Tag Archives: transportation

Road Funding Day Organizers Hope to Pave Way for Transportation Movement

Posted on by

Categories: Government, Transportation

Reply

Properly funding Indiana's highway and road system is critical toward promoting a healthy infrastructure — a vital element of our state's business climate. There are a variety of related bills in the Indiana Legislature this session, though little clarity remains on how to pay for future needs. Advocates will gather at the Statehouse on February 19 to emphasize the importance of the issue . Experts will be on hand to offer talking points, answer questions and lead the effort. Details are as follows:

Schedule
9:45 a.m.   Registration
10:15 a.m.   Road Funding Legislative Briefing
11 a.m.   Depart for the Statehouse
11 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Legislator Visits

Location
The Road Funding Legislative Briefing will be at the Build Indiana Council office located at One North Capitol Avenue, Suite 1005 in downtown Indianapolis. (This is just across the street from the Indiana Statehouse.)

Registration
While registration is not required for participation in Road Funding Day, it would be helpful for planning purposes. Also, if you pre-register, we will be able to notify you should the schedule change for any reason. There is no registration fee. For free online registration, please visit www.roadfundingday.eventbrite.com.

Reps. Bucshon, Carson to Host Transportation Jobs Fair in Indy

Posted on by

Categories: Transportation

1

A nice opportunity here from two Indiana Congressmen. Rep. Larry Bucshon's office writes: As many of you know, in the 112th Congress we passed several bills that make it easier for Veterans to obtain a CDL and additional transportation related jobs. We’re hoping to have a large turnout from potential employers and those who are looking for a job in the transportation industry. Here are the details:

When: February 21, 2013, 2 – 6 p.m. EST
Where: Ivy Tech Corporate College Illinois Fall Creek Center – 2532 N. Capitol Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46208
Hosted by: U.S. Congressman André Carson (IN-07) & U.S. Congressman Larry Bucshon (IN-08)
Please Note: There is no charge for participating in this event.
Employer Setup is noon – 2 p.m. the day of the event.

*Employers can register for the jobs fair by filling out the Job Fair Registration Form.

**For more information, please contact Erin Pugh at (812) 232-0523 or at erin.pugh@mail.house.gov.
 

Business Movement Grows to Support Transportation Infrastructure

Posted on by

Categories: Business News

Reply

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to Congress on January 23 encouraging it to support investment in the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. The letter had around 1,000 signatories from the business community, as most feel enhanced transportation infrastructure (better bridges, public transportation, etc.) will make America a better place to do business. Congress has until March 31 to reauthorize the current funding law: 

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE AND SENATE:

As Congress embarks on a new legislative session, we, the undersigned companies and organizations, urge you to Make Transportation Job #1 in 2012 and pass federal highway, transit and safety legislation before the current law expires on March 31. The long-delayed reauthorization of federal highway and public transportation programs is a major piece of unfinished business that can provide a meaningful boost to the U.S. economy and its workers and already has broad-based support.

To grow, the United States must invest. There are few federal efforts that rival the potential of critical transportation infrastructure investments for sustaining and creating jobs and economic activity over the short term.

Maintaining at 2011 levels—and ideally increasing—federal funding for road, bridge, public transportation and safety investments can sustain and create jobs and economic activity in the short-term, and improve America’s export and travel infrastructure, offer new economic growth opportunities, and make the nation more competitive over the long-term. Program reform would make the dollars stretch even further: reducing the time it takes transportation projects to get from start to finish, encouraging public-private partnerships and use of private capital, increasing accountability for using federal funds to address the highest priority needs, and spurring innovation and technology deployment.

We recognize there are challenges in finding the resources necessary to adequately fund such a measure. However, with the economic opportunities that a well-crafted measure could afford and emerging political consensus for advancing such an effort, we believe it is time for all involved parties to come together and craft a final product.

In 2011, political leaders—Republican and Democrat, House, Senate and the Administration — stated a multi-year surface transportation bill is important for job creation and economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action: Make Transportation Job #1 and move legislation immediately in the House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges, transit systems that are the backbone of the U.S. economy, its businesses large and small, and communities of all sizes.

 

A New Way to Pay for Highways

Posted on by

Categories: Government

Reply

How to pay for current and future road repairs is a challenge for nearly all states. The federal Highway Trust Fund is not the answer, at least not in its current form. Governing magazine asked a Tax Foundation expert for his perspective on some alternatives. Governing reports:

Commute to work is a bit on the bumpy side, then you know the answer is road repairs. The follow up question is: Given how long this downturn has afflicted state and local budgets, who’s going to pay to repair potholes and the like?

Well, it’s not going to be the feds. The Highway Trust Fund, which finances an average 45 percent of a state’s highway and transit capital costs, is shrinking. One reason for that shrinkage is that the federal gas tax has been stuck at its current rate (18.4 cents per gallon) since 1993, which means it is not keeping up with inflation, to say nothing of state needs. Congress is not likely to raise the federal gas tax rate this year or next, so that leaves the states. In theory, they have a little room to raise or tinker with their gas tax formula — something most states have not done in years.

Given the importance of a healthy road system to economic development, what approaches could states take to raise revenue for road repair and building? I put that question to Mark Robyn, an economist with the Tax Foundation. Here’s an edited version of our conversation:

Is this a good time for states to raise their motor fuel taxes?

It’s difficult to raise most taxes. The gas tax — an excise tax — is interesting because it’s one of the few that states levy that really looks like a user fee. You pay it when you use a specific service, and the rate is set at a level to pay for the service you consume. It’s like an entrance charge to a state park. You wouldn’t call that a tax as long as that revenue is used to pay for upkeep of the park and the charge reflects what the costs are.

The gas tax, though not perfect, is an approximation of that relationship. Revenue received from gas taxes usually is used for road and highway maintenance; the fee you pay approximates how much road you consume. But different cars get different gas mileages; electric cars don’t even use gas but they also don’t cause less damage to the road. So the gas tax is not perfect but it is similar to a user fee. If states want to structure the gas tax like a user fee and if the state is not getting the money it needs for roads and repair, the next logical step would be to increase the gas tax. But people have to believe the money is being spent wisely. Not all states do that, and people say, "Well, I see this waste of money. If you increase my taxes, you’ll waste a portion of it." When I say states are wasting money, I mean they are using it for road projects that people don’t see as valuable — the "bridge to nowhere." If there are no "bridges to nowhere" and people are driving over potholes, they’ll be more willing to accept gas taxes to avoid potholes.

Surface Funds Go Far Beyond the Surface

Posted on by

Categories: Chamber News

Reply

When is federal transportation funding not really transportation funding? According to the Heritage Foundation, it’s when 35% of the allotted funds that come from our gasoline taxes are "diverted to high-cost, underutilized programs like trolley cars, transit, covered bridges, hiking trails, earmarks, administrative overhead, streetscapes, flower planting, hiking and bicycle paths, museums, transportation enhancements, tourist attractions and archaeology."

I don’t think Heritage or anyone else is questioning the need for at least some of the initiatives identified above. The concern, a legitimate one, is where should the money come from. Interested to hear your perspective on this one?

Below is an explanation from Heritage about the requirement to divert funds, the 12 categories eligible for diversion and how one state has used its funding:  

Under current law, each state is required to devote 10 percent of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds it receives each year from the federal highway trust fund to eligible enhancement projects as defined in existing statutes. Under legislation extended by SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), fiscal year 2012 spending authorizations for the STP will total $9.3 billion, implying that enhancement spending would then total $930 million that year.

According to current law, enhancement program spending must be limited to the following 12 purposes:

  • Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles;

  • Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists;

  • Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites (including historic battlefields);

  • Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities);

  • Landscaping and other scenic beautification;

  • Historic preservation;

  • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities;

  • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors;

  • Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising;

  • Archaeological planning and research;

  • Environmental mitigation; and

  • Establishment of transportation museums. 

The Virginia Department of Transportation provides detailed information on its enhancement projects, and its annual list illustrates just how silly the program can get, as measured by the misspending on approved projects using scarce federal transportation dollars. Among the 82 approved projects costing $30.2 million for FY 2012 are the restoration of the historic Bull Mill in Scott County, a hiking trail on an abandoned rail bed in Buchanan County, renovation of a former rail passenger waiting area in Danville, renovation of the LaCrosse Hotel, restoration of the Assateague and Cape Henry lighthouses, construction of a pilot schooner for a Norfolk museum, smartphone-based battlefield tours, and gateway signs to various Virginia wine regions.

 

Riding the Rails, Slowly but Surely

Posted on by

Categories: Chamber News

Reply

The road to high-speed rail has been a rocky one in many places. In the Northwest, purposeful efforts to slow down are proving successful – producing more riders at less cost. The goal is to increase the speed incrementally. Are there lessons to be learned? Governing magazine has the column.

Civic leaders still call their town the “Hub City,” a holdover from its role a century ago as a rail center for the movement of goods and people in all directions. A dozen passenger trains a day — half northbound, half southbound — still rumble through this western city of 16,000 that sits equidistant between Portland and Seattle.

They are run by the Washington state government-subsidized Amtrak Cascades passenger service, which has taken a deliberately incremental approach to developing the Cascadia corridor running from Eugene, Ore., to Vancouver, B.C.

Passenger rail service has been central to the corridor’s strategy and is reflected in a 15-year track record of increasing ridership (up 10 percent in the last year alone) and fares that cover nearly two-thirds of operating expenses. The strategy has marshaled local investment in infrastructure and forged partnerships with those who have an interest in the shared rail bed, including cities and towns along the corridor, Amtrak, the freight carrier Burlington Northern Santa Fe, federal funding agencies and regulators.

In the Northwest, passenger rail has purposely taken some of the speed out of high speed. Instead, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) measures its rail initiatives based on a three-part definition of convenience: reducing total trip time while boosting system efficiency and average speed. Scott Witt, former director of WSDOT’s State Rail and Marine Office, says a number of studies all indicate that sticking with faster (rather than fastest) rail would allow the region to realize 90 percent of the ridership and revenue targets at 50 percent of the cost of true high-speed rail, which can peak at 150 mph on Amtrak’s Acela service in the Northeast.

The lion’s share of the $781 million in federal passenger rail funding awarded to Washington is dedicated to raising the average speed by eliminating slow parts of the corridor with new bypasses and other upgrades.

This incremental approach to higher-speed rail has not isolated the service from the complexities of establishing a governance structure for the multistate, binational effort in which five governments must act in concert with one another. As part of that mix, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is transitioning from being a regulatory and safety organization to one responsible for project delivery, funding and management. Witt, whose career has been in project delivery, notes, “The FRA just has not seen this level of funding and complexity before.”

Still, he remains confident that the state will get there. “Our long-range vision is still to establish a dedicated high-speed track with trains running at up to 150 miles per hour,” says Witt, “but we’re laying the foundation to get there step-by-step.”

Train Travel Proponents Have Something to ‘Rail’ About

Posted on by

Categories: BizVoice

4

Mention the word "rail" and let the discussions begin:

  • I edited some transportation copy yesterday for our next BizVoice that, of course, includes rail — along with highways, air and ports — as critical to Indiana’s infrastructure for moving commodities and finished products.
  • Add "light" in front of the "rail" and you have many wondering how cities, like Indianapolis, could be even better if there were efficient public transportation measures in place. Opponents rightfully point out the heavy investment needed to make such efforts a reality.
  • Switch light to ‘high speed" and the controversy soars to an even higher level. The very brief history lesson is Europe thrives on moving people quickly and effectively; the U.S. lags way behind and appears destined to remain that way.

The latest on the high-speed front, courtesy of Stateline.org:

Congress on Tuesday (April 12) revealed the details of the federal budget deal reached by Democrats and Republicans late last week, and a clear loser is high-speed rail.

Funding for the program, a priority for President Obama, was slashed dramatically in the agreement announced by the administration and GOP House Speaker John Boehner. Not only does the deal eliminate all financing for high-speed rail this year, it takes back $400 million of the $2.5 billion that Congress authorized for it last year, The New York Times reports.

"The cuts will not bring the rail program to a halt, as there is still unspent rail money that can be used on new projects. But they leave the future of high-speed rail in the United States unclear, to say the least," The Times says. "Roughly $10 billion has been approved for high-speed rail so far, but that money has been spread to dozens of projects around the country. If Congress does not approve more money, it is possible that the net result of all that spending will be better regular train service in many areas, and a small down payment on one bullet train, in California."

High-speed rail has been a favorite target for congressional and state-level Republicans who see it as a waste of money. The opposition in the states has been led by three GOP governors who rejected funding for projects in their states: Rick Scott of Florida, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. 

Pay Here & Get Gas

Posted on by

Categories: Energy, Tax/Finance

Reply

The gasoline tax comes with its share of controversies. Add another one to the mix as a leading transportation columnist says it’s simply wrong to call the gas tax a user fee. Find out why he says that is important in the battle for future transportation infrastructure funding. Alex Marshall of Governing opines:

I went to the grocery store today and bought an apple. While eating it, I complained that proceeds from the sales tax I paid were used for other things than agricultural support programs.

This made-up anecdote is similar to how highway advocates, who I’ll call “road firsters,” talk about the gas tax, which they erroneously label a “user fee.” Road firsters criticize the planned high-speed rail lines for needing subsidies while saying that the gas tax is actually a user fee, which means roads are self-sufficient. This is logically and factually wrong.

A gas tax might appear to be a user fee at first, because you need gas to drive. But this confuses the meaning of the term.

To qualify as a user fee, you must have a choice as to whether or not you pay it. It also must relate directly to a particular service that you can accept or reject, and to the number of times you use that service.

When it comes to roads, a toll on a highway or bridge is a true user fee. If you don’t want to pay to travel on a limited-access expressway or bridge, you can choose a different route. And every time you use a particular highway or bridge with a toll, you pay a fee. You don’t pay one toll and then use the Golden Gate Bridge as many times as you like.

The same is true about paying a fee to enter a national park. That’s a true user fee. You can choose not use a park if you don’t like the fee.

But pretty much everyone in this country, except for a tiny percentage of people living in cities like New York, have to drive—to jobs, schools and grocery stores. We can’t choose not to buy gas any more than we can choose not to buy food.

Plus, once we pay the gas tax, we have no choice about where the money goes. When I fill up my car with gas, I can’t choose that the tax money goes to repair the potholes on my street instead of the brand new interchange on the other side of the state. However, once I do pay the gas tax, I can use one stretch of road or a bridge as many times as I like with no additional charge. That’s not a user fee. There’s a reason the gas tax is called a tax—because it is one.

Transportation: Roads Lead to Different Conclusions

Posted on by

Categories: BizVoice, Business News

Reply

The Rockefeller Foundation has a $66 million transportation initiative "aimed at promoting equitable and sustainable transportation policies at the federal and state level."

Its recent survey, released yesterday, carries the following headline: Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey Reveals Bipartisan Support for Transportation and Infrastructure Investments and Reform. The subhead (in the effort to construct the longest lead-in to a press release in history adds: Four in five voters agree that federal funding to improve and modernize transportation will boost local economies and create jobs.

There’s actually another one-liner about the intent of the initiative before the study results are revealed. The final point of four key findings asserts that "American voters are open to several funding streams for national transportation projects."

In contrast, The Washington Post headlined its Monday story (prior to the poll’s release) with this headline: Rockefeller Foundation survey: Americans rank transportation needs high but don’t want to pay the costs.

Its story emphasized:

  • 78 percent of those surveyed say private investors should be tapped to rebuild the country’s aging infrastructure
  • 71 percent opposed a tax increase, 64 percent were against new tolls on existing roads and bridges, and 58 percent said no to paying for each mile they drive

Good information from both on a critically important issue (in fact, the Chamber’s BizVoice magazine will tackle transportation and paying for infrastructure improvements in its May-June issue). Just a radically different approach on what to focus on.

Costly Rail Projects Casualties of 2010 Election

Posted on by

Categories: Government

Reply

Efforts to advance high-speed rail in Indiana have always focused on a Midwest approach. Those efforts suffered a setback in last week’s election as new governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have clearly stated their intentions to halt projects in their states supported by federal funds. Stateline reports:

A shift from Democrats to Republicans in the governor’s mansions of Ohio and Wisconsin means that federally backed high-speed rail projects in both states likely will be stopped in their tracks.

Last week, just days after Republican Scott Walker won election to succeed Democratic Governor Jim Doyle in Wisconsin, Doyle’s administration told contractors on one of the projects, a proposed line between Madison and Milwaukee, to temporarily stop working, citing Walker’s victory, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. In his successful campaign, Walker ran on a vow to end the project, which he considers a waste of money.

In Ohio, Republican governor-elect John Kasich is calling on Democrat Ted Strickland — whom he defeated on Tuesday (November 2) —to promptly cancel a pair of studies on a proposed rail line connecting Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus. "Given that the train is dead under John, no additional state or taxpayer dollars should be spent on this project," a spokesman for Kasich told The Columbus Dispatch.

Ohio’s rail project is expected to cost $450 million and Wisconsin’s has been allocated $810 million in federal stimulus funds, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. It is not clear what will happen to the federal money if both new governors follow through on their pledges to cancel rail projects, though Walker has said he wants to use the money to repair Wisconsin’s roads and bridges instead, according to The Journal.

So far, the anti-rail pledges by Walker and Kasich are the most notable spending cuts being proposed by Republicans who swept into numerous governor’s offices last week. As Stateline reported Thursday (November 4), at least 11 new Republican governors and one new Democrat, New York’s Andrew Cuomo, have vowed to address tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfalls without raising taxes, leaving major spending cuts as the likeliest outcome.