Too bad we can't move up the presidential election...
From Engineering News-Record, "DOT Secretary Mary Peters Pushes Big Shift for Roads,Transit: Reduced federal role would defer to state, local and private-sector investment."
No point in having a national economy and a national transportation system, except for the fact that the pesky Adam Smith thought of roads and infrastructure as a natural activity of government, one of the foundations that supports the economy.
From the article:
Surface transportation programs stand at a critical juncture. Roads, bridges and transit lines are aging and construction costs rising. But the Highway Trust Fund, the prime federal-aid source for such infrastructure, is projected to show a $3.2-billion shortfall in its highway account in the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1 and cannot cover spending increases public works advocates want. As programs speed toward this crossroads, big questions loom: Which way should the programs turn? Who should pay for the trip?
The debate is Topic A in transportation circles and Peters, DOT’s chief since September 2006, is in the thick of it. Things are heating up. Congress may well repair the projected trust fund “hole,” but the patch would be temporary. A longer-range solution might be needed as early as fall 2009, when a major new transportation bill is due to replace the current statute, 2005’s SAFETEA-LU the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. ...
... she has become an increasingly vocal critic of the current federal role in funding and overseeing highway and transit infrastructure.
That became clear Jan. 15, when the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission issued a study that was nearly two years in the making. Nine of the 12 commissioners issued a majority report, saying current annual spending is only 40% of the $225 billion to $340 billion they said is needed. To close the gap, they called for a 25¢-to-40¢-per-gallon hike in the federal fuels tax, plus more tolls, private-sector help, new transit and passenger-rail fees and increased funds from states.
But Peters, who chaired the commission, and two other panel members objected vociferously to the majority views. The gas-tax hike, which would represent up to a tripling of the current 18.4¢-per-gallon levy, was a big reason for Peters’ dissent. But her criticism is more fundamental, as she made clear in interviews with ENR on her recent trip to Alabama.
-- Press Release
-- for the Final Report
-- of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission
Labels: infrastructure, progressive urban political agenda, sustainable land use and resource planning, transportation planning
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home