I'm heading off for vacation tonight, so will cut my response short. I think we need the leadership to get all of the parties to the table and seek a solution to what is a difficult but not impossible problem.

Yes, we need to encourage energy conservation and increases in price will help that, whether through cap and trade, or carbon tax, or plain vanilla fuel taxes. however, we know that success means less tax revenue and our aversion to paying for the costs of what we consume has made our elected officials averse to a solution. And those who do support solutions tend to put the conservation goals well ahead of the revenue goal.

At the same time, we really do need revenue for our system. Even if conservation were to reduce the demand for travel, there's so much to be done to maintain assets and to make alternate services attractive to their new users. But too often those who want to raise revenue are wedded to the current model, which in my view is not broken, but shows serious signs of bending in the next few years.

The leadership we need is to get all of the disparate goals at the table and force the conversation to continue until we reach solutions. As it stands now, too many people push only their one idea and then disappear when it fails to acheive acclamation.

Of course there is a direct and negative link between most efforts to reduce GHG and the financial condition of the current Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account). This should not be seen as a problem, however, but merely a call for us to adjust the HTF to meet these new conditions. The ability to adapt the Trust Fund to new conditions is a concern, of course, since we have not been able to adjust the revenues received by the Trust Fund to keep pace with inflation and growing demand for transportation for some time. While higher taxes on motor fuel is a good near-term solution – and one that would help reduce GHG emissions – other solutions will be needed fairly soon. VMT fees are one option.

A more serious linkage not mentioned in this week’s question, however, is the link between meeting GHG reduction targets and long-term economic growth. 5,000 years or so of history show a strong link between growth in accessibility and economic growth. Some proposals for meeting GHG reduction targets call for sharp reductions in VMT. Serious debate is needed over the risks invovled in efforts to change how we use transportation in contrast to technology-based proposals such as improved vehicle fuel economy or new sources of fuel.

Many of the posters this week have danced around a central premise of the question that needs to be called out: there is a set of national transportation objectives that include a reduction in transportation emissions.

We have yet to create a set of national transportation objectives around which we design a national transportation revenue stream or funding stream. ACT has consistently stated that whether transportation funding is $250 billion or $500 billion that it needs to be prioritized based on those national objectives. From that point, a cogent scheme of incentives and disincentives can be put in place that generate adequate revenue to fund transportation programs and projects and encourage appropriate choices in moving people and goods.

Mr. Van Beek does a nice job of outlining the challenge in creating the revenue side of the equation. How do we capture incurred costs? Where do we appropriately charge for the use of the system? What level of responsibility do we assign each user of the system, and what is the value of that responsibility? All questions that are more easily answered if we clearly identify our priorities first.

Priorities also allow us to appropriately make mode selection choices and new construction versus maintenance choices, both of which affect the size of the revenue needed as well as the choice of the revenue mechanisms. If we are prioritizing freight use on existing corridors and attempting to divert passenger vehicle travel into transit or avoided trips, then we would need to anticipate greater road repair needs and transit ridership and potentially look to higher truck fees or tolls and greater local funding support for transit operations. If we are prioritizing rail travel over air travel, then we need to adjust our airport and rail fees to reflect usage to support those shifts in service. If we are prioritizing maintenance over new construction, we would need to look at overall capacity across modes and look at a different set of investments coupled with cost savings. These are all interconnected decisions that need to reflect the priority structure that we (through our elected officials) select.

Under the current system, it is very apparent that our conversation around cutting transportation emissions is occurring separately from a conversation around transportation funding. ACT agrees with those calling for the inclusion of CLEAN TEA in the climate bill as a first step towards recombining the conversation. However, more needs to be done around the issue of objectives first, then revenue.

There is no doubt that the transportation industry must further its commitment to the environment but impeding our nation’s mobility by enacting policies to limit growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) should not be a national policy. Personal freedom is a defining characteristic of the American way of life, making us the envy of others around the globe. Enacting a plan to reduce VMT is a direct attack on the freedom of American citizens, many of whom would never be able to venture beyond the confines of their job or neighborhood if subjected to VMT restrictions.

Instead of limiting vehicle use, we must become more efficient and utilize technologies to decrease fuel use and limit carbon emissions. It’s pleasing to see that a few of the sustainability recommendations already supported by the trucking industry have also been proposed by AASHTO and ULI.

Through a strong partnership with engine manufacturers, new over-the-road truck engines far exceed the environmental standards set in 2007. The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study released by the Coordinating Research Council found that engine models produce 98 percent less carbon monoxide, 10 percent less nitrogen oxide, 95 percent less non-methane hydrocarbons and 89 percent less particulate matter than required by EPA’s 2007 diesel engine emission standards. Today, if a white cloth were held over the tailpipe of a new truck, the cloth would remain spotless.

Regulatory policies to limit and enforce speed limits, as mentioned by the Urban Land Institute are also important, not only for highway safety, but also for the reduction in fuel use. ATA recommends enacting a national speed limit not to exceed 65 miles per hour and govern speeds of trucks manufactured after 1992 at no more than 65 miles per hour. A truck traveling at 75 mph consumes 27 percent more fuel than one going at 65 mph. Bringing speed limits for trucks down to 65 mph would save 2.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel in a decade and reduce CO2 emissions by 31.5 million tons - equal to a year's CO2 generated by 9 million Americans. Automobile consumption of gasoline would drop by 8.7 billion gallons, with an accompanying drop in CO2 emissions of 84.7 million tons.

Reducing traffic congestion is also vitally important for reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that Americans waste 2.8 billion gallons of fuel each year as a result of congestion on our highways. “Lost hours” while sitting in traffic also plague American productivity.

As we continue to focus on limiting our fuel use and reducing emissions, it is clear that we must have a system for highway infrastructure funding that will effectively support these necessary environmental goals. As several others have already mentioned, the federal fuel tax is still the most efficient way to collect revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, but it must be updated to keep up with our current needs. The current tax--18.4 cents per gallon charge for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel-- has not been adjusted for inflation since 1993, yet costs of highway projects continue to escalate with the costs of labor and materials. This is a very poor formula for maintaining a healthy, let alone robust trust fund. The simple answer for increasing trust fund revenue is to increase the federal fuel tax, or at least index the tax to inflation so that purchasing power is on par with current monetary value. The trucking industry supports this increase, so long as the revenue goes directly to highway infrastructure and is not diverted as it has been in the past.

Whether it’s a fuel tax or other alternative funding methods like tolling or VMT tax, all funding systems require that we pay for our use. Fuel taxes are the least expensive, most efficient source of highway funding available today. At present, 99 cents out of every dollar in collected fuel tax goes to the Highway Trust fund. Other systems such as VMTT cannot come close to offering taxpayers that type of efficiency. Only about two-thirds of every dollar collected in a VMTT system goes toward infrastructure.

No, greener transportation doesn’t necessarily mean less revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, but some major changes will have to be made shortly to sustain federal highway and transit assistance at adequate levels. The current shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund came about for two reasons: In 2005, Congress decided to fund the last highway and transit bill at the maximum level possible without raising gas taxes. Because of the economic downturn and higher fuel prices, highway travel has dropped and with that drop less revenue is being generated than was forecast. Federal highway expenditures this year were guaranteed at about $41 billion, while highway account revenues have been coming in at about $35 billion.

The last time federal fuel taxes were increased was 1993. That year gas averaged $1.07 a gallon, and fuel tax rates were set at 18.4 cents per gallon. Over that 16 years highway and transit construction costs have skyrocketed by approximately 80%, fuel prices are up to over $2.50 per gallon, but the gas tax rate is the same at 18.4 cents. Just to maintain federal highway and transit programs at today’s funding levels will require an increase in revenues. To restore the purchasing power of these programs by increasing the overall six-year program to $500 billion as the House Transportation Committee has proposed will require even more resources.

Both of the two Commissions appointed by Congress and the President to study Highway Trust Fund revenues came up with the same recommendations: For the next ten years the only source of revenue that can generate enough revenue to do the job is an increase in federal fuel taxes. Ten years from now a vehicle miles traveled fee will need to be implemented to replace fuel taxes.

By 2020, it is expected that the fuel efficiency of the light duty automotive fleet, made up of cars, pickup trucks and SUVs, will have increased from about 22 mpg today to something approaching 30 mpg. The 2010 Toyota Prius Hybrid is already advertized to get 50 mpg. With plug-in electric technologies being introduced through the Chevy Volt and hydrogen fuel cell technologies being introduced by Honda and others, what the future promises is vehicles which can deliver the convenience of auto travel, but which consume little to no traditional petroleum fuels. That’s good news as far as Climate Change goals are concerned.

The source of revenue we have counted on to maintain our highways (and support transit service) have been fees for highway use paid for through gas and diesel taxes. 90% of federal Highway Trust Fund revenues currently come from fuel taxes. The state Departments of Transportation, which all belong to AASHTO, are committed to do their part to help reduce highway-related greenhouse gas emission 80% by 2050. Part of our strategy to do that is to reduce the rate of growth in highway travel from the 2% and higher rates experienced over the last twenty years, to 1% per year in the future. To do so we support doubling transit ridership by 2030, increasing biking, walking, carpooling, and telecommuting. And where possible shifting long-haul freight to rail, and increasing trips made by high speed rail. As higher CAFÉ standards and consumer preference increase the fuel efficiency of the cars Americans drive, this will begin to erode the amount of revenues which can be generated by fuel taxes at current rates. For the near term adjusting those rates will be needed to maintain revenues at the levels needed. About ten years from now, however, the revenue lost will be so great that a new form of highway user fees, replacing the gas tax, will be needed.

States believe that reducing the rate of growth in highway travel and increasing automobile fuel efficiency are policies that make sense. The federal government and the states will need to move forward with the field testing needed to identify acceptable alternative user fees to maintain highways and support transit with the revenues needed.

These are excellent questions and ones that must be answered if we are going to transform the transportation industry. I say transform because the current models of funding investments through the HTF and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), and some general fund contributions, do not meet today’s infrastructure needs let alone future needs. At the same time, the nation is now on a course to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) with a 2020 goal of between 14-20% (President’s FY2010 budget and H.R. 2454 passed by the House) and a 2050 goal of GHG reductions of 83%. This latter goal would represent a wholesale restructuring and conversion of the fossil fuel-dependent transportation industry.

The problems with the HTF go well beyond a softening in VMT either today or into the future. The real challenge is that we have over-promised on the spending side given the resources we have chosen to devote to funding infrastructure. Good analysts and commissions have tried to get out of this structural imbalance by suggesting reforms that would collect revenues according to the “full cost” of transportation imposed by the millions of individual decisions made each day (in economic parlance internalizing externalities). The thinking is economically sound: “full cost” would potentially raise more money by increasing the amounts user would have to pay to use transportation. Full cost, by internalizing those costs into the pricing structure, would also cause individuals to change their behavior and achieve benefits such as reducing congestion and GHG emissions (in calculating costs this way, congestion actually ranks as much more of a problem than GHG emissions due to the use of discount rates and the valuing of time/wages).

The challenge with replacing fuel taxes and the HTF with a VMT-fee structure based on the full costs of travel is that it is politically impossible to implement in the U.S. today. The Europeans have made much more progress on the concept yet, even there, reforms due to difficult politics have been limited to increasing fees on heavy-duty trucks while VMT-based fees have yet to be implemented Community-wide for light-duty vehicles (gas taxes are certainly higher, but they are based more on the old model).

Given the political reality, the best we can probably hope for in the medium-term is to increase fuel taxes, which will generate more revenue and will have a marginal effect on cutting GHG emissions. Congress also needs to devote more of the revenue generated from any cap-and-trade legislation (certainly more than the current version of H.R. 2454) to transportation infrastructure that promises to reduce GHG emissions. With the massive stretch of the 2050 climate goal, the only way this nation is going to come close to reaching it is (1) to fund research and development into new fuels for aircraft, ships and trucks and (2) to rethink passenger transportation by investing in public transportation (especially in congested areas) and in the long-term by moving beyond CAFE to completely change how light-duty vehicles are powered. The benefits of these investments would swamp the costs.

In the short-term (2009 and 2010), advocates of a robust and sustainable surface transportation bill should focus on generating the political support necessary for an increase in gas taxes and try to better incorporate transportation into climate change legislation. Unfortunately, policymakers have yet to appreciate that the climate legislation will only be successful if there is a strong sustainable transportation strategy in it. Without it, we will have neither a successful climate policy nor a successful transportation policy.

I am responding to Mr. Roth’s query regarding the statistic I cited which states that “transportation accounts for 28% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” This figure is accurate and is a widely known fact from data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration.

Mr. Roth and the report he cites are confusing GHG which exist in the natural environment including water vapor with GHG “emissions” as measured by EPA and caused by human activity. GHG emissions emanating from the use of our surface transportation system and other human activity are categorized as “anthropogenic.” These anthropogenic emissions create an imbalance in the atmosphere. Indentifying and quantifying a country’s primary anthropogenic sources are essential for addressing climate change. This consistent methodology and measurement is used worldwide and specifically by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as it compares the relative contribution of different emission sources and greenhouse gases to climate change.

To read more go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html

May I, with respect, be allowed to query the figure given by William Millar, that “transportation accounts for 28% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S.”? If I am not mistaken, he has been misled by a 2008 EPA report.

According to other sources, (for example, http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf ) only 3.6% of greenhouse gases are CO2, and only 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity.

If, as I suspect, the EPA figure relates only to GHG emissions resulting from human activity, transportation accounts not for 28% but for 28% of 3.6% of 3.4% which (according to my calculator) is 0.03% of US GHG emissions.

For the benefit of those of us mature enough to face reality, could Mr. Millar ask his climate experts to explain the derivation of the widely quoted 28% figure, which seems to be exaggerated?

How can we achieve the goals of cutting transportation emissions and increasing trust fund revenue? These seem to be separate questions.

As has been suggested in these exchanges before, the most efficient way to cut transportation emissions is to tax the use of carbon, and a tax of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide has been suggested, equivalent to 45 cents a gallon of fuel. To be efficient, the level of carbon tax should be uniform for all carbon uses, and the same nationwide.

As for increasing trust fund revenues, why should they be increased? As Jim Burnley pointed out, the federal Highway Trust Fund has outlived its usefulness, and a new structure is needed to replace it. If common sense were to prevail, the “new structure” would involve the abolition and respectful burial of the HTF, with highway funding reverting to the states, which would be responsible for imposing cost-based charges for road use, and providing the facilities users were prepared to pay for. Under such conditions, much of the financing could come from private sources.

The jury is in on human-generated carbon emissions, and a powerful consensus has been reached on the need to act to avert climatic disaster.

Both AASHTO and Transportation for America are aligned behind reducing emissions, as well as the fuel consumed for transportation by limiting the growth in vehicles miles traveled. Success will require maintaining the infrastructure we have while expanding non-automobile options, even as the population soars to 400 million and beyond. The paradox, of course, is that success in achieving our goals of climate protection and energy security means reducing the potential revenue from the gas tax, which currently pays for most surface transportation projects.

Conservative economists who call for pricing carbon emissions as central to climate policy note that the gas tax is effectively a carbon tax. Other pricing mechanisms, such as a national sales tax on transportation fuels or a system-wide tax on oil, could also be smart climate policy in addition to being a source of revenue for clean transportation. The United States imports 75 percent of our oil, and transportation accounts for 70 percent of that consumption. Transportation is the reason we are “addicted to oil,” and why our national security hinges to a large degree on maintaining access to oil in volatile areas of the world. Given this threat, pricing transportation carbon is in our geopolitical interest as well as our interest in climate protection.

However, even national defense is not enough to overcome political resistance to raising fuel taxes. Why not? One big reason is that Americans are not sure, even now, that they are getting good value for their transportation dollars. In other words, we need to show the public an inspiring vision for transportation with a convincing plan of action, and guarantee it will perform as promised.

Once persuaded that their dollars will be well spent, Americans might also agree to broadening the sources of revenue for transportation beyond just motor fuel taxes. Moving beyond our sole reliance on the gas tax is absolutely critical, regardless of whether Congress, the states, localities and businesses adopt the policy measures suggested in Moving Cooler –and elsewhere – to reduce emissions from vehicle travel. Gas prices are sure to continue to rise as oil supplies become more contested, pressing more people to reduce consumption and to travel by other modes.

A population hurtling toward 400 million, most living in urban areas, are going to need other ways to get around metro areas that are becoming denser by the day. An aging population has different mobility needs and is likely to drive less – retirees don’t commute. Climate policy or no, big changes in energy, demography and the increasing urbanization of a growing population demand a new vision that depends less on burning oil for every activity. That, in turn, requires a new revenue paradigm, whether or not we act consciously to save the planet. Given that reality, the potential to harm the highway trust fund would be the weakest excuse imaginable for failing to take action that will make our planet, our cities and our neighborhoods habitable for future generations.

The real question is whether greener transportation is good for America? Surprisingly there are still many credible folks out there who don't subscribe to the notion that greenhouse gasses are a threat to our way of life and can and must be reduced by society. I will rely on the findings of the NAS that is in the affirmative. A successful effort to reduce global warming will undoubtedly create a short term cost on energy intensive industries and on transportation due to higher cost of fuel. But in the longer term, it will intensify the effort to create a Highway fund financed by miles of travel rather than on fuel consumed and will lead to smarter travel, smarter vehicles and smarter growth patterns not to mention cleaner environment, less reliance on foreign energy sources and avoidance from the ravages of global warming.

Updated at 12:41 p.m. on Aug. 3.

First, as a Steering Committee member I want to explain Moving Cooler for those who haven't perused the materials yet. While the 2007 McKinsey report on technical potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions analyzed vehicle technologies and energy alternatives for reducing emissions from transportation, adding to a stack of other such analyses, there is a dearth of assessments of transportation policies that could save fuel and reduce pollution by improving traffic flow and influencing overall travel activity.

Moving Cooler helps to fill that analytical chasm. It examines nearly fifty transportation measures (highway and transit investments, operational improvements, car-sharing, land use strategies, etc. -- you name it and it's probably examined) independently and in logical combinations, for their potential to reduce emissions, save fuel and reduce vehicle-operating costs. Three implementation scenarios throw light on the technical potential of deploying the measures. The hope is that this new information will help to inform the policy debate taking place at the local, state and federal levels, where decision-makers apply the test of what is most effective and politically achievable.

Regarding the question, I note first that there is discord between recently enacted energy policy, particularly that governing vehicle fuel economy and development of gasoline alternatives (such as biofuel mandates and plug-in hybrid incentives), and transportation policy. While energy policy aims to reduce gasoline use, the main source of revenue for our transportation program relies on ever-increasing consumption.

Second, I note that by focusing on gas tax receipts right off the bat the question risks getting us into the policy weeds before we've addressed a key question for taxpayers, in addition to the perverse incentive issue: Regardless of how we contribute additional revenue, what makes the investment worthwhile? Any means of generating revenue entails asking consumers to ante up more of our hard-earned money for the program. Why should I or anyone else agree to do that?

This is the primary reason that the law, should it be reformed to achieve compelling national objectives including reducing oil dependence and cutting heat-trapping pollution, needn't face added financial difficulty. A transaction needs to be made with the public - more money for an expanded program - and policy will be much more "marketable" if it can credibly be described as contributing to key national objectives. Right now, confidence is low since most people don't understand the federal transportation program, or think it's nothing more than a mass of pork-barrel projects such as the infamous "bridge to nowhere."

A confidence-booster would be a new kind of trust fund, as the Transportation for America coalition calls it, a "Unified Transportation Trust Fund" which drives investments in all modes of transportation based on specified objectives. This is aligned with a principle that many of my fellow bloggers have advocated: Mode-neutrality. A mode-neutral trust fund bound to clear objectives would make sure the program is performance-driven, drawing public support for it.

Once we have put the horse in front of the cart by overhauling the program so that it's effective at meeting national objectives, how exactly can we continue to generate adequate revenue?

It's unavoidable -- we must resort to one or more economywide pricing measures, with a gas tax increase as the most logical near-term option and a transition to a VMT fee a longer-term option. Indexing the levy to inflation would help prevent its investment power from eroding. It is true if that our energy policies, and a reformed transportation policy, are successful and if price trends such as those we've witnessed in recent years return as seems likely, then indeed gasoline consumption is will drop and growth in vehicle miles of travel will continue flatlining or possibly even decline as has been the case in recent years. But this is likely to take place over decades, especially in the case of VMT, continuing to generate substantial revenue all the while.

Outside of these options, a national infrastructure bank as called for by groups such as Building America's Future can help. And at the local level, more help with financing is in order, such as increased use of road and parking pricing and "value-capture" around transit stops as advocated by my friend at Brookings, former developer Chris Leinberger.

Right now, the most salient opportunity to secure more funding for transportation infrastructure is moving through Congress: The climate bill. This policy would generate billions of dollars of public investment, thanks in part to the inclusion of transportation fuels in the "cap" of "cap and trade." The House version includes some investment in transportation infrastructure, and the CLEAN TEA bill in play in both chambers would increase the amount substantially. Enactment of such policy would help iron out tension between energy and transportation, aligning them both toward saving oil and cutting heat-trapping pollution.

I believe we can meet our transportation investment needs and solve the most pressing environmental challenge of this century.

Climate change is one of the most critical issues facing our country. Transportation accounts for 28% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. and represents the fastest growing source of emissions in our economy. In my opinion, the transportation industry has no choice but to address the climate change issue head on. We should not hide behind the fear of a decline in gas tax revenue as an excuse to not take action. That said, our funding situation in the transportation industry is dire and we must ensure that we provide sufficient investment to support our nation's transportation system that is so vital to our nation's economy and quality of life.

The Moving Cooler report conclusively shows that advances in fuels and vehicle technology will be critical to reducing GHG emissions from transportation, but those emission savings will be largely offset by increased travel on our roads as our nation's population grows and the economy resumes expansion. To be effective in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, we must move beyond thinking about individual modes. Expanding access to public transit; promoting efficient land use around transportation corridors; utilizing congestion pricing; and implementing operational improvements can have a dramatic effect on greenhouse gas emissions from transportation when these strategies are combined. Part of this was already known, but Moving Cooler brings much-needed, rigorous analysis to the debate.

To the question of revenue, the reality is that our highway and transit systems are already tremendously underfunded. Growth in travel, which will result in only slight increases in revenue, will only further strain already overburdened highways and transit systems. What is the solution? In the short term, our Highway Trust Fund needs to be fixed. The gas tax has remained unchanged since 1993, and every year inflation cuts into its purchasing power. Both the National Surface Transportation and Revenue Study Commission, and the more recent report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, called for modest, immediate increases in federal motor fuels taxes. Congress must quickly exhibit the political will necessary to fix the Highway Trust Fund by restoring its purchasing power and indexing it to protect it in the future.

In the long run, we need to look for other innovative funding sources. For example, we should look toward the climate change bill as an important funding source for transportation strategies that can help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as public transportation. For the Federal Highway Trust Fund, many in the transportation industry have discussed transitioning to a tax that is based on vehicle miles traveled. Identifying new sources of investment in our transportation system must be a priority for our nation; we can meet our investment needs while working to reduce our nation's carbon footprint.

This question is both extremely timely and important. It also has a clear, simple answer: the goals cannot both be achieved within the present structure of the Highway Trust Fund ("HTF").

AASHTO's new report, "Real Transportation Solutions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions", notes that for the twenty years prior to the recession, vehicle miles traveled grew by more than two percent per year. The report calls for cutting that growth rate in half. It also endorses the recent Obama Administration announcement that it will issue regulations that require new cars sold in 2016 and thereafter to average 39 miles per gallon. It embraces the concept of moving away from gasoline and diesel fuels to zero emission sources of energy, such as electric vehicles. As the question partially points out, these are also the stated goals of the Obama Administration.

Obviously, if these goals were to be achieved, the Highway Trust Fund's primary source of revenues-- fuel taxes-- would no longer be viable. Yet the AASHTO report says nothing about how to replace these revenues. Furthermore, senior officials of the Obama Administration have repeatedly rejected including increased fuel taxes, or moving to a vehicle miles traveled tax, as a part of the next surface transportation reauthorization package. Nor have they called for the hugh new floating tax on fuels created by the Waxman/Markey cap and trade scheme to be dedicated to the HTF

The Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 to underwrite the creation of the Interstate Highway System. Over the ensuing half century it has become the cash cow for a myriad of other programs. As the GAO said in a recent report, for the period FY04-FY08, the Department of Transportation had total HTF authorizations of $243.1 billion. Of that amount, $78 billion was obligated for purposes other than the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. The latter included many of the programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Thus, the collapse of the HTF revenue flow-- which has required the transfer of $15 billion from general revenues during the last year-- has necessitated the destruction, at least as a conceptual matter, of the "firewall" which protected funding for these vital programs.

The HTF, while imperfect, has been incredibly effective for more than 50 years in providing the needed funds for highway, transit and other programs. But it isn't working now, and it cannot work if we are going to reduce aggressively the use of fossil fuels.

It is apparent that a multiyear reauthorization bill will not be enacted by September 30, when the current law expires. Whatever the number of months or years it takes to enact a new bill, a central part of the debate must be over the creation of a new structure to replace the HTF, with a reliable and adequate guaranteed revenue flow. Otherwise, the programs financed by the HTF will soon be lumped in with other discretionary programs paid for out of general revenues. The burden of coming forward with such a structure falls, first and foremost, on those federal and state officials who are calling for dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels, which will trigger equally dramatic reductions in fuel tax collections.