I'm referring to specific votes to raise gas taxes or other taxes to pay for road and other transportation infrastructure, with Atlanta's being the most recent failure.

1/10/2013 9:30:00 AM   

 

Virginia Gov. McDonnell proposes transportation funding overhaul, gas tax elimination

 

Yesterday, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell unveiled a major proposal to fund transportation, which included a plan to eliminate the state's gas tax and instead create a new transportation-dedicated sales tax.

 

The plan would provide more than $3.1 billion in transportation funding over the next five years, tie transportation to economic growth and replace the gas tax with a 0.8 percent increase in the state's sales tax dedicated to transportation funding, according to a press release issued by McDonnell's office.

 

McDonnell's proposal also calls for transit funding reform. The proposal would change the current transit funding formula, which is based on agencies' operating costs, to one based half on a transit agency's size and half on performance factors.

 

Read More At:  http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=34814

 

 

Meanwhile....out on the fringe.... preaching sustainability....as long as all the dollars go to highways.

 

1/10/2013 11:30:00 AM   

 

Transportation systems should be self-sustaining, Reason Foundation says

 

The nation's growing debt and budget deficits are increasingly impacting efforts to build, upgrade and maintain transportation infrastructure, according to a recent study released by the Reason Foundation. Transportation funding should be shifted to direct user fees, long-term financing and private capital, foundation officials said in a prepared statement.

 

The study proposes a series of tax, regulatory and organizational changes that would help modernize the nation's airports, air traffic control system, highways, bridges and ports by making them more self-sustaining.

 

 

For surface transportation, federal transit funding could be shifted to the general fund and local governments, permitting all federal gas tax revenues to be spent on highways and bridges. To improve ports, harbor maintenance and waterway diesel taxes could be eliminated and replaced with harbor and waterway user charges paid directly to a facility operator, the study recommends.

 

Read more at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=34813

Ray lahood is out of Obamas administration now. Don't think this has any effect on the project but Mallory and Qualls are going to need to get along with the new appointment

Wow. I've really liked LaHood. He seems to be a dying breed of moderate conservative. I wonder who will replace him.

 

From the Detroit Free Press:

 

"Possible replacements for LaHood include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has pushed for increased rail service in Los Angeles and served as chairman of last year's Democratic National Convention, and Debbie Hersman, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The name of former Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who led the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has also been mentioned."

 

Hopefully the new appointment is a Republican (IMO) because I don't know if a Democrat would be able to convince the other side of the aisle enough to promote rail infrastructure improvements.

Wow. I've really liked LaHood. He seems to be a dying breed of moderate conservative. I wonder who will replace him.

 

From the Detroit Free Press:

 

"Possible replacements for LaHood include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has pushed for increased rail service in Los Angeles and served as chairman of last year's Democratic National Convention, and Debbie Hersman, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The name of former Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who led the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has also been mentioned."

 

Hopefully the new appointment is a Republican (IMO) because I don't know if a Democrat would be able to convince the other side of the aisle enough to promote rail infrastructure improvements.

 

Another: Kay Bailey Hutchinson, just-retired US Senator from Texas. A rail supporter. How else do you think Dallas, Houston and Austin have been able to build all that rail? By the way, sounds like San Antonio's streetcar had a major breadkthrough yesterday allowing it to start soon.

Wow. I've really liked LaHood. He seems to be a dying breed of moderate conservative. I wonder who will replace him.

 

From the Detroit Free Press:

 

"Possible replacements for LaHood include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has pushed for increased rail service in Los Angeles and served as chairman of last year's Democratic National Convention, and Debbie Hersman, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The name of former Rep. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, who led the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has also been mentioned."

 

Hopefully the new appointment is a Republican (IMO) because I don't know if a Democrat would be able to convince the other side of the aisle enough to promote rail infrastructure improvements.

 

I hope it is someone from the Midwest. I would hate to see coastal biases affect funding decisions. Hutchinson, from Texas, might be a good pick. Bonus: She is a Republican.

Several names for LaHood's replacement are noted in this article......

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/29/1183013/-Transportation-Secretary-Ray-LaHood-stepping-down#

Elected officials really need to update the gas tax. I think the best way to do this is for states to implement a percentage gas tax and "trick" voters into thinking it's a good idea.

 

In Ohio, the state gas tax is $0.28/gallon. Assume the average price of gas is $3.50 over the past 6 months in Ohio (pretty close). Subtract the $0.28 from state and the $0.184 from federal, and the cost of fuel is at $3.036/gallon. At this point, the $0.28/gallon state tax equals 9.22% of the base fuel cost.

 

No introduce legislation that eliminates the $0.28/gallon tax and introduces a new 8.5% gas tax but specify it should not be less than $0.26/gallon (to avoid catastrophe). We all know gas prices and therefore taxes will increase, but it won't create the same public outcry that increasing the rate to $0.30+/gallon would cause.

 

So if gas prices stay at $3.036/gallon, Ohio gets screwed and makes $0.26/gallon. But I think we all agree that is not going to happen. Now if gas increases to $3.75/gallon before federal taxes, the state is raking in $0.319/gallon instead of $0.28. That is a huge difference, and the lawmakers would have actually lowered the gas tax from its price when the rates were changed.

 

It would only take the gas price to raise to $3.29 before federal taxes to match what we had originally been paying.

 

To boot, I would like to see at least 1% be devoted to public transportation. Though that is probably unlikely under current administration.

 

Would this really be that hard to pass?

To boot, I would like to see at least 1% be devoted to public transportation. Though that is probably unlikely under current administration.

 

Would this really be that hard to pass?

 

If you want state gas tax money going to transit, then the voters would have to pass it -- along with a constitutional amendment allowing gas taxes to spent on uses other than highways. But that's an issue for the ODOT thread, not the US transportation thread.

We'd have a better shot at dedicating Cincinnati Southern revenue to rail transit.

Or a federal agency or court declares Ohio's constitutional restriction on the use of gas taxes as a violation of ADA or a Title VI Civil Rights violation.....

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/08/17/wisdot-faces-civil-rights-suit-over-1-7-billion-zoo-interchange/

U.S. keeps building new highways while letting old ones crumble

By Curtis Tate and Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Oil-rich Texas has built more highways and bridges than any other state, but over the next two decades it will fall $170 billion short of what it needs to keep the sprawling network in good repair.

 

In California, transportation officials estimate that 60 percent of the state’s roads and a quarter of its bridges need to be repaired or replaced, at a projected cost of $70 billion over a decade, some $52 billion more than the available funds.

 

North Carolina anticipates that it will fall short of keeping its highways in current condition by $22 billion over the next 30 years, and would need more than twice that amount to improve them.

 

America’s highway system, once a symbol of freedom and mobility envied the world over, is crumbling physically and financially, the potentially disastrous consequence of a politically driven road-building binge.

 

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/03/181506/us-keeps-building-new-highways.html#storylink=cpy

What about Strickland or LaTourette as the next US DOT director?

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/former-ohio-governor-congressman-rumored-as-possib/nWDBK/

 

^based on recent statements each has made and their lack of desire to run for office, they both appear to want to sit on the sidelines and lobby, though I doubt either would turn it down if offered.

This Future Map Of The United States Is Way Cooler Than Any Current Map Of The United States

 

 

 

http://www.upworthy.com/this-future-map-of-the-united-states-is-way-cooler-than-any-current-map-of-the-u

The Transport Politic tweet: "We have too many new roads being built and too many old roads and bridges falling apart."

 

Governmental agencies handle closed end projects (like construction) reasonably well.  Open ended projects (like maintenance) tend to bog down because measurable objectives can get fuzzy.

Governmental agencies handle closed end projects (like construction) reasonably well.  Open ended projects (like maintenance) tend to bog down because measurable objectives can get fuzzy.

 

Except when construction projects tend to be "make-work" projects that cannot be sustained and maintained by the revenues they generate. Early highway construction projects could do that because they generated exponential increases in vehicle-miles traveled and gas tax revenues. Not anymore. Costs for road construction tend to go up with each added lane or new highway, while the resulting increase in user tax revenue produces diminishing returns. Here is an example....

 

“Construction costs for adding lanes in urban areas average $10–$15 million per lane mile. In general, the funding for this type of construction comes from taxes that drivers pay when buying gas for their vehicles. Overall, funds generated from gas taxes on an added lane during rush hours amount to only $60,000 a year (based on 10,000 vehicles per day during rush hours, paying fuel taxes amounting to about 2 cents per mile). This amount is grossly insufficient to pay for the lane addition.”

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_02.htm

Blog Post: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlovaas/memo_to_the_president_transpor.html

 

Memo to the President: Transportation Choices Boost Economic Choices

 

Posted July 22, 2013 in Living Sustainably, U.S. Law and Policy

|

The President, Scott Wilson of the Washington Post reports today, will launch a series of speeches, using his “bully pulpit” to promote more economic opportunity for the middle class beginning on Wednesday at Knox College. His series of speeches supposedly includes transportation investment as a topic.

 

It’s about time, as underscored by George Packer’s excellent new book The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America (on a totally different topic, his The Assassin’s Gate: America in Iraq is indispensable for understanding our entanglement in that conflict).  A lot has been written about the economic meltdown and its dire and lasting consequences for most Americans (Pinched is particularly good), so I found it hard to believe that Packer could add much. But, understanding that we are storytelling animals, he has written a fascinating and revealing book using profiles and stories woven together with vivid color and consummate skill.

 

One strand in the story involves Tampa, Florida and surrounding suburbs, and this one was particularly resonant for me. He walks through the boom and then bust years for Tampa and its housing market through the eyes of – so far, at least, as I have read 13 of 18 hours as of today – an enterprising city newspaper reporter, a brave Indian small business owner, an attorney with a local practice, an activist who painstakingly assembles data about foreclosures in the region and an anti-light-rail activist.

 

Tampa was slammed particularly hard by the foreclosure crisis due to predatory lending, absentee and speculative ownership of homes throughout the region when the bubble burst, and a ton of sprawl. Consumers laboring under crushing debt have felt their economic options squeezed as in a vise.

 

And as Gary Pivo of the University of Arizona discovered when analyzing a database of 37,000 cases (see Kaid Benfield's great blog on it here), Tampa’s sprawly characteristics make it particularly vulnerable to foreclosures.

 

Tampa is one of the few cities of its size without a light rail system, a hot topic in politics there, and according to Pivo this exacerbates the housing situation. If 30 percent or more commuters use transit, the risk of mortgage default plummets 58.4 percent. On the other hand, if a property is 1000 feet or less from a freeway corridor, the risk spikes 59 percent. And as the second-most-dangerous region for pedestrians, Tampa has yet another strike against it since every one percent increase in the share of commutes on foot drives down the risk of default by 3.1 percent.

 

Another study was rolled out today, examining income mobility across generations. This one looks at millions (talk about "big data"!) of tax records for parents and their now-adult offspring and correlates different factors determining their mobility up the income ladder.

 

David Leonhardt of the New York Times writes a solid piece about the study, which includes some cool graphs and maps including a particularly eye-catching one which shows income mobility variations in shades of yellow, orange and red with darker meaning lower mobility (this map is splashed across the front page of the study itself, available here). Hard to miss the angry sea of red in the southeast. According to Leonhardt, among the factors that matter in the differences the scholars put four at the top – a greater mix of incomes, more two-parent households, better schools and more civic engagement. Author Robert Putnam has found that sprawl can undermine the last of these, and Leonhardt also makes the sprawl link by telling the tale of a family in Atlanta challenged by a dearth of transportation options.

 

President Obama now has the opportunity to reframe transportation more thoroughly as a tool for boosting economic prospects for this generation and the next. As you work on your speeches, Mr. President, note that the evidence is in:

 

More transportation choices such as commuter rail, bus rapid transit and walking give us all more economic choices, boosting our climb up the income ladder. Now is the time to invest in our families and our future.

Interesting article promoting BRT: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportation/2013/08/bus_rapid_transit_improved_buses_are_the_best_route_to_better_transit.html

 

It makes some good points, but also misses some. It says the only purpose of mass transit is to get people from Point A to Point B, and it dismisses the H Street streetcar in DC as something real-estate developers may like, but that is not convenient transportation. The reality is that mass transit should be about making cohesive communities -- about economic development, about moving people, and maybe about making Point A closer to Point B; about designing cities with options: cars, buses, rail, bikes, feet.

Interesting article promoting BRT: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportation/2013/08/bus_rapid_transit_improved_buses_are_the_best_route_to_better_transit.html

 

It makes some good points, but also misses some. It says the only purpose of mass transit is to get people from Point A to Point B, and it dismisses the H Street streetcar in DC as something real-estate developers may like, but that is not convenient transportation. The reality is that mass transit should be about making cohesive communities -- about economic development, about moving people, and maybe about making Point A closer to Point B; about designing cities with options: cars, buses, rail, bikes, feet.

 

Fundamentally, the primary purpose of mass transit is indeed "getting people from point A to point B".

 

All else is politics, open for discussion and molding as per who's in power.

Fundamentally, the primary purpose of mass transit is indeed "getting people from point A to point B".

 

All else is politics, open for discussion and molding as per who's in power.

 

And, fundamentally, the purpose of getting people from Point A to Point B is to promote commerce -- ie: job creation, economic development and a higher quality of life. Thus economic development around public transit is a fundamental goal.

Information is starting to leak out on the federal TIGER 5 grant awards. For example, Kansas City's streetcar won $20 million.....

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/30/4447914/kcs-downtown-streetcar-wins-20.html

 

Cleveland has an application pending for $17 million for the walkway linking the Malls with the proposed transportation center with North Coast Harbor.

 

Another one revealed, this one in Rochester, NY:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130830/NEWS01/308300043/inner-loop-louise-slaughter?nclick_check=1

 

One each for Seattle and Tacoma.....

http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/newsroom?ID=fd7a79a0-fb99-4221-964e-641e1a35bc14

Monday, September 16, 2013

Asphalt Industry Leader: “We’re Not Out Picking Fights” With Other Modes

by Tanya Snyder

 

Jay Hansen is executive vice president of the National Asphalt Pavement Association. He’s led the organization’s efforts to secure federal highway funding and even convinced the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History to install a permanent asphalt pavement exhibit. He says he’s been reading Streetsblog Capitol Hill since it started publishing. I talked to him Friday after the association’s first-ever Washington “fly-in” to strategize about legislation and lobby Congress. T. Carter Ross, NAPA’s Vice President for Communications was also with us.

 

We began by discussing the current state of federal transportation funding before turning to the topic of how that money should be spent.

 

Tanya Snyder: I wanted to ask you about the fix-it-first policy. At this point there’s potentially money behind President Obama’s policy, because he has this $50 billion program. But money aside, in constrained times, as asphalt contractors, do you advocate for a fix-it-first model or would you advocate for concurrent expansion as well?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/09/16/asphalt-industry-leader-were-not-out-picking-fights-with-other-modes/#.UjdSptmML1k.twitter

This is what happens to people who try to make cars pay their way. I 'love' the article's lede. The group "admits" the plan would hit motorists in the pocketbook? YIKES! On the other hand, did this group first show what the cost would be to motorists (such as in vehicle repairs, loss of economic productivity, etc) if the plan was not implemented?

 

Group pushing capital bill

September 14, 2013 7:00 am  •  BY JEFF WILSON, THE SOUTHERN

 

CARBONDALE — Illinois faces a transportation funding crisis, and one group is pushing a plan it admits would hit motorists in the pocketbook.

 

Illinois Chamber of Commerce President/CEO Doug Whitley said a new capital program is necessary to avoid further deterioration of the state’s roads, bridges and mass transit systems, including Amtrak.

 

With the Illinois Jobs Now! program set to expire next year, Whitley said it’s imperative a new bill be put into law.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://thesouthern.com/news/local/group-pushing-capital-bill/article_c8acb820-1cf6-11e3-b80b-0019bb2963f4.html

Monday, September 16, 2013

Asphalt Industry Leader: “We’re Not Out Picking Fights” With Other Modes

by Tanya Snyder

 

Jay Hansen is executive vice president of the National Asphalt Pavement Association. He’s led the organization’s efforts to secure federal highway funding and even convinced the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History to install a permanent asphalt pavement exhibit. He says he’s been reading Streetsblog Capitol Hill since it started publishing. I talked to him Friday after the association’s first-ever Washington “fly-in” to strategize about legislation and lobby Congress. T. Carter Ross, NAPA’s Vice President for Communications was also with us.

 

We began by discussing the current state of federal transportation funding before turning to the topic of how that money should be spent.

 

Tanya Snyder: I wanted to ask you about the fix-it-first policy. At this point there’s potentially money behind President Obama’s policy, because he has this $50 billion program. But money aside, in constrained times, as asphalt contractors, do you advocate for a fix-it-first model or would you advocate for concurrent expansion as well?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/09/16/asphalt-industry-leader-were-not-out-picking-fights-with-other-modes/#.UjdSptmML1k.twitter

 

Good interview.

 

I guess it is pretty easy to just say "transportation needs more funding!" when you're bound to get enormously outsized trickle-down from that. Because of that, it seems totally believable that they're not trying to pick any fights. They simply don't have to, and it could backfire as it would frame the discussion in a way that legitimizes other modes' seats at the table.

 

Seems fairly convincing to me. Anyone have a counter-view to back the asphalt conspiracy theory?

This is like England supporting the Confederate South with ships and munitions while trying to maintain trade and friendly relations with the Union North. England may not have been picking a fight with the North, but it was helping the South and hedging its bets in case the North won.

 

The asphalt industry gets far more revenues from maintenance than it does from construction, and the article notes that an increasing source of revenue is bike paths. So it is becoming invested in the "highway alternatives" sector even if it isn't involved so much in the transit/rail industries.

So then we have to wonder why Mr. Asphalt Jerry Wray is not pursuing a policy of bike paths and fix-it-first, since opposing Cincinnati's streetcar and other passenger rail is often chalked up to his asphalt lobbyist biases.

 

I realize the federal funding structure is stacked against fix-it-first. But other states seem to act more rationally.

So then we have to wonder why Mr. Asphalt Jerry Wray is not pursuing a policy of bike paths and fix-it-first, since opposing Cincinnati's streetcar and other passenger rail is often chalked up to his asphalt lobbyist biases.

 

I realize the federal funding structure is stacked against fix-it-first. But other states seem to act more rationally.

 

Cause ODOT is more of a pay-to-play organization than DOTs in many other states. Road builders and suppliers hold political fundraisers where ODOT officials speak about all the wonderful projects they'll get if they keep raising funds for road-only candidates.

Washington Post ‏@washingtonpost 4m

There’s no money for roads, schools or libraries, but there’s always tax dollars to build a new stadium  http://wapo.st/18SVZhD

John Cary ‏@johncary 7h

"In the 1970s, Americans spent 1/10th of their income on transportation; we now spend 1/5th." -- @JeffSpeckAICP http://bit.ly/18efC7P

 

John Cary ‏@johncary 7h

"85% of the money Americans spend on driving leaves their local economies." -- @JeffSpeckAICP http://bit.ly/18efC7P  #cities #walkablecity

Many teens taking a pass on a driver's license

 

Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

A generation ago, teens couldn't wait to get a driver's license. It represented freedom and independence. How times have changed.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/13/teen-drivers-license/2891701/

Apparently some people don't want us to be the UNITED States anymore. And they have the gall to consider this "empowerment"? We became an economically strong country BECAUSE of a strong federal role in transportation....

 

November 15, 2013, 12:12 pm

Bill would eliminate federal transportation funding

By Keith Laing

 

A bill filed by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) would gradually eliminate federal funding of transportation projects.

 

The measure, which has been dubbed the Transportation Empowerment Act (TEA), would lower the gas tax that currently pays for most federal transportation projects from 18.4 cents-per-gallon to 3.7 cents in five years.

 

During the same time period, the bill would transfer authority over federal highways and transit programs to states and replace current congressional appropriations with block grants.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/infrastructure/190402-bill-would-eliminate-federal-transportation?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=transportation

In regards to the above, a colleague of mine suggested the following.....

_______

 

A worthy experiment for Utah and Georgia.  This bold vision for America needs a thorough testing and who better to lead us in this search for a better future than the leaders of Utah and Georgia. 

 

I propose two pilot tests, one in each state, begin immediately and remain in place until 2034 at which time the Federal DOT in conjunction with the states evaluate the effectiveness of the program. 

 

I say, more power to these fine legislators and let the testing begin immediately.  I see no reason to wait for federal legislation to pass.  Be brave citizens of Utah and Georgia and know that your legislators are intelligent people working on your behalf, engaged in furthering the cause of freedom.

Topic of the week: No more federal gas tax?

by Steven Yates  •  November 19, 2013 11:47 am

 

A new bill in the House of Representatives proposes eliminating the federal gas tax and making states pay for roads and transit themselves. Would that be good or bad for transportation?

 

The Transportation Empowerment Act (TEA), by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Tom Graves (R-Georgia), would virtually eliminate the federal gasoline tax over a 5-year period and devolve the responsibility of funding roads and transit to the states. It now has 19 co-sponsors in the House. We asked a few contributors to give their thoughts on how it could affect transportation funding.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/20822/topic-of-the-week-no-more-federal-gas-tax/

Wouldn't this also inadvertently allow states to set their own drinking age?

Wouldn't this also inadvertently allow states to set their own drinking age?

 

Could be, but I'm more concerned about the ability of the union to stay together as a single country if this passes. Call me overly dramatic, but the Constitution rested the power of interstate commerce with the federal government for a very good reason -- to galvanize the states into a single union. If we have 50 different transportation systems, how much longer do we think this nation will remain a nation? Can we coordinate 50 different transportation programs? Can we ensure that chaos won't result?

 

I am often reminded of a bridge that Ohio and West Virginia wanted to build across the Ohio River. Neither state could agree on how much they would contribute and for what. So finally the federal government stepped in and built the bridge -- which I believe is the new US22 at Steubenville-Weirton.

This country thrived for 150 years without federal regulation on our transportation systems. I highly doubt things would collapse. Certainly, states would have to completely reorganize the way they handle transportation projects. I didn't read the bill though. Would this completely eliminate the MPO structure and discontinue all federal subsidies?  By all if the federal money we receive is from the gas tax.

This isn't about federal regulation, although its backers seem to believe it is through their own blind hatred of regulation. This is essentially the restoration of states rights when it comes to surface land transportation.

 

I don't know if it would eliminate the MPOs, but it would certainly render them without a purpose (except for clean air programs) without any federal transportation funding coming through them anymore. MPOs wouldn't even touch Amtrak funding, as small as it is, because it is either directly appropriated to Amtrak or routed through the FRA to the states.

This would be interesting, because I foresee if this went into effect and states are solely responsible for all road and transit funding, the entire interstate system will fall apart within 50 years, if not quicker.  No city or state has that kind of money to repave all those miles and miles of roads as often as is needed.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing either.  There are lots of people who want the interstates to be gone, especially when they cut through urban areas.  Hopefully this would be the case, and market forces would make money go to transit, which I believe is far more efficient.  It will be really interesting to see how this plays out. 

Wouldn't this basically screw over rural states? And prop up dense, toll-collecting states? Makes you wonder why Republicans would support it.

Wouldn't this basically screw over rural states? And prop up dense, toll-collecting states? Makes you wonder why Republicans would support it.

 

Because of their blind hatred of regulation. Every federally funded project (regardless of purpose) requires adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act which can be extremely cumbersome but is the result of past abuses by highway departments to build roads through the poorest/minority neighborhoods, through parks and historic sites, etc. without consideration of alternatives and little or no public involvement. Yes, it has dramatically slowed down the delivery of projects and increased their cost, but stakeholders -- especially in cities -- now have access to much more due process including in major investments that may impact their neighborhoods.

This country thrived for 150 years without federal regulation on our transportation systems.

 

Not exactly true.  Lots of federal money went into the national road (US40), canals, waterway regulations, and financial incentives for railroads.  To say that there weren't "regulations" may be technically correct, but there were strings attached to the funds that allowed these transportation projects to proceed.

Weren't most canals state-sponsored endeavors? 

Oh, and by the way, all funding support for Ohio public transit from outside urban areas would stop. While the federal government can and does flex federal gas tax money for public transportation, Ohio is not allowed to do it per Article XII Sec. 5a of the Ohio Constitution.....

 

Use of Motor Vehicle License and Fuel Taxes Restricted

No moneys derived from fees, excises, or license taxes relating to registration, operation, or use of vehicles on public highways, or to fuels used for propelling such vehicles, shall be expended for other than costs of administering such laws, statutory refunds and adjustments provided therein, payment of highway obligations, costs for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of public highways and bridges and other statutory highway purposes, expense of state enforcement of traffic laws, and expenditures authorized for hospitalization of indigent persons injured in motor vehicle accidents on the public highways.

ballotpedia.org/Article_XII,_Ohio_Constitution

This country thrived for 150 years without federal regulation on our transportation systems.

 

Not exactly true.  Lots of federal money went into the national road (US40), canals, waterway regulations, and financial incentives for railroads.  To say that there weren't "regulations" may be technically correct, but there were strings attached to the funds that allowed these transportation projects to proceed.

 

Also, I wouldn't consider 1861-65 a particularly "thriving" time period in American history.

Oh, and by the way, all funding support for Ohio public transit from outside urban areas would stop. While the federal government can and does flex federal gas tax money for public transportation, Ohio is not allowed to do it per Article XII Sec. 5a of the Ohio Constitution.....

 

Any idea when this was enacted?

This country thrived for 150 years without federal regulation on our transportation systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Road

Oh, and by the way, all funding support for Ohio public transit from outside urban areas would stop. While the federal government can and does flex federal gas tax money for public transportation, Ohio is not allowed to do it per Article XII Sec. 5a of the Ohio Constitution.....

 

Any idea when this was enacted?

 

Yes, 1947.

This country thrived for 150 years without federal regulation on our transportation systems.

 

Not exactly true.  Lots of federal money went into the national road (US40), canals, waterway regulations, and financial incentives for railroads.  To say that there weren't "regulations" may be technically correct, but there were strings attached to the funds that allowed these transportation projects to proceed.

 

Actual, government in general (even the feds) does a reasonably good job with closed end projects where clear milestones and/or competitors are present.  Wars come to mind.  Apollo worked well, the ongoing space program not so well.  Road building goes well, maintenance not so well.

 

That said, I doubt anyone expects this law to pass as is.  It's more of a shot across the bow, a warning to the feds to quit using federal highway money to circumvent the Tenth Amendment and to, quite justifiably, gut and/or radically restructure NEPA.