Departments of transportation of the countryes of and puerto rico and puerto rico in the district of cologne appeared we are an advocacy group. And where theport most Important Missions is to make people understand the value of transportation investment. Host for the people you are representing, how are they looking on these potential announcements from the white house when it comes to infrastructure . Guest we are very interested in what the white house will release and we are pleased the white house has put so much emphasis on infrastructure. We know we have an infrastructure gap in this country. State and local governments are really stepping up. One of the things we know to be the case is this is a shared responsibility. It takes the federal government, state and local governments, and increasingly, the private sector, to make sure were adequately invest in. Right now we are not purely to see some change. We are hopeful what we see from the administration will lead us in that direction. Host what gives you the most hope, what gives you the most pause, potentially, about what the administration could do . Guest what gives us the most direct aboutare streamlining projects. They have talked with us, many of our members, and we as an association have a chance to influence that process. Streamlining the process, making it easier to deliver transportation investment and Infrastructure Investment in general is important. We have not seen all the details of what they want to do on funding and finance. We want to make sure that all the country is wellserve the that rural areas get their share, that every state is a part of whatever comes out of the infrastructure initiative. We are waiting to see exactly what the details are going to be there. Until we know what they will propose on the funding and finance said, we are holding our our fire, if you will. Bissett exploded in terms of setting aside seed money, if i am a state official, is that a good thing or a bad thing for me . Guest it is a good thing depending on where you are. What that says it those projects will have to generate revenue in some fashion to be able to theify for the grants federal government might make you that works well you an urban setting where you have high traffic volumes to impose tolls were generate other revenue. It does not work well in other parts of the country. In every state, there will be rural areas where it is not likely the private sector will be able to generate the kind of return on investment that would like to see from participating in transportation infrastructure. There are concerns about it. It will work well in some settings. It wont work well in other settings. Host ultimate, state officials have to sell people on a toll if that is how theyre going to do it. Guest that is right, and we know there are parts of the country where tolls have been well accepted, and other parts of the country where tolls dont exist. It is not an easy task to impose a total, especially on a move that is toll, especially on a route that is already there. Host bud wright with us. , as the acronym goes. Here to take your questions and comments. If you want to give him a call, do so on the phone lines. On twitter, you can do so at j. Spanw you sent a letter to members of congress when it came to this idea of infrastructure spending. The bulk of it suggested that tax reform was the real avenue they should have done it. Why is that . Guest we know for what the administration is going to propose, they need revenue. They are talking about 200 billion, hopefully incentivizing 1 trillion of investment over the next 10 years. Standards, 200 billion is a lot of money to come up with. Tax reform iseen the time to find that source of revenue. Wouldion within a have been a blip in the overall context of tax reform. For a variety of reasons, congress chose not to do that. That leaves us with a formidable challenge. We understand the Administration May propose cuts to programs to generate that 200 billion over the next 10 years. Those that have been around washington know that cutting existing programs is no easy process either. One of the Big Questions about the initiative is where is the 200 billion when you come from, and what kind of bipartisan support will be generated for making cuts, and putting that money in place for Infrastructure Investment. Host some of the language used is this we need to be honest with the american people. Host do you still hold to that nearly impossible part . Guest we think will be very difficult. We have a mechanism that exists at the federal level the Highway Trust Fund that has served the public well. That is a userbased financing source that has provided the revenues to support federal transit and highway investment, but the Highway Trust Fund is not keeping up. We are seeing changes in fuel economy, increases in fuel economy of the average vehicle, electric and more vehicles in the fleet. We see the need for additional investment because of inflation and other factors. The Highway Trust Fund is not keeping up, and it has had to have been subsidized to maintain current levels of federal spending. Is going to billion be a challenge outside of the context of tax reform. Casting a vote for a tax increase that is freestanding, not part of a bigger package or compromise, we know it is a difficult challenge in washington. Host eastern and central time zones host perhaps you work in the Transportation Industry bud wright of the American Association of state highway and transportation officials joining us. The first call is from john. John from washington, state. Go ahead. Caller it sounds like mr. Wright has really got some of that right, because he is one of the few people that admits the country is broke and we have to come up with the money from somewhere. Myself, i would think that the power grid and our Nuclear Power plants are the thing do we need to go ahead and upgrade the most in this country. Especially being we have that little guy over in korea. I have a couple of other questions, and mr. Wright is definitely not from the Washington State area because in Washington State and seattle, king county, they think we have all the money in the world billion,ty metro, 53 openended. Thented to know also about federal gas tax. Is that in a lockbox like our Social Security was . Host thanks, caller. Guest yes, the federal gas tax is dedicated to transportation and specifically to surface transportation investment. Right now it is an 18. 4 cents per gallon tax. The 18. 4 cents covers the part of the program that supports the federal contribution to investments in highway and transit. That has not changed in 125 years. We have been operating at the same level. The cost of virtually Everything Else in our lives has increased substantially over that 25 years. It would not be unreasonable to be for there to be adjustment in the federal user tax. One of the things we like to point out is that while 18. 4 cents per gallon might seem like a large number, that equates to one dollars per year per driver. It is not a hugely substantial investment by individuals to support the infrastructure we know this country needs, and specifically getting to your lockbox comment, to support surface transportation investment. We, as an association, would like to see additional investment. We think the userbased model works well. The Highway Trust Fund, that lockbox, if you will, has worked well for 60 years. One of the hopes is in reshaping policy we dont throw out something that has worked very well for the american people. Cents for gasoline, 24. 4 cents for diesel fuel. What is the ideal number . Guest i dont know there is an ideal number, pedro. I know to support the current level of investment at the federal level, if you were to use the gasoline tax to achieve that, it would require a . 15 per gallon increase. Is that the ideal . Many believe, and i agree with that, that we need to increase the investment of the federal level. Some amount in the neighborhood or beyond. I should also emphasize the gas tax is not the only way to get there. There are other userbased fees that could make a difference. Some have talked about freightbased fees, additional charges on containers moved on our nations highways to achieve part of that. Other vehicle ownership fees have worked in the past and could work again in the future. Host sierra vista, arizona. Harry is next. Caller hey, there. This is what is happening in arizona. We have a highway user fund, and what our governor has done, and our republican state legislature, instead of spending are on infrastructure, they hoarding that money to pay for the department of public safety. They have also instituted a program for a Border Task Force to enforce stricter drug enforcement. Therefore, our infrastructure money or gas taxes are not being spent on our highways. They are being devoted for other purposes. Guest i cannot speak to the situation in every state. I know there are some states that use highwaybased fees for other purposes, and certainly public safety, highway patrol, those are ones that are obviously legitimate expenses in many cases around the country, but i would also say that that is something that needs to be a discussion within each state, and typically it has been. Those were not enacted without the legislature having some opportunity to influence that discussion. Certainly we believe we need to be investing more in infrastructure. Some states completely use the userbased fees they collect for Infrastructure Investment. Others do use it for other purposes in some cases. Purerited states has a model then much of the world, where especially in europe, what you will see is user fees, motor fuel taxes, that are much greater than the revenues expended on infrastructure, but they use it as a form of general taxation. That is the case to some extent in various places around the country, but at the federal level at this point that is not the case. Those dollars you pay in the gasoline tax or the diesel fuel tax go back into the cheshire programs. Host when the federal government offers a state money, how much oversight comes with that do they say you can use this and no other . Guest there is flexibility in how those dollars are used. A federal program that provides support for highways sets of broad categories of what i would Call National offices, but then it is the state and local governments that decide what projects are undertaken. It is a flexible program. There is accountability in the form of Performance Measures and other factors that are weighed by the federal government, but in general, we call it a federally assisted, stateadministered program, because the states, through a Public Participation projects process, determine what projects are undertaken. Host chesapeake, virginia, bob is on with bud wright. Go ahead. , i have beenright involved in transportation for a long time, and the biggest threat to transportations social manipulation of the Highway Trust Fund away from highway construction to amtrak, light rail, bus service, bike paths, and now a new funding that they are creating is innercity environmental progress, which is diverging tax funds highway tax funds to the innercity because they dont have enough highways. Highways, andon not on a set of roll rate railroad tracks. Each form of transportation should be selfsupporting in order to create the greatest value to the citizens. To get money to finance the highway system, they could take the money that these corporations have docked overseas. Ate them taxexempt bonds 4 . Bring that money back, bypass the federal highway department. Host thank you, caller. Guest well, the concept that , isdescribes, repatriation one that really has been under serious discussion for some time. It was, at one time, a potential source of revenue to support the transportation or Infrastructure Investment. As i understand it, in the course of tax reform, that basically was taken off the table. The repatriation, if you will, came in the form of Corporate Tax reduction, and those dollars were accounted for in tax reform. I would say that was a potentially missed opportunity to find a source of revenue that would have created additional Infrastructure Investment possibility. As to the other comment bob made, we support the notion of multimodal transportation investment. I understand what he is saying with regard to not diverting funds to other purposes, but the fact is in a metropolitan area Like Washington and money others around the country, the highway system is not going to work without the supporting other forms of the shelter without the Transit System here, without light rail, opportunities, the highway system would be overwhelmed. I certainly understand and we need to make sure we are investing in those things that are going to benefit those who need to travel, or those that are moving goods on our system, but the reality is without a multimodal system, the whole thing potentially breaks down. Host we had a call at talk about the money offered in the Obama Administration for shovelready projects, highway projects what was the longterm impact and was there Lessons Learned from this administration on the offering of money for infrastructure . Guest one of the things that came out of the stimulus bill from the early Obama Administration is there were requirements to money be spent quickly. The idea was we were stimulant the economy, putting people to work. As a result, certain types of projects, ones that required additional planning, really werent focused on is much with that stimulus package. At least from what we hear in the early stages of what the Trump Administration is going to propose, they would not require the dollars be spent immediately or within the first year they would allow there to be a longer term view. One of the Lessons Learned as if you put too many restrictions, too many parameters around the dollars being made available, you will invest inappropriate things, and good things, and certainly the students package did invest in good things, but it was mostly, i would say, repair and maintenance of existing the cylinders and not the transformative projects that some envisioned. Host lafayette, georgia. Doug is next. Hi. Caller hi. I have been listening to you guys, and from my understanding, we give away a lot of our treasured to overseas, egypt, saudi arabia they could give money, but they dont. There is a lot of money america that america into that they could put america first. Shouldnt america come first, like host sorry, caller. Diane. Go ahead. I think we need to go back to the basics what we need to work with state, local, and federal together, and were not doing that. When we get up to the federal part of things, it is their way or the highway, pardon the pun, and they dont have the discussions with people that come. I am talking about people in the local governments, the state governments, the public the people that actually do the work for infrastructure. They say they are going to, but they dont. That has been the mantra the last year. They dont talk to anybody. They dont debate. They dont discuss anything. They just make up their bill the way it is going to be, and we find out later how it is going to be. Had that money set for the states if they wanted it, the people here wanted the rail system that we could of got. We voted for it. In fact, it started. Host thank you very much. Guest what you described is one of the reasons why we support formula funding. Funding provided by the federal government to wreck latest date and local government where they have discretion to make decisions on how that funding will be invested. So my in washington doesnt understand the unique characteristics of each state or city. It should be those officials making those decisions. It should be the way the federal Highway Program operates. The government sets parameters, but ultimately it is state and local governments working with citizens that make decisions where the investments will occur. A comprehensive planning process requires Public Participation. There should not be the kinds of decisions made where citizens are saying we need one thing, and those making the final decisions or investment are choosing something different. The planning process requires you and other citizens have the opportunity to express your opinions and views. Host how much input have you given to the white house on this topic, and how has it been received . Guest we have had the opportunity to give quite a bit of input. Streamlining the process, making sure we get the dollars invested in the right places. They are receptive. We hope to see a lot of the things the state department cares about. One area where we expressed concern was rural areas. Is aow leveraging theirs much more difficult proposition. The overall package, we havent yet seen the details. Itst how do you streamline and make sure safety and other factors are considered . Guest there is a lot of redundancy. There is a lot of consecutive reviews. Be done in onen place at one time. We have multiple federal agencies involved in any substantial transportation investment today. Shopping, where all thet have to go to federal agencies, but one federal agency works with other federal agencies to make sure projects move forward effectively. Host oquinn, new york, for bud wright. Caller corporations generally have what do you think it is that we dont have a concept of Capital Budget and Capital Resource accounts at the federal level which would include reserves , reserves for Social Security, reserves for liability, and value infrastructure. And the value of Natural Resources and the way they are depreciated by carbon emissions. When we talk about cutting taxes and cutting bureaucracy, which may boost the economys growth in a given year, there is no consideration given to the depreciation in Capital Assets that may result from the very kind of shortterm savings they in theing to get votes next election because we have no Capital Budget to look at the offsetting losses at all the these levels. Host thank you, very much. Concept of Capital Budgeting has been talked about in washington many times over the last generation and probably beyond. There are elements of the concept that makes sense. One of the ways in which that has translated into have longrange plans foriswe states to like at for the next 15, 20, and beyond. To determine the appropriate set of investments for them to make. We have elements of Capital Budgeting. One thing that makes that successful and possible is to know what resources will be available for some time in the future. At a federal level that has resulted in multiyear authorizations of highway and transit funds. We suffered. When we dont have multiyear authorizations states need to fulldecisions on less than information on the resources available. The elements of Capital Budgeting are they are in many ways. As you alluded to, it is tough to achieve. Washington, and many federal programs, operate in shortterm increments. There is the political process associated with that, which makes Capital Budgeting in its pure form a very difficult thing to achieve in d. C. Host tom in pennsylvania. Caller i dont understand why we did not embarq on a truckonly Highway Program. Guest it is darn expensive to do that. Not that there have not been proposals for that kind of approach. You find truckonly lanes in various places around the country. We know that Freight Networks are a huge concern. They are leading commerce. It is one thing we think this administration will care about. Anyding additional lanes in road, especially in an urbanized area, is a difficult and expensive proposition. There are elements we would agree with. I dont think we will see a wholesale truckexclusive interstate any time the near future. Host transportation. Org is the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.