Posted on 12/24/2014 6:49:54 AM PST by iowamark
Has the time come to reconsider the way we pay for transportation? Should the Highway Trust Fund and its fuel tax revenue continue as the main source of funds for the federal transportation program? If not, what are the alternatives? And more broadly, is the age of heavy reliance on federal funding drawing to a close?
These questions are no longer outside the realm of a serious policy debate. They have been raised by a number of respected think tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, The Heritage Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Building America's Future Fund and the Eno Transportation Center.
In the public sector, no less than U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has acknowledged the need to reconsider the traditional approaches to funding the federal transportation program.
“We have to get unstuck from this idea that we've got to keep doing transportation [funding] for the next 50 years the way we've done it for the first 50 years of the Interstate system,” the Secretary said in a November 2014 interview at the CityLab 2014 Conference on Urban Solutions for Global Challenges.
Bigger Isn’t Better
Meanwhile, statements by congressional leadership have cast doubt on the prospect for a six-year reauthorization, with an estimated price tag of one hundred billion dollars. Annual highway and transit expenditures at current levels exceed the annual Trust Fund revenue by roughly $16 billion per year.
“We will oversee a legislature in which ‘bigger’ isn't automatically equated with ‘better’ when it comes to writing and passing bills,” wrote House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a joint post-election opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
The statement was couched in broad generalities but its message was clear. There will be no massive splurge in spending in the Republican-controlled Congress in 2015.
President Obama seems to have reached the same conclusion.
Responding to a question by FedEx CEO Fred Smith at a December 2014 meeting with members of the Business Roundtable, the President said, “even if we were able to get something done [during the lame duck session], it would not be the kind of 10-year solution that we need […] The best they could do would be to stagger through another year.”
As for the lack of action on the gas tax, the President observed, “in fairness to members of Congress, votes on gas taxes are really tough. Gas prices are one of those things that really bug people.”
Instead, Mr. Obama continued, we should be looking for a “dedicated revenue source for infrastructure funding that is not so politically frightening to members of Congress.”
However, the President did not volunteer what that revenue source might be. Significantly, he did not refer to his earlier proposal to pay for a long-term surface transportation bill with “corporate tax reform,” a proposal that had met with widespread congressional skepticism
The President's clear-eyed assessment of the congressional mood has dimmed the hopes of infrastructure advocates for a boost in transportation revenue or a multi-year transportation reauthorization, even as gas prices have reached a four-year low.
Challenging the Status Quo
Joining in challenging the funding status quo has been the Eno Center for Transportation, a self-described “neutral, non-partisan transportation think tank.”
Its December 2014 report, provocatively entitled “The Life and Death of the Highway Trust Fund,” questions the continued viability of the Highway Trust Fund. The report suggests eliminating the Trust Fund, in favor of a funding structure based on General Funds.
“The current approach to funding surface transportation is not working,” declared the report's authors, citing political opposition to increasing the gas tax, diminishing travel per capita and improved fuel efficiency that have held down demand for gasoline, and the desire to maintain transportation spending above trust fund receipts, necessitating continual General Fund infusions to keep the Trust Fund solvent.
“Maintaining the status quo will continue to produce funding uncertainty and perpetuate current funding problems,” states the report.
Instead, the entire surface transportation bill should be funded with general funds, through the appropriations process. This more straightforward approach “deserves fair consideration as an effective long-term solution to our national transportation funding problem,” concludes the report.
Commenting on the report, former head of the Louisiana and Rhode Island Departments of Transportation William Ankner said “it is time to change how we fund transportation. Who benefits from our national transportation system?
“The answer is every person and business. If everyone benefits, then everyone should pay.”
Although Eno's proposed approach might make good sense policy-wise, it is not likely to find widespread support among transportation stakeholders. The transportation industry does not cherish the thought of having “their” program become part of the annual appropriations process, making it vulnerable to budget-cutting pressures and exposing it to competition for funds from other federal programs.
They didn’t build that......
I don’t want you paying for my roads.
I’m not addicted to the federal nipple.
Indiana sold the Tollroad to some Spaniards.
That’s not even making sense.
“Indiana sold the Tollroad to some Spaniards.”
...and what happened to the toll rates, and how does that compare with the cost of actually operating the roads?
Hint - much of the tolls now are to pay off the debt that Cintra has from purchasing (technically, leasing) the road in the first place. It has NOTHING TO DO with the cost of operating the road. Instead, Mitch Daniels got himself a nice $6 BILLION slush fund (i.e., the money from selling the road) to hand out to his friends. Nice deal for him, but not for people that live in and drive through Northern Indiana.
I believe that one is still able to use studded tires though.
Can’t argue that.
Yes, and those costs would be passed to them in some other way. Government vehicles? Through fees and other taxes. Businesses? Through the price of goods and services.
Yep, even people who never buy a drop of gas help pay for the roads. They buy stuff and the price includes the cost of roads for the makers and distributors.
There you go. What could be more better than "fair"? And " needful" and "necessary" and "good for the environment"?
Who could argue with any of that? " General welfare", "necessary purposes", "malice toward none", "freedom from want", "civil rights", "affirmative action" -- what could be wrong with any of that? Sign me up!
Like, say, lots of New Yorkers, who cannot imagine a road toll or gas tax so high that you shouldn't pay it.
People like, say, MSM and PBS people.... People like Woody Allen and other perverts.
>> If you like your transportation, you can keep your transportation.
LOL... # yeah...
Discussion is intended only to give the guys who've already made up their minds (and yours, if you let them) some air cover for putting in the fix, screwing you, roasting your chestnuts over an open fire, bending you over like wet spaghetti -- capiche?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.