Posts about Republicans

The extension will stick to current funding levels, authorizing $24.78 billion in spending from the Highway Trust Fund for the first half of FY2012 (which begins October 1). That's almost $19.8 billion for highways and $4.2 billion for transit.

That's far more than the FY2012 budget just passed by the Transportation and HUD Appropriations subcommittee in the House, which agreed to $27.7 billion for highways and $5.2 billion for transit for the entire year. Although this extension can authorize more spending than that, actual spending levels are up to the appropriators. Experts say that at this level, most of the money would go to pay states back for projects already built, and new highway project funding could be cut by as much as 75 percent.

But higher spending levels also have their down side. "Maintaining current highway and transit spending levels for any period of time deepens the Highway Trust Fund's revenue hole," writes Jeff Davis, noting that according to the CBO, "the Highway Account of the Trust Fund will run out of cash at these spending levels in the first few months of calendar year 2013, with the Mass Transit Account running dry a year or so behind that)."

Rail advocates: House bill would kill Amtrak

The 2012 transportation budget passed by a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee yesterday cut all high-speed rail funding and slashes Amtrak's operating grant by 60 percent. What's more, it forbids Amtrak from using that money to fund short corridors.

Ridership on those short corridors grew five percent in the last year (PDF). Twenty-seven train lines, including several in and out of Chicago, would suddenly see their federal funding disappear, if the House budget were to become law. That would only leave the Northeast Corridor and a handful of cross-country routes; half Amtrak's ridership would be cut instantly.

According to the National Association of Railroad Passengers, a rail advocacy group, the danger goes further than just the short corridors. The organization asserts that "the bill really would kill all of Amtrak because loss of the short corridors would cut revenues and balloon costs for Northeast Corridor and national network (overnight) trains… Overhead costs—such as for station facilities and maintenance back shops—which now are shared among routes would be dumped on the surviving trains. For example, the Texas Eagle would become the sole user of the St. Louis and Fort Worth terminals and six Illinois stations. And Amtrak's Chicago terminal costs would be borne solely by eight overnight trains."

Read more »

Good news and bad news: Obama's plan would work, but GOP won't pass it

[Friday] morning brought some useful indicators about the outlook for President Obama's jobs bill. Good news first: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, says President Obama's job creation plan will likely add 1.9 million jobs, cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, and grow the economy by 2 percent.

The plan includes $50 billion for infrastructure, with an emphasis on transportation and schools, and the creation of an infrastructure bank capitalized at $10 billion. ...

Despite Moody's upbeat analysis of the president's proposal, stocks tumbled [Friday] morning. According to Bloomberg, the gloom wasn't about the merits of the plan but the likelihood of Congressional passage. "Even as President Obama made an effort to put that plan together," said James Dunigan, chief investment officer in Philadelphia for PNC Wealth Manage­ment, "there's not a whole lot of confidence that Congress will pass [it]."

Read more »

Virginia, Maryland, and DC are also raising record low amounts of revenue, adjusted for inflation, compared to almost any time in the history of their gas taxes.

Cantor says that federal bicycle and pedestrian funding in FY 2011 was around $1 billion. He claims that we spent $53 billion on highway and transit projects, which are the only types of transportation projects he considers appropriate. That means we spent 1.85% of our transportation budget on bikes and peds.

Unfortunately, the gap in our transportation budget is much larger than $1 billion.

The actual problem with the highway and transit trust funds is inflation. The federal gas tax was last raised in 1993. And since a penny buys less every year, so does the gas tax.

The federal motor fuel tax rate is currently 18.4¢ per gallon. That's the highest it's ever been in nominal dollars. But if we adjust for inflation, we see that in January 1994, 18.4¢ was worth 28¢ in 2011 dollars. That's a reduction of 34% in the value of the tax.

In actual buying power, the high point of the federal gas tax was in 1960. That year, the rate was just 4¢ (raised from 3¢ in 1959). But if we adjust for inflation, we find that 4¢ in 1960 is equal to 31¢ today.

In fact, at present we're on the cusp of dropping below the value of the gas tax when it was implemented in 1932. That year it was just one penny per gallon, which translates to 16.7¢ in today's dollars. That's not much less than the 18.4¢ we pay now.

In Cantor's home state, Virginia, the trend is even more stark. The gas tax is bringing in less money than at any time since the Commonwealth instituted the tax in 1923.

Back then, Virginia drivers had to pay a whopping 3¢ on each gallon of gasoline. But three pennies in 1923 is the equivalent of 40¢ today. That alone is more than today's Virginia and federal gas taxes combined, which add to 35.9¢/gallon.

Like the federal tax, the buying value of Virginia's state motor fuel tax has declined almost steadily since its peak in 1933, when it was at 87.8¢ in 2011 dollars (a nickel in 1933 dollars). It was last raised in 1987, when it went from 11¢ per gallon to 17.5¢ per gallon (raised from 22¢ to 35¢ in 2011 dollars). Due to inflation, Virginia's gas tax has lost 50% of its value over the last 24 years, and is now lower than ever before.

This is a difficult concept for many people to understand, at least in the abstract. That makes it easy for people to accidentally or purposefully mislead with figures. Consider the position of the Virginia Petroleum, Convenience and Grocery Association, the industry group representing many convenience stores in the state:

Whereas, In 1987, the first full year after Virginia's motor fuel taxes were last increased, the state collected $468 million. For 2009 motor fuel tax collections were $904 million, an increase of 93.1 percent; ... Now Therefore Be It Resolved, ... VPCGA opposes any effort to expand local motor fuel taxation, as well as any effort to increase the rate of the existing local taxes...

If we adjust the 1987 gas tax revenue to 2009 dollars we can make a more valid comparison. $468 million in 1987 would be a touch over $872 million in 2009 dollars. That means that the 2009 revenue of $904 million is only a 3.67% increase over the 1987 revenue.

Another problem with gas tax revenues is the growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). VMT growth is outstripping growth in gas tax revenues. This is due somewhat to an increase in gas mileage. In Virgina, VMT increased from 54.8 billion in 1987 to 80.9 billion in 2009. That's a VMT increase of 48%, while motor fuel tax revenues increased by less than 4% (inflation adjusted) over the same period. This means that people are driving a lot more without paying the correspondingly higher taxes that would be needed to keep the transportation system fully funded.

Like the rest of the country, Virginia is facing ever greater demand for all modes of transportation, but it has not raised the primary tax funding these programs in 24 years. And in fact, due to inflation, that tax's value has been dropping.

The other jurisdictions in the region face the same issues.

Maryland last raised its gas tax in 1992. It's been declining ever since in inflation-adjusted dollars. The current tax of 23.5¢ was worth 37¢ of 2011 buying power in 1993. The high point for Maryland's gas tax was in 1933, when the 4-penny tax was worth 70¢ in 2011 dollars.

The District just raised its gas tax by 3.5¢ to match Maryland's, from 20¢ to 23.5¢. DC hit its peak in 1955, when its 6¢ tax was worth 51¢ in 2011 dollars.

Raising taxes is a hard proposition for many politicians these days, but if we're going to keep our transportation infrastructure competitive then we need to find new revenues. The gas tax may be all or part of the solution, and it is overdue to be raised.

It's been over 700 days since the transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU) expired. It's been extended 7 times since then. It's now set to expire on the 30th of this month. If Congress lets the extension expire, the federal gas tax will stop. So will construction projects and grants all over the country.

We need a new bill, not just an extension. And this bill needs to be more progressive than the last one. We need a bill that encourages complete streets, recognizes the ability of livable communities to affect transportation demand, and one that gives states and regions more flexibility to decide the best course.

But the only way we'll be able to catch up on our decaying infrastructure and prepare for the future is to deal with the decline of the value of the gas tax. Now that Congress is back in session, it's time to deal with this mess.

If our elected officials do decide to raise the gas tax, one way to stop continued inflationary slide in its value would be to make it a sales tax rather than an excise tax. So, instead of charging a tax each gallon, the tax could be levied on each dollar spent on gasoline.

Whatever the solution is, it won't be found merely by cutting bikesharing programs, even if that does make a good soundbite in Mr. Cantor's district.

Why a six-year bill

At yesterday's press event to roll out the bill, Mica and other House members explained their commitment to a six-year bill, in contrast to the Senate proposal of a two-year bill.

"We want long term bill," Mica said. "We heard across the country that our state secretaries of transportation want some stability."

Richard Hanna, the vice chair of the Highways and Transit subcommittee, contended that the stimulus failed to boost employment significantly because "shovel-ready," short-term projects don't create many jobs.

"By passing a six-year transportation bill, this committee will provide the states and transportation agencies with an established stream of federal funding that will allow them to take on major projects," said Hanna. "Given this predictability, states will be more comfortable taking on bridge replacement, highway interchange improvements, etc. These are projects that provide jobs for two or three years, not two or three months."

Without the assurance of a long-term bill, Hanna said, "states will continue to put off major construction projects."

"The two year plan is a recipe for bankruptcy of the trust fund and also a closedown of long term projects across the country," said Mica. "And if you don't believe that, look what's happened. We're under a two-year extension right now, which expires in September. That'll be two years. And look what it's given us! Not much."

Even advocates of a short bill agree that a longer one is ideal, as it allows for planning, but they say transportation agencies can't plan major projects with the tiny trickle of federal funding the House bill would let flow to the states, either. Some state DOT heads say they'd rather have adequate funding for two years than meager funding for six.

Rules and funding constraints

Mica made it clear that while he's also disappointed the funding levels are so low, he's hampered by the political climate of fiscal conservatism in the House and, more specifically, by House Rule XXI, which includes a "pay-as-you-go" provision that Mica takes as a prohibition on spending more than the Highway Trust Fund takes in.

"I wish I could jump over the moon," Mica said, "but I can't do that either."

He said several times that he and other committee members would be appearing before the Ways and Means Committee, which makes decisions about how to fund programs, to appeal for help. He wasn't very specific about what they'd ask for, though he did mention some bonding and tax credits for private companies investing in infrastructure. He wouldn't say that he would push for any kind of increased user fee, whether a gas tax hike or a VMT charge.

"We've tried to look at every dollar of revenue that's coming in and how we can maximize it," Mica said, explaining that by consolidating programs, encouraging private investment and streamlining the review process, he thinks they can "do more with less."

They're eliminating 70 programs out of the "mind-boggling" list of federal transportation programs and "devolving to the states the ability to approve" programs. Federal mandates for certain programs (including bike, pedestrian, and other livability programs) will be eliminated, but states will maintain the "flexibility" to spend money on those things. Unfortunately, if history is any guide, many states end up under-spending on these alternative transportation programs, even disproportionately sending bike/ped money back to Washington when called upon to rescind funds from their budgets.

Mica said there will be more money available (despite the smaller size of the bill) for all of those programs because it cuts federal overhead costs and eliminates the need for state and local officials to "hightail it to Washington to talk to some bureaucrat in one of the agencies."

Focus on highways

"The focus of the bill is on the national highway system," Mica said, in answer to a question about the elimination of funding for walkability. "We can't fund every local project."

"We're trying to make certain that our federal responsibility is met first, and that's our interstates and our major infrastructure projects."

He then used the opportunity to boast that the bill has no earmarks, reducing the amount spent on frivolous "pet" projects, and that there are no "special set-asides"—Republican code for things like multi-use trails.

Republicans say their plan would keep the Highway Trust Fund afloat, whereas Democrats' plans would drive it into the red.

The bill doesn't have any dollar amounts attached to specific programs but Rep. Bill Shuster said that it doesn't have anything specifically for high-speed rail. Still, he promised that the plan would improve upon the high-speed rail program, which he accused the Obama administration of "mishandling."

"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." He also pledged greater transparency.

They're cutting Amtrak's funding by 25 percent and placing limits on what the funding can be used for. For example, Shuster said, it couldn't be "squandered" on lawsuits like one that Amtrak is involved in now.

The plan also calls for improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program, which is funded at $35 billion but has only managed to spend about $1 billion in the last 13 years.

No competition but private competition for transit

Mica is one Republican who has long been a fan of rail and mass transit. At yesterday's event he said, "When you see the price of one car on the road, and new highway construction through metropolitan areas or even rural areas, you become an advocate of transportation alternatives."

Still, that support hasn't translated into any breaks for transit in this bill. Even with transit's share of the overall pie staying the same, the reduced overall funding levels would mean a cut from about $11 billion for transit today to about $7 billion.

On the positive side, the proposal would "streamline" the New Starts and Small Starts program for transit, "cutting project development time in half," according to the plan. Indeed, project development times are slated, under this plan, to go from 15 years to six by making federal reviews happen at the same times, instead of each waiting for another to end.

But overall there's a lot of bad news for transit in this bill. The transit section also encourages private companies to provide public transportation services. House Republicans like what they see in the success of privately run intercity buses and want to see vanpools compete with city buses in urban areas, in addition to more private participation in rail transit. Some critics of private participation at this level worry that private operators will take over the lucrative routes, leaving the slower routes for public agencies to run (and lose money on).

The plan would also repeal discretionary transit programs that the Republicans say are "unpredictable and not transparent," returning instead to strict formula funding. This move flies in the face of repeated and growing demands for increased performance measures, which would often use discretionary funds as a "carrot" to encourage cost-effective programs that meet national transportation goals.

Indeed, the House bill is notable in its rejection of performance measures and competitive programs like TIGER and the Sustainable Communities grants instituted by the Obama administration. Committee staffer Jim Tymon had to field Streetsblog's question on performance measures when Mica couldn't answer it, but Tymon's response was vague.

He said that performance measures would be developed in conert with USDOT and state DOTs. He said that while states will have increased flexibility for how they spend their money, they will be held accountable for how they meet performance standards. If they don't meet those standards, he said, they will be made to spend money in the areas where they are underperforming.

An unlikely ally

While responses continue to roll in from advocacy groups and lawmakers alarmed by the funding cuts, several notable people called in to Mica's press event to thank him for the new proposal. One of them was L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a champion of transit investment. He thanked Mica for "listening to the 113 mayors who have gotten behind the expansion of TIFIA."

"Your proposal to raise the budget authority of TIFIA to a billion dollars goes beyond even what many of us had talked about early on," Villaraigosa said, "and we think it's exactly where it needs to be."

That's a useful high-profile endorsement for Mica from a pro-transit Democrat. Still, it's unlikely the mayor will support Mica's plan over Boxer's, which also includes America Fast Forward, another plan supported by Villaraigosa to increase federal leveraging of private funds.

Cross-posted at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

The contention that replacing these parking spots with bikeshare parking costs the county money and is a bad idea is wrong in so many ways.

First, the only way it costs the county money is if every single spot within blocks is completely full. That's because someone seeking street parking (like the woman in the video) will likely find another spot and pay there, although it may be less conveniently located.

Second, these spaces will get utilized much more than a car parking spot. If even 2-3 people use the bikeshare station over a two-hour period, that's likely more people than would have used the metered spot it replaced anyway.

Third, it's good for business. As this recent economic article clarifies, the use of public space for bike parking is far more cost effective than for car parking.

Fourth, it actually can make it more convenient, even for car drivers. As I point out in the video, I parked my car near a CaBi station with plenty of adjacent street parking and then took the CaBi bike the 5-6 blocks to where I needed to meet my friend.

This was quicker and easier than trying to find a spot (whether or not any had been given to bikes) near the intersection of Moore and Wilson in Rosslyn. I would have almost certainly circled the block at least once and, if I had found a spot, it would have been not that close to where I was trying to go--forcing me to walk several blocks anyway. What I did was much faster and more convenient.

Thus, having plenty of Bikeshare stations sprinkled throughout a dense area can make it more convenient for drivers, because it greatly expands the area where they can find parking and still easily access their destination.

Occasional GGW contributor and Arlington resident Erik Bootsma wrote:

As a Republican (gasp!) and an Arlington resident, and I can tell you that using the CaBi is something I would use extensively. ... I can't tell you how frustrating the GOP here can be, with their 100% dashboard mentality. Freedom of choice also means freedom from HAVING to own a car, so having options is great.

I have a car myself and like having it, but also like having the option to use transit, to have a bike and to walk. If the GOP here doesn't wake up to the reality of Arlington/Washington urban life they will remain at 20%.

They need to be more responsive to the real desires of their constituency and realize that if I wanted to live in a sea of asphalt and parking lots, and wanted to avoid walking at all costs, I'd live in Manassas, not in Arlington ... Just because I'm in favor of living in a city, doesn't mean I'm a central planning statist bent on taking away freedom.

Improving flexibility of travel options and making parking more equitable and convenient for everyone increases access and foot traffic to local businesses, and that's something any political party ought to support.