transportation funding Archives - Page 2 of 3

President Obama releases robust final budget; summary included

Today, the White House released President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 (FY17) budget proposal, the final of his presidency. This budget adheres to the $1.07 trillion spending cap that resulted from the bipartisan two-year budget deal agreed to last November. The President’s budget proposal either falls in line with or exceeds FAST Act funding levels, increases transit and rail funding, and funds TIGER (the FAST Act does not authorize the program), among other programs. The budget also calls for the creation of a 21st Century Regions program, a clean communities competitive grant program and funds the President’s 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.

Speaker Ryan (R-WI) has asked congressman to maintain the funding levels agreed to last November, though there are signals that some may seek additional cuts.

Read a more detailed analysis here.

The 1 thing you need to know about President Obama’s clean transportation plan

On February 4, the White House released President Obama’s 21st Century Clean Transportation System plan to be included in his FY2017 budget proposal expected out on February 9. The President asserts that his budget proposal will strengthen the nation’s transportation fund through one-time revenues from business tax reform and a $10 per barrel fee on oil, and make large investments in transit and improve funding for local and regional governments.

“This is a new vision. We’re realistic about near-term prospects in Congress, but we think this can change the debate,” one senior administration official said.

The announcement comes two months after the passage of the 5 year surface transportation bill known as the FAST Act. However, Congressional leaders have not expressed willingness to consider the proposal.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) made this point clear. “President Obama’s proposed $10 per barrel tax on oil is dead on arrival in the House.”

What the plan proposes

The plan includes a wide range of innovative solutions. It would refocus federal investments to reduce congestion, reform the existing transportation formula programs, and invest in competitive programs, including the popular Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. It would also increase investments in mass transit funding by $20 billion annually, provide $2 billion for an autonomous and low-emission vehicle pilot, and add $10 billion per year to reform local and regional transportation programs. The latter would include new discretionary grant programs for regions that lower emissions and better link land use decisions with transportation investments.

To pay for these investments, revenues from a $10 per barrel fee paid by oil companies would be phased in over 5 years. During the development of the FAST Act, Congress was unwilling to even hold a floor vote on increasing transportation user-fees, which hasn’t been raised in over 23 years.

Virginia launches program to remove politics from transportation investment decisions

This week Virginia DOT released a list of recommended projects across the state, the result of a new process to objectively screen and score transportation projects based on their anticipated benefits.

It may not sound like big news that a state has carefully measured the results it expects from billions of dollars in capital investments. Unfortunately, nearly all states rely instead on byzantine funding formulas and decades-old project lists, rather than measurable return-on-investment, to award funds for highway and transit projects. That means that this common sense change is a big one for the transportation system.

“This new law [HB 2 passed in 2014] is revolutionizing the way transportation projects are selected,” said Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) in a statement on the release of the project scoring results. “Political wish lists of the past are replaced with a data-driven process that is objective and transparent, making the best use of renewed state funding.”

Fiscal year 2017 project applications and results of the analysis are mapped by location on the HB2 projects page.

It is not just the selection process itself that is novel; Virginia is also opening up its process to public review in a way that few states have. With its consumer-friendly website, virginiahb2.org, the DOT explains the process, eligible projects, and scoring factors used in ranking projects. This week, the list of recommended projects and their scores were also put online. The public will have opportunities to weigh in on the recommended projects before the final project list is approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in June.

Some of the top projects, based on total benefits, were adding high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes along the I-66 corridor in Fairfax County; widening I-64 in Hampton Roads; extending Virginia Railway Express commuter rail service to Haymarket; and adding a second entrance to the Ballston Metro station. The number-one ranked project—the project with the greatest benefit per cost—is a small, locally requested road improvement project at the elementary school in the town of Altavista.

The new objective scoring process is the result of key reform bills passed by the general assembly: HB2, passed unanimously by the general assembly in 2014 and HB1887 passed last year. These bills instructed VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to create a new process to rank projects of all types, in each region of the state, on five key measures: economic development, safety, accessibility, congestion mitigation, and environmental impact. State funds are awarded to both statewide priorities and local needs that have the highest measurable benefits. We cover both bills in more detail in two Capital Ideas reports.

“We must ensure that every step we take is measured by its return on investment,” said House Speaker William Howell in 2013 prior to HB 2’s introduction. “Resources are too scarce and taxpayer dollars too precious to be thrown away on poorly planned transportation projects. Projects should have clearly defined goals and metrics that can be measured in an objective fashion. A ‘good idea’ is not good enough anymore.”

Virginia’s new process is part of a growing trend. As legislators throughout the country look for ways to get the maximum benefit out of ever-more-limited transportation funds and build trust and accountability in the way the dollars are spent, many are looking to new ways to measure project benefits and prioritize needs. Massachusetts’ Project Selection Advisory Council is developing a new process for ranking projects in that state. Louisiana and Texas each passed new laws last year to add score and select transportation projects.

Virginia’s political leadership deserves great credit for taking on this common sense reform and placing the public benefit in front of short-term political gains.

12 states successfully raised new transportation funding in 2015 — what can other states learn?

The second issue of Transportation for America’s “Capital Ideas” series, released today, takes a closer look at the states that passed new transportation funding and policy legislation in 2015, distilling it all into some notable trends, lessons learned, challenges, and recommendations for other states planning similar action in 2016.

Read and download Capital Ideas II here.

Read or download Capital Ideas II here.

After years of inactivity on the issue, transportation funding has increasingly become a priority in states both red and blue. 2015 was a high water mark for the number of states successfully raising new funding, boasting successful increases in 12 states, bringing the total to 23 since 2012.

Along with a big-picture overview of all the states that were successful this year, this short report takes a closer look at a state that passed one of the better overall bills (Utah), a state that suffered a defeat on the way to a final package that failed to fundamentally improve policy or solve the revenue question (Michigan), and a state that passed another round of policy reforms to build voter trust and accountability following an increase in new transportation funds in 2013 (Virginia).

Through the successes (and failures) of 2015, we pull together some practical lessons and challenges for the other states hoping to take up the issue in 2016 or 2017, like showing why instituting reforms to boost public confidence can increase the likelihood of success, why indexing fuel taxes to inflation still isn’t a long-term solution, and why states should still find ways to fund all of the diverse needs in their states — not just highways. (Something that not enough states managed to do this year.)

Many states have an uphill challenge on that last point: did you know that almost half (23) of U.S. states have constitutional restrictions on their fuel taxes that restrict their use to roads or highways only? Those are the kinds of nuggets you can expect in Capital Ideas II.

While 2016 may not be quite as active as 2015 was due to a busy election year ahead, this trend will not abate anytime soon.

Even though Congress did finally pass a five-year bill this year, states are unlikely to stand pat on transportation funding. Years of dwindling federal funding and lost revenues due to arcane, static, and declining gas taxes have left states struggling to balance their budgets, and unlike Congress did recently, states can’t sell future oil reserves, raid the Fed or rely on accounting gimmicks to cover their costs — they have to find real money.

Read the report in full online and stay tuned as we bring you more news about T4America’s work in states in 2016. While we made our name and earned our stripes working at the federal level since our inception more than six years ago, we’ve been doing more work at the state and local level, and we’re eager to tell you more about it in the months ahead.

While Congress punts on sustainable funding, local communities approve a slew of new transportation taxes on election day

In a striking contrast to the actions of Congress when it comes to transportation funding, a handful of local jurisdictions went to the ballot this week and approved new taxes for transportation investments.

This week in Washington, while debating a new multi-year transportation bill, the leadership in the House of Representatives blocked the mere mention of raising or indexing the country’s gas tax to pay for a transportation bill currently drawing 30 percent of its price tag from every source under the sun — except for the actual users of the transportation system. No proposed amendments to the House transportation bill that dealt with raising the gas tax were cleared to even receive a debate or vote on the House floor, with House leadership refusing to allow our elected leaders to hold an adult discussion about raising new sustainable revenues for transportation.

Meanwhile, in local communities across the country, even in this off-year election, a number of communities went to the ballot and approved new increases in fees or taxes to pay for numerous ambitious local transportation investments. In at least a few candidate races, transportation became a defining issue in elections between candidates.

One of the most notable victories for new transportation funding occurred in Seattle, where voters approved the extension of a property tax levy to fund the ambitious Move Seattle plan, kickstarting work on seven new Rapid Ride bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors, three new light rail access points, 150 miles of new sidewalks, at least 16 bridge seismic retrofits, and the repaving of 180 miles of arterial streets. We profiled Seattle’s story just last week and shared more about their vision for investing in transportation and transit specifically to ensure their continued economic prosperity:

Seattle making smart decisions today to continue their city’s renaissance tomorrow

Downtown Seattle has become the hot place in the region for companies to locate as employment and growth has accelerated to new highs over the last decade, but limited space downtown could stymie job growth and economic potential if Seattle doesn’t think differently about transportation. READ MORE.

Immediately north of Seattle in Snohomish County, a 0.3% sales tax was approved at the ballot to fund increased bus service, including new routes and more express buses connecting major job centers like Boeing’s Paine Field.

Earlier this spring Utah became the third state in 2015 to pass a comprehensive transportation funding bill, raising the state’s gas tax and tying it to inflation. Utah raised revenues to invest in a variety of transportation modes and also provided individual counties with the ability to go to the ballot to levy voter-approved sales taxes to fund critical local transportation priorities.

Those local votes in Utah counties happened this week, and of the 17 counties that decided to put the 0.25% sales tax increase on the ballot — including the six counties in the Salt Lake City metro and region’s public transit service area — ten approved the measures with at least one still too close to call in Salt Lake County. In the counties served by the Utah Transit Agency, 40 percent of the new revenues will go directly to UTA transit service.

Maine approved an $85 million transportation bond that will provide $68 million for highway and bridge construction and repair, $17 million for ports, rail, freight, aviation, and a share for biking and walking trails.

Along with the handful of Utah counties that rejected their sales tax measures, there was one notable defeat in Salem, Oregon, where a 0.21% payroll tax was rejected. The measure would have expanded bus service, including new evening and weekend service.

Transportation also became an issue in a handful of elections this year.

In Virginia, the state DOT is trying to make the best use of limited capacity on a busy interstate running into Washington, DC by converting a congested section of I-66 from HOV-only to HOT lanes during peak commuting hours. Hal Parrish, a candidate for a state senate seat who campaigned heavily on stopping this plan in its tracks, lost his race in the 29th Virginia Senate district.

The election happened back in August, but in Phoenix, Mayor Greg Stanton was reelected after making the primary focus of his campaign an ambitious plan to invest in transportation with new tax revenues and expand the region’s growing light rail system. As the Arizona Republic wrote, “Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton won re-election in a landslide Tuesday [August 26th], vowing to continue his work to reshape the city through light-rail expansion and redevelopment projects in the once-sleepy urban core.”

Once again, the overall trend continues.

Voters support raising new revenue to invest in transportation, especially when the plan and the projects are clear and transparent. Whether the support from local voters or the state representatives winning re-election after supporting tax increases to invest in transportation over the last few years, Congress would do well to pay attention to this lesson.

Utah makes a bipartisan move to increase state and local transportation funding to help meet the demands of high population growth

Earlier this spring Utah became the third state in 2015 to pass a comprehensive transportation funding bill, raising the state’s gas tax and tying it to inflation. Unlike most other states acting this year, Utah raised revenues to invest in a variety of modes and also provided individual counties with the ability to go to the ballot to seek a voter-approved sales tax to fund additional local transportation priorities.

Fueled by the highest birthrate in the country, Utah’s population is expected to double by 2060. The state’s existing transportation funding sources — unchanged since 1997 and losing value against inflation — would not be sufficient to meet the demands posed by the rapidly growing population. Working proactively, the Utah Legislature and stakeholders worked together to raise new funding for transportation and ensure that the state stays ahead of the population boom.

TRAX Red Line to Daybreak at Fort Douglas Station. Flick photo by vxla. https://www.flickr.com/photos/vxla/

What does the new funding package do?

The new law, passed in March 2015, will generate approximately $74 million annually by replacing the cents-per-gallon gas tax with a new percentage tax indexed to future inflation. The bill also enables counties to raise local option sales taxes, which, if adopted by every county, would generate $124 million in new annual revenue specifically for local needs.

In specific terms, the bill replaces Utah’s current fixed 24.5 cents-per-gallon rate with a new rate of 12 percent of the statewide wholesale gasoline price, beginning January 1st, 2016, and indexes that rate to inflation. The bill also specifies that the tax can’t dip below the equivalent of 29.4 cents per gallon (i.e. a floor mechanism) or climb above 40 cents per gallon (i.e. a cap mechanism). Additionally, diesel, natural gas and hydrogen will see an incremental rise in their taxes until they reach 16.5 cents per gallon (an eight-cent increase for diesel and natural gas).

Importantly, the bill also enables all Utah counties to ask voters to approve a 0.25 percent local sales tax, the proceeds from which can be used to fund almost any locally-identified transportation need, whether roads, transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure or other related projects. Revenues from these county sales taxes would be split between the county (20 percent), cities (40 percent), and a county’s transit agency (40 percent). If a transit service area doesn’t exist in the county, the money is split between the county (60 percent) and cities (40 percent).

Due to a constitutional restriction, all state gas tax revenue generated in Utah may only be used on roads, so this new optional sales tax gives counties and local governments a new mechanism to raise funds for their pressing needs, whatever they may be. While the state will see a much-needed revenue increase that can be invested in the state’s Unified Transportation Plan, the local option sales tax is a very important provision that could give localities of all sizes extremely flexible resources to meet their pressing local needs.

Lynn Pace, Vice President of Utah League of Cities and Towns

“There was a major push to say that we need a more multimodal transportation system,” said Lynn Pace, vice president of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. “We needed more flexibility, and that pushed people towards the [local option] sales tax because it was flexible, more flexible than the gas tax.”

Political compromises on the way to passage

At the end of 2014’s legislative session, a transportation bill that, much like this year’s bill, would have allowed counties to impose a voter-approved quarter-cent sales tax to fund transportation was defeated. There were other funding bills that died, including one that would have increased the gas tax by 7.5 cents per gallon and another that would have reduced the gas tax from 24.5 to 14 cents per gallon while adding a 3.69 percent fuel tax. In the end, there wasn’t adequate consensus between legislators to get a bill done in 2014.

This year was different, however.

The 2015 session started with an effort to raise or otherwise reform Utah’s gas tax. The Speaker of the House, Rep. Greg Hughes (R-Draper), wanted to drop the per-gallon flat tax and change it to a percentage tax so that the tax rose and fell with gas prices. Senate President Wayne Niederhauser (R-Sandy), however, felt that tying the gas tax to fluctuating gas prices was too risky. Prices could rise and fall dramatically, he said, subjecting Utah drivers to suddenly higher gas prices (or declining revenues coming to the state with low prices). To eliminate the uncertainty, Niederhauser wanted a straight increase in the gas tax.

Hughes however, didn’t believe that representatives in the House would pass a tax increase, fearing political fallout. Pegging the tax rate to gas prices would allow the state to eventually see revenues increase as gas prices rise without the political risk of imposing taxes immediately. In the end, the bill indexes the gas tax rate to inflation, but with a floor and ceiling put in place to counter destabilizing fluctuations in the gas price.

The importance of including the local option sales tax

Legislators had a similar back-and-forth on the bill’s other major revenue-raising provision: the local option sales tax.

Rep. Johnny Anderson (R-Taylorsville), the sponsor of this provision, wanted to ensure that money from the sales tax went to transit before it went to roads. Rep. Jim Dunnigan (R-Taylorsville), however, wanted to put that decision in the hands of the voters and local elected officials.

As legislators moved towards the end of the session, the House and Senate passed different versions of the transportation bill. The Senate opposed allowing counties to impose a voter-approved sales tax, but the House insisted. Eventually, the chambers came to an agreement, provided that local option sales tax revenues could go to not just transit but all forms of transportation, from roads to transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

Staying on message

The 2014 debate on transportation funding by Utah legislators laid some of the important groundwork for this year’s success. But this time, several ingredients (and some notable changes) came together this year to help convince formerly skeptical legislators to vote yes.

The bill’s supporters — which included the Wasatch Front Regional Council, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the Utah Transportation Coalition, among others — were able to present a compelling and winning message about why Utah needed to raise additional dollars to invest in the transportation system. They talked about the critical economic development connection, as well as accommodating and moving more people and goods within the booming state over the next 25 years. Supporters educated both the public and legislators about why Utah’s communities need to be able to raise funds for and invest in multimodal transportation projects.

In a conservative state like Utah, supporters found that economic arguments worked best for convincing legislators and the public that transportation is a worthwhile investment. Their argument was two-pronged: first, a state with a good transportation network can more easily attract businesses, which need solid transportation infrastructure to attract talent, get their employees to work, and ship their goods, and, second, that waiting to repair critical transportation infrastructure will make maintenance cost more in the long run.

Read T4America’s separate 2014 profile of Utah’s “Can-Do” transportation ambitions.

With stories of partisan gridlock making headlines every day, Utah stands out as a model of collaborative planning for a better future. State leaders and citizens have managed to stare down a recession while making transportation investments that accommodate projected population growth and bolster the economy and quality of life.

Click through to read the full story.

To make sure that the message really resonated, supporters made sure that they were all singing from the same sheet.

The Utah Transportation Coalition — a group that includes the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Utah League of Cities and Towns — conducted two years of studies to find the facts they needed for their education campaign.

“What we did differently this year versus last year — in years past — is that we worked together, we were all in lockstep together, we knew our message, stayed on message,” said Abby Albrecht, Director of the Utah Transportation Coalition. “We worked really hard to be the voice in the community and in the legislature about transportation, why it was so important for our economy, for our quality of life, to our healthcare.”

A clear, unified plan for future investment

That singular message is captured in Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan, a statewide transportation plan synthesized from several regional plans and plans from the state DOT and the Utah Transit Authority. The unified statewide plan prioritizes those needs and outlines the $11.3 billion most critical projects to fund.

Having a statewide plan in which everyone could see their needs reflected helped everyone feel that the entire state was working together to develop a holistic vision for the future instead of a bunch of regions competing against each other for the same funds. That unity of purpose across the state helped bring legislators on board.

“Every legislator has skin in the game at that point,” saidMichael (Merrill) Parker, Director of Public Policy at the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. “It’s not urban versus rural, or region versus region; every legislator is in the same camp trying to solve one problem, not their local district’s problem.”

With a clear vision in hand, supporters worked hard to spread that message.

“There was a [unified] plan in place, an agreed-upon plan in place, saying, ‘This is what needs to be done, we all agreed that this is the plan, and here are the gaps in funding,’” said Pace, from the Utah League of Cities and Towns. “So, it put us in the position to say, ‘We all agreed what needs to be done. Utah’s population is going to double in the next 30 years, we need funding to implement the plan, to help make it happen.’”

All of that education paid off.

The law passed the House on March 9th and in the Senate on March 12th. Governor Gary Herbert signed the law on March 27th. This provides counties the ability to place local sales tax referendums on the ballot as early as November 2015.

On to the ballot box

Supporters cheered the bill’s passage in March, but there are still important hurdles to clear to reach the bill’s full potential. The bill could raise an additional $124 million annually for transportation if adopted by all Utah counties. Groups like the Salt Lake Chamber and Utah Transportation Coalition are embarking on public education campaigns in the counties that are placing local sales tax questions on their November ballots.

110 of Utah’s 244 cities have passed resolutions urging their county governments to put the proposition on November ballots, and as of August 24th, 12 of Utah’s 29 counties have taken action to do exactly that. That list of 12 counties includes Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous county, and where, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, elected officials in all 16 cities supported the county’s action in August 2015 to place the initiative on this November’s ballot.

Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams

The mayor of that county, Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, knows how important investing in Utah’s transportation is, especially since his region is the most populated in the state:

“We want to have a visionary approach to transport, where we look into the future and forecast what our region is going to look like. We know that a transit-oriented future will improve quality of life, save tax dollars, and really help us develop the kind of community we want to live in. That all takes forethought and planning.”

This year’s move by the legislature was a triumph of bipartisan cooperation and compromise, undergirded by the clear vision for investment that local leaders and civic groups have bought into. As a result of their successful work, the state will see an increase in transportation funding in 2015, but we’ll be watching especially closely this November as Utah counties join countless others in deciding measures at the ballot to also raise new local money for transportation.

Need a quick summary of Utah’s transportation law? You can read it here.

Want more information on states moving to raise new transportation revenues at the state or local level? Don’t miss our page of resources chronicling the active and enacted plans since 2012.

T4A’s Beth Osborne Highlights Economic Development in Pacific Northwest Appearances

T4A is pleased to announce upcoming events featuring T4A’s Senior Policy Advisor Beth Osborne in Oregon and Washington September 10^th and 11^th. Ms. Osborne brings five year’s experience at US DOT – including serving as Acting Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy – and a national perspective on prospects for improvements to transportation policy and funding.

Osborne and local speakers will discuss economic development implications stemming from how we plan and develop our roads, transit systems and freight networks, and how we might measure success. Come learn how regions across the country have made investment decisions, and what the results they have achieved with regard to economic development and competitiveness. As a benefit of being a T4A member you are able to get discounts on T4A events. To receive a discount on upcoming events enter the promo code: T4A1707 and receive 50% off your tickets.

If you have any trouble with the promo code or have any questions regarding these upcoming events please contact Alicia Orosco at alicia.orosco@t4america.org.

Thursday, Sept. 10, 12:00-1:30pm at the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce

Friday, Sept. 11, 7:30-9:00am at the Metro Regional Center, Portland

A proposal in the U.S. House could send more transportation funding to local communities

Last week, the Senate passed their multi-year transportation bill, the DRIVE Act, which authorizes funding for six years but with only enough funding for the first three years. The House left for August recess before taking up the Senate’s long-term bill, so Congress passed a three-month extension of MAP-21 that extends the program until the end of October.

Unfortunately, the Wicker-Booker amendment that local communities across the country pushed so hard for did not make it into the Senate’s DRIVE Act.

But there is still an opportunity to get a similar proposal into the final bill. The House is expected to begin debate on their own multi-year transportation bill when they come back in September and it’s critical that they hear strong support for the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act (ISTA) to ensure it is included in their bill.

Send a message to your Representative and urge them to support ISTA to give local communities more control over their transportation funding while also ensuring the best projects receive the necessary investments.

SEND A MESSAGE

ISTA provides local communities access to a larger share of federal transportation funding by setting aside a portion of statewide transportation money and allowing communities to compete for funds to pay for their innovative and ambitious transportation projects. Those awarded funds will provide the greatest return on investment and ensure every dollar is spent on the most cost effective project.

For more information on the DRIVE Act, you can read Transportation for America’s statement on the bill on our blog, as well as read our list of the top 10 things to know about the bill.

Congress returns in September after Labor Day so stay tuned for further information.

Help fill your Representative’s inbox to tell them to support this critical proposal.

ICYMI: T4A Members-Only Transit ROI Webinar; Materials Included

Today, T4A hosted a members-only webinar on Transit Return on Investment and how to assess impacts in your region.

As a T4A member, you can access the webinar anytime through this page.

Given the number of regions across the country contemplating similar transit investments, T4A created a rubric for understanding the full range of economic impacts that transit projects have in a region. As detailed by the report’s lead author, Sarah Kline, this methodology includes both near term and long-term economic impacts, including: Employment, Business Attraction, Real Estate Development, Impact on Disposable Income, Fiscal Impacts.

Access the webinar powerpoint here.

View the complete Weighing Maryland’s Economic Future report as a guide to help assess economic impacts of proposed projects and what this can mean for your region.
Also check out The Benefits of Transit in the United States: A Review and Analysis of Benefit-Cost Studies by the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Please don’t hesitate to contact Alicia Orosco at alicia.orosco@t4america.org with questions on this members-only webinar.

US Senate Transportation Authorization – T4A Update

The US Senate continues to debate the federal surface transportation bill this week, with a series of votes taken last night by the full Senate. Individual senators filed over 200 amendments and T4America continues to track the latest developments on those amendments. We have compiled a brief update on where things stand and provide information on three amendments that we know would spur innovation, access and local control.

**It is rumored that another manager’s amendment package will be offered in the near future. T4A will update this information as needed.

Transportation Funding Timeline Update: Transportation funding expires this Friday and the House announced this morning that they intend to pass a 3-month extension to match the Senate’s; setting up a new October 29 transportation funding deadline.

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) introduced what is expected to be the first of potentially two or more manager’s amendment packages. Manager’s packages serve as legislative vehicles to modify a piece of legislation in committee or on the floor, wholesale. This first manager’s package makes a number of changes, including maintaining the historic 80/20 highway and transit funding split; increases funding for the FTA High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program by $100 million (paid for by cutting TIFIA and the Assistance for Major Projects by $50 million each) and requires 50% of the off-system bridge set-aside funding in the STP program to be used on bridges that are not on the federal-aid highway system.

Last Sunday, the Senate dispatched a couple of non-germane amendments, but voted to allow Senators to vote on whether or not to tie the Ex-Im Bank authorization to the highway authorization. Late last night, the Senate voted and approved that plan (64-39).

Under this new modified manager’s package, T4A believes that it is unlikely that few if any of the 200+ plus amendments filed by Senators will be considered or voted on. However, we do anticipate the introduction of a third manager’s amendment which will reflect additional changes. T4A continues to work to increase local control, innovation and access to jobs and opportunity through three primary amendments. They include the following:

Wicker-Booker STP local control amendment (corresponding fact sheet by USCM on changes to metro level funding)
Murray TIGER authorization amendment
Donnelly Job Access planning amendment (search for S. Amdt 2434, 2435 and 2436; this one is messy, our apologies)

Update: 5 Issues to Watch (for more information, please refer to T4A’s Member post on 7/23/15):

Pay-fors – Since the last post on 7/23/15, a number of items have shifted. A few provisions, considered poison pills, were removed, including the $2.3 billion that came from denying those with felony warrants social security benefits and $1.7 billion that came from rescinding unused funds for TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund. These rescissions leave the authorization with $43.7 billion, all of which are generated outside of the traditional transportation-user fee system. The measure would provide enough additional HTF revenues to provide the first three years of highway and transit investment, but Congress would be required to raise additional resources before October 2018 to be able to fund the final three years of the DRIVE Act’s authorized spending.

Transit funding – Changes in the manager’s package increased the levels of transit funding to be 24% of the authorized levels overall and 24% of any new funding generated annually.

Freight –The DRIVE Act creates a robust freight planning process that directs states to examine efficient goods movement and identify projects needed to improve multimodal freight movement. However, despite instituting a multi-modal freight planning process, the new National Highway Freight Program would require 90% of the funding go to highway-only projects rather than to multimodal projects using a performance-based system. What impact will this have?

Take, for example, the non-highway freight needs in the State of California. Ten percent of California’s funding would be only $9.3 million in 2016, growing to $23 million in 2021. Comparitively, one multimodal project at the Port of Long Beach in California to remove a railroad bottleneck and build more on-dock rail capacity cost the Port $84 million. T4A views this policy as a missed opportunity and not consistent with T4A’s freight policy.

Overall, due to removal of the TARP Hardest Hit Fund, the bill’s overall investment levels needed to be reduced. Under the first manager’s package, the freight program was set to receive $1.5 billion in FY2016 growing to $2 billion in FY2018. The program would now receive $991.5 million in FY2016 and increase to 1.9 billion in Fy2018.

Passenger Rail – No changes to note from the last update on 7/23/15.

Assistance for Major Projects (AMP) – Funding decreased by $50 million per year to increase funds for FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program. AMP would now be authorized at $250 million in FY16 and rise to $400 million in FY2021.

*NEW* TIFIA – The initial manager’s package introduced early last week would cut TIFIA funding from $1 billion to $500 million per year. Removing the TARP Hardest Hit Fund and other payfors required additional cuts, which senate authorizers took out of the TIFIA program. Those cuts, plus the increase to the FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair program, result in an overall authorized funding level for TIFIA at just $300 million per year over the life of the bill.

Senate Passes Cloture; 5 Things We’re Watching

***Please note, at 10:00am T4A received McConnell’s substitute amendment, which means that a number of these items may have changed. We’ll keep you updated as it proceeds.**

Last night, the US Senate passed a procedural vote called cloture. Like a starting pistol in a race, this means that they can now start debating, amending and eventually pass a federal surface transportation bill out of the Senate. While many things can, and will, happen over the next few days, there are a number of topics that Transportation for America is watching.

Want to know how your Senator voted on cloture? Click HERE.

1.Payfors – DC parlance for real and imaginary ways to pay for this bill.

At this time, there appears to be a wide-ranging list of payfors that run as small as $172 million up to $16 billion. Some of these include items like such as rescinding unused TARP funds or extending fees for TSA. There do not seem to be many that keep the traditional tie between users of the system and payments into the system.

The mass transit account appears to be running out of funding well before the highway trust fund. Initial T4A analysis seems to indicate that the legislation pulls in all 10 years of the proposed funding to pay for 3 years of the highway trust fund and 1.5 years of the mass transit account.

APTA transit funding table in current Senate transportation legislation

The legislation also appears to sell 101 million barrels out of the 693.7 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between 2018 and 2025 to bring in $9B over 10 years. Critics of this funding scheme assert that we are selling the oil when prices are at record lows, making it a foolish idea. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) is reportedly one of those critics.

Originally, this legislation withheld Social Security payments from recipients that are subjects of a felony arrest warrant and for whom the state has given notice that they intend to pursue the warrant, raising $2.3 billion over 10 years. T4A has heard that Senate negotiators have removed this provision due to the advocacy of a number of social equity and civil rights groups.

2. Transit
T4A and the larger transportation community have several concerns about this title, the main ones are:

US Banking Democrats chart on modal share under currently proposed Senate legislation

First, the DRIVE Act fails to provide public transportation with 20% of the new revenue dedicated to growth, which is a historical guarantee dating back to President Reagan’s agreement in 1982. Public transportation receives only 6% of the revenue derived from the future funding growth (see Senate Banking Democrats chart). U.S. DOT estimates that the Mass Transit Account ends the third year of the bill (FY 2018) with a negative balance of $180 million. Senator Boxer is reportedly negotiating a fix with Senate Republicans that will increase that percentage.

Second, projects with private funds get to “skip the line” for federal money, providing a major incentive for privatized service. The existence of a new expedited process could entice cities to pursue transit privatization on a large scale by using P3s to operate transit service. The labor community has expressed strong opposition and may oppose the entire bill if this provision isn’t removed.

Third, this legislation forces the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to wait 6 months before increasing oversight of at-risk projects. Sec. 21015 requires the FTA to wait for a project to fail 2 consecutive quarterly reviews before providing more oversight to a project that is going over budget or falling behind schedule.

3. The Freight program

This legislation includes all modes of freight, including pipelines for the first time. It also requires the establishment of a new multi-modal freight network within 1 year of enactment, the establishment of which appears to be similar to the creation of the existing freight network (as well as a re designation of the existing highway freight network). It does, however, define economic competitiveness by the amount of traffic moved and not economic outcomes and will fund projects that reduce congestion, improve reliability, boost productivity, improve safety or state of good repair, use advanced technology or protect the environment on the national highway freight network.

You’ll recall that T4A sent out an action alert to keep the TIGER program multimodal and not let the US Senate Commerce Committee use it for freight-exclusive purposes. We’re happy to report that effort was successful, though the TIGER program is still not authorized or funded in the transportation bill.

4. Passenger Rail
This legislation authorizes passenger rail funding for the first time ever in a federal surface transportation reauthorization. The legislation calls for $1.44B in 2016 and growing to $1.9B in 2019. It maintains a national system and provides for clear cost accounting among the 4 business lines of Amtrak of the corridor, state-supported and long-distance trains. Provides for up to 6 new passenger rail routes on a competitive basis and for the first time makes operational costs eligible for grants.

5. AMP – Assistance for Major Projects
This is a new project for highway or transit projects that cost at least $350M or 25% percent of state highway apportionment (10% in a rural state). Applications should be reviewed based on consistency with federal goals, improvement to the performance of the system, is consistent with the statewide plan, can’t be completed without federal help and will achieve one or more of the following:

generate national economic benefits outweigh cost,
reduce congestion,
improve the reliability of movement of people and freight, or
improve safety

Grants under AMP must be at least $50M, with a rural guarantee of 20%. Eligible applicants for AMP include states, local governments (or group of locals), tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, public authorities with transportation function and federal land management agencies. It is not yet clear if this language is specific enough to include MPOs.

Amendments to be offered: T4A staff is monitoring a number of potential amendments. One of which (offered by Senators Wicker (R-MS) and Booker (D-NJ)) would increase the ability of communities to fund projects through the Surface Transportation Program. We strongly urge you to call your Senator and tell them to co-sponsor that amendment.

ICYMI: T4A and SGA Host Federal Policy Webinar; Materials Inside

Yesterday, Smart Growth America and Transportation for America hosted a webinar to review congressional action on the federal surface transportation authorization. If you were able to attend, you will recall that we mentioned how the US Senate is poised to consider the authorization before the full Senate next Tuesday. That continues to be the current timeframe for Senate consideration.

Access the webinar powerpoint here.

As a T4A member, you can access the webinar anytime through this page.

Two action items stemming from that conversation include:

It is highly likely that T4A will be issuing a number of action alerts next week. While we don’t have legislative language on a number of potential amendments, we anticipate movement on issues of local control, freight, TAP, transit funding and TIGER. Member support would be greatly appreciated.
The National Complete Streets Coalition is requesting support to tell FHWA to make more inclusive streets that are designed to be more livable. You can register your comments here: bit.ly/NHSdesign (this weblink is case-sensitive).

Compromise in Washington State clears the way for a transportation funding package

Washington State Governor Jay Inslee and state legislative leaders indicated yesterday that they have reached agreement on a $15 billion transportation package that also provides $15 billion in local funding authority for Sound Transit, the regional transit agency for the Puget Sound (Seattle) region.

The deal looked almost dead last week, but a last-ditch compromise could give Seattle-area residents a little more control over their transportation future.

From the Seattle Times piece:

The major obstacle to reaching agreement on a statewide transportation package disappeared Sunday morning, as Gov. Jay Inslee announced he would accept “poison pill” language in the measure intended to hinder one of his environmental priorities. And Sunday afternoon, Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, chair of the House Transportation Committee, announced that Democrats and Republicans had reached a deal on the package itself. In addition to the approximately $15 billion in funding, the package includes the authorization sought for the full $15 billion in Sound Transit’s rail-extension ballot measure, according to Clibborn. “The deal is done,” said Clibborn. “It’s just now, do we have the votes and are people happy with the deal we struck?”

This local funding authority for Sound Transit — which would still have to be approved by Puget Sound voters in November 2016 — would fund LINK light rail extensions to Everett, Issaquah and Tacoma, Ballard and West Seattle while enhancing the region’s bus service.

This isn’t a done deal just yet.

The legislature still must approve the leadership’s deal, which includes a “poison pill” preventing future adoption of a low carbon fuel standard, a compromise that several environmental groups oppose. The low carbon fuel provision has been an important priority for Gov. Inslee, but House Republicans had made it clear that they wouldn’t vote for a funding package unless the clean fuel provision was precluded:

Inslee had sought the [low carbon fuel] standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but Republicans have argued that it would raise gas prices. “I oppose that and have worked hard to find a better alternative,” Inslee said in a statement. “But legislators tell me it is essential to passing the $15 billion multimodal transportation package and authorizing an additional $15 billion for Sound Transit light rail expansion.”

While the package does raise new state revenues for transportation writ large, a majority of Puget Sound voters will have to support a Sound Transit III ballot measure in November 2016 to approve the additional revenues to support the substantial transit investment that includes the expansion of the LINK light rail system.

Exclusive Member Summary – 6/18/15 Senate Finance Highway Funding Hearing

June 18, 2015 — US Senate Finance Committee — “Dead End, No Turn Around, Danger Ahead: Challenges to the Future of Highway Funding”

Witnesses:

Dr. Joseph Kile – Assisant Director for Microeconomic Studies Division, Congressional Budget Office

The Honorable Ray LaHood – Senior Policy Advisor, DLA Piper

Mr. Stephen Moore – Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

At this hearing, Chairman Hatch (R-UT) looked to explore every possible option to address the long-term fiscal challenges of the Highway Trust Fund. However, at the hearing he mentioned that he does not see any large-scale gas tax increase as politically possible. That said, Hatch pressed the need remove the “highway cliff” by finding funding to do a multi-year authorization.

Senator Carper (D-DE) called upon Senator Hatch to ensure no options like the gas tax are taken off the table, and referred to T4A analysis that showed state legislators who vote for a gas tax increase were not punished. Carper mentioned that at a minimum we should be able to index the gasoline and diesel tax and then come up with other creative sources to fund infrastructure.

Witness Stephen Moore with Heritage Foundation floated the idea of devolution, but the proposal was very unpopular for a majority of committee members and was shot down by former Secretary Ray LaHood as an irresponsible notion. Senators Thune (R-SD), Heller (R-NV) and Menendez (D-NJ) all voiced devolving the program. Transit came under attack for receiving gas tax dollars, but Senator Thune mentioned kicking transit out of the program is a political non-starter after it failed in the House during debate for MAP-21, and Senator Menendez and former Secretary Ray LaHood both stood up strongly for the need for more robust transit investment, not less.

Senator Thune (R-SD) mentioned that we should be treating general fund transfers as adding debt to an already debt-burdened country, since those funds ultimately do account for part of the deficit. He said it is time we stop the easy solution of general fund transfers and find a way pay for it. Senator Hatch agreed that long-term action is absolutely needed, and mentioned it will be difficult, but that the Committee will be working to look at all the different options to come up with a solution that stops the country from kicking the can down the road.

Would increasing federal transportation investment be enough to solve our problems?

Flickr photo by Paul Nicholson http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulnich/457162590/

Two mayors from very different cities penned a joint op-ed in the New York Times highlighting the need for Congress to pass a long-term transportation bill and raise new revenues to increase the United States’ overall investment in transportation infrastructure. But their strong piece begs another question: Would raising the level of federal investment be enough to meet our pressing local needs without some major policy changes and reforms to the federal transportation program?

A Republican from a red state mid-sized city and a Democrat from a blue state big city, Mayors Mick Cornett (Oklahoma City) and Bill De Blasio (New York City), teamed up to write an op-ed showing that mayors of all stripes agree: America needs to invest more in transportation to be competitive for the long term:

Working Americans pay the price of federal apathy. Those with little means have the fewest options; mass transit is often their only way to get around. Transit ridership is at record highs, with 10.8 billion trips in 2014. Meanwhile, in the 102 largest metropolitan regions, motorists take more than 200 million trips every day across deficient bridges. Freight volumes are expected to increase by 24 percent in the next seven years.

Federal investment has not kept pace with this demand, resulting in an outdated, overburdened surface transportation system that is ill equipped to handle current, let alone future, need. Spending on infrastructure in the United States has sunk to 1.7 percent of gross domestic product, a 20-year low.

And they rightly point out that, though many states and localities — including their own — have responded to the crisis by raising their own new revenues to invest, they still can’t do it alone.

This isn’t for want of local resources. Over the past decade, New York City has increased commitments to capital projects by 50 percent.In Oklahoma City, among the most politically conservative cities in the country, voters passed a temporary sales-tax increase in 2009 to build, among other projects, a $130 million streetcar line. The nearly eight-year program will raise $777 million, and it passed with 54 percent approval. There is an appetite among voters to fund these critical transit projects.

But we could not do it all on the local level even if we wanted to. In New York City, we cannot even deploy traffic cameras to catch speeding without Albany’s permission, let alone raise major revenue for transportation. Without a strong federal partner, the demands of maintaining infrastructure and preparing for future needs are beyond local means.

They end by urging “both parties to make a deal that will prevent our cities from becoming casualties of gridlock and impasse” by passing a multi-year transportation bill that raises current transportation spending over the 50 billion per year.

These are laudable sentiments that we heartily endorse across the board — strengthening the nation’s transportation fund and raising new revenues to invest is the very first point in our platform.

But is the only problem — especially for the leaders of America’s cities and towns of all sizes — that we’re not investing enough, or also that current revenues aren’t being strategically directed to the most pressing needs in our communities?

We’ve spoken to plenty of mayors and other local officials that have made it clear that the current method of doling out federal funds just isn’t cutting it. State politics continue to drive infrastructure projects and local leaders rarely have a seat at the table to help make decisions about where to spend the money. A little (or a lot) more money funneled through the current federal transportation program isn’t going to solve that problem.

As the American Association of Chamber Executive wrote to Congress two months ago:

Innovation is happening at the local level and yet our local decision makers don’t have enough of the tools, and control less than 10 percent of the funding, which limit the ability to advance key projects that can grow the economies in communities big and small.

These two mayors are writing while representing a bipartisan coalition of mayors, and it can always be tough to stake out a position that everyone can endorse. But many of these undersigned mayors might also agree that they’d like to have a little more control and say over the process of where and how federal transportation dollars get spent in their communities. Just spending more than the status quo isn’t going to bring our communities the kind of economic prosperity that we’re all seeking.

We need to find ways to give the local communities represented by these mayors and many more increased access to federal funds. And we should be rewarding the communities that take action to address their own needs — such as raising local revenues as referenced in the editorial — with opportunities for additional funding.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act would be a great place to start, as would instituting reforms to ensure that we prioritize repair and invest our dollars in the projects that have the greatest bang for the buck.

With public confidence in government at low levels, it’s more important than ever to quantify the public benefits of transportation investment and let voters know what their money is going to buy — especially when attempts are being made to raise any new money for transportation to fill the gap.

Iowa was the first to successfully raise new state transportation funding in 2015 – and they did it with bipartisan support

Iowa in February became the first state in 2015 to pass a transportation-funding bill when legislators moved to raise the state’s gasoline and diesel taxes by 10 cents per gallon.

Though seven states have now successfully moved to raise new transportation funding in 2015, Iowa made it to the finish line first. On February 25^th, Republican Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill into law that increased the state’s gasoline and diesel fuel taxes by 10 cents per gallon, raising new funding to help maintain the roads and bridges crisscrossing one of the most important states for freight and agriculture in the U.S.

Iowa governor Terry Branstad.

In signing the bill, Branstad said: “This is a great example — on a difficult and controversial issue — of the kind of bipartisan cooperation that really makes Iowa stand out as a state, where we work together and we get things done on behalf of the citizens of our state. This is important for economic development. This is important for our farmers to be able to get their crops to market. I know that many people have been waiting a long time for the legislature to act.”

The increased gas tax — the rate on regular gas rose from 21 to 31 cents per gallon, and the rate for diesel rose from 22.5 to 32.5 cents per gallon — and other associated fees took effect on March 1^st. Last week, Iowa’s Department of Transportation stated their plans to use the new funds toward $700 million in road maintenance and construction projects.

“I feel Iowa took a huge step forward by addressing our aging infrastructure,” State Rep. Josh Byrnes (R-Osage), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, told AgriNews. “It shows that Iowa is truly open for business and we have the leadership to make difficult decisions. Iowa is a net exporter of goods and these funds will help ensure that Iowa continues to have the needed infrastructure to transport people and products.”

HISTORY LESSON

At the start of the legislative session, Iowa was facing an estimated $215 million annual gap between revenues and needs, according to the state Department of Transportation. The state’s gas tax was last raised in 1989 to 19 cents per gallon, during current governor Terry Branstad’s first foray as governor of the Hawkeye State.

For years, key legislators and business leaders pushed for meaningful legislation to bolster transportation funding, but they never gained enough momentum to pass it, said Senator Tod Bowman (D-Clinton), chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. “We couldn’t drum up enough support. We didn’t really have the leadership from the Governor,” he said.

This year would prove to be different, however.

Iowa state representative Jim Lykam.

Gov. Branstad’s vocal support was critical in convincing Republican lawmakers that this was a must-pass piece of legislation for the state, said State Rep. Jim Lykam (D-Davenport), the ranking member of the House Transportation Committee. “We were in constant communication with the governor’s office,” he said. “You always run the risk of sending the bill down and having the governor veto it, and we needed to make sure this wouldn’t happen.”

The bill had to jump an atypical hurdle before it passed. The Senate minority leader and the House speaker required that the bill garner “yes” votes from the majority of each minority party in each chamber. This unusual requirement meant that the bill would not move without widespread consensus.

“This consumed me for the first six weeks of the session,” said State Rep. Lykam. “It was just back and forth negotiations. You try and do something — you pick up votes, but then you lose votes over here — so it was a give and take.”

IOWANS GETTING INSPIRED IN DENVER

Just before their work began in the new legislative session in January, Rep. Lykam and Senator Bowman attended Transportation for America’s Capital Ideas Conference in Denver in November 2014, which helped them find focus and fresh ideas that they brought back to Iowa. Senator Bowman learned from a group of attendees from Massachusetts about the pros and cons of tying any future gas tax increases to inflation.

Scott VanDeWoestyne, the government affairs director for the Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce — another Capital Ideas attendee — said the conference helped light a fire under him and the two legislators.

“They were able to come back from Denver, and come here to the Quad Cities region and engage in good conversation,” VanDeWoestyne said. “Good comprehensive discussions with their colleagues about, ‘Hey, these are some of the other things states are doing, and we need to be focused on this.’”

VanDeWoestyne also stressed the importance of Iowa’s transportation funding bill to the Quad Cities metro area.

“Our economy in the Quad Cities region is growing fast,” he added, “and the state’s transportation investments have had a tough time keeping pace. This is one of the reasons we have championed greater federal and state transportation investments in Iowa. So, it was very heartening to see this year that Iowa moved towards a solution, and we’re happy to be a part of the compromise.”

EDUCATING THE MASSES

As with any piece of legislation that involves new taxes, not all Iowans were on board. A coalition of stakeholders from across the state focused on educating legislators and the general public and establishing consensus that the transportation package was necessary to support economic development and provide better quality of life to the state’s residents.

Iowa state senator Todd Bowman.

“The more that people know about the issue, the easier it is to push a difficult thing like a tax increase,” said Senator Bowman. “Nobody wants to pay more taxes for their fuel. But nobody wants their roads and bridges to deteriorate, and so it becomes a point of education.”

THE GOVERNOR’S SUPPORT

Rep. Lykam cites the governor’s continuous support as one of the critical reasons why this bill gained the broad agreement needed to pass the legislature. “When the Governor grabs the microphone, you know he’s got the bullhorn for the full state,” said Lykam. “It was very, very important that we had his support.”

It took a few years, a broad coalition of stakeholders and bipartisan consensus, but Iowans have shown what can be accomplished when partisan politics are set aside to raise the necessary revenue to maintain and enhance their transportation system to support the state’s economy.

As we note here often, the Iowa legislature acted to expand their capacity to match and stretch the dollars they expect from the federal program. Congress needs to act, in turn, to stabilize and increase that funding, to ensure that the bold moves in state houses this year are not undermined by a wobbly federal partner.

Join us for a discussion on the TIGER grant program and what you need to know before applying

T4America is hosting a webinar this Thursday at 3 p.m. to help municipalities and states interested in applying for this year’s $500 million in grants available in the latest round of TIGER grant funding.

Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 2 p.m. for a discussion with Beth Osborne, T4America’s Senior Policy Advisor, on the ins and outs of the federal TIGER grant program, examples of past winners, and how to best craft a winning application. Communities across the country have benefitted from over $4 billion in grants for innovative, multimodal projects over the last six rounds of funding dating back to February 2010, and you can see them all here on our TIGER map.

Before coming to T4America, Osborne was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at USDOT, where she ran the TIGER program. Almost no one inside or outside of USDOT knows more about the program or how it works, and she will outline the basic information, show examples of previous winners and share tips you need to put together a smart application.

The 7th round of the TIGER competitive grant application period is currently open, which includes a pre-application deadline of May 4, 2015 and a final application deadline of June 5, 2015.

‘Speak up for transportation’: Analyses show the devastating impact of federal cuts

Congress has seen various proposals floated to scale back federal investment in transportation, from cutting out transit funding to ending the federal gasoline tax and shifting full responsibility to the states. We decided to take a look at what that latter move would mean for taxpayers, who would have to make up the difference in each state or accept multi-million dollar decreases in funding and deteriorating conditions on an annual basis.

The bottom line: All states would have to raise their per-gallon gas taxes more than the federal rate of 18.4 cents to replace the lost revenue — and many states would have to raise theirs by much more. Click through to see the full analysis with graphics and data for all 50 states

There’s a reason you don’t hear state politicians calling for the end of the federal transportation program and the gas tax. That’s because every single state receives more in federal transportation funds than they pay into the federal system — in part because Congress has been transferring billions from the general fund to make up for slackening gas tax receipts and the fact that the gas tax hasn’t been raised in more than two decades.

At least 16 states have moved to raise their own transportation revenues since 2012, leading some in Congress to claim that those moves show states would be fine with accepting the full burden.

But ending federal support would be a nightmare for governors and legislators, who would have to choose between slashing repair and investment or trying to push through massive tax increases to replace federal revenues.

(The Transportation Construction Coalition released a similar analysis a few weeks ago, but, unlike the analysis here, it did not include the 20 percent of the transportation program that supports public transportation. -Ed.)

According to our full analysis: (See columns 2-3 in the table)

19 states would have to raise their gas taxes by at least 25¢ per gallon, over 36 percent more than the current 18.4¢ federal rate.
Vermont would have to raise the state gas tax by 50¢ per gallon to break even – and that’s on top of a recent increase lawmakers passed to add the equivalent of 6.5¢ to each gallon of gas.
New York, which receives the highest amount of transit funding in the country, would have to raise the state gas tax by 40¢ to keep the same amount of transit money flowing into their highly-used systems.

Even if states only raised their gas taxes the equivalent of the 18.4¢ federal tax, our calculations also show that: (See column 4-5 in the table.)

States collectively would lose out on $8.47 billion (according to data from fiscal 2014);
Missouri, currently attempting to raise additional state funding to address an already large budget hole, would need to raise $144 million each year on top of their current needs;
New Jersey, facing the imminent bankruptcy of its state transportation trust fund, would also have to find an additional $373.6 million;
California would lose nearly $1 billion ($970.5 million, to be exact).
In Wyoming, where lawmakers just passed a 10-cent gas tax increase expected to generate $72 million per year, they’d be almost back to square one, losing $57 million.

States also would fare poorly under proposals to eliminate federal contributions for public transportation, as two proposals in Congress would do, according to an analysis out today from the American Public Transportation Association. From their release:

The analysis shows that proposals to cut federal funding for public transit would result in an average 43 percent reduction in a community’s capital improvement funding. Overall, the loss of federal capital and operating funding would put at risk more than $227 billion in economic activity over six years. … Small and rural communities would be aversely affected because a greater percentage of their total funding is from the federal government.

No matter how you slice it, dramatically reducing federal dollars, whether for roads or transit, would have devastating impacts on state’s population centers – the places where commerce happens and revenues are generated. Going in the other direction however, by increasing investment available to states and local communities, would help keep roads and transit in good repair while we build for the future economy.

Read our full analysis, including graphics and sortable data for all 50 states.

This post and analysis is part of “Stand Up for Transportation” day today. Find out more and get involved here: http://standup4transportation.org/

Massachusetts vote a bellwether for efforts to raise state transportation revenue

In 2013, the Massachusetts legislature came together on an ambitious plan to raise necessary revenues for transportation, passing a three-cent gas tax increase as well as indexing it to inflation. Now, a year after the legislature approved it, voters on Nov. 4 will decide whether or not to repeal part of the package.

MA bridges Though more than 20 states seriously considered plans to raise new transportation revenue since 2012, Massachusetts was on a short list of 12 states that managed to coalesce around a successful plan. The final plan to raise the gas tax by three cents and index it to inflation, providing an additional $600 million each year to invest in transportation, received at least a partial endorsement from voters this year when all but one of the legislators who supported it won their primary elections.

However, an anti-tax organization took issue with the move to allow the gas tax to rise with inflation and gathered enough signatures to get it on this year’s ballot.

About a third of states index their gas taxes to ensure that growing construction costs don’t result in a net loss of funding to maintain and build their networks. This has become especially important as declining driving and improved fuel efficiency are further reducing revenue from the fuel taxes that provide the bulk of transportation funding. (Question 1 on the ballot only repeals the indexing to inflation, not the three-cent increase, which will stay in place no matter how this measure turns out.)

Supporters of the measure argue that taxes shouldn’t automatically increase without legislative action. The flip side of that argument is that leaving them at a static level basically amounts to regular tax breaks in today’s dollars.

States have all the more reason to index to inflation given the declining contribution expected from the federal program, given a Congress that has not acted to raise the gas tax since 1993.

Kristina Egan, the director of Transportation for Massachusetts, offered further reasons to index to Governing Magazine:

[Egan] said requiring legislators to vote on gas tax hikes every year is “impractical,” because the state legislature focuses on transportation, at most, every five or six years. Because transportation projects typically take years to plan and build, she said, “having a predictable and stable revenue source helps us think ahead for which bridges we can repair and which we can’t afford. If you put that up for a vote every year, you’re undermining that planning process.”

Massachusetts has one of the oldest transportation systems in the country, and even with a focus on repair and maintenance, the backlog of deferred maintenance is outpacing the revenues that the current model brings in.

At an average age of 57 years, Massachusetts has some of the oldest bridges in the entire country, well over the national average of 43 years old. The average age of all structurally deficient bridges is an astonishing 75 years old, also well outpacing the national average of 65. Twenty-seven bridges have been closed altogether in recent years. According to state data, bad roads and potholes cost drivers $2.3 billion per year. Improving the ability of the state to simply keep up with these kinds of repairs is a major focus for the coalition of groups and organizations (http://saferoadsbridges.com/) opposing this ballot measure to repeal funding.

The state is still paying for the Big Dig, and nearly 100 percent of the transit authority’s fares (MBTA) actually go towards paying down debt service on the state’s transportation debts, making it a financial challenge to maintain and expand new service to meet the burgeoning demand in the growing metro region. (The Big Dig debt ended up on the “T” books a few years ago when transportation agencies were merged.)

Question 1 has been an issue in this year’s gubernatorial election as well. Republican Charlie Baker has been campaigning on repealing the indexing of the gas tax, and Democratic challenger Martha Coakley wants to keep the current funding system intact.

There’s a significant coalition statewide opposing the measure, including business groups, the local AAA chapter, more than a dozen mayors, public health groups, and others. As Rick Dimino, President & CEO of A Better City in Boston, wrote in recent op-ed (pdf):

Losing this money for transportation means that we won’t have adequate resources for critical investments that will grow jobs and the economy…The outcome of this ballot question will impact the day to day quality of life for virtually everyone in the commonwealth. The gas tax may not be everyone’s favorite thing or even the ideal way that some would want to pay for transportation. But the vote to keep last year’s progress in place should be an easy choice

The Massachusetts vote will be watched with great interest in many other states that have or are considering plans to raise new transportation dollars in 2015 and beyond. We’ll be watching the returns and will be reporting back here in detail on how Question 1 fares at the ballot.

Do you live in one of those states that are considering plans to raise new transportation dollars in 2015 and beyond? Do you want to learn more about this campaign in Massachusetts and hear lessons direct from the MA campaign on this measure? We’ll have Kristina Egan from Transportation for Massachusetts on hand in Denver for Capital Ideas on Nov. 13-14, unpacking the lessons they’ve learned from their campaign to raise transportation funding in MA, as well as this effort to repeal it. Don’t miss it!

Rhode Island’s first statewide ballot measure to support transit

Rhode Island’s first ever statewide transit ballot measure would issue $35 million in bonds to invest in the state’s transit infrastructure and improve bus service statewide, including new and reworked transit hubs to bring together different modes of travel.

The transit bonds (Question 6) are part of a larger $275 million package backed by Governor Chafee. The money would largely be invested in building and modernizing existing and new transit hubs — with a primary focus on building a statewide multi-modal transportation center adjacent to Providence Amtrak Station, the 15^th busiest station in Amtrak’s national network and the 3rd busiest station in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s commuter rail network. And it could serve as a source of local funds required to “match” most federal grant programs as well as for leveraging private investment, helping bring even more transportation investment into the state.

Credit: Jef Nickerson on Flicker

Currently, there are few direct connections from one transit system to another in Providence. Building the hub will eliminate an inconvenient walk outside in the elements to get from the bus to the train, making travel and connections much more convenient and efficient.

Local and statewide business officials have identified improving the state’s transportation and infrastructure system as a necessity for staying competitive in the future.

Michael Lewis, director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, told the Providence Journal, “In any urban area, in any city, any state in the country, your transportation systems are critical to the economic health and vitality of any region.”

Even though most work is focused in Providence, these connections will expand access at key points throughout the state, says Lewis, including a complete re-vamp of RIPTA, the state bus system.

Having local dollars to match federal funds is a requirement for most federal grant programs like TIGER, and it can also help bring in other investment.

“This bond issue is going to enable Rhode Island to bring money to the table to leverage federal and private dollars so we can create the kind of transit system that’s going to make Providence and Rhode Island competitive,” Lewis said in an interview with WPRI News.

The “Move RI Forward – Yes on 6” campaign is spearheaded by Grow Smart RI and includes 63 members including the local and statewide chambers of commerce, businesses, construction and real estate companies, environmental organizations and even the American Automobile Association Southern New England. Scott Wolf, the executive director of Grow Smart RI and spokesperson for the “Yes on 6” campaign, said, “We believe a stronger transit system will attract new businesses and talented workers to Rhode Island, while also creating badly needed construction jobs, reducing congestion, and improving our air quality and our overall environment.”

Supporters argue that to stay competitive with other midsized cities such as Indianapolis and Eugene, Oregon, the state must attract and retain high-growth companies and highly talented workers. Wolf says Providence isn’t able to do that without the “boost to our public transportation system that this bond would provide.”

In September Rhode Island was awarded a $650,000 TIGER Grant to begin designing the multi-modal transit center, helping lay the groundwork to make these future bond dollars go as far as possible.

While there has been no organized opposition to Question 6, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity is against the bond package as a whole, arguing the state can’t afford to take on more debt.

“We start programs, the feds fund it for a limited period of time, the federal funding goes away,” said Mike Stenhouse, a member of the R.I. Center for Freedom and Prosperity. “We’re stuck with maintaining or keeping up payments that were started.”

Rhode Island is just one in a series of states looking to voters to approve greater investments in their transportation system. For more information on important ballot measures being decided this November, make sure to check out our full Transportation Vote 2014 page.

To better serve the states and localities that are currently campaigning (or hope to campaign) for smart transportation investments, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver on November 13-14^th. There’s still time to register for this event.

If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

Tag: transportation funding