Posted on 06/03/2017 8:10:44 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Greater reliance on user fees, federal loans rather than grants, and corporatization are three keys to the Trump administration’s infrastructure initiative released as a part of its 2018 budget. The plan will “seek long-term reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained,” says the six-page document. More federal funding “is not the solution,” the document says; instead, it is to “fix underlying incentives, procedures, and policies.”
In building the Interstate Highway System, the fact sheet observes, “the Federal Government played a key role” in collecting and distributing monies to “fund a project with a Federal purpose.” Since then, however, those user fees, mainly gas tax receipts, have been “inefficiently invested” in “non-federal infrastructure.”
As a result, the federal government today “acts as a complicated, costly middleman between the collection of revenue and the expenditure of those funds by States and localities.” To fix this, the administration will “explore” whether transferring “responsibilities to the States is appropriate.”
The document contains a number of specific proposals:
The paper also includes proposals for reforming inland waterways, the Power Marketing Administration, and water infrastructure finance. Like the transportation proposals, these call for increased reliance on user fees, corporatization, privatization, or loans rather than grants.
“Corporatization” means creating a non-profit or for-profit corporation that may be government owned but doesn’t necessarily rely on taxpayer subsidies. Comsat is a classic example, but Canada and other countries’ air traffic control systems work in this way.
Except for air traffic control reform, Trump’s plan isn’t fleshed out in detail. But these ideas have all been tossed around enough that everyone pretty much knows what they mean. Most importantly, they mean a significant change in the way Washington deals with infrastructure.
Because it doesn’t contain a list of projects that members of Congress could take credit for, the plan has received relatively little notice in the media. Democrats, of course, are unhappy with it, but they would be unhappy no matter what Trump proposed.
One of the more controversial proposals is to allow the states to toll interstate highways. “I don’t like paying for a road twice,” Representative Sam Graves (R-MO), who chairs the Highways and Transit Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told The Hill. But, given that Congress has had to inject tens of billions of dollars of general funds into the highway trust fund in recent years, what makes Graves thinks existing user fees are paying for the roads now? All roads need maintenance and occasional rehabilitation, so the fact that user fees paid for construction 50 years ago doesn’t mean that costs stop.
The most important point is that Trump wants user fees to pay a greater share of infrastructure costs. Naturally, the transit lobby, which represents the most heavily subsidized form of transportation, per unit of output, is upset about this. But Trump’s agenda sounds good to anyone who wants an efficient, user-fee-driven infrastructure program.
First cut my taxes, then balance the budget, once the government has a surplus of money we will revise the amount of taxes we are paying. Then let’s talk about infrastructure.
He is certainly right about the FAA Next Gen program. The US is slowpoking around to try to get it done by 2020 while the rest of the world already has their versions in place.
Imo, the first step in infrastructure improvement/replacement should be a full and complete accounting on all the monies that were already allocated, and the taxes already collected for just that purpose that, for some reason, no longer exist.
A 6-page plan is better than a 2000 page plan.
...and to think that I felt relieved that Rick Perry was Energy Secretary. I guess the ghost of Rick Perry made it over to Transportation.
user fees are a good thing
Cities in Central Illinois have been using the federal road rebuilding funds to put in new bike lanes and bike paths.
Of course, that means the roads and bridges aren’t being fixed, but if enough people bike to work because of the new paved paths, roads won’t be needed, right?
LOL! Trump looks at the big picture and we still have so many wanting real reform w/o it having any impact at all on them during the transition - no wonder our side has such a horrendous loss record. Trump's vision is to create an America that we all dream about and so many of us see nightmares instead (reminiscent of all the libs who want windmills but NIMBY) - pathetic.
I agree with you about cutting taxes and working toward a balanced budget.
I disagree about putting off funding for infrastructure.
Interstate highways, bridges and rail beds are critical to moving food and other consumer and industrial products, as well as military assets.
I don’t want to see tolls place on the Interstate highways. That would increase the cost of consumer goods due to the higher cost of transportation.
user fees are a good thing
***************************************
Every vehicle owner pays “user fees” each year through the requirement for annual registration of their vehicle.
Where does that money go and where is it being spent?
User fees for highways is fine as long as you eliminate the gasoline tax; otherwise we are just paying twice for the same service.
User fees for highways is fine as long as you eliminate the gasoline tax; otherwise we are just paying twice for the same service.
gas taxes and registration pays less than 1/2 of maintenance of highways. Highway expansion always comes out of general funds.
I’d argue the best solution is eliminate gas taxes and fully privatize all interstates. Let the free market reign, you’d soon see costs drop and quality increase.
Local streets are typically paid through property taxes so they’d be uneffected by any change in this system.
Any part of the plans that pertain to “mass transit” will fail to reduce reliance on tax-payer revenues if Amtrak and Amtrak as a business model is not sold-off and totally privatized.
Amtrak has the land-and-access ability for “high speed rail” that could be profitable, but lacks the ability - due to political constraints - to shed all of Amtrak operations that are not now and cannot be run profitably.
Unless that is understood generally, about all “mass transit”, the new “infrastructure” plans could wind up including new demands on taxpayers to subsidize transportation elements that cannot be run profitably.
The best signal Trump and the GOP could give to kick off their new “infrastructure” agenda would be to start with selling Amtrak with no political conditions placed on what the private buyers do with it, nor what the private company would have to do. There are existing railroad industry interests that might jump at the chance to have a free hand in running the best possible and profitable passenger rail system.
Actually, that seems to be the thinking.
"Encourage states to fix congestion using “congestion pricing, enhanced transit services, increased telecommuting and flex scheduling, and deployment of advanced technology”
That's just getting people out of their cars, and bikes are another way to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.