Wednesday, November 3, 2010
What Changes Will the New Congress Bring?
Based on the November 2 mid-term elections in the U.S., there will be a new landscape on Capitol Hill in January. Republicans will control the House of Representatives while Democrats will hold onto a thin majority in the Senate. What do these changes mean for transportation? What effect will the new balance of power in Congress have on transportation authorization, the fuel tax, tolling, public private partnerships, livability, and protecting the public benefit?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The French have a saying "The more things change, the more they remain the same" I'd love to project a rosy picture but I see even more gridlock ahead with every issue on the plant ahead of transportation screaming for attention.
ReplyDeleteHowever if Rep Mica can put together a shorter lived authorization bill, within, or at least close to, available gas tax funding then we can get some better provisions allowing for more tolling and the Public Benefit option is likley dead.
Since tolling operates at the margins of the big funding issues, there might be a pony in there somewhere
I hope Larry is correct about the tolling pony. But I'm fearful that tolls will be tarred and feathered along with taxes. Even the Dems are talking about tax cuts. With jobs, health care rollback and taxes on the agenda, it may take a while to get to transportation funding. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. I'm very discouraged.
ReplyDeleteI would like to be an optimist in viewing the new landscape in Washington, and view the glass as half-full. The optimist in me would point to the fact that with control of Congress now split between the two leading national parties, the ability to get anything done will require bipartisan approaches and a willingness to compromise. While I believe that transportation is going to have a difficult time rising to the top of the national agenda in the next two years, the likely focus on job creation and the economy is likely to spur additional consideration of transportation investment as a means to address both needs. Action from both Congress and the Administration may create sorely needed transportation investment immediately with an eye toward job creation and economic stimulus. As long as there is enough credit to be shared among Republicans and Democrats, transportation might get an immediate investment boost.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would like to be an optimist, the critical thinker in me sees indications of the glass being half-empty as well. The immediate transportation investment that might come from Washington will not address the long-term issues of revenue and adequate funding. Given the fact that tackling the transportation funding issues is not likely to produce political gain for either party, the likelihood of Congressional gridlock on authorization of a new transportation bill is not a concern, because the entire debate will probably be deferred until after the next presidential election. This portends extensions of the expired surface transportation funding legislation and the likelihood of more general fund infusions to supplement the insolvent Highway Trust Fund. Consequently, there is likely to be a lot of work left to be done in 2013.
This leads me back to optimism for the role of the toll industry in the interim. The likelihood of a relatively static federal environment for progress on authorization and long-term transportation funding will continue to bolster the consideration of road pricing in project finance and long-term state and regional planning. As long as the toll industry -- public agencies, private toll road operators, and the private sector equipment and service providers – can collectively maintain a focus on interoperability, tolling may be very well positioned to play a more prominent role in the transportation solutions for the future.
Posted by:
Mark F. Muriello
The Port Authority of NY & NJ
Oddly enough, next to health care reform, the Obama Administration touts transportation spending as their second biggest accomplishment. Republicans have questioned stimulus job creation statistics, however there is always potential for a return to bipartisan support of infrastructure spending as it does produce visible results at home. I’d rather not have transportation spending as the first big battle in the new Congress in January, as we all know how that is going to go. The Obama administration’s concept of resurrecting Chris Dodd’s 2007 idea of a National Infrastructure Bank sounds grand but is flawed on several levels. First, it relies on increasing taxes on energy companies, which is not likely to happen with the Republican controlled House and the strong GOP representation from oil producing states. Secondly, it focuses on high speed rail, which is essentially building an alternate mode while letting highways crumble. Third, it creates a new and unnecessary bureaucracy. It reflects a fundamental mistrust of the existing transportation delivery system of FHWA and State DOT’s. The dream that the NIB will garner $10 private dollars for every $1 tax dollar ia also a bit silly, that is not the definition of a P3.Is the National Infrastructure Bank true leadership or just political grandstanding?
ReplyDeleteStimulus spending is better than nothing, but it is a "let them eat cake” philosophy.“You can’t have a multi-year reauthorization, but here is a $50 Billion one-time gift from a lame duck Congress.” It is like starving your dog for a week and then videotaping the wagging tail when you give it a steak. The result is you can claim the dog loves you, but you basically have abused the dog, it hates you on a visceral level, and you have not lived up to your basic responsibilites as caretaker.
The recovery for toll operators is going to come from cars on the road (gas or electric both pay tolls) and not Capitol Hill. The September FHWA quarterly Urban Congestion Report shows that the average duration of weekday congestion is up +13 minutes from this time last year, reversing a three year downtrend. It is still down from 2007 levels, but if traffic rebounds on our nation’s highways, so will toll revenues.
Yesterday's election brings about new leadership in the house and Representative Oberstar's defeat as the chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure changes the entire game. New roles, new leadership, new agendas. IBTTA should consider a roadshow to the capital soon after the next session of Congress convenes.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-big-government wave that led to a GOP-controlled House reinforces the likelihood that there will be no increase in federal fuel taxes. And the forced retirement of Chairman Oberstar means the "Office of Public Benefit"--a dire threat to tolling and PPPs--is dead. In this new limited-government environment, what are the prospects for the toll industry?
ReplyDeleteI think we will see a re-focusing of the federal role in surface transportation, with many of the non-highway programs no longer getting money from the Highway Trust Fund. And if advocates of better highways do their communications job well, we should be able to persuade this more-conservative Congress to give states expanded authority for tolling and PPPs, to augment what they can do with a static level of federal gas-tax money.
In addition, given the need to reconstruct and modernize the Interstate system, we should push for "mainstreaming" of the two Interstate toll pilot programs in existin law: one that allows three Interstates to be rebuilt using toll finance and the other allowing construction of three new ones. Mainstreaming would mean removing the numerical limits and letting all states do this when and where it makes sense--retaining the current restrictions on the use of the toll revenues, which have won the support of truckers and other highway users.
Can we really call this "New Congress"? It can only bring a change when people stop criticize the presidents. Anyways thanks for sharing this with me..
ReplyDeleteFinance Manager CV
The 2010 election results and the influx of dozens of new Members of the House of Representatives hold significant potential for the tolling industry. While much of the focus of the transportation industry has been on the surprising loss by Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar, 15 additional Democrats on the committee lost their seats with two races still undecided as of early this week. On the Republican side of the dais, 7 current members of the committee will not be returning for the next session, either because of retirements or losses in the primary and general elections. This shake up provides a unique opportunity for the tolling industry. We should be working hard to educate and serve as a resource for new freshman Members of Congress on the benefits of tolling as an alternative to raising taxes, such as the gas tax.
ReplyDeleteThe new Republican governors set to take office in 2011 should not be overlooked. A number of the newly elected governor pledged during their campaigns not to raise taxes. Given the enormous budgetary shortfalls and challenges facing these governors, tolling provides a method to obtain transportation funding, allowing dedicated general revenue funds to be diverted to other needs. I also suspect that a number of the new crop of governors will actively promote some form of public private partnerships based on the principles of smaller government and innovation.
The shake up in the House of Representatives and governorships also spell uncertainty for many high-speed rail projects across the country. A number of incoming Governors openly campaigned against high speed rail in their respective states. And while the likely incoming Republican Chairman of the House Transportation Committee John Mica says he is an advocate of high speed rail, he has been critical of the types of projects funded by the Obama Administration. In a post–election interview on the issue, Mica said he supported redirecting high speed rail funding to projects in the Northeast where he says population density will provide the projects the best opportunity to be financially viable. This could result in a modest shake up of available transportation dollars, matching state funds, and other resources.
But one of the most promising signs for the transportation industry is voters’ approval of over $1 billion in transportation investments that were on the ballot in 2010. Analysis by the Center for Transportation Excellence found that 22 of 30 transportation-related ballot measures in 13 states were approved by voters on November 2.
This demonstrates strong public support for transportation funding and infrastructure improvements. But coupled with the apparent voter disdain for raising taxes, the challenge for policy makers will be coming up with funding. The opportunity for both the tolling industry and public private partnerships seems clear.
Frank G. McCartney
Executive Director
Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission
How will Infrastructure Policy Change in the 112th Congress?
ReplyDeleteThe biggest changes from the elections will undoubtedly be reflected in the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee. Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), who has served on the Committee since he was elected in 1974, was defeated in his reelection battle; with Republicans taking control of the House, it appears that current Ranking Member John Mica (R-FL) will assume the chairmanship.
With Mica as the likely successor, emerging policy could vary significantly from the Oberstar-led committee. The biggest changes may be reflected in the surface transportation authorization, with the draft produced by Chairman Oberstar likely being overhauled to emphasize Mica’s policy initiatives and financing proposals.
In the past, Rep. Mica has deemed an increase in the gas tax dead and has suggested replacing the per-gallon tax with a percentage sales tax. He has also advocated for more public-private partnerships and the speedier approval of infrastructure projects. In a recent interview with the National Journal, Mica reiterated his opposition to raising fuel taxes, “You could unleash hundreds of billions [of dollars of private capital]… we’re going to look at every way we can do things without trying to raise taxes.”
Additionally, Mica was critical of the Obama Administration awarding $8 billion in high-speed rail grants. In addition, if an agreement on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization cannot be made during the lame duck session, Mica would have to rewrite and reintroduce the legislation in the next Congress.
Whatever the changes on Capitol Hill, American Society of Civil Engineers and its members will remain constant in keeping pressure on legislators to act on needed legislation quickly. We all rely on infrastructure for our quality of life, safety, and economic prosperity – this is not a Democratic or Republican issue, infrastructure is an American issue.
Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE, CAE
Executive Director
American Society of Civil Engineers
Transportation has typically been an issue that cuts across partisan and ideological lines, and one hopes that these conditions will continue in the new Congress. However, there are new and crucial concerns that will, I believe, influence consideration of a new surface transportation authorization bill. Debates over all domestic programs and initiatives are likely to be dominated by a push for fiscal constraint, expenditure freezes or caps, reductions in annual general fund deficits, and the ballooning national debt. On November 17th the Bipartisan Policy Center’s task force on debt reduction will present its recommendations, and on December 1st the President’s commission on fiscal reform will make its report. Hopefully, these reports and recommendations will turn the discussion of these fiscal issues in a more constructive direction than we witnessed during the campaigns for the mid-term elections. Certainly, they will – and should – heighten our concerns.
ReplyDeleteHow will these fiscal issues affect surface transportation legislation? In the last few days the co-chairs of the President’s fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and former United States Senator Alan Simpson, have floated (among other ideas) the possibility of a 15-cent per gallon gasoline tax increase (deferred until 2013-2015), and both the President and US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood have called for a $50 billion “down-payment” on a robust, multi-year surface transportation authorization bill. Certainly, the likely new Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T & I), Congressman John Mica of Florida, is committed to the passage of an authorization bill, but one must assume that his ideas of the program elements and the funding sources for such a bill are likely to be different from those of the Administration and of the current T & I Chair, Congressman James Oberstar of Minnesota. I would doubt that a federal gasoline tax increase will be passed by the new House of Representatives, so we might see a shorter-term bill at current program levels. Having said that, I believe that there could be changes of program emphasis within such a bill.
The hope for bi-partisan support for passage of a surface transportation bill in 2011 rests on the fact that the leaders of both parties recognize that investment in transportation infrastructure is not only possible, but is essential, in a time of economic and fiscal constraint. Adequate investment in infrastructure is the essential foundation for the nation’s economic recovery and growth. But, whatever the size of the new bill, we need to have wiser and more accountable transportation investments. Economic and fiscal constraints increase the importance of these values. At all levels of government we will need to make better decisions about how to invest scarce resources, and we should use available federal funds to leverage most effectively other potential public and private capital investment sources.
There will be an opportunity in the new Congress to enact surface transportation authorization legislation, but Congress will necessarily have to balance necessary investment with fiscal discipline (as will the Governors and state and local officials who will implement these programs and projects). The need for that balancing of interests will require an ethic of wise choices and targeted investments, and programs characterized by principles of goals, outcomes, performance measurement, and accountability.
The fiscal and economic environment, in which the nation finds itself, requires both necessary investment and programmatic reform. I believe that a bill, based on these values, has a chance to earn broad bi-partisan support and eventual enactment.
I read the comments on this concern including much attention to raising fuel taxes. What are we going to do when fuel prices move back up to $3.50 - $4.00 per gallon or higher in this economy? Will Congress, who have heard "we the people" consider their only option for relief and lower fuel taxes?
ReplyDelete