Comments on: What’s Wrong With SAFETEA-LU — and Why the Next Bill Must Be Better

By: Anon.

Anon. — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:15:39 +0000

The Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel was the reason the Port Authority was formed back in the 19th Century (you can look this up). Oddly enough they never seem to have gotten around to actually doing their job and building it….

I say good on Nadler for supporting it. It’s only a hundred years overdue!

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 05 May 2009 07:30:10 +0000

Irvin’s right. Mary Peters has fought tooth and nail to keep the gas tax unchanged, and state politicians don’t have the balls to piss off their contingencies. Meanwhile the federal fund’s deficit has increased rapidly since 2001.

With all the efforts to push new car sales and fund automakers, why not a weight-based federal excise tax to help ease that deficit? Along with better oversight and/or cost caps for certain “new construction” allocations…

By: Irvin Dawid

Irvin Dawid — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:17:15 +0000

You missed the mark. The greatest failure was of SAFETEA-LU was not raising the gas and diesel taxes, as opposed to changing how the funds were spent. Mary Peters pushed congestion pricing through the Urban Partnerships Grant.
VMT fee will probably occur, just a matter of when.

Two federal commissions (http://planetizen.com/node/36765) were formed to deal with the funding crisis, both have reported back.

Unless someone pushes the envelope – and sadly, it won’t be Obama or LaHood (Oberstar????), MAP-21 (http://planetizen.com/node/38255) will repeat the failure

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:57:17 +0000

“Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation’s surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That’s the challenge faced by Congress today.”

Until the legislature and the general public are convinced of the need to reduce dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels in the future (and they certainly haven’t been yet), there’s no way policy will be made on that basis.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:36:59 +0000

“Funds for surface transportation come primarily from the national gas tax…. Until last year, the gas tax was a reliable source of funds, but the recent decrease in miles driven by Americans and an increase in fuel economy forced the Congress to authorize $8 billion in emergency funds for roads from the general budget for fiscal year 2009.”

Doesn’t that speak volumes? If transit needs more money, the public debate is bruising and pits group against group. If highways need more money, just dip into general tax revenues, no questions asked.