Over the next six years, the Obama administration proposes to spend $253 billion on highways; $119 billion on mass transit; $53 billion on “high-performance” passenger trains; $28 billion on “livability”; and $25 billion on an infrastructure bank. At least, those are the numbers that can be found in a copy of an undated bill representing the Obama administration’s proposal for reauthorizing federal surface transportation spending that was recently distributed by a publication called Transportation Weekly. The publication also released a section-by-section analysis of the bill.
Under the bill, total spending over the next six years (2012 through 2017) would be about $480 billion, which is roughly twice as much as the federal government expects to collect in gas taxes and other existing highway user fees. The bill makes several references to a “new energy tax” that might make up some of the difference.
Currently, almost all federal spending on surface transportation comes from federal taxes on motor fuel, heavy trucks and trailers, and truck tires. When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in 1956, it also created the Highway Trust Fund and dedicated these taxes to that fund. This fund sunsets every six years unless reauthorized, and each reauthorization gives Congress a chance to tinker with the fund.
The 1982 reauthorization divided the Highway Trust Fund into two accounts: a Highway Account and a Mass Transit Account. Currently, about 15.5 percent of gas taxes go into the Mass Transit Account. The Obama proposal would change the name of the Highway Trust Fund to the Transportation Trust Fund and create two more accounts: one for the high-performance rail system and the other for an infrastructure bank.
While the Highway Account would remain the largest of the four accounts, the $28 billion in “livability” spending comes out of that account. “Livability” includes an emphasis on “multimodal” transportation, so it could include funding for streetcars, bike paths, traffic calming, or “boulevarding,” meaning changes that reduce the capacity of a secondary highway to carry motor vehicles. In sum, although all of the surface transportation funds come from auto and truck drivers, only a little more than half the funds would be spent on maintaining and improving the roads used by those autos and trucks.
Fit people display viagra 100mg for sale confidence and positive approach towards everything. Choose vehicles purchase levitra http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/cars-for-sale/page/3/?order_by=_mileage_value&order_by_dir=desc for basic safety, not image. Cheap kamagra drugs come in different quantity sachets. frankkrauseautomotive.com cialis levitra price Once you have gained the trust of another person be careful not to violate their good will. viagra store in canada Other than livability, most of the Highway Account is in two funds: a “Highway Infrastructure Performance Program” ($110 billion) and a “Flexible Investment Program” ($119 billion). The first can only be used on maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads. The second is “flexible” in the sense that it can be spent on new roads and bridges as well as maintenance. Unlike the flexible funds of the last three reauthorizations, which could be spent on highways or transit, the proposed flexible fund cannot be spent on transit, though it can be spent on bike paths and, strangely, freight rail.
Historically, most highway funds are distributed to states using formulas based on population, land area, road miles, and similar criteria. But the two new accounts, for passenger rail and the infrastructure bank, would be distributed exclusively through competitive grants rather than formulas. As I’ve noted before, competitive grant programs soon become highly politicized. Effectively, they give the administration enormous power to reward favored politicians and regions and huge publicity when announcing the grants.
Fortunately, Obama’s bill, which isn’t much different from James Oberstar’s 2009 proposal, is almost certainly a non-starter in Congress today. The Republican-dominated House is not likely to support the passenger rail program, and it may also reject the infrastructure bank. It remains to be seen how far the Republicans are willing to go, however. Will they take transit out, too, and rededicate highway user fees to highways? Will they replace all competitive grant programs with formula grants?
There are a couple of good things in the Obama bill. First, it reduces the number of “pots” in the Highway Trust Fund, which gives states more discretion on using the fund. This could be taken still further, however. Why should the “Highway Infrastructure Program” and “Flexible Investment Program” be two different pots?
Second, the bill proposes to spend $300 million developing a replacement for gas taxes. While that price seems high, the rationale for using gas taxes to pay for transportation is fading fast, and Oregon has already shown that alternative methods can be used that are fair and don’t invade people’s privacy. The key is to make sure that funds collected from road users aren’t diverted to non-road programs.
Except for the fact that the federal government might be able to help the states coordinate the implementation of a vehicle-mile fee or other alternative to gas taxes, there really is little reason for federal involvement in surface transportation. So Oklahoma Representative James Lankford has proposed the State Highway Flexibility Act, which would give states the option to opt out of the federal program and simply keep their share of federal gas taxes. The Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt calculates that most states are “donor states,” meaning they get fewer federal transportation dollars than their residents put in. The Flexibility Act would lead many of these states to drop out.
Stop being so crooked O’Toole, not everyone drives or wants to be forced to own a car!
The infrastructure bank is nothing but a slush fund to pay off favored supporters. We see things like the Acorns of the world teaching driver training at enormous costs per pupil.
Stop being so crooked O’Toole, not everyone drives or wants to be forced to own a car!
JK: So Don’t!!
Also don’t expect others to pay for your transportation of choice!
Thanks
JK
The two remaining highway programs should be combined in this bill, to save us from having programs called HIPP and FLIP.
Why not restore the 10% railroad ticket tax (on Amtrak and commuter tickets) to help pay for any rail funding?
And why not dedicate some small amount of money (1 cent per gallon?) to a program to eliminate the most dangerous road-rail grade crossings and install signalization on crossings that have nothing by crossbuck signs today to help save the lives of motorists? The FRA and FHWA know which crossings have the most accidents and deaths over the past 35-40 years. Just start at the top of the list and work your way down.
A similar program to improve the most dangerous raod intersections and highway interchanges would also be a welcome change of focus on cutting down the carnage on the roads. Again, the FHWA is well aware of which intersections have the most deaths and accidents. Why not focus some resources on fixing them to save American lives?
Though, a one dollar per mile tax on cars would be more appropriate don’t you think?
MS: Stop being so crooked O’Toole, not everyone drives or wants to be forced to own a car!
JK: So Don’t!!
Also don’t expect others to pay for your transportation of choice!
THWM: You can’t do that Mr. Karlock.
Every one has to pay roads, whether they use them or not.
Even Mr.O’Toole has admitted, roads are there regardless of economic conditions.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Via Dolorosa or Wall Street, you’re still paying for it!
Though, a one dollar per mile tax on cars would be more appropriate don’t you think
I really don’t think. Unless you’re talking about removing the current gas tax in favor of this, then we’ll talk.
Levying an additional $15,000 per-family tax per year is a bit much, no? I’m sure that wouldn’t destroy the economy or cause massive inflationary pressure at all…
Fred,
Metrosucks has recently switched sock-puppet teams for some reason. I suppose we shouldn’t take anything he writes seriously. Unfortunately he hasn’t realized that his sarcasm is lost on most of us, and definitely not funny.
Don’t blame me bennett. O’Toole would rather be personally attacked than let us criticize his pet planner Dan.
Come on now. You have to know the difference on insulting someones intelligence, as Dan does to you, and your attacks on his sexual virility (which is weird that you claim to know). In case you don’t understand, it’s quite simple. One is acceptable on this blog and the other is not. I’m also surprised that your observation of Mr. O’Toole stopped a little short of the finish line. He’s a “man,” trying to police the little boys and their penis jokes on his site. Maybe you could grow up and not stoop to the lowest common denominator?
Give it a try.
Good for you, bennett, for trying to be the “good intelligence cop” in contrast to the “bad intelligence cop” who pretends to “Dan”. However, since the whole reason for the existence of “Dan” is to disrupt intelligent discussions on behalf of brain-dead Professional Planners who can’t stand a website that exposes their mental incapacity, you are by the brain spatter.
The Antiplanner loves Dan because he drives up hits on his website (“Dan” is probably the Antiplanner’s alter-ego), and people like me love to return the favor by showing Cato and the Koch Brothers how intellectually vacuous the Professional Planners can be. I am hoping the Koch Brothers will fund my Lamb Chop reunion tour in order to drive up use of oil.
Andy,
Your theory would no doubt make Alex Jones proud. And if Dan is responsible from diving up hits on this site, you are equally culpable, as your hyperbolic reactionary tirades are rooted in addressing him.
Those of us who have our feet firmly planted on the ground and our our head on our shoulders (opposed to up our…), do not think that this blog is some grand conspiracy. Mr. O’Toole is paid by monied interest and shares his opinion. Many of his opponents who choose to respond are paid to be planners. The debate is relatively informative (sans your nonsense), but also relatively predictable.
bennett,
Sure I slept with Alexis Jones (how did you know?), but she hates being called “Alex” so I didn’t call at that name the whole night.
I realize you and Dan think you are Nobel Prize candidates because you discovered a website called “The Antiplanner” is biased against Professional Planners, but some of us figured that out from the URL.
We tried to have intelligent converstations on this website, only to have Dan repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, etc., disrupt them. Dan has written more on this website than the Antiplanner.
So now that the Antiplanner has decided to protect his “Dan” pseudonym from being outed, we will follow “Dan’s” lead and just mock the crappy ideas and writings of Professional Planners in the style of SNL, or MSNBC, or Air America.
If some day the “Dan” pseudonym disappears, or lightening strikes him and he just acts like a normal rational person, then suddenly “Andy” will vaporize like Jar Jar in Episode II.
I’m just giving O’Toole a taste of his own medicine. Since I can’t call Dan a liar, being as he is under a personal protection order on this blog, I will call O’Toole a liar. Protecting Dan’s ability to lie and obfuscate is no different than spewing the lies yourself.
This blog reeks of hypocrisy when the planners are allowed to come on here and spew whatever the heck they desire, but O’Toole’s supposed allies need to tiptoe around the planners.
So O’Toole is a well paid liar & Dan’s a hypocrite.
Well, we’ve all known that for a while!