http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/06highway.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
QuoteWASHINGTON â€" An important account in the federal Highway Trust Fund will run out of money this month, a situation that could hamper completion of road and bridge construction projects across the country, Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters said on Friday.
Because the trust fund’s highway account is draining away, the Transportation Department will have to delay payments for projects, Ms. Peters said at a news conference. Since money from Washington typically pays 80 to 90 percent of the cost of federally aided road work, states with shaky finances may have to consider curtailing projects.
Ms. Peters said her department would begin to dole out money from the fund each week on a prorated basis. For instance, if there is enough money to cover only 80 percent of the payment requests the department receives for federally financed local projects, the agency will pay only 80 percent of each request initially, making up the difference later.
“Time and again, the president has warned Congress of the pending shortfall and submitted fiscally prudent budgets to close the gap,†Ms. Peters said, in remarks that reflected the political nature of the long-running debate over how to pay for road building.
The fund is financed by federal excise taxes on motor fuel, 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon on diesel. But the fund’s highway account is being rapidly depleted because for months Americans have been reacting to the high price of gasoline by driving less, Ms. Peters said. In May, for instance, vehicle-miles were down 3.7 percent from a year earlier.
Not many months ago, federal officials expected the highway account to have about $4 billion by Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year. Last Oct. 1, the trust fund had $8.1 billion in the bank, transportation officials said, but by Sept. 30, its expenses will have exceeded its income by $8.3 billion, creating a $200 million gap. (The Highway Trust Fund also has a much smaller account to finance mass transit projects, but it is in surplus at the moment.)
The Transportation Department expects to have enough money to make all payments to the states for the second week of September but enough for only about 64 percent of the payments the third week, said Brian Turmail, an agency spokesman.
Then, with a regular infusion of two weeks’ worth of gasoline-tax revenue from the Treasury, the Transportation Department will have enough money to make 88 percent of its payments in the fourth week of September â€" except that it will have to first make up payments it could not meet earlier in the month.
Thus, as states wind down the busy summer construction season, their transportation officials can anticipate longer and longer delays in getting payments from Washington, Mr. Turmail said.
State transportation officials expressed alarm. The money shortage will have “grave repercussions for the states, for hundreds of thousands of workers in the construction industry and the driving public,†said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Contractors were also worried. “Each week that it goes on, it gets more serious,†said Brian P. Deery, senior director of the Associated General Contractors of America’s highway and transportation division. At some point, he said, some states may have to tell road contractors that they cannot pay them and that “we’d like you to continue working, but we understand if you have to stop working.â€
In July, the House passed a bill that would use $8 billion of general federal revenue â€" from income and other taxes, not the dedicated motor fuel tax â€" to finance highway projects. The measure has not gained much support in the Senate, and until Friday the White House had been hostile to it. But Ms. Peters said the administration now endorsed the measure because “immediate action†was required to ensure that the states did not suffer.
Another possible solution would be to transfer money to the highway account from the account that the trust fund maintains to finance mass transit. But lawmakers from large cities that rely on trust-fund aid for their transit systems could be expected to resist such a move.
For the moment, Republicans and Democrats were blaming each other for the problem, which comes as the economy is in trouble and the election season is intensifying. The administration has accused the Democratic-controlled Congress of loading transportation bills with pork barrel projects that virtually invite President Bush’s veto.
But Democrats accuse the Bush administration of “nickel and diming our degrading roads, bridges, highways,†as well as mass transit, as Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York put it on Friday.
The issue is likely to be on a front-burner when Congress returns, as Representative James L. Oberstar, the Minnesota Democrat who heads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, signaled on Friday. “Given that the United States has lost more than 600,000 jobs this year, and the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in five years, we cannot afford to lose one more family-wage construction job,†he said in a statement.
This has been a looming crisis...it was obvious to many in the field 2 years ago...but it got really bad when driving decreased this spring/summer.
Our current transportation revenue system is not sustainable...the gas tax is a set amount, instead of a % (like sales tax)...so when gas prices rise, the gas tax revenue doesn't...and then when people drive less and/or drive more fuel efficient vehicles (both good things), it creates a funding/revenue problem.
The comment about pork projects is off base...our transportation system is in such dire need of reconstruction and expansion that almost all earmark projects are necessary.
I would be curious to know what River has to say about this!
Quote
Our current transportation revenue system is not sustainable...the gas tax is a set amount, instead of a % (like sales tax)...so when gas prices rise, the gas tax revenue doesn't...and then when people drive less and/or drive more fuel efficient vehicles (both good things), it creates a funding/revenue problem.
I'd like to know how/why this was decided. It seems awfully short-sighted to me. It'd make more sense to have it percentage-based, to take into account rising costs/prices due to inflation. Theorietically, wouldn't a change from a set-amount to a percentage-based amount help alleviate at least some of the problem?
Quote
The comment about pork projects is off base...our transportation system is in such dire need of reconstruction and expansion that almost all earmark projects are necessary.
I'll reserve judgement here. The article doesn't begin to shed light on just what the pork projects are. Nothing says that any earmark has to be related to the piece of legislation to which it's attached. Lots of times, this is the case.
Not to necessarily defend Bush, but I would veto a bill loaded with BS, unrelated earmarks too, if it t'were me. However, no one really knows if that's the case here, because of the lack of in-depth reporting that always goes on regarding anything on Capitol Hill.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 11:16:54 AM
This has been a looming crisis...it was obvious to many in the field 2 years ago...but it got really bad when driving decreased this spring/summer.
Our current transportation revenue system is not sustainable...the gas tax is a set amount, instead of a % (like sales tax)...so when gas prices rise, the gas tax revenue doesn't...and then when people drive less and/or drive more fuel efficient vehicles (both good things), it creates a funding/revenue problem.
The comment about pork projects is off base...our transportation system is in such dire need of reconstruction and expansion that almost all earmark projects are necessary.
I would be curious to know what River has to say about this!
if they would stop diverting monies from the transportation trust fund (which is where the fuel and road use taxes are supposed to go) to fund other forms of transportation projects, like mass transit, bike paths, scenic walking paths, etc., then the fund will never be able to be self sustaining
Quote from: apvbguy on September 06, 2008, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 11:16:54 AM
This has been a looming crisis...it was obvious to many in the field 2 years ago...but it got really bad when driving decreased this spring/summer.
Our current transportation revenue system is not sustainable...the gas tax is a set amount, instead of a % (like sales tax)...so when gas prices rise, the gas tax revenue doesn't...and then when people drive less and/or drive more fuel efficient vehicles (both good things), it creates a funding/revenue problem.
The comment about pork projects is off base...our transportation system is in such dire need of reconstruction and expansion that almost all earmark projects are necessary.
I would be curious to know what River has to say about this!
if they would stop diverting monies from the transportation trust fund (which is where the fuel and road use taxes are supposed to go) to fund other forms of transportation projects, like mass transit, bike paths, scenic walking paths, etc., then the fund will never be able to be self sustaining
do you know how all that even works....enhacement projects (bike paths, sidewalks, etc.) get 1% of all federal transportation $...and transit gets less than 10%.
And the little known fact is that roads are heavily subsidized...the gas tax doesn't come close to paying for construction, operation, and maintenance.
The only area of transportation that hasn't struggled for funding is aviation...since the airports levy departure fees...of course, the airlines themselves are in a major trouble!
Too many roads have already been built. I, for one (perhaps the only one), am glad that they are out of money. I'm sick of the miles of asphalt. How many landscapes have they ruined? How many neighborhoods have been cut in two and destroyed? I'm sick of roads. Someone will immediately claim that they are necessary to our survival, economic or otherwise. But I would point out that thousands of years of human history passed with only a sprinkling of them - and that all went ok. In the past century, we've paved over almost our entire natural heritage.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 12:00:43 PM
do you know how all that even works....enhacement projects (bike paths, sidewalks, etc.) get 1% of all federal transportation $...and transit gets less than 10%.
cite your source please
Quote from: apvbguy on September 06, 2008, 12:02:01 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 12:00:43 PM
do you know how all that even works....enhacement projects (bike paths, sidewalks, etc.) get 1% of all federal transportation $...and transit gets less than 10%.
cite your source please
feel free to cite your also...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2008, 12:51:29 PM
Quote from: apvbguy on September 06, 2008, 12:02:01 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 12:00:43 PM
do you know how all that even works....enhacement projects (bike paths, sidewalks, etc.) get 1% of all federal transportation $...and transit gets less than 10%.
cite your source please
feel free to cite your also...
my source that road use taxes are diverted to mass transit? look at the budgets for the USDOT, budgets of the state of NY, state of NJ, the PA of ny and NJ, the NY MTA, Deldot, deleware river bridge commission, sorry but you'll have to do your own googling
Your the one making the claim funds are being diverted. I may even agree with you but when you make claims such as this it is incumbent on yourself to back those claims up with facts... :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on September 06, 2008, 06:01:20 PM
Your the one making the claim funds are being diverted. I may even agree with you but when you make claims such as this it is incumbent on yourself to back those claims up with facts... :)
if you have any knowledge of road use or fuel taxes you know what I stated is true, if you want to debunk my statement provide the data that debunks my claim
Funding Favors New Roads Since 1956, when the Interstate Highway Act was passed, state and federal governments have invested nine times more on highways than on public transportation. The Interstate Highway System was completed decades ago, but our transportation system is still biased toward building new highways.
New, big highway projects have never had to go looking for friends on Capitol Hill, thanks in part to the political influence of the automobile and road-building industries, as well as other interests that stand to reap huge profits if the right projects receive a congressional green light. Yet with public concern growing over traffic and global warming, and with support for public transit on the rise, the political winds are starting to shift.
Leading up to the federal budget decisions, we’re building support at the state and municipal levels, and asking organizations and local leaders to agree to support transit projects that would:
• Expand clean, efficient transportation choices by prioritizing investment of new capital funds for light rail, commuter rail, rapid bus service, and other forms of modern public transportation.
• Fix our crumbling roads and bridges by investing more federal highway money in maintenance, not new highway projects. The federal government should prioritize maintaining and modernizing our existing highways before building more.
• Spend taxpayers’ money wisely by focusing transportation dollars on solving our nation’s biggest problems. For decades, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on highway projects with no accountability. Federal transportation money should be spent only on projects that produce real results over the long haul.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 06, 2008, 09:04:26 PM
Funding Favors New Roads Since 1956, when the Interstate Highway Act was passed, state and federal governments have invested nine times more on highways than on public transportation. The Interstate Highway System was completed decades ago, but our transportation system is still biased toward building new highways.
New, big highway projects have never had to go looking for friends on Capitol Hill, thanks in part to the political influence of the automobile and road-building industries, as well as other interests that stand to reap huge profits if the right projects receive a congressional green light. Yet with public concern growing over traffic and global warming, and with support for public transit on the rise, the political winds are starting to shift.
Leading up to the federal budget decisions, we’re building support at the state and municipal levels, and asking organizations and local leaders to agree to support transit projects that would:
• Expand clean, efficient transportation choices by prioritizing investment of new capital funds for light rail, commuter rail, rapid bus service, and other forms of modern public transportation.
• Fix our crumbling roads and bridges by investing more federal highway money in maintenance, not new highway projects. The federal government should prioritize maintaining and modernizing our existing highways before building more.
• Spend taxpayers’ money wisely by focusing transportation dollars on solving our nation’s biggest problems. For decades, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on highway projects with no accountability. Federal transportation money should be spent only on projects that produce real results over the long haul.
OCKLAWAHA
[
This obviously means we need to spend 100 million a mile to expand the skyway express
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 06, 2008, 09:04:26 PM
Funding Favors New Roads Since 1956, when the Interstate Highway Act was passed, state and federal governments have invested nine times more on highways than on public transportation. The Interstate Highway System was completed decades ago, but our transportation system is still biased toward building new highways.
New, big highway projects have never had to go looking for friends on Capitol Hill, thanks in part to the political influence of the automobile and road-building industries, as well as other interests that stand to reap huge profits if the right projects receive a congressional green light. Yet with public concern growing over traffic and global warming, and with support for public transit on the rise, the political winds are starting to shift.
Leading up to the federal budget decisions, we’re building support at the state and municipal levels, and asking organizations and local leaders to agree to support transit projects that would:
• Expand clean, efficient transportation choices by prioritizing investment of new capital funds for light rail, commuter rail, rapid bus service, and other forms of modern public transportation.
• Fix our crumbling roads and bridges by investing more federal highway money in maintenance, not new highway projects. The federal government should prioritize maintaining and modernizing our existing highways before building more.
• Spend taxpayers’ money wisely by focusing transportation dollars on solving our nation’s biggest problems. For decades, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on highway projects with no accountability. Federal transportation money should be spent only on projects that produce real results over the long haul.
OCKLAWAHA
that's all fine and dandy but ignoring the financial shell game involving the fuel taxes and how they should be used is one thing and finding financing for mass transit is another, my issue is when fuel taxes are used to fund mass transit at the expense of using the monies collected where they should be used, for highways. If you want mass transit, which is a fine idea in places like JAX, fund them properly, not on the backs of motorists and stop the scams the government and transit advocates use to fund mass transit.
Your nonsense about fat cats and politicians using highway finds for pork projects is just buzz words, the reality is that there is plenty of money to be made building rail and bus systems.
just so you understand I am not anti transit, I am against misuse of highway funds for mass transit and then seeing all the crying about how there's no money for roads. It's a governmental shell game
QuoteQuote• Spend taxpayers’ money wisely by focusing transportation dollars on solving our nation’s biggest problems. For decades, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on highway projects with no accountability. Federal transportation money should be spent only on projects that produce real results over the long haul.
This obviously means we need to spend 100 million a mile to expand the skyway express
Seems to me I already answered your question, "accountability," and "projects that produce results". The biggest failure of the Skyway was the extreme overspending on the first phases, then rebuilding it at even more cost. The biggest problem of the Skyway is that we quit just short of several more logical destinations, Stadium / San Marco / Riverside. You seem to think I'm some wealthy liberal wanting to steal money from your gas tank to build myself a train set! NOT! Turn back the pages of the TU and look who was telling the city "The Skyway is a TURKEY!" Now we either eat it or find a way to make it function, I'm for the extensions if we can keep in line with what other cities have recently spent on monorails. Some have been quite economical and ours MUST BE. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: apvbguy on September 06, 2008, 12:02:01 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 12:00:43 PM
do you know how all that even works....enhacement projects (bike paths, sidewalks, etc.) get 1% of all federal transportation $...and transit gets less than 10%.
cite your source please
the Transportation authorization bills since 1991
ISTEA
NEXTEA
SAFETEA-LU
here's a wikipedia link to start your own research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFETEA-LU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFETEA-LU)
and also a link to an interest group coalition for the upcoming reauthorization
http://t4america.org/ (http://t4america.org/)
Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2008, 11:18:45 AM
Im sure it will cause people to hate Republicans needlessly, TUFSU
It will also include some reference to the far left whackos who apparently use these 'roads' and 'highways'.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 11:16:54 AM
I would be curious to know what River has to say abolut this!
Typically nonsensical and ad hominem post, Stephen. BTW, did it occur to the original poster that the Democrats control the spending branch of the federal government, the US Congress, and could add in additional spending and just risk a veto (which Bush is not known for) if they so desired?
The other posts about the feds taking money from the trust fund for other uses are also very persuasive IMO.
The rationale for using fuel taxes for transit is that a functioning transit system removes commuters (and others) from their cars and onto that transit system. This eliminates (or delays) the need to build more highway lanes, and their attendant environmental and social problems, including splitting neighborhoods.
Should more money be spent on maintaining infrastructure than expanding it? I'm sure the folks in Minneapolis would think so.
Federally funded bridges?
The new Fuller Warren (Corrine Delivers!) and Trout River Bridges on I-95, the Buckman on I-295, the Acosta, and the Atlantic Blvd. bridge over the Intracoastal.
The Mathews, Hart, JTB, Wonderwood, and Dames Point were built by JTA with bonds backed either by tolls or the sales tax. I think Better Jax is paying for the new Beach Blvd. bridge over the ICW - so it is local sales tax, too.
Although, all are maintained with Federal and State gas taxes (JTA doesn't maintain any roads now) - like the new deck on the Mathews.
Quote from: RiversideGator on September 07, 2008, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 06, 2008, 11:18:45 AM
Im sure it will cause people to hate Republicans needlessly, TUFSU
It will also include some reference to the far left whackos who apparently use these 'roads' and 'highways'.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 06, 2008, 11:16:54 AM
I would be curious to know what River has to say abolut this!
Typically nonsensical and ad hominem post, Stephen. BTW, did it occur to the original poster that the Democrats control the spending branch of the federal government, the US Congress, and could add in additional spending and just risk a veto (which Bush is not known for) if they so desired?
The other posts about the feds taking money from the trust fund for other uses are also very persuasive IMO.
I'm pretty sure the Democrats have controlled Congress for less than 2 years and they do not have a governing majority in the Senate...the previous 12 years have been controlled primarily by the Republicans.
Regardless, its pretty hard to fund anything properly when we are working with a $500 billion deficit...this is the "inconvenikent truth" about tax cuts
No one said we shouldnt have good roads or bridges. I am saying that we should stop wasting money elsewhere and give more power and responsibility to local governments to allow them to handle their own needs.
here's an interesting article on the subject
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/09/06/MNKS12OVM3.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/09/06/MNKS12OVM3.DTL)