The recent Skagit River Bridge collapse shone a national spotlight on America’s infrastructure funding crisis, precisely at a time when Washington welcomes a new Transportation Secretary and Congress begins serious discussions around how to fund our nation’s transportation infrastructure. With the 2014 surface transportation reauthorization on the horizon, Congress has a serious choice to make: Do we stick with the same funding strategy that now provides dwindling revenues or do we explore alternative funding options like tolling?
Unfortunately, our infrastructure funding woes have been years in the making, and a ballooning federal budget deficit will force Congress to make tough choices about the reinvestment needed to update our aging roads, bridges and tunnels. The federal gas tax — the primary source of federal funding for state road construction — has lost much of its buying power since it was last raised more than 20 years ago. With the Highway Trust Fund quickly becoming insolvent, now is the time for both parties to embrace new funding options to help clear a crippling highway funding deficit that cost commuters $121 billion in lost time and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted gasoline in 2011, according to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report.
The glimmer of hope is a set of solutions that are obvious, practical and nonpartisan. They make sense in any budget cycle. A toolbox of user-financing options, from tolling to mileage-based user fees, would deliver billions of new dollars to a highway network in desperate need of maintenance, repair and reconstruction. Funds that would trigger significant local job creation across the nation.
Congress can advance a safer, more reliable highway system without mandating a new funding system for all roads. What state and local governments need is the flexibility to consult their constituents and choose the funding options that best match their needs and circumstances.
At a transportation finance summit earlier this year, former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker pointed to three key ingredients of an effective strategy:
· A Plan: No one can reach a destination without a forward-looking plan to get there. If funding flexibility gives states more options to fund the infrastructure they need, the federal government can still define the outcomes it wants the system to achieve.
· A Budget: With several competing budgets on the table for debate, we can expect the federal government to operate under another continuing resolution in 2013. This is yet another reason to explore alternative funding strategies to help clear the funding backlog on our roads.
· Performance Measures: A clear set of outcome-based performance measures would give states a common benchmark to track how they’re doing with infrastructure renewal, and how their efforts stack up against our international partners and competitors
There is sound precedent for greater state flexibility in choosing the road funding and financing strategies that work most effectively for them.
In nearly three dozen states, tolled highways deliver safe, reliable mobility to tens of millions of drivers. Tolling is a proven solution that generates more than $12 billion in annual revenue, in red states and blue. But here’s the problem: In many states, interstate highways are in the greatest need of major overhaul, but federal law prohibits tolling on existing interstates.