Comments on GOP transportation bill's new direction is the same old one - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Falls Church

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:20:53 EDT

The bright side of this bill is that its bad for sprawl and not bad for people who live in dense, walkable areas, hence promoting that kind of development over sprawl. This country has subsidized things like transpo and energy for a long time and its caused overconsumption of both.

I don't agree that people are always opposes to tolls. I think they're ok with it for new roads, just not for what is free today.

Comment by Froggie

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:55:58 EDT

Bossi pretty much hits the nail on the head. The electorate as a whole has demonstrated that, while they want better roads and transportation, they're not willing to pay for it. They're against a higher gas tax...they're against tolls. And when you eliminate those two, there aren't many funding options left.

@Scoot: given the general drop in funding to begin with, and HSR funding in particular, it would appear the intent is to kill HSR.

Comment by Scoot

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:53:28 EDT

"We're going to fix it in this bill," Shuster said, "requiring that projects are truly high-speed—and the definition of high-speed will not be 110 mph; it will be 125 mph."

Is 125 mph a realistic goal or is this stipulation just meant to kill high speed rail projects that are, say, 110 mph? Is there enough money authorized for building a true 125 mph network, so does this mean any project is now dead in the water because unrealistic goals are unable to be met?

Comment by charlie

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:57:41 EDT

I'd agree the current environment is not great for a fuel tax increase, but any messaging coming out of "progressive" circles should have that as a headline. 18c federal fuel tax is too low in the world of $3-$4 gasoline.

Index it to inflation, call it something else "contribution to national reserves", but increase it!

Comment by Bossi

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:44:55 EDT

As always, Yonah Freemark has some great coverage of the legislation:

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/07/07/for-federal-transportation-investment-a-difficult-prognosis/

The short of it... the Republican bill is much less than ideal, but at least they know how they'll pay for it. The Democrat's bill offers quite a bit more but is vague on the ever-important funding details.

Comment by Tim

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:41:16 EDT

@charlie: A fuel tax increase will never pass, at least in this Congress.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:37:12 EDT

This article is a mishmash.

Cutting transportation funding levels to where it balances the anticipated gas tax is fine. Transit will also get cut in that.

What I don't see in here is a comprehensive defense of TIGER. TIGER creates some nice headlines, but does it actually do anything.

The two things that should be in any bill:

1. Increase in the gas tax.
2. Incentive programs to reduce the amount of imported oil. If that means regional disparity (i.e. more projects on the east coast to get us off that Venezuelan crap from the Virgin Islands) deal with it.

A nice first step would be nationalizing CITGO.