I hope everyone saw the story in today’s New York Times that the Bush administration (Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters) wants the highway fund of the Highway Trust Fund to “borrow money” from the fund’s mass transit account."
It just amazes me that after over fifty years in the wasteland, with the Federal government building highways and airports everywhere as both long distance and commuter rail transportation suffocated and nearly died, in 2008, as gasoline is near $4 and the entire infrastructure getting a grade of D- from our expert engineers, that mass transit’s patheically low funds are being asked to bail out the highway (and oil) interests.
What further proof is needed before citizens, let alone railfans, see the utter worthlessness of this Administration, the party and idelogy it represents, and its non-existent transportation “policy”?
Mass transit funds to subsidize the highway trust fund!?!? What kind of people think of this stuff? What must they think about us?
Well in my opinion, it’s been very clear from the start that this administration is very pro highway. They’ve been very hostile to Amtrak, communter rail and light rail. Remember when you got a tax break for buying an SUV? (in hindsight, i think i know where those savings are now being used towards). In my opinion, the pro highway policy of this administration has more to do with election politics than it does transportation policy. From my persepective, the GOP has a great distain towards unions mainly because unions usually associated with the Democrats and have been for many decades. Mass transit systems are generally operated and funded by local, state and federal governments and the non-office workers are unionized. So from a political point of view, why would should the GOP fund a government program (mass transit) where the workers’ unions would be more inclined to endorse their rivals because the Dems are more friendly to the unions. Highways after they are built only need a few guys to maintain it and clear the snow. They don’t need a lot of unionized people to do that. I get it, I’m not too keen to wanting to fund something that could potentially help my rival. It’s definitely not right, but I get it. It’s politics. So that’s my opinion based on my observations.
Continuing my election political theory, the GOP’s strong hold is currently in rural, non-urban areas. Cities are generally considered to Democrat strong holds and cities is where mass transit works best. Rural areas, non-urban areas don’t need mass transit, you basically need a car to get anywhere. So from an political point of view, it would make sense to be for the GOP to pro highway since their constituency / base supporters live in areas that require cars to get around. It would not make sense fund mass transit for an area (cities, the Northeast, California) that is traditionally a Democrat stronghold. Once again, this is my opinion and to me it makes sense to me.
…That’s almost unbelievable to understand taking funds from the Mass Transit account to prop up the Highway Trust Fund…! A pittance in the first place and than even “take” that to support the Highway Fund…Only our current adminstration could arrange to get away with something like such and keep a straight face…!
I do not know the reasons cited and would appreciate hearing them before passing judgement, like maybe some bridges need emergency fixing, hello Twin Cities???
Perhaps we should change our Constitution so that Congress can write the appropriations legislation (??) and have some part in deciding how tax money is to be spent (??). Oh, I forgot, they just handle the ‘earmarks’ and everything else is up to the Administration.
Forgive my polite ‘tirade’ but it seems that we allow politics to enter into some of our discussions without having enough information.
I would not worry about mass transit being shortchanged. It is the favorite child of the public sector, and they see to it that it is massively subsidized, even by people who cannot use it. But mass transit is really beside the main point of this story, and the story itself is part of a complex subterfuge.
The real underlying point is that the government is spending money like it is going out of style these days. There are bailouts that need to get done. So taxes need to go up, and pretexts are needed to argue for the increases. Two of the latest pretexts for raising taxes are that property tax revenue is falling due to the foreclosure crisis, and highway tax revenue falling due to the sudden fuel conservation in reaction to high fuel prices.
It will be difficult for the taxpayers to determine the actual extent to which these two crises are reducing revenue because the reduction are likely to be exaggerated in order to raise a much revenue as possible. The ultimate objective in citing the highway tax revenue shortfall is to raise gas taxes. Connecting the issue to an attack on transit is just a way to get the transit lobby on board for the fight with the taxpayers.
diningcar: I think you make a few good points, e.g that Congress comes in for its own share of blame for our transportation crisis, and that earmarks are, indeed, a perversion of the funding process our government is supposed to follow.
But I respectfully disagree on two points you raise: First, that more “facts” must be understood in order to draw the conclusion that I drew (and that others have drawn) about this particular Administration’s complete failure in creating and implementing a coherent national transportation policy. I think all of us have enough facts to discern the truth of why mass transit money is to be “loaned” to the highway trust funds. About your excellent point about the bridge in Minneapolis and the crying need to fund repairs and replacement of such deficient infrastructure, not only do I agree with you, you proved my point! My point is that we need a credible and sufficienty-funded mass transit policy, as part of an over-all transportation policy.
My second point is that it was and is exactly my intention to bring politics into this question and into this room. Politics and railroads are intertwined and always have been. It is not, in my opinion, in bad taste or out of place to write in this forum political aspects of railroading and trains. So while I understand and respect your point of view on this issue diningcar, I hope this forum can find room for issues of the day such as I raised, and be a forum which only has questions on topics like brininging back steam locomotives or favorite color schemes (yes, these are worthy questions/postings in their own right). It’s just that forums such as this can use an edge and an exchange of opposing views is perfectly OK. (I meant “not be a form” above; I don’
But the bridge did not collapse because of a failure to fund repairs. It collapsed due to a design flaw. There were routine inspections for deterioration, wear, and tear issues, but such inspections could not detect a design flaw. Only the people who want higher taxes point to the bridge collapse and declare it to be an example of inadequate funding for maintenance. They started saying that only a few days after the collapse, and they will not be disuaded from continuing to say it, even though the truth has since been discovered to be otherwise.
Bucyrus: You certainly have your facts correct on this bridge! You are right, I’m wrong. But let me then say that infrastructure problems in our country (remember the over-all D- grade) are most often or frequently the result of deferred maintenance, rather than design flaws, as in the case you cite. My point, I believe, still obtains.
My call for information related only to why the funds were to be "LOANED’. If more bridges need to be fixed then let’s find a way to do it, but without the ‘info’(which by the way was probably mentioned in the press release) we don’t know why the “LOAN” is requested.
Anyway, Congress can ( when they are in session??) take care of the transit needs. And, if they wish, provide that no “LOANS’” can be made in the future. However, I suspect that this type of flexibility has been provided for in the past and will continue to be. It is however, not money which cannot or will not be replaced.
It is so easy, particularly during election season, to make something appear to be inapproiate. It is the job of a “neutral” press to give us information which permits a rational judgement. We can all assist by waiting for the full story.
The current administration certainly has done nothing toward developing a coherent national transportation policy, but I don’t think it is fair to blame the whole thing on them. The Department of Transportation has been around since Lyndon Johnson’s Democratic Administration in the 1970’s, and yet today, it is still really the department of airplanes, department of highways and the department of railroads, with the department of waterways (aka Corp of Engineers) down the street.
My idea of a coherent transportation policy is one that essentially gets the best bang for the buck. For example, for people moving in high density environments, it is rather well established that for the same dollar, rail transit can provide more people hauling capacity than a highway. The way I see it, if money (from whatever source) is used to build rail transit instead of highway lanes in cities, that leaves more money in the highway pot to build or maintain highways in the rural areas, where clearly, mass transit is not now and may never be an economical option.
It is also my opinion that every time someone leaves the car behind and starts to take the train, that leaves a few more gallons in the tank at the service station where I can get it because I have no option. I also suspect, but certainly could never prove, that because someone else is no longer using so much gasoline, I might be getting mine for a few pennies per gallon less.
Giving the voting public’s support for candidates for public office who promise to cut government spending and hold the line or reduce taxes, it is not surprising that we have a transportation network that is congested and/ or falling apart. It has been 15 years since the last increase in the federal gas tax which put it at 18.4 cents per gallon. Hello. Anybody hear about inflation. Since 1993 the Consumer Price Index has been going up 3% a year, give or take a little.&
Beyond the transit funding issue, the article title does suggest the larger context of a drop in highway funds due to the reduction in driving to which I referred above. The theme is similar to the shifting to more fuel efficient vehicles causing a shortfall in gas tax revenue, which is charged by the gallon, and hence the proposals to switch to charging the tax by the miles driven. We discussed that recently in another thread.
Flunked that one big time![D)] Can I use Jerry Garcia’s excuse? Actually, I was in my second week of Army Basic Training when John Kennedy was assinated and Johnson became President. I should be able to remember at least some part of the 1960’s.
As I indicated on that thread, I agree that the technology exists to use other methods to collect taxes for highways. I just think that the dollars that would be needed to deploy the technology could be better used to fix and expand highways. And even with that program, it is still appearant a greater amount of tax has to be collected just to keep highway maintneance and construction advancing at a pace to keep up with demand.
One might view the “miles driven” tax as being fair to owners of vehicles getting lower MPG performance and unless the rate was different among vehicles with different MPG ratings, those with vehicles getting better MPG performance would carry a greater tax burden. However, I don’t think that a straight “miles driven” tax rate would have much impact on car buyers’ choice between big cars and smaller more fuel efficient cars. A miles driven tax rate producing the same revenue as say 25 cents per gallon would still only be a little over 6% of gasoline at $4.00 per gallon.
You’ve got a few years on me - I was in fourth grade when JFK was assassinated. Dpressing how many people I work with who weren’t even born at that time.
As for DOT, one of the first non-legacy projects for the new department was high speed rail in the Northeeast corridor - i.e. the Metroliners for the PRR and Turbotrain for the NH.
I hate to have to defend this Admninistration, but the Mass Transit Trust Fund is created out of fuel taxes to begin with, not from some tax on mass transit users – it is a subsidy from the users of cars and trucks to those who do not do so. “Borrowing” does not seem unreasonable in those circumstances.
Perhaps what we really need is a Mass Transit Lock Box! [:-^]
…Mass transit’s tax income and where it comes from: True, but with mass transit being updated and functional certainly alleviates the traffic somewhat in metropolitan areas where without it, more highways would have had to be built {and in some areas…where to built them, and at what cost}.
…I really find myself feeling a bit uncomfortable hearing proposals for the “State” monitoring one’s odometer at a given period for tax purposes or a system built into our vehicles “telling” the authorities how many miles we’ve driven, etc…Just smacks a bit of something we don’t want started in our open society of freedom…