November 2012 Archives

As long as we're touching sacred cows--I refer to the previous post on the gas tax--let's talk about tolling on interstate highways. Is it time to revisit this question?

The era of the massive federal public works project is over. Gone are the days when it is politically feasible to propose $12 billion for a 41,000-mile interstate highway system, as President Dwight Eisenhower did in 1956. And yet it will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion to reconstruct the current interstate highway system to today's design and safety standards, so says Reason Foundation Transportation Policy Director Robert Poole, a contributor to this blog.

Current law only allows states to toll new lanes on interstates. That makes no sense if the government isn't going to pony up the maintenance funds, says International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association CEO Pat Jones, also a contributor to this blog. "The federal government right now is an obstacle to that. If you're not going to solve the problem then get out of the way," he told me.

The argument against interstate tolling is best summed up by former House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., who told a colleague in 2007, "They're taking existing capacity, built with federal highway trust funds, and charging you twice for it by putting a toll on it." The "public" in highways means it should be available to everyone...for free.

What are the best arguments for allowing tolling on interstate highways, given the current budget and political climate? What are the best arguments for continuing to bar tolling on existing lanes? Are there better ways to finance highway maintenance? Is there a middle ground to be struck on the issue? What could proponents of interstate tolling offer to opponents to make the notion acceptable?

5 responses: Patrick D. Jones, Gabriel Roth, Fawn Johnson, Emil H. Frankel, Jack Kinstlinger

On transportation, President Obama can plan on starting his second term the same way he began his first. Then, as now, the funding crisis for the nation's highways was a few years off but approaching fast. When the highway authority expiration date looms in 2014, no one will be prepared for it.

Unless things change.

A federal gas tax increase has been off the table for the last several years because it has been considered politically untenable to ask for more money from taxpayers during a recession. This unquestioned tenet has persisted despite the fact that the gas tax has stayed at the same level, 18.4 cents per gallon, since 1993. Moreover, taxpayers wind up footing the bill for road and bridge maintenance in other ways after the gas tax money runs out.

Now the economy is recovering, albeit slowly. And perhaps more importantly, President Obama doesn't have to worry about reelection. So it might be OK to revisit the suggestion that the gas tax could go up. American Road and Transportation Builders Association President Pete Ruane tried it the day after the election. In a statement, Ruane called for "a comprehensive solution for the nation's staggering transportation infrastructure" in Obama's second term. He didn't use the words "gas tax," but he suggested that the transportation proposals outlined by the 2010 Simpson Bowles Commission were a "road map for continued success." That commission called for an immediate 15 cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax.

Is it time to talk about a gas tax increase? How could the idea be made more palatable to conservatives? Would a gas tax hike be easier to swallow if it was temporary? What longer-term strategies for infrastructure payment should be on the table? Will Washington be able to cope with such a discussion?

7 responses: Deron Lovaas, Pete Ruane, Emil H. Frankel, Robert L. Darbelnet, Ken Orski, Mark Aesch, Rob Atkinson

OK, folks. It's election week, and I know a lot of us are ready for it to be over. So let's talk about something that doesn't hinge on election results. How about our long-term infrastructure preparedness?

While politicos spent the weekend knocking on the last voter doors and rolling out their final robocalls before the election, New York and New Jersey were trying to clean up the debris from Hurricane Sandy. New York's Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for big infrastructure protections against future storms--sea walls and levees that aren't there now. Bloomberg, a political independent, also endorsed President Obama for a second term, largely because the president believes that climate change "is an urgent problem that threatens our planet." Obama's challenger, Gov. Mitt Romney does not, Bloomberg said.

From an infrastructure perspective, the bottom line from this New York political duo is this: It's time to start thinking in terms of decades rather than one- and two-year stopgaps. It's also time to think about how a protective infrastructure would look in the wake of increasingly harsh weather around the globe. It's probably not a good idea to cheap out on these protections if super-storms like Sandy are going to become more common.

Every time there is a natural disaster--a collapsed bridge, a broken levee, a flooded subway system--a public utility that has gone largely unnoticed all of a sudden is emphasized in stark relief. Yet even these dramatic illustrations of public dependence on utilities have not translated into the investments that Bloomberg and Cuomo are looking for. Maybe it's because road and power-line maintenance isn't a fun way to spend money. Maybe it's because hurricane and tornado calamities are isolated in individual communities, and that allows the rest of us to forget about them. Maybe the problems are just too overwhelming.

What does a robust long-term infrastructure system look like? How much does it cost? Where are we now in relation to such a thing? How do we get where we need to go? What level of urgency should we assume when talking about infrastructure? How do natural disasters play into the debate? Whose leadership is most important in building solid infrastructure protections? Is it a state responsibility or a federal one? Does political rhetoric hurt or help the conversation? If so, how?

4 responses: Gabriel Roth, Emil H. Frankel, Ed Wytkind, Gabriel Roth