Building liveable cities for NC’s future.
News Archives
ltColExample
Our Mission
To promote strategies to advance North Carolina’s urban centers.

CITIES IN OUR COALITION

Posts Tagged ‘Gas Tax’

LaHood Fends Off Lawmakers On Fuel Taxes (The Journal of Commerce Online)

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

LaHood Fends Off Lawmakers On Fuel Taxes (The Journal of Commerce Online)

DOT secretary says there may not be “the courage” in Congress to take on issue

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood came under fire Tuesday from House lawmakers over infrastructure financing, taking heat from those for and against raising taxes to pay for highway and transit projects.

LaHood restated the Obama administration’s opposition to raising federal fuel taxes, and defended his remarks from last week that various other “outside the box” financing ideas could help cover surface transportation needs without a tax hike.

The secretary told a highway builders conference July 23 that “raising the gas tax is not an option.” But senior members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee challenged him on the issue, including ranking Republican Rep. John Mica, who seemed to believe he had turned LaHood against a tax increase at the hearing.

The Florida Republican told LaHood the November election would bring “a conservative wave” that would leave Congress less willing to raise federal fuel taxes.

Although LaHood and other officials have repeatedly said the president and the DOT do not favor raising the gas tax while the economy is weak, Mica asked LaHood if he was “going to continue advocating a gas tax increase” to fund transportation needs.

LaHood said over his 18 months as DOT secretary “I’ve never advocated a gas tax. The president is opposed to raising the gas tax . . . We have almost 10 percent unemployment in America. People can little afford to buy a gallon of gasoline, let alone if we were to raise the tax on it. So I do not advocate, the administration does not advocate, raising the gas tax.”

Mica told LaHood, “I’m glad to hear you join me in declaring it dead.” Mica also said he favors a much larger discretionary infrastructure fund than the $4 billion a year the administration is seeking, and said he would want such a fund to be about 10 times that size.

But Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who chairs the highways and transit subcommittee, chided LaHood for suggesting the nation’s transportation needs could be met by a combination of current-level Highway Trust Fund taxes, the proposed discretionary spending fund, road or bridge tolls and greater use of partnerships that combine public money with private investments.

“Are we going to toll 150,000 bridges so we can rebuild them or bring them up to snuff?” DeFazio asked, citing the number of those identified as needing repair. “Are we going to toll the entire federal interstate (highway) system?”

LaHood said the administration favors infrastructure investment and agrees with T&I Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., “on the lion’s share” of what Oberstar proposed in a $450 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill.

“The only thing we need, the only thing, is about $450 billion,” LaHood said. “You know as well as I do, the Highway Trust Fund is deficient. So I don’t know if the courage is around here to do something about that. So the reason I talk about tolling, public-private partnerships, the infrastructure fund, is that we need to think outside the box about how we’re going to do all the things that the president wants to do, that Ray LaHood wants to do, that you all want to do.”

He said “we love doing transportation projects at DOT . . . We need to work together to find the resources to get a bill (through Congress) and to get the job done.”

Contact John Boyd at jboyd@joc.com.

John D. Boyd | Jul 27, 2010 9:21PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online – News Story

Oberstar points to road problem: a shortage of federal gas-tax revenue (MinnPost.com)

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Oberstar points to road problem: a shortage of federal gas-tax revenue (MinnPost.com)

WASHINGTON — The problem is simple, says Rep. Jim Oberstar, who chairs the House Transportation Committee: There simply isn’t enough money coming in through the federal gas tax right now to meet the nation’s current needs for road and bridge repairs.

And as fuel efficiency increases, drivers will invariably take fewer trips to the gas station and the amount of revenues generated by the gas tax will drastically shrink.

It’s as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood explained earlier this year:

In the past, the Highway Trust Fund has been largely user-supported through fuel-tax revenue. The idea is that drivers who use the roadways will need to buy gas, and generally how much gas they buy corresponds to how many miles they’ve driven or how much they’ve used our roadways.

However, technology and behavior have changed enough that this approach is no longer sufficient. As we move forward with surface transportation reauthorization, we need lawmakers and experts to think creatively about how we’re going to fund our transportation infrastructure in the 21st century.

The good news is that there are several possible solutions that could bridge the funding gap, including raising the gas tax in the short term and implementing congestion or mileage fees sometime in the next decade.

The bad news: Absolutely none of those ideas seem to have even the remotest chance of passing in the current political climate.

More mileage, more problems
Let’s say that in November, when the Chevy Volt rolls off the production line, I scrounged up the cash, traded in my 122,000-mile-old 2000 Subaru Legacy and actually purchased GM’s new plug-in hybrid.

Currently, my car is rated at 19 mpg city/25 mpg highway, which wasn’t too shabby back then. The Department of Energy estimates that an average driver covers 15,000 miles and spend $1,842 a year in fuel costs, which (at their estimate of $2.58 a gallon) translates to almost 714 gallons of gas a year.

Multiply that by 18.4 cents a gallon for the federal gas tax, and I’m on the hook to Uncle Sam for $132 a year, give or take a few cents. Almost all of that money goes to the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for road and bridge repairs, infrastructure and mass transit projects.

oberstar.house.gov
Rep. Jim OberstarNow say I got the Volt, which is powered for its first 40 miles by an electric battery alone and to which the EPA assigned a (somewhat controversial) 230 mpg fuel economy estimate. If I somehow hit that estimate, my contribution to the highway tax fund would shrink to around $12.

And you simply can’t fund a highway system on $12 a year.

That may be a fairly drastic example, but it’s a simple maxim that, all else being equal, better fuel economy means fewer trips to the pump.

Fewer trips to the pump mean less money spent on gas. The less spent on gas, the less paid on the gas tax, currently set at a flat rate of 18.4 cents a gallon (18.3 cents of which goes to the Highway Trust Fund).

And less gas tax money means a reduction in dollars to the Highway Trust Fund, which is used to fund road and bridge repairs to an infrastructure system that has already begun to show its age.

“With more fuel efficient cars or the alternative propellant forces, you need to increase the user fee,” Oberstar said.

Revenues don’t match needs
Gas taxes were originally conceived as a simple substitute for vehicle miles traveled, under the thinking that those who used the roads more would fuel up more and then pay more. By and large, that’s how it has worked so far.

“For 54 years of the interstate highway program, the public has paid its own way,” Oberstar said. “You use the system, you pay for it.”

Because it is not adjusted for inflation, the federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993 — the last time the federal gas tax was increased.

All in all, there remains a $140 billion gap over the next 6 years between expected revenues and what Oberstar said we “actually need” to bring roads and bridges into good repair.

And not only is there not enough money to do all that, there’s not even enough coming in to keep the fund solvent. Because the Highway Trust Fund is designed to be revenue neutral, any shortfall in the fund would just be partially reimbursed for transportation spending until Congress bails out the fund.

Congress has had to bail out the trust fund twice in the past few years.

“People who are buying more fuel efficient cars are fueling up less but still driving and still using the roads,” said Annette Nellen, an expert on taxation and transportation at San Jose State University.

“You would think that because there’s not enough money going in there right now that this would be addressed.”

Minnesota, which received $581 million in federal highway aid in 2009, is equally impacted with all other states here. Say there were $100 billion in requests, but only $50 billion in the fund. States would be reimbursed at 50 cents to the dollar until the fund is bailed out. For states with cash shortages — like Minnesota — that could be a tough wait.

Fuel economy gains speeding crisis
Presently, vehicles are required to average 27.5 miles per gallon. A 2007 law increases that requirement to 35 mpg by 2020, however an April rule by the Obama administration speeds it up to 35.5 mpg by model year 2016.

Much of the gain in fuel economy currently is coming from the rise of gas-electric hybrids and an increasing willingness to by automakers to produce (and drivers to purchase) smaller cars and trucks.

Hybrid vehicles are increasingly more common, boosted by greater fuel efficiency, wider availability and federal tax credits of up to $3,400 per vehicle. Additionally, automakers have begun selling the kind of small, fuel-efficient cars to Americans that were once only available in Europe.

Last year Volkswagen unveiled a North American version of the Golf, the most popular car across the pond (the TDI clean diesel version of which gets 41 highway miles per gallon). Earlier this year, Ford rolled out an American version of the Fiesta, which gets around 38 miles per gallon.

Automakers are also planning to overhaul their fleets to meet the surging demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles — Chrysler for one plans to increase its fleet-wide fuel economy by 2014.

On the horizon: hyper-efficient plug-in hybrid electric vehicles like GM’s Chevrolet Volt and its 230 miles per gallon.

Several suggested solutions, but scant support
Seeing the need to move off the gas tax, Congress commissioned a bipartisan study of future revenue sources during the last surface transportation reauthorization process. That committee reported its findings in early 2009. [PDF]

The headline of the press release accompanying the report was direct. [PDF] “The U.S. Should Shift From the Gas Tax to a Mileage-Based Usage Fee by 2020. The current federal motor fuels tax is unsustainable over the long term.”

“We must start transitioning to a new paradigm now,” said Mike Krusee, a commissioner who also served at the time as a Republican state representative in Texas. “If we don’t start, we will never get there.”

Problem is, none of the possible solutions have anywhere close to the number of votes required to pass in Congress.

That gas tax hike Oberstar is looking for? Scuttled by his own party which doesn’t want to push it without Republicans on board.

A White House spokesman, very succinctly, said that “the White House does not support a gas tax increase.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a senior House Democrat who heads the DCCC (the organization tasked with electing more House Democrats), said earlier this year that it “certainly won’t fly this year, because we’re going to have to have some kind of bipartisan consensus before you more forward on any kind of funding mechanism like that.”

When Minnesota raised its gas tax in 2008, lawmakers had to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto to do it, and Republicans who crossed over suffered for it during the campaign.

The conservative Heritage Foundation suggested another idea — scrap the federal gas tax altogether, get the federal government out of road funding and let the states levy the taxes they need. States would then be free to put in whatever system worked best for them.

Republicans would have to have a sizeable majority to have a chance at passing something like that — and even the best projections from the upcoming elections don’t put them anywhere close to a number that big.

At least one Republican on the House Transportation Committee floated the idea of switching the gas tax from a flat fee to a percentage, similar to state sales taxes, so that revenues would go up as prices go up (and down if they go down).

That plan, which Oberstar said he was willing to consider, was ultimately rejected by GOP leaders for looking too much like a tax increase.

Then there’s the idea of counting vehicle miles traveled, either through regular odometer checks or installing a tracking system on cars to see how far they’ve gone. Such systems have been piloted, but haven’t yet gone widespread.

“It’s not viewed as a burning issue yet, and whenever the discussion comes up about tracking vehicle mileage you have to ask how you’re going to measure that,” Nellen said. “First there’s an issue of privacy, and second, is it that dire of a situation yet? And I think it is.”

“You could also have more tollbooths, but that isn’t highly desirable either.”

Oberstar has not specifically endorsed a vehicle mileage tracking solution, rather his surface transportation bill would establish pilot programs to test potential solutions. The best of those would be folded into the 2015 surface transportation reauthorization.

But that bill may not even come up this year, and if it does a lame duck session is the likeliest time for it.

Nellen said solutions (and the unpopular votes needed to pass them) won’t likely be fully realized until lawmakers realize the looming crisis in transportation funding — and that something needs to be done about it.

“And as far as I can tell, no one’s really paying attention to it.”
By Derek Wallbank | Published Thu, Jun 17 2010 8:38 am

VMT Fee Should Replace Gas Tax, ULI Report Suggests (AASHTO Journal)

Friday, April 16th, 2010

VMT Fee Should Replace Gas Tax, ULI Report Suggests (AASHTO Journal)

April 16, 2010

Congress should consider initiating a vehicle miles traveled fee to replace the gasoline tax currently funding federal highway and transit programs, an infrastructure report issued by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young recommends. The report also calls for boosting transportation investment through other sources.

This report is the fourth in an annual series. It focuses on the pressing need for long-term and integrated investments in transportation and other infrastructure.

“Investing in infrastructure — done well and strategically — can help ensure increasing prosperity and the rising standards of living that Americans have come to expect,” the report contends. “Many countries around the world — China, India, and those in Europe — understand the infrastructure investment imperative and are working to build the transportation, water, and energy systems that will grow their economies for future generations.”

There have been a few hopeful steps towards an adequately funded transportation system nationwide, the report notes. It highlights several transportation and finance programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act such as those for high-speed rail, discretionary multimodal grants, and Build America Bonds.

The document includes examples of a few transportation-oriented public/private partnerships currently underway in the United States, and notes how these can offer “guideposts” for similar efforts elsewhere. These examples include the Florida Department of Transportation’s agreements for constructing a $2 billion tolled expressway expansion along Interstate 595 and a $1 billion tunnel for the Port of Miami, and the collaboration between the Texas Department of Transportation and a private operator for building High Occupancy/Toll lanes as part of a $4 billion widening and upgrade for Interstate 635.

One means of further encouraging those partnerships, the report suggests, is a national infrastructure bank based on Europe’s model for financing and attracting private capital. “A federal infrastructure bank could help establish procurement protocols and standards, facilitating the bidding process,” the report states.

The 102-page report, “Infrastructure 2010: An Investment Imperative,” is available at tinyurl.com/ULI041310.

Conti Urges Subcommittee to Support Variety of Financing Sources (AASHTO Journal)

Friday, April 16th, 2010

Conti Urges Subcommittee to Support Variety of Financing Sources (AASHTO Journal)

April 16, 2010

In light of falling gas-tax revenues and the increasing complexity of many transportation infrastructure projects, a number of federal financing sources need to be made available to state DOTs, North Carolina Transportation Secretary Gene Conti told the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee at a Wednesday hearing on using innovative financing to deliver highway and transit projects.

“None of these projects anymore are very easy to do from a financial perspective, so you really have to be creative and look at all the tools and then package them together,” Conti said. “The important thing is to have a range of tools available and then to have a one-stop shop, if you will, at the federal level so you can deal with one agency or one office that can help you walk through the alternatives.”

An infrastructure investment fund proposed by the Obama administration could function as a clearinghouse for transportation funding options other than the current gasoline and diesel-fuel taxes that generate the bulk of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s chief financial officer told the subcommittee.
President Barack Obama has proposed in his Fiscal Year 2011 budget request creating a National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund with $4 billion in capital. It could help states and localities secure nontraditional funds by consolidating various targeted financing programs such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program known as “TIFIA,” BNA reported.

“That is one of the points of having an infrastructure fund — that you would have one entity within the Department of Transportation that a project sponsor could go to and get either loans, loan guarantees, grants, or a combination of those,” U.S. DOT’s CFO Chris Bertram testified.

A proposed National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund could include TIFIA, the GARVEE bond program where states borrow against future federal transportation grants, the Build America Bonds program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and private activity bonds used to fund private-sector activities.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN and chairman of the full House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said while states are able to tap a number of financing programs from the federal government, they don’t add up to sustainably funding the U.S. transportation network.

“The Highway Trust Fund revenue stream should be keeping pace with the costs of construction and the capacity needs of the system, and we should be increasing that revenue stream,” Oberstar said. He recently proposed that the U.S. Treasury Department loan the Highway Trust Fund $130 billion, which would be paid back years later with an increase in federal gasoline and diesel taxes. (see April 2 AASHTO Journal story)

Other witnesses who addressed the committee at Wednesday’s hearing were Phillip Washington, general manager and CEO of the Regional Transportation District in Denver; Arthur Leahy, CEO of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and Jeffrey Parker, president of Jeffrey A. Parker & Associates. All witness statements and video of the hearing are available at tinyurl.com/HHTS041410.

Sec. LaHood: Gas tax likely to see debate in Congress soon (The Hill)

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Sec. LaHood: Gas tax likely to see debate in Congress soon (The Hill)

A federal gas tax hike is likely to appear on lawmakers’ radars again this year as they search for new ways to fund the country’s transportation programs, the department’s secretary suggested on Monday.

During a summit in Fort Worth, Texas, Transportation chief Ray LaHood predicted the federal government’s gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon would not be enough to offset the nearly $500-million gap between how much revenue is available and how much money the department hopes to receive next year.

That dilemma, he said, would present Congress with two choices: Cut some programs or consider increasing fees, including the federal gas tax — an idea LaHood discussed, but did not explicitly endorse, during Monday’s conference.

“To index the federal fuel tax, that’s something Congress is going to have to decide. As we get into the reauthorization bill, the debate will be how we fund all the things we want to do,” he said, as reported by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

“The idea of indexing the taxes that are collected at the gas pump is something I believe Congress will debate,” he added. “When the gas tax was raised in 1992 or 1993, in the Clinton administration, there was a big debate whether it should be indexed. At that time, they thought there’d be a sufficient amount of money collected. Now we know that isn’t the case. That is one way to keep up with the decline in driving, and more fuel-efficient cars.”

LaHood took careful note to stress Congress, not the Obama administration, would have to drive debate on a possible gas tax hike.

However, previous attempts to raise the country’s at-the-pump fee have encountered stiff congressional opposition from both parties.

When House Democrats on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee proposed such an increase earlier this year, vulnerable Blue Dog Democrats balked, putting the party’s leadership in a bind.

A number of Republicans reacted similarly, and time has unlikely abated their concerns.

Many in the GOP have signaled a strong disapproval for a number of similar fees Democrats have tried to introduce this year to pay for healthcare reform and a troop increase in Afghanistan, among other legislative efforts, further making a gas tax hike difficult in 2009 or 2010.

By Tony Romm – 11/30/09 04:50 PM ET
Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69815-lahood-gas-tax-one-way-to-pay-for-transportation-budget

EL PASO — Texans may have to pay more at the gas pump if they want new state highways.

Friday, November 13th, 2009

EL PASO — Texans may have to pay more at the gas pump if they want new state highways.

Members of the Texas Senate’s Transportation Committee said Tuesday that an increase in the 20-cents-per-gallon state fuel tax may be necessary to overcome a drastic shortage of money for new roads.

“We are in the critical position in this state where we are growing and will need more roads. But we have no money to build them and no more debt that we can issue,” the committee’s chairman, Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, said during a meeting in El Paso.

“The fuel tax has been the same since 1991, and that’s frankly one of the best solutions to the funding shortage we have in our hands.”

The state levies 20 cents for every gallon of gasoline that is pumped, and 15 of those cents go to the Texas Department of Transportation. In addition, motorists pay 18.4 cents per gallon in federal taxes.

State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, said it was too early to mention precise figures when talking about how much he would like to increase the state tax.

Amadeo Saenz, executive director of the transportation department, said Texas drivers are not filling up their cars as often as they used to, and that hybrid cars are also reducing the amount of fuel taxes the state collects.

He said that if current gas trends continue — and the Texas Legislature chooses not to change the fuel tax — his department will have only enough money to maintain existing roads.

“We’d be able to finish the projects

——————————————————————————–

Advertisement

——————————————————————————–
that have already been funded, but no new dollars for construction will come our way,” Saenz said.
The Senate committee, along with its counterpart in the Texas House of Representatives, will begin scheduling meetings with key state lawmakers to push for a higher fuel tax.

Tax increases, though, are not the only solution the committees are backing.

Carona said new rules should be put in place to prevent the reallocation of funds away from transportation projects.

And state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said municipalities and counties should be given the option of adding a temporary local fuel tax for new road construction in specific regions.

“TxDOT is flat broke. There’s no way to pay unless the leadership identifies revenue to build new capacity,” said Shapleigh, who sits on the Senate’s transportation committee. “Whether it’s gas tax or local option, the result should be that we have enough money to build roads in communities like El Paso.”

According to a report published earlier this year by the consulting firm of Cambridge Systematics, Texas will be $256 billion short of meeting its transportation needs by 2050 if current funding formulas remain unchanged.

State lawmakers have said that figure is troublesome, especially because the population of the state continues to grow and should hit the 50 million mark within 40 years.

Some El Pasoans, though, said they were concerned that higher fuel taxes would mean higher gas prices.

“I mean, gas is already so expensive and to hit us there is just insane,” said Robert Jimenez, a UTEP student, who was pumping gas at a station near the university. “Why can’t they take money from the higher gas prices. Gas has gone up so much in the last two years. Where’s that money going?”

Pickett said much of the revenue from higher gas prices was going to private companies, not the state.

“For 20 years, the fuel tax has been the same no matter what. The state is not making a killing on the higher gas prices,” said Pickett, who chairs the House Transportation Committee. “No matter how much each gallon costs, we still get just 20 cents. That’s why things need to change.”

Pickett said bipartisan support exists for the tax increase, and that could make a campaign to pass it in the Legislature smoother.

Gustavo Reveles Acosta may be reached at greveles@elpasotimes.com; 546-6133.

215 north Dawson Street • raleigh, nc 27603 • phone 919.715.7895 •  fax 919.301.1098