Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/114548
Infrastructure ("U.S. Keeps Building New Highways While Letting Old Ones Crumble" continued from page 37) carbon tax and a tax based on the number of miles people drive. Congressional gridlock has left the states to find other sources of revenue, with mixed success. States have taken on more debt, and some have about as much as they can support. According to Federal Highway Administration data, all states carried a combined $56 billion in road bond debt at the end of 1995, in current dollars. By 2010, they owed $154 billion. State and local governments have asked voters to approve sales-tax increases, and about two-thirds of such measures pass. States also have turned to the private sector for infrastructure money, an arrangement that's common in countries around the globe. Indiana and Illinois leased toll roads in exchange for money they used to bankroll highway projects. Virginia and California have sought private partners to build bridges and highways. Most of the interstate highway system has been free of tolls for its 57-year history, but that might end as states face the challenge of rebuilding the aging roads. Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia are planning to add tolls to portions of major interstate highways to pay for repairs. Other states, such as Florida and Texas, have been building their own toll roads for years. But tolls are unpopular with the public. The trucking industry opposes them, and truckers will go miles out of their way to avoid them. "Every time you have a free good, people don't want to pay for it," said John Fischer, a transportation consultant who worked on federal policy for three decades at the Congressional Research Service. Paved By Politics Highway supporters frequently characterize their foes as anti-road, anti-jobs or anti-progress. However, even the most ardent highway proponents agree privately on what they're reluctant to admit publicly: Some road projects are better than others. In some state transportation plans, it's hard to tell the difference. And in the absence of clear national priorities, politics drives where the funding goes. "Instead of making hard decisions, we're going to make sure everybody gets something," Fischer said. For years, some states complained that they were "donors" who got back less than a dollar in federal highway funding for every dollar in gasoline taxes they contributed. Congress fixed that by baking in extra funding, so that nearly every state gets back at least a dollar, and some much more. The formula favors small states or those with low population densities and shortchanges more populous states, said Donna Cooper, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington. "We just created a nightmare for ourselves by creating a system that sends money to places with the least need," she said. According to the Government Accountability Office, Alaska gets back $5 for every dollar it sends to Washington. Texas gets only a dollar. "States that have been well represented on key congressional committees have tended to do very well compared to other states," said Jeffrey Brown, an associate professor of urban and regional planning at Florida State University. For years, powerful members of Congress dressed up highway projects that wouldn't have been at the top of anyone else's list with names such as "High Priority Corridors" or "Projects of Regional and National Significance" to get hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money. While some lawmakers railed against spending millions of federal dollars on bike paths, flower beds and train museums, others brought home vastly more money to cast their legacies in concrete, even if just to construct an interchange or a few miles of pavement. "You can always come up with a rationale," Fischer said. "A lot of them are quite tenuous." Highway projects generate work for engineering and construction firms, and the industry is a top political donor. Wealthy landowners, developers and business interests who benefit from new highways also write big checks to lawmakers who deliver fresh pavement. "It's a free-for-all where the most well-organized and well-financed political interests are driving our transportation policy," Cooper said. Most members of Congress defend their efforts to secure highway funds for what they regard as crucial projects in their states. Few oppose road projects, regardless of party. They get two photo opportunities: one to throw the first shovelful of dirt and the other to cut the ribbon. "There's a huge difference between spending on things that benefit the national system and spending on things that benefit a local developer," Fischer said. Losing the Way The Federal Highway Administration pays as much as 80 percent of the cost of states' major road projects but it has little say over how they spend the money. Cathy St. Denis, a spokeswoman for the agency, said it determined whether projects were eligible for federal reimbursement, and oversaw and monitored them. "Ultimately, state departments of transportation and local planning organizations make decisions about which projects to advance based 38 | www.cedmag.com | Construction Equipment Distribution | March 2013 34_Highway_Feature_KP.indd 38 2/27/13 4:03 PM