Greater Greater Washington

Government


LaHood vows to avert federal transportation bankruptcy

The Obama administration is working on a plan to fill the shortfall in the nation's highway trust fund by August without adding to the federal deficit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Congress today.

raylahood.jpg
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: HillBuzz)

The circumstances behind the trust fund's financial troubles are well-known: a nationwide decline in driving coupled with political resistance to raising the gas taxwhich has remained static since 1993forced the Bush administration to push $8 billion into the federal transportation coffers last summer. But that infusion was not offset by corresponding spending cuts, which LaHood says the Obama team is committed to this time around.

"We believe very strongly that any trust fund fix must be paid for," LaHood told members of the House Appropriations Committee's transportation panel. "We also believe that any trust fund fix must be tied to reform of the current highway program to make it more performance-based and accountable, such as improving safety or improving the livability of our communitiestwo priorities for me."

Urbanites and transit riders may be cheered by LaHood's call to tie new highway funding to livability. Yet the administration's quest to offset its trust fund fix, which will cost as much as $7 billion, could prove fruitless.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the panel that greeted LaHood today, put it simply when asked if the necessary spending cuts could be found. "That'd be very tough," he said, noting that his own annual transportation spending is unlikely to become law before the highway trust fund runs out of cash.

Livable streets advocates may wonder why the highway trust fund is relevant to their cause, particularly since the mass transit account of the fund isn't projected to go bust until 2012.

The answer is pragmatic and incrementalbut unfortunately, so is Congress. Replenishing the trust fund with a cost offset, as LaHood suggests, requires a serious conversation about finding new long-term revenue sources for not just highways but all modes of transportation.

If lawmakers take the easy way out by not paying for the trust fund fix, it doesn't bode well for their chances of writing a new federal transportation bill that dedicates more money to streetcars, buses and rail, not to mention more responsible spending on roads.

Already there is a broad acknowledgment in Congress that the six-year federal bill will likely be put off until 2010. Rep. Tom Latham (IA), the senior Republican in charge of transportation spending, even predicted that the federal bill would not pass until 2011; next year is an election year, after all, which never inspires courage in the Capitol.

The ball is now in the court of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the trust fund and would be tasked with finding spending cuts to offset any upcoming transfer of transportation money. Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has influence and moxie to rival any of his fellow lawmakers, but he has been silent on transportation funding issues as health care and climate change legislation take center stage for now.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Elana Schor is Streetsblog's national reporter, covering federal transportation policy in Washington and nationwide. She has covered Capitol Hill for The Hill, The Guardian, and Talking Points Memo, and lives in Mount Pleasant. 

Comments

I heard on the radio that the city government wants to build a hotel at the downtown convention center. Apparently they need to in order to compete with the National Harbor.

But since there's no transit, the NH is obviously a failure, right?

by MPC on Jun 4, 2009 10:51 pm • linkreport

During the original debate on funding the highway trust fund, as well as transportation funding in general, the Bush administration was unwilling, and correctly so, to talk about funding without talking about how that funding is distributed. The federal transportation budget is nearly 100% pork, guided by Congressional desire rather than any unified, national plan. Congress was unwilling to couple a discussion of raising money with a discussion of how the money is spent, so nothing happened. Thus then eventual need for the $8 billion tranfer just to keep the fund solvent.

by ksu499 on Jun 5, 2009 8:18 am • linkreport

Actually, ksu, only about 10-20% (generally) of the federal transportation budget is pork. The rest gets distributed through specific funding formulas based on population, vehicle traffic, lane milage, and whatnot.

by Froggie on Jun 5, 2009 12:24 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or