December 2011 Archives

Two Northeast lawmakers aren't too pleased with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for raising tolls to cross bridges into New York City. They are angry enough that they want the federal government to step in. The Port Authority announced in August that cash tolls for cars will go from $8.00 to $15.00 by 2015. Five-axle trucks that currently pay $40 dollars will have to pay up to $125.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican from New York, introduced legislation to restore the Transportation Department's authority to determine whether toll hikes are "just and reasonable." The toll-review authority was eliminated in 1987 under a deregulation law. Without going into detail, Lautenberg and Grimm cited "fiscal mismanagement" at the Port Authority as one reason their bill is needed. The measure would order a report from the Government Accountability Office on the transparency and accountability of tolling authority budgeting practices.

When it proposed the toll hike, the Port Authority cited a perfect storm of "unprecedented challenges" that included an economic recession, steep increases in security costs to avoid terrorist attacks, and a much-needed overhaul of the agency's facilities. After years of trying to control costs, the Port Authority said lack of action on toll prices "risks 240 critical infrastructure projects and thousands of jobs."

Should the federal government weigh in on tolling costs? What standards should determine the cost of tolls? How much sway should the feds have on toll prices? Would increased federal oversight on tolling hurt the development of public-private partnerships? How do higher tolls impact commuters' use of transit?

4 responses: Fawn Johnson, Robert L. Darbelnet, Emil H. Frankel, Patrick D. Jones

New Year's Eve could be a bad day for the Obama administration if Congress doesn't act to extend the payroll tax cut. But while that fight dominates year-end conversations on Capitol Hill, lawmakers have paid scant attention to another worker benefit that also is set to expire Dec. 31--the mass transit commuter benefit. Without congressional action, the $230 that transit commuters are now allowed to shield from taxation every month will be reduced to $125 per month. The American Public Transportation Association, Transportation for America, and the National Treasury Employees Union all have weighed in urging lawmakers to extend the current benefit as part of any final package that leaves Capitol Hill.

(My take: The chances of action are pretty slim. No one I talk to can tell me how much an extension of the current commuter benefits would cost, a bad sign for last-minute haggling. And lawmakers have their hands full trying to keep the government funded.)

Mass transit advocates are crying foul because the reduced benefit would put them in the all-too-familiar position of being at a disadvantage with respect to the formidable highway and automobile lobby. As it turns out, only transit riders will see their tax shelters reduced next year; drivers will still be eligible for a $230 per month pre-tax commuting benefit. "They'd like you to start driving to work, where you can get $230 for parking deducted from your paycheck tax free," Transportation for America's Deputy Communications Director Stephen Lee Davis ranted in a blog post.

How important is this transit benefit? Would it do any harm to extend it? Why has it gotten lost in the congressional shuffle? Is mass transit really at a disadvantage with respect to roads and automobiles? Aside from tax benefits, are there other ways to encourage mass-transit commuting?

8 responses: Ed Wytkind, Laura Barrett, Rich Sarles, Larry Hanley, Michael Melaniphy, Jon Martz, Gabriel Roth, Fawn Johnson

It's hard to find two better political push-buttons than American jobs and American-made products. It should come as no surprise, then, that House Democrats on the Transportation Committee last week made a big deal about their new proposal to tighten up and expand "Buy America" requirements for steel, iron, and manufactured products in all construction and infrastructure projects. The legislation was billed as "a major proposal to create American jobs."

This is the Democrats' answer to House Republicans proposal to pay for a six-year highway bill with new domestic gas and oil drilling. Republicans also have touted surface transportation and infrastructure legislation as their major job-creating proposal. Democrats are asking (somewhat cheekily), "Where will they create the jobs? In China?"

In truth, it's hard to imagine either the Democratic or the Republican proposals winning out in serious talks about a surface transportation bill. But they do preview the talking points for the floor debate when the Republican proposal finally hits the floor.

Is there a point to the Buy America requirements? Are there loopholes in the current law that could stand to be closed? How many jobs are actually at stake as a result of Buy America, given that much of the infrastructure work in the United States can't, by definition, be shipped overseas? Is it realistic to expect any Buy America provisions to survive in the next surface transportation bill?

2 responses: Thomas Gibson, Laura Barrett