Barbara Boxer’s Transportation Bill: Same As It Ever Was

The future of national transportation policy is pretty much like the present of national transportation policy, if the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has its way: underfunded and highway-centric.

This is your freight network, America. Enjoy. Photo: ##http://www.komu.com/news/licking-man-sentenced-for-arson-fires-at-truck-stops/##KOMU##
This is your freight network, America. Enjoy. Photo: KOMU

The bill released by Senator Barbara Boxer’s EPW Committee yesterday [PDF] rejects pretty much everything the Obama administration put forth in its bill, including permanent funding for TIGER and the elimination of red tape that prevents states from tolling interstates. The administration called for spending $302 billion over four years, while the EPW bill envisions a $265 billion budget over six years — although that figure does not include transit or rail.

And that’s part of the problem. The administration put forward a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation bill proposal. But in the Senate, the process is shepherded by EPW, and EPW only writes the highway component of the bill, then hands it over to the Banking Committee for the transit piece and the Commerce Committee for the rail and safety piece. And of course, nothing at all will happen unless the Senate Finance Committee can find a way to pay for it.

“It’s disappointing that the Senate is still operating under complete modal siloes and not thinking of this as a comprehensive system in any way, shape, or form,” said Joshua Schank of the Eno Center for Transportation.

Boxer has long hinted that she doesn’t see much need to change the policies laid out in the current transportation bill, MAP-21, which was negotiated less than two years ago. And by that standard, she has delivered. While there are some updates to MAP-21, by and large, the EPW bill maintains the status quo right down to the level of funding, which is only adjusted for inflation.

Of the few changes included in the bill, the proposals are hit-or-miss. Here’s the rundown.

Freight. One notable new line item is money for a national freight program, which was stripped out of MAP-21 in conference. The new bill allocates nothing for freight in 2015 but then funds the program with $400 million in 2016, raising by that amount every year until it topping out at $2 billion in 2020.

Unfortunately, the freight money will be disbursed according to formula, with no regard for merit or national strategy. A program that really wanted to improve the national freight network would target the worst bottlenecks with the money required to ameliorate them, not just spread funds around like petty cash for road widening.

And unlike the administration’s multi-modal plan for freight, the Senate’s plan is purely highway-focused. The program even renames the Primary Freight Network as the “Primary Highway Freight Network.”

According to the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, a trade association that represents conventional transportation and freight interests, the overwhelming sentiment from more than 300 comments submitted on the freight program earlier this year was in favor of a “broadly multimodal, rather than highway-centric” freight network. CAGTC and other groups are counting on the EPW Committee to work with the Commerce Committee to make that happen.

The numbers. The federal-aid highway program would grow from $38.44 billion in 2015 to $42.59 billion in 2020. The TIFIA loan program, whose expansion was a key point of bipartisan agreement in MAP-21, stays at $1 billion per year for the duration of the bill. We’ll have to wait for the other committees to fill in numbers on rail and transit.

TIGER and PNRS. The bill doesn’t mention TIGER at all but authorizes Projects of National or Regional Significance at $400 million a year out of the Trust Fund. MAP-21 also included PNRS but funded it out of general funds, which ended up meaning it didn’t get funded at all. No one really missed it, though, since TIGER kept roaring. PNRS is no substitute for TIGER — the bill mandates that 80 percent of the funds be used for highways, and the project cost minimum is $350 million — way too high for most bikeways, streetcars, or BRT projects — the kinds of things TIGER shines at. While the new bill includes cities as eligible entities for PNRS funds, few cities would have projects in the pipeline that meet its criteria.

Bike/ped. There are some small but positive changes to bike/ped funding. MAP-21 came up with a complicated, though welcome, system of divvying up funds between states and local governments. The problem was that the half that the states got could be transferred to other programs without penalty, so instead of a small but dedicated fund for active transportation, that portion just a slush fund for states. Now, instead of having half the money to use as they please, states would have a third. Two-thirds would go directly to local governments, divided among jurisdictions proportionally to population. Bike/ped funding would go up modestly at the same rate as highway funding in the bill.

The Bike League gives the bill a B+, giving good marks to a requirement that U.S. DOT develop a specific non-motorized safety performance measure — “a key ask at the last two National Bike Summits and the subject of a concerted campaign over the past 18 months.” Non-profits would now also be eligible for some bike/ped funds — a significant change, since Safe Routes to School programs are often administered by non-profits. It also streamlines the permitting process for small active transportation projects.

Some pedestrian projects are also explicitly made eligible to be 100 percent federally funded, including flashing crosswalk signals and pedestrian islands.

Transit-oriented development. Another welcome change is the inclusion of a measure, introduced just last week, to use TIFIA loans to help finance transit-oriented development. ”This measure will allow communities to better realize the potential of their transit systems, grow their economies, provide families with more housing and transportation choices while giving both the private and public sectors the financial tools to help make it happen,” said Geoff Anderson, president and CEO of Smart Growth America, in a statement. TIFIA eligibility for TOD was considered for MAP-21, too, but was left on the cutting-room floor.

Bridges. The bill fixes a serious blunder of MAP-21, in which all bridge funds were recategorized in a way that made less than half of bridges eligible for them. The rest would have to be funded out of Surface Transportation Program funds — putting the squeeze on other projects, including bike and pedestrian work. The Senate’s new bill allows up to 10 percent of bridge money to be used for the “off-system” bridges that MAP-21 barred. It’s probably not enough, but it’s an acknowledgment of the error.

Project delivery acceleration. The urge to speed up the delivery of transportation projects remains in this bill. MAP-21 weakened environmental reviews by shortening the amount of time communities have to respond to plans, but this bill seems to improve planning and reduce project delivery times without doing further damage to environmental and community protections. “I think [Boxer] threaded the needle pretty skillfully,” said Deron Lovaas of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Funding source. Other Senate committees will be rolling out the rail, safety, and transit provisions — not to mention the all-important funding proposal, which will come from the Finance Committee. And really, securing a new funding source is what the Senate has set out to achieve with this bill, more than policy reforms. The small tweaks in the EPW bill are almost beside the point, as far as senators are concerned. They mainly just want to find new revenue for the ailing Highway Trust Fund. And with a gas tax increase apparently off the table and a bipartisan plan for corporate tax reform not going anywhere, the options are pretty limited.

“Boxer’s a pretty powerful force but $100 billion is a lot of money to come up with in a short amount of time,” Schank said.

This bill probably won’t solve the funding issue, but it does try to set the table for a solution by funding studies of revenue alternatives. Vehicle-miles-traveled fees would almost certainly be on the list. So would Boxer’s preferred option of a wholesale tax on oil.

While Boxer has delivered a bill well in advance of the drop-dead date by which the trust fund goes insolvent — in August, before the expiration of MAP-21 — the House has made no such promises. Now that the water resources bill is done, perhaps some bandwidth will be freed up. But either way, many observers think that whatever “funding solution” Congress agrees on will be another patchwork, temporary fix, incapable of funding a six-year bill — much less modernizing the nation’s transportation program for the 21st century.

  • archie

    Really, really great coverage. Thank you!

  • DTurner

    Only Congress would have an appropriations bill that does not establish any means of funding outside of General Funds utilization but does appropriate funds to support studies to find funding. Great job guys.

    The continued ban on tolling is a missed opportunity to actually institute a real user fee for roads. Transpo advocates should be hammering conservatives and tea partiers to remind them that ignoring interstate tolling is counter to the most basic conservative values.

  • Franklin41

    It only makes sense for conservatives if the toll revenue is not diverted and the users of that road don’t have to pay a gas tax on top of the toll — that is certainly not what the Obama Administration has in mind.

  • Franklin41

    The author bemoans the fact that highways are the focus of the highway title. Strange, but to be expected from Streetsblog. The fact is that the country needs highways to move the overwhelming portion of people and freight, regardless of whether you live in a “car-free in a transit oriented and bike-friendly neighborhood. Do you have any idea how self-congratulatory and elitist you sound to people other than your sycophants?

  • Nathanael

    The majority of freight is moved by rail and barge for most of its distance.

  • Franklin41

    80% of the value of US freight is moved by truck. 70% of the tonnage of US freight is moved by truck. Trucks pay a variety of taxes that go into the HTF. Rail doesn’t pay that tax.

  • Nathanael

    Misleading numbers. Truck is used for “last mile” transportation from the rail terminals.

    So freight is registered as “moved by truck” when UPS sends it by train across the entire country, and by truck for a few miles.

  • DTurner

    Yes, it would (and should) replace the gas tax on the federal level, but the state gas tax would probably stay in place. Also, that money probably should go straight to the state and who should be able to use the money as they see fit for transportation. Let the states decide if they want to expand the current interstate network in their states or push for alternatives. The current parceling out of money with strings attached doesn’t really make for a logical or equitable system.

  • Jack Jackson

    rail and barge aren’t efficient enough for high value goods to get from a to be fast

    that’s great for coal. not so much for your Chinese blue ray

  • lop

    74% of value were carried by trucks in 2007.
    3% by rail
    12% by multiple modes

    Rail chiefly carries bulk commodities like coal. Not pricey finished products.

    Most goods, nearly 75% by tonnage, are shipped fewer than 250 miles, but shipments that travel further than 250 miles represent more than 80% of ton-miles, which will give you the rosiest picture for rail.

    41% of ton-miles were carried by trucks in 2007.
    27% by rail.
    8% by multiple modes.

    http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2012/figure3_1_table.html

    This is a good read too.

    http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/ch3_tsar2012.pdf

  • andrelot

    Any tolling on roads funded with federal money should only be used on the same roads, for maintenance and/or expansion. This is a proposition that could fly. Problem is that some jurisdictions that have tolls raid them for purposes totally unrelated to road transportation, or unrelated to transportation altogether.

  • DTurner

    I think it’s fine to mandate that the funds need to be used for transportation, but there should be some flexibility for the locality/state to decide how to use those funds.

    Here in Philly, for example, the Delaware River Port Authority tolls the bridges between PA and NJ and those tolls go to subsidize the operation of a heavy rail line from Philly to the Jersey suburbs. Drivers sometimes grumble about it, but at least it makes sense-the line is subsidized to ease bridge congestion and provide an alternative. States should be able to do the same with federal interstate toll revenues.

  • DTurner

    At which point you’re using air…

    I work in intl’ logistics and I’ve been surprised by how much goes via rail. Trucking is just not economical for mid-range travel (gotta pay a trucker), but is great for last-mile carriage to a distribution center.

  • DTurner

    Exactly. I’d like to know what fees truckers pay into the HTF beyond a basic gas tax, too.

  • DTurner

    Of course we need highways, but we also need to make sure that users are paying more of the costs. Why should we be subsidizing the transportation of freight by a single mode anyway?

  • Flakker

    It’s still a red herring because we don’t need any more highways for freight traffic, and highway construction is enabling the sprawl that increases our truck traffic demands.

  • AA

    Quite a bit on tires (that are for vehicles over a certain weight): https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/htf.cfm

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Two-Year Transpo Bill Moves on to Full Senate Without Bike/Ped Protections

|
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously this morning to pass a two-year transportation reauthorization bill, moving the bill one step closer to passage by the full Senate. Unlike in the House, where the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has full responsibility for the transportation bill, the Senate splits jurisdiction among several committees, so […]

House Transpo Leaders and Obama DOT Run Off in Opposite Directions

|
The conflicted state of federal transportation policy-making was on vivid display today, as House lawmakers pressed ahead on a $500 billion bill that still lacks a funding source while the Obama administration scrambled to find $20 billion for a bailout of the highway trust fund. Members of the famously bipartisan House transportation committee lined up […]

Baucus Adds Transit Tax Benefit to Senate Transpo Bill

|
The Senate Finance Committee is currently marking up what lawmakers have christened the “Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012,” the final component of the Senate’s two-year transportation bill. This portion of the bill, put together by committee chair Max Baucus (D-MT), is responsible for the “pay-for” — identifying approximately $13 billion […]

A Quick Guide to the State of Transpo Policy on Capitol Hill

|
Coming back to Streetsblog after a few months away, I needed to get up to speed on the latest with transportation-related legislation, and I thought some of you might too. Here’s what you need to know: Appropriations House Republicans passed a pretty terrible Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill last week, decimating […]