my point of view…

SAFETEA and Spare Change

While there are a few redeeming aspects of the administration’s transportation reauthorization proposal, it falls far short of industry expectations. Stephen E. Sandherr, chief executive officer of the Associated General Contractors of America, sums up construction industry reaction rather well when he says: “We appreciate that the administration looked under the sofa cushions to find as much revenue as possible.”
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), unveiled on May 14 by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, purports to be the “largest surface and public transportation investment in U.S. history.” The general public may buy that message, but it isn’t playing as well among people who understand the continually worsening state of the nation’s infrastructure.
Our 50-year-old highway system can’t adequately handle current capacity requirements. According to recent studies, 32 percent of major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, 28 percent of bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and 36 percent of transit rail vehicles and facilities are in substandard or poor condition. The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) own “2002 Conditions and Performance” report indicates that the funding levels outlined in the administration’s six-year $247 billion proposal aren’t enough to improve the nation’s infrastructure system. In fact, DOT recommendations served as the basis for the $375 billion funding levels proposed by the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) responded rather bluntly to the administration’s proposal. “In reality, SAFETEA’s highway funding levels are actually lower than the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) levels,” he says. “Based on a preliminary analysis, if the highway funding levels are adjusted to constant 2003 dollars, the administration’s funding proposal is actually less than that provided between 1998 and 2003 by TEA21.”
While the proposal does have some positive aspects, such as provisions for environmental streamlining, transferring the ethanol user fees into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), and spending down the HTF balance, it simply doesn’t go far enough because it fails to include an important funding component — an increased highway user fee.
A new advertising campaign from the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) is designed to challenge gas tax opponents’ thinking on transportation spending levels. Its print and radio ads make reference to President Reagan, saying “Ronald Reagan loved cutting taxes, but he raised the highway user fee to strengthen the American economy.”
The simple truth is that higher transportation funding levels will not only improve the nation’s infrastructure, but also its economy. The administration and Congress need to stop looking for spare change in the sofa cushions and allocate funding levels that meet the nation’s transportation needs.

June 2003 my point of view... SAFETEA and Spare Change				my point of view… SAFETEA and Spare Change While there are a few redeeming aspects of the administration’s transportation reauthorization proposal, it falls far short of industry expectations. Stephen E. Sandherr, chief executive officer of the Associated General Contractors of America, sums up construction industry reaction rather well when he says: “We appreciate that the administration looked under the sofa cushions to find as much revenue as possible.” The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), unveiled on May 14 by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, purports to be the “largest surface and public transportation investment in U.S. history.” The general public may buy that message, but it isn’t playing as well among people who understand the continually worsening state of the nation’s infrastructure. Our 50-year-old highway system can’t adequately handle current capacity requirements. According to recent studies, 32 percent of major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, 28 percent of bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and 36 percent of transit rail vehicles and facilities are in substandard or poor condition. The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) own “2002 Conditions and Performance” report indicates that the funding levels outlined in the administration’s six-year $247 billion proposal aren’t enough to improve the nation’s infrastructure system. In fact, DOT recommendations served as the basis for the $375 billion funding levels proposed by the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) responded rather bluntly to the administration’s proposal. “In reality, SAFETEA’s highway funding levels are actually lower than the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) levels,” he says. “Based on a preliminary analysis, if the highway funding levels are adjusted to constant 2003 dollars, the administration’s funding proposal is actually less than that provided between 1998 and 2003 by TEA21.” While the proposal does have some positive aspects, such as provisions for environmental streamlining, transferring the ethanol user fees into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), and spending down the HTF balance, it simply doesn’t go far enough because it fails to include an important funding component — an increased highway user fee. A new advertising campaign from the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) is designed to challenge gas tax opponents’ thinking on transportation spending levels. Its print and radio ads make reference to President Reagan, saying “Ronald Reagan loved cutting taxes, but he raised the highway user fee to strengthen the American economy.” The simple truth is that higher transportation funding levels will not only improve the nation’s infrastructure, but also its economy. The administration and Congress need to stop looking for spare change in the sofa cushions and allocate funding levels that meet the nation’s transportation needs. Therese Dunphy, editorial director therese@aggman.com