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 ‘Reauthorization’

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

LaHood Says No Fuel Tax Increase Needed for Transport (The Journal of Commerce Online)

Monday, July 26th, 2010

LaHood Says No Fuel Tax Increase Needed for Transport (The Journal of Commerce Online)
Highway funding to come from tolls, Obama’s proposed infrastructure fund

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said a combination of current-level gas tax receipts, road and bridge tolling and President Obama’s proposed infrastructure fund could offer a way to fund a long-term federal infrastructure program without new taxes.

Appearing before a heavily attended conference in Washington, D.C., of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, LaHood vowed “raising the gas tax is not an option” to increase money available for federal transport spending.

LaHood said the Highway Trust Fund’s income stream is “insufficient” to meet all the needs, and said “tolling can raise a lot of money” to augment it. The Obama administration has also asked Congress for a new $4 billion ongoing infrastructure fund that DOT would administer much like discretionary stimulus program grants, and LaHood said more use of creative public-private partnerships could help as well.

Adding up all such efforts, he said, raises the possibility of “a path forward without raising taxes.”

LaHood’s statement rejecting a fuel tax hike was the latest reiteration of the administration’s standing policy — to oppose raising federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes while the economy is still recovering from recession and unemployment remains high.

But his July 23 comment also comes as the Department of Transportation prepares to issue guiding “principles” for how Congress develops its next multi-year surface transportation plan. Federal programs are due to expire at the end of this year unless lawmakers extend them again or pass a broad reauthorization that reshapes policy.

Many ARTBA members want the administration to back away from its fuel tax stance, and after his speech some were grumbling that a gas tax hike remains the simplest and least costly way to beef up transport infrastructure funding.

One ARTBA participant noted that LaHood early last year floated the idea of raising funds through a new tax on vehicle miles traveled, a concept that was soon rejected by the White House. Asked if a VMT plan could come back, LaHood quickly said, “No.”

Another participant asked him if a tax that helps transport programs could emerge from climate or energy legislation, but LaHood deflected the question by saying that is someone else’s portfolio. One bill offered by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., would have directed billions of dollars into the Highway Trust Fund from sale of carbon emission allowances, but that legislation has failed to gain broad support.

– Contact John D. Boyd at jboyd@joc.com.

John D. Boyd | Jul 23, 2010 4:01PM GMT

Agency Expects Congress to Authorize Third Round of TIGER Grants (D.C. Streetsblog)

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Frustration With Stop-Gap Transpo Funding Shows at DOT Town Hall (D.C. Streetsblog)

Agency Expects Congress to Authorize Third Round of TIGER Grants (D.C. Streetsblog)

U.S. DOT’s top leaders (save Secretary Ray LaHood) fielded questions about the next long-term transportation bill this morning as part of a “town hall” session at agency headquarters. The conference, the sixth and final stop on a national listening tour, was billed as a chance to give feedback about how the transportation bill should take shape. While senior department staff adhered to the listening session format, divulging few specifics about their current thinking, they did provide a glimpse of the frustration over the ongoing lack of certainty for transportation funding.

One piece of news to come out of the session concerned the agency’s popular Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Polly Trottenberg reported that Congress will likely authorize a third year of the TIGER competitive grant program, which is seen as a model for allocating infrastructure investment based on strategic goals and criteria.

During the Q&A, DOT leadership made two points clear. The department wants and needs a long-term funding authorization, and they want to cut the time it takes to approve and finish projects.

“The series of short term authorizations is frustrating to us,” Deputy Secretary John Porcari said, pointing out that the department has gone through some weekend construction shutdowns caused by reauthorization delays. The most desirable outcome for DOT, Porcari said, is a long-term authorization with predictable funding.

The other frustrating point for DOT is the length of time it takes for a project to move from authorization to construction. “We simply take too long to deliver our projects,” Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez said. One of his policy priorities is to cut project times in half.

Beyond those two priorities, officials made few specific comments, returning to themes they’ve sounded previously.

Transit and rail freight issues were the hottest topic of the morning. Responding to a question about the upward creep of gas prices, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff said that DOT cannot simply allow existing transit systems to “limp along.” Without getting into specifics, he implied that transit systems — many of which have been pummeled by financial shortfalls and service cuts — should be in a position to handle surges in demand. “We saw a considerable spike in ridership when gas hit $4 a gallon,” he said.

The panel also reinforced DOT’s commitment to interagency partnerships, exemplified by the partnership between DOT, HUD, and the EPA that seeks to promote smart growth and sustainability by building housing convenient to transit. “This interagency cooperation is central to where we are heading,” Porcari said.
by Chris McGann on July 14, 2010

Indiana’s bad bridges focus of a new campaign for more transportation spending (News and Tribune)

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

Indiana’s bad bridges focus of a new campaign for more transportation spending (News and Tribune)

Indiana’s bad bridges focus of a new campaign for more transportation spending
There are more than 4,000 deficient or obsolete bridges in the state

INDIANAPOLIS — INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana’s deteriorating bridges and roads are the focus of a new media campaign designed to create political pressure to find a fix for a federal highway program teetering on insolvency.

The campaign, slated for kickoff on Wednesday, is backed by a coalition of labor and industry leaders pushing Congress to spend billions on the nation’s aging infrastructure, creating thousands of jobs along the way.

Dubbed “Build Indiana 2010,” the campaign will feature billboards with an image of one of the 4,111 bridges in Indiana that have been rated “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete” by the Federal Highway Administration.

It’s an intentionally unnerving image, said Frank DeGraw, an Indiana officer with the Laborers International Union of North America, which is funding the campaign.

“We don’t need another Minnesota here in Indiana,” said DeGraw, referring to the 2007 collapse of a Minnesota bridge that had been rated “structurally deficient” two years before it fell, killing 13 and injuring 145.

“If it had been up to me, the billboards would say: ‘You made it across this time. You better call somebody to fix this bridge,’” DeGraw said.

The Build Indiana 2010 campaign is part of the Laborers International Union’s Build America 2010 public campaign first launched in Colorado in June. It’s expected to spread to other states soon. Among the union’s allies in the effort are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and industry associations representing construction companies and suppliers.

The effort is in response to a slowdown in the construction industry brought on by the recession and only temporarily buoyed by federal stimulus spending.

Most of the Laborers International 500,000 members are construction workers, and many remain unemployed, DeGraw said. Union leaders hope the media campaign will mobilize union members to create public support for more federal spending for infrastructure improvement.

There’s a need for it in Indiana, according to a recent report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. It says that 29 percent of Indiana’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 25 percent of its bridges fail to meet federal standards for safety.

The fix isn’t easy, though. It would require Congress find new revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, the pocket of money that pays for infrastructure repair with federal gas taxes.

Since gas tax revenues haven’t kept pace with the amount of money doled out of the fund through a complicated formula that gives some states more money than they’ve paid into the fund, it’s required Congress to come up with a series of short-term bailouts to keep the fund solvent.

One solution would be to raise the gas tax — not a politically palatable option in an election year, said David Miller, a spokesman for the Laborers International.

So the job of the Build Indiana campaign is to make finding a source of revenue, no matter what it is, more palatable.

DeGraw says the message of the campaign will be a simple one: “We need to put people back to work, fixing an infrastructure that’s falling apart. You can’t tell me that we can come up with a way to bail out the banks, but not find the money to put Americans back to work.”

— Maureen Hayden is statehouse bureau chief for CNHI’s Indiana newspapers. She can be reached at maureen.hayden@indianamediagroup.com

July 5, 2010

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

Modifications Sought by Oberstar Added to Tax Extenders Bill (AASHTO)

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Modifications Sought by Oberstar Added to Tax Extenders Bill (AASHTO)

The House of Representatives could vote as early as Tuesday on a package of tax extensions that will include language altering how nearly $1 billion in federal highway funds is distributed among states.

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee James Oberstar, D-Minnesota, told the media this week that the tax package will contain two highway formula redistributions he has sought. These changes would redistribute $932 million in federal highway funds among states based upon their share of overall federal highway spending rather than earmarks received under two programs as part of the 2005 federal surface transportation authorization law known as “SAFETEA-LU.”

A bill summary released by the Senate Finance Committee notes the highway funding changes are included in the legislation. The bill, HR 4213, would make two changes to the surface transportation extension title of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, according to the bill summary:
1. Distribute the Projects of National & Regional Significance and National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement program funding among all states based on each state’s share of Fiscal Year 2009 highway apportioned funds rather than to only 29 states and the District of Columbia that had PNRS and National Corridor projects under SAFETEA-LU.
2. Distribute “additional” highway formula funds (which the bill makes available in lieu of additional congressionally designated projects) among all of the highway formula programs rather than among just six formula programs.
These two changes were agreed to by Oberstar; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California; and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, back in March. (see March 26 AASHTO Journal story) Although the House has voted twice to approve the highway formula modifications, the Senate has so far failed to go along.

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, is among those senators who have objected to changing the formulas. Illinois is among four states receiving nearly 60% of the funding under these two programs. The other major beneficiaries of the current formulas are California, Louisiana, and Washington state.

Durbin contends the Oberstar/Pelosi/Reid changes would cost the Prairie State $119 million in highway funds.

“Your proposed changes would drastically reduce funding Illinois is expecting under the current formula and it plans to use on important projects across my state,” Durbin wrote in an April 7 letter to Oberstar. “This would be an unfair rescission of funding and inconsistent with the Obama administration and Congress’ [desire] to invest in transportation/infrastructure and put people back to work.”

Build America Bonds Extension Included in Tax Bill

HR 4213 also includes an expansion of Build America Bonds for two years (through 2012). For direct-pay Build America Bonds issued in 2011, the amount of the direct payment would be reduced from 35% to 32% of the coupon interest, according to the Finance Committee’s bill summary. For such bonds issued in 2012, the amount of the direct payment would be reduced to 30% of the coupon interest. The bill would also allow issuers to refinance Build America Bonds to save money should interest rates fall in the future.

This bonds extension is estimated to cost the federal government $4 billion in interest subsidies over 10 years. For more information about Build America Bonds, see April 9 AASHTO Journal story.

Questions regarding this article may be directed to editor@aashtojournal.org.

Oberstar stymied on transit bill (Politico)

Monday, May 17th, 2010

Oberstar stymied on transit bill (Politico)

It was supposed to be a career-defining moment for Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.). He finally held the gavel of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, after four decades of waiting and had a like-minded president in office to help enact his sweeping vision for highways and public works.

But Oberstar was cut down before he even got started. Hours after he began circulating his plan last spring for a six-year, $500 billion investment in roads and rail, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood simply called for an extension of the 2005 highway bill — effectively cutting off long-term expansion plans.

“That was the beginning of a less-than-good working relationship,” said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

The relationship soured from there, as a frustrated Oberstar slammed White House economic advisers “who never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their fingers.”

So, while the nation’s infrastructure continues to age and crumble, Washington is stuck with a neutered transportation chairman, a White House distracted by more pressing issues and congressional leaders who lack the political will to raise gas taxes for a new $500 billion measure. And Oberstar is left without the incredible power that once came with a Transportation chairmanship — picking and choosing where to send billions in highway pork.

“I don’t know why they [the White House] don’t want to move forward” on a new highway bill, Oberstar’s top lieutenant, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), lamented in a recent interview. “Somewhere in the bowels of the White House economic team, they said, ‘Hey, we don’t want to deal with transportation.’”

For the Obama administration, deep-sixing the bill was a political necessity, because raising the gas tax is a nonstarter in an election year. And until Oberstar or another lawmaker can find a viable alternative method to raise the $200 billion plus needed to fully fund his legislation, it is likely to stay stuck in no man’s land.

That leaves the entire transportation industry, from bridge builders to bike boosters, waiting in vain for a breakthrough that might jump-start Oberstar’s efforts. Meanwhile, stimulus infrastructure dollars have not stopped construction unemployment from topping 20 percent, and some insiders are bracing for a funding impasse that lingers indefinitely.

“There has to be some way for all of the disparate interests to get together and try to motivate action on this,” said Janet Kavinoky, chief infrastructure lobbyist of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Because regardless of what you’re looking for, you won’t be able to achieve that until the priority is put on transportation.”

Despite his complaints about the administration’s lack of attention to his main issue, Oberstar remains at a loss for how to pay for his bill without a gas-tax hike.

“Right now, we’re looking at bake sales,” quipped his spokesman, Jim Berard.

Oberstar explained in an interview that his broadsides at the administration were intended “to push them” toward a deal on a long-term bill. He’s gotten nowhere.

“They’ve sat down to talk with us, but they don’t have a plan for financing the future of transportation,” he said.

Some of Oberstar’s biggest K Street allies are also having trouble lining up support for the legislation. Rank-and-file lawmakers still do not know how much transportation money their states would get under Oberstar’s plan, and while the Senate recently has made progress on its version, the upper chamber is no closer than the House to finding new funding.

“We have to get out of the expectation that there’s going to be some magic moment where there’s an epiphany about financing,” said Dave Bauer, senior lobbyist for the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. If the political will to pass a transportation bill depends on finding the funding, Bauer warned that the result could be “a circular, never-ending process.”

Oberstar is hardly the first transportation committee chairman to face stop signs from his own party. The late Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) mounted a PR campaign to help pass his 1998 highway bill over the objections of House Republican leaders, and GOP Rep. Don Young of Alaska was forced to relent on the size of his 2005 bill after the Bush administration rejected his call to raise gas taxes.

But Oberstar lacks the bare-knuckled political instincts of Shuster and Young, relying instead on his famous policy acumen to get things done.

“He’s not a wheeler-dealer kind of guy,” a veteran transportation advocate said of Oberstar.

For now, Oberstar — and the entire transportation industry — is in limbo wondering whether the $500 billion bill will get a serious look this year.

“Not over the indifference and even opposition of an administration,” said former Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), co-chairman of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s infrastructure reform project.

The White House, while aligning with Oberstar’s policy reforms, is still looking to put off the new bill until spring 2011. LaHood “shares Chairman Oberstar’s goal,” spokesman Olivia Alair wrote in an e-mail and is working on “a set of principles that we hope will bring us closer” to a new bill.

But with Democrats expected to lose a significant number of seats in the midterm election, Oberstar will have a diminished committee — or may even be forced to hand over the gavel to ranking Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida.

For his part, Mica is sympathetic to the administration’s reluctance to engage on a six-year bill until supporters of a tax increase — whom he described as “smoking the funny weed” — find an alternative.

“They are probably politically correct in not moving forward,” Mica said in an interview. “Probably Mr. Oberstar needs to be a little more flexible.”

By: Elana Schor
May 17, 2010 05:23 AM EDT

Highway Bill Delay Seen Stretching into 2011 (The Journal Of Commerce)

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Highway Bill Delay Seen Stretching into 2011 (The Journal Of Commerce)

New multi-year bill may not pass until spring, Rep. Mica warns

It may be 2011 before Congress passes a surface transportation bill, says Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

“I think we’re looking at spring, though I haven’t given up” on December, Mica told transportation attorneys at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott yesterday.

Debate over how to fund a bill that is likely to cost $500 billion has stalled progress on legislation in the House and Senate as both parties in Congress and the White House wrestle over the direction of federal transportation policy. An agreement is seen as unlikely before the November election.

The chances that Congress will pass a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill this year are “50/50,” Mica said. When an FAA bill does pass, “The FedEx provision” changing that company’s status under labor law “will not be in a final bill,” he said.

“We need the funding in place to keep aviation moving forward,” Mica said. “We need a comprehensive plan” for aviation, he said, that includes high-speed passenger rail connections at U.S. airports.

Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com
William B. Cassidy | May 5, 2010 11:50AM GMT

Innovative Financing Is No Substitute for New Funding (Innovation Briefs)

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Innovative Financing Is No Substitute for New Funding (Innovation Briefs)

Hoping to sustain interest in the Committee’s efforts to enact a new multi-year transportation bill during this session of Congress, Reps. James Oberstar (D-MN) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR), leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, convened a hearing on April 14 to explore innovative ways of financing highway and transit investments. But while the hearing provided a useful survey of available financing tools and programs, it produced no new answers to the key question that has bedeviled transportation advocates for many months and remains as the chief obstacle to moving the legislation forward— the question of how to pay for the proposed multi-year surface transportation program.

The Administration’s opposition to increasing the current 18.4 cents/gallon federal gas tax— the most obvious means of generating the needed funds— was reiterated once again at the House hearing by Christopher Bertram, U.S. DOT’s Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The White House has also announced its opposition to any additional taxing of motor fuel as part of the Senate energy legislation. “The Senators don’t support a gas tax, and neither does the White House,” the White House said in a statement, thus squelching any secretly entertained hopes that the energy bill might offer a backdoor way of raising the gas tax in the guise of a ” carbon fee.” (The proposed Kerry-Graham-Lieberman energy plan reportedly would have called for an additional levy of 15 cents/gallon. To fully fund the proposed $500 billion six-year transportation bill would require approximately a 20 cents/gallon increase in the gas tax.)

White House opposition to a gas tax increase is only one of several obstacles standing in the way of an early passage of a multi-year law. Three other factors make passage of the legislation this year unlikely:

1. The Senate faces a crowded legislative agenda that includes confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice and consideration of the Finance Reform Bill in addition to the energy bill. The likelihood of taking up a multi-year transportation bill on top of that busy agenda in the 60 legislative days remaining before the pre-election congressional adjournment, appear remote according to congressional observers.

2. Passage of the HIRE Act has taken the pressure off the lawmakers to move the multi-year bill this year. The Act not only has extended the existing law until the end of December 2010; it also has transferred $19.5 billion from the General Fund into the Highway Trust Fund and restored an earlier $8.7 billion rescission of contract authority. The latest projections by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the General Fund transfer, when added to the projected revenue stream from the gas tax, is expected to support highway and transit programs at the levels authorized for Fiscal Year 2009 through the end of Fiscal Year 2012 and into FY 2013 (Congressional Budget Office, “Highway Trust Fund Projections, March 19, 2010.) Our own reading of the CBO projections suggests that both the Highway Account and the Transit Account of the Trust Fund could remain solvent as long as the second or third quarter of Fiscal Year 2013. With assured funding possibly through mid-2013, the case for passing a multi-year transportation bill this year has become less than compelling. In an unspoken acknowledgment of this state of affairs, many interest groups have quietly dropped their efforts to lobby for enactment of the reauthorization bill this year.

3. Last but not least, there are no signs of a popular outcry about the stalled transportation authorization. Despite extensive documentation of the needs for new infrastructure investments (notably, U.S. DOT’s 2008 Conditions and Performance report and the findings of the two commissions established by Congress to study future transportation funding needs) there seems to be no sense of urgency on the part of the public to embark upon a massive program of infrastructure modernization. Signs of aging infrastructure are kept largely hidden from view thanks to determined efforts by state and local highway agencies to maintain their assets in good repair. In the absence of any visible signs of system deterioration, warnings by advocacy groups about “crumbling infrastructure” are falling on deaf ears. The recent injection of some $50 billion of federal funding into surface transportation in the form of Recovery Act (ARRA) stimulus funds, TIGER Discretionary Grants and High Speed Rail grants has further weakened the argument that the transportation sector is not receiving adequate attention and that we are vastly under-funding our transportation needs.

Leveraging Future Revenue Streams
Although the House hearing shed no new light on how to generate new revenues for the federal-aid transportation program, it sent a strong message that innovative financing methods can help expedite project delivery and offer other benefits to the public. Under traditional methods of financing, transportation projects are completed on a pay-as-you-go basis: projects are built incrementally as public funds become available over a period of years. Using financing tools, notably tax-free bonds, state and local transportation agencies can gain immediate access to the funds necessary to advance projects into construction, and use their traditional funding or project-generated revenue streams to liquidate the indebtedness over time. While toll revenue is often used as security (collateral) in highway financing, project-generated user fees are not the sole means of backing debt issuances for transportation projects. Other types of security include dedicated sales tax revenue, future federal grants and revenues derived from tax assessment districts, transit-oriented development and other “value capture” projects. As Philip Washington, General Manager of the Denver Regional Transportation District testified, this has enabled transit agencies to gain access to private capital even though transit lacks sufficient project-generated revenue to use it as collateral for long-term debt obligations.

A Variety of Financial Tools and Programs
Testimony by Assistant Secretary Bertram showed that there is no scarcity of federally-assisted financial tools and programs to leverage available funds and expedite delivery of transportation projects. They include the TIFIA Program (authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998) offering direct loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit for surface transportation projects of “regional and national significance;” tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds (PAB), issued by state and local governments to aid in financing privately funded transportation projects; taxable Build America Bonds (BAB) whose interest rates are subsidized by the Federal government, thus lowering the net borrowing costs (by 35%) for state and local government issuers of the bonds; State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs) which provide credit assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees and letters of credit and serve as revolving infrastructure investment funds for state-sponsored surface transportation projects; and Grant Anticipation (GARVEE) bonds, debt instruments secured by a pledge of future Title 23 (highway) and Title 49 (transit) Federal-aid funding.

The latest addition to this arsenal of financing instruments is the proposed National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (I-Fund). As Assistant Secretary Bertram testified, this entity, capitalized with an initial $4 billion General Fund contribution ($25 billion over 5 years), would serve as a one-stop clearinghouse for financing and funding high-value multi-modal transportation projects of regional or national significance. A portion of the annual capital contribution would be handed out in grants rather than loans. The Fund could eventually fold in TIFIA, RRIF (The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program) and other federally-assisted transportation financing programs into a single loan and grant dispensing entity, housed in the Transportation Department. Congressional support for this proposal is uncertain, competing as it does with broader proposals for a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB). The latter is being advanced by several congressional sponsors as an independent stand-alone entity that would support infrastructure investments across a broad range of sectors. However, for the NIB to qualify as a genuine bank, its loan portfolio would need to be confined to revenue-generating projects and to projects secured by other sustainable revenue streams.

Availability Payments
Another financing method given prominent mention at the House hearing was the technique of “availability payments.” This relatively new financing method has received wide publicity because of its use in two recent concession-based transportation projects: the $900 million Port of Miami Tunnel and Florida’s $1.65 billion I-595 express lanes/reconstruction project. Availability payments also will be used in financing the reconstruction of Doyle Drive in San Francisco and are being considered by a number of other public agencies .

Availability payment concessions are used where the facility in question is not intended, for policy reasons, to generate its own stream of toll revenue or where toll revenue alone may not be sufficient to cover the full cost of building, operating and maintaining the facility. Instead, the public authority pays the private concessionaire periodic payments out of its regular budget over a fixed term of the concession. Payments are made only once the project is completed and upon certification that the concessionaire is meeting certain performance requirements. Availability payments can be supplemented by “milestone” payments tied to the attainment of specific construction milestones and a “final acceptance payment” due upon completion of the project, as incentives for timely completion and avoidance of cost overruns. Because private concessionaires receive fixed payments regardless of the volume of traffic generated by the facility, they do not assume the revenue risk as in the case of a classic long-term toll concession.

Innovative Financing Is No Substitute for New Funding
In the final analysis, innovative financing is no substitute for new funding. As Eugene Conti, Secretary of the North Caroline DOT concluded in his testimony, “while these [financing] tools can be valuable, the effectiveness of any of these finance techniques depends on the establishment of a reliable and substantial source of funding, as innovative financing generally assumes an associated revenue stream to support credit activity. There is no doubt as to its usefulness when combined with grant funding which still remains as the core of the federal-state partnership. We need to pass a long-term and well-funded bill that will allow for much greater funding and program certainty to meet transportation investment needs.”

The question of where the money for such a “well-funded” bill is to come from remains unanswered. Until the political will and public support are found to either: (1) raise federal fuel taxes, (2) permit the tolling of Interstate highways, (3) phase in distance-based (VMT) charges in lieu of fuel taxes, or (4) accept the notion of funding the federal surface transportation program out of General Fund revenues, the future of a multi-year transportation bill will remain shrouded in uncertainty.
April 19,2010

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.

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