With the federal gas tax bringing in less money every year, strong leadership from Congress is needed now more than ever,” said T4’s James Corless.

—

Some comparisons with 2009 at a glance:

  • Bridges improved from a C to C+
  • Rail improved from a C- to C+
  • Roads improved slightly from a D- to D
  • And transit was unchanged at a D

Massive letter opposing House leadership attack on transit sent to Capitol Hill

As we mentioned yesterday, House Leadership and the Ways and Means Committee this week proposed an unprecedented attack on public transportation funding.

This morning we sent this letter (below) to the Ways and Means Committee and the entire House of Representatives in strong opposition to this House leadership plan to end a 30-year precedent of providing dedicated funding for public transportation from the federal fuel tax.

In less than 12 hours, we gathered signatures from more than 600 groups, notable individuals and elected officials. More than 75 national organizations — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the American Public Transportation Association, the National Rural Assembly, American Society of Civil Engineers, LOCUS (real estate developers), National Association of Counties— and a huge list of other individuals and state & local groups, including the governors of Oregon and Washington, several state DOTs, state and local Chambers of Commerce, and hundreds of state and local organizations nationwide.

Read the full letter here, where you can see the full list of all groups that signed.

Although Ways and Means markup is about to begin this morning, there’s still time to contact your House rep and let them know that you stand against this raid on transit funding.

—

Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin:

For the past thirty years, Congress has provided dedicated funding for highway and transit programs through an excise tax on gasoline dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. This funding structure has successfully provided highway and transit programs with secure, dedicated revenues and budgetary firewalls dating back to the Reagan administration. The success of this approach is without question: The Trust Fund has been critical to our nation’s ability to build an efficient and multimodal transportation system. With record transit ridership, now is not the time to eliminate guaranteed funding for our nation’s public transportation systems, which saved Americans close to $19 billion in congestion costs in 2009. For the first time in thirty years, the pending legislation H.R. 3864, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Financing Act, removes the certainty of a continued revenue source for our transit systems as well as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the provision in H.R. 3864 that would terminate funding from the excise tax on gasoline and replace it with the Alternative Transportation Account. In place of gasoline tax revenues, the legislation would provide a one-time $40 billion transfer of General Fund revenues to the Alternative Transportation Account. Not only is this level of funding insufficient to fully fund the proposed authorized levels for the Alternative Transportation Account, but it would subject transit and CMAQ funding to the annual appropriations process. This change will make it impossible for public transit systems across the country to plan for the future. It will also make it impossible for the FTA to honor grant agreements.

In addition, this legislation does not make clear how the $40 billion in General Fund revenues will be offset in the U.S. budget. As a result of this funding gap, we are concerned that the $40 billion general revenue transfer may not occur leaving transit programs out in the cold.

We strongly encourage the Committee to reject H.R. 3864 and work to continue to fund highway and transit programs through dedicated funding.

House leadership making unprecedented assault on public transit

A key House Committee is threatening to kill three decades of successful investments in mass transit — originally started under President Ronald Reagan — by ending the guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.

In a stunning development late last night, House leadership and the Ways and Means committee made a shocking attack on transit that would have huge impacts for the millions of people who depend on public transportation each day.

They proposed putting every public transportation system in immediate peril by eliminating guaranteed funding for the Mass Transit Account and forcing transit to go begging before Congress for general funds each year — all while highway spending continues to be guaranteed with protected funds for half a decade at a time.

Get involved. Can you take just a moment and tell your representative that this short-sighted idea is intolerable for their voters?

This incredible move would roll back 30+ years of bipartisan federal transportation policy and reverse a decision made by President Reagan in the 1980’s to fund our nation’s transit system out of a small share of gas tax revenues. This change would mean no more guarantee of funding each year and no long-term stability for public transportation. States, cities, communities and their transit systems could lose billions.

We released a statement earlier today decrying this unprecedented attack on transit.

“We are deeply concerned that if this measure passes, Americans who use public transportation, or who would like that option in the future, will be thrown under the bus,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “This couldn’t come at a worse time for people who need an affordable, reliable way to get to work, or for employers who need workers.” Corless noted the demand for transit has been rising as the economy slowly recovers and people are using public transportation to get to jobs and to avoid volatile gas prices. Over the course of the five-year transportation program, America’s population will continue to age rapidly, and a growing number of seniors will be looking to transit services maintain their independence.

It’s not just us, though. Even the association of state DOT heads submitted a letter to the committee urging them to reconsider their ill-advised plan.

The Mass Transit Account has been in existence since 1982 and AASHTO has continuously supported this account as a critical component of the Highway Trust Fund. AASHTO has long supported the principle that 20 percent of the gas tax revenues that have been put in place since 1982 be allocated to a dedicated mass transit account. We believe that the two complementary accounts need to be maintained in order to support a well-funded, multimodal transportation system.

We respectfully request that the current Highway Trust Fund structure with its two accounts and respective revenue allocations be retained.

Transit is unquestionably a critical component of our nation’s transportation system, and one that millions of people (or voters, if you’re reading, committee members) depend on each day to get around. More people on transit means less congestion, less pollution, and fewer cars on the road.

Tell your representative that this unprecedented attack on transit won’t stand.

What do the House rule changes mean for transportation spending?

Earlier this week the House adopted rules for this new session of Congress. It’s a bit of inside baseball that can be hard to decipher, but these rules determine how bills are considered by lawmakers and what bills can and cannot do. Streetsblog Capitol Hill covered this issue on Monday and today, but it’s worth a closer examination.

One of the new rules will definitely have two significant impacts on transportation spending.

First, it would subject transportation spending to the annual appropriations process. Basically this means that instead of having transportation funding be more or less automatically tied to spending determined by the six-year transportation law, appropriators in Congress would decide funding levels each year — likely lower than what the transportation bill “authorized” and potentially leaving money unspent in the highway trust fund each year.

Since 1998 during the last two transportation laws (SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21), appropriators have been required by House rules to fund overall transportation programs at the aggregate levels written into the authorization, like current law SAFETEA-LU. This change will allow congressional appropriators to fund transportation below funding levels authorized in the transportation law or even below gas tax receipts.

While the new rule won’t actually allow diversions of transportation dollars to non-transportation uses as some highway advocacy groups claimed last week, it nevertheless poses some significant issues. It would have an impact on the economy and on local projects that rely on the certainty of guaranteed funding to bid out contracts and build projects. It could create even more uncertainty than we already have with the continued stopgap extensions.

There’s no doubt that the highway trust fund isn’t covering what we need to spend as general funds have been used to shore up the trust fund in the past few years. But cutting transportation spending even further won’t solve the real problems, namely that the money — whether it’s more or less than before — is too often given out to states with no strings attached and no accountability for what that money should accomplish.

We need a better program that spends money wisely to meet the needs we have in 2010, not just a cheaper one.

Second, the new rule would prohibit the Appropriations Committee from funding any program not specifically authorized in law. This means that innovative programs that were created outside the six-year transportation authorization like TIGER or the Bush Administration’s Urban Partnership Program wouldn’t receive funding from the trust fund because they were new programs not included in the transportation authorization. (The UP program was the source of funding for congestion pricing in New York, before that project fell apart locally.)

In the last 8 years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have developed creative programs like these to better address our nation’s transportation needs. If this rule had been in place these two programs would not have been funded and projects like the Norfolk-Southern’s Crescent Corridor and Minneapolis’s I-35 multimodal corridor improvements among others could not have moved forward.

HIRE Act a down payment on transportation priorities

When President Obama signed the HIRE Act into law last week, he ushered in important progress on several important transportation initiatives.

The Act extends current transportation law until December 31, 2010 and restores $19.5 billion in interest to the Highway Trust Fund. This works out to $14.7 billion for highways and $4.8 billion for mass transit. The HIRE Act also restores $8.7 billion in contract authority that was rescinded due to late Congressional action last September.

This clean extension is far superior to the stop-gap measures of the past several months. State Departments of Transportation and regional officials can now move forward on new projects with confidence.

Also of note, the Act extends the ability of urban areas to apply mass transit funding to operating assistance. Painful cuts to public transportation are a real drain on communities across America. This provision will help keep people in their jobs while helping commuters access jobs.

For a more thorough run-down of how the HIRE Act affects transportation, read this summary prepared by T4 America.

Pew: “Self-sustaining” highways are increasingly subsidized

-- LA highwayCritics of public transportation often cling to the canard that government should not subsidize a transportation option that cannot pay for itself. These naysayers reference “self-sustaining” roads and highways, which receive funding from user-fees – in this case, the federal gas tax.

A new study conducted by SubsidyScope, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts, reveals that not only are roads and highways not self-sustaining, but the amount covered by gas taxes has been declining — leaving an increasing amount of their massive cost to be subsidized. Pew projections – using Federal Highway Administration numbers – show user fees contributing a slim majority of the revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, with the difference made up through bonds and General Fund dollars. Public transportation does, as the critics assert, operate “at a loss,” but so do roadways (see chart below, courtesy of Subsidyscope).

The researchers wrote: “In 2007, 51 percent of the nation’s $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees — down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.” Forty-years ago, they noted, user-fees generated 71 percent of highway revenues.

Of the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax, 2.86 cents – about 15 percent – is directed toward mass transit projects, and an additional 0.1 cent toward environmental clean-up, according to the report. That leaves more than 80 percent strictly for highways. Even if we spent 100 percent of gas tax revenues on highways, only 65 percent of their total cost would be covered. There would still be a need for significant outside revenue – in other words, subsidies. Does that mean highways are “government waste?” Or are transportation dollars an investment to provide access to jobs and movement of goods?

One reason for the decline of the user-fee’s contribution is that the gas tax has not kept pace with inflation. Today, there is limited political appetite for a gas tax increase. Americans are also driving cleaner cars than they used to, due in large part of federal action on fuel economy. Less gas purchased means lower gas tax revenues.

So, to the critics who seem to be against all subsidies — unless they’re going to cover highway projects: let’s drop the claim that highways “pay for themselves” and have a debate rooted in fact rather than myth.

highway_funds_chart

Sec. LaHood proposes 18-month extension of current transportation bill

This morning on Capitol Hill, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood proposed an 18-month extension of the current SAFETEA-LU transportation authorization bill. Beyond simply extending the current bill, LaHood indicated that he wants to include some reforms in the 18-month extension — including a focus on metro areas, extensive cost-benefit analysis, and a commitment to “livable communities” — but was short on other specifics.

No word yet on how this will affect the proposed transportation bill outline to be released by Rep. James Oberstar tomorrow morning. Be sure to check back over the next few days for the latest.

From the DOT press room:

“This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect.

“As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country.

“I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach. However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.”

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has a story up covering LaHood’s proposal, and includes a quote from Rep. Oberstar, responding to the idea of an extension:

In a meeting with reporters Wednesday, Mr. Oberstar was adamant that Congress must pass a new law before the current one expires.

“Extension of current law is unacceptable,” Mr. Oberstar said. “Now is the time to move.”

UPDATE 2: Michael Cooper of the New York Times covers the proposed extension, and gets a statement from Jim Berard, spokesman for Rep. Oberstar. “The chairman is not too pleased with the administration’s proposal,” he said.

Highway Trust Fund could need as much as $17 billion to stay in the black

Flickr photo originally uploaded by Madison Guy

In September last year, Congress had to provide an emergency infusion of $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund for the first time in history to keep it from going broke. This transfer of cash from the general fund to an account that is supposed to be completely self-supporting showed us that our transportation system is in serious financial trouble.

Unfortunately, we’re expecting the Highway Trust Fund to run out of money even sooner this year.

News broke yesterday that the Obama administration is telling members of the U.S. Senate that the fund — which pays for projects approved in the transportation bill — will go broke by August if an emergency infusion of at least $7 billion isn’t approved. And it could need as much as $10 billion more to make it through the next fiscal year, which ends in September 2010.

With Congress talking about a transportation bill this year in the range of $450 billion and current gas tax revenues failing to cover the costs of the last $286 billion transportation bill, it’s clear that we need a new method of paying for our transportation infrastructure. We’re driving less and less, not just because of expensive gas, but also due to changing demographics and consumer preferences, and it’s unlikely that gas tax revenues will go up any time soon.

Predictably, many sensible voices are calling for the gas tax to be raised, which has been going down in real terms as inflation increases and the tax stays fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon. Both of the Congressionally-mandated transportation study commissions recommended an increase in the gas tax. But while we certainly more money from some somewhere to pay for the transportation investments we need, it’s imperative that we change the broken system before we pour new money into it.

The way things works now, states are esssentially encouraged have their residents drive more to increase gas tax revenues, which allows them to contribute more to the federal government and get more money back in return. We need a system that encourages states to improve mobility and safety, reduce congestion, and meet other performance measures, instead of building new roads to increase miles driven.

We need a federal transportation system that works, not the same broken thing at twice the price.

No new money without reforming the broken system.