The Wall Street Journal-20080116-Bridge Safety Stirs Funding Debate
Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080116
Bridge Safety Stirs Funding Debate
WASHINGTON -- The deteriorating state of roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure is coming under heightened scrutiny on Capitol Hill, and a rancorous debate has emerged over how to solve the problem.
Exhibit A is the federal gas tax, currently the primary mechanism used to finance highway and mass-transit spending.
A congressionally mandated panel yesterday recommended more than doubling the tax, which since 1993 has been set at 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel, over five years to boost funding for transportation projects. The panel of public and private experts is hoping that states also will opt for big gas-tax increases.
The panel's vision would take the U.S. down a more European path, with higher gas taxes and greater investment in high-speed rail and other modes of transportation.
"Nobody likes saying we've got to raise taxes," said Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi, who is on the 12-member panel. "But there's no way we're going to get there without the gas- tax increase . . . The country has to come to grips with this."
But three members of the panel, including Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, oppose gas-tax increases. They say the federal role in funding transportation, which is determined by Congress and laden with special-interest projects, is too flawed to warrant expansion. Instead, they suggest, the federal role should shrink and states should rely on toll increases and private investment to supplement the funds they get from gas taxes.
"There is nothing to indicate that Washington would do a better job spending billions more of the taxpayers' money than it has so far," Ms. Peters said yesterday. "The answer isn't more taxes . . . it is having the courage to say the current system is broken and it is time to find a better way to invest in, manage and operate our transportation system."
Debate over the worsening state of the nation's infrastructure has flared since the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis over the summer, an event that claimed 13 lives, injured 145 and led the federal government to provide more than $300 million for an immediate replacement bridge.
The National Transportation Safety Board, which has been investigating the cause of the collapse, yesterday said it believes an error in the original design of the bridge is to blame.
Some seized on the NTSB's findings to drive home political points, a reflection of how charged the transportation debate is getting on Capitol Hill.
"The work of the NTSB shows further that last summer's knee-jerk reaction to increase the gas tax . . . before knowing what caused the collapse made no sense," said Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, referring to a proposal last year to raise the gas tax to fund bridge-rehabilitation efforts.
That measure, which called for a temporary five-cent-a-gallon increase to generate $25 billion over three years, was sponsored by Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Transportation committee. The proposal drew opposition from the White House and failed to sway many Democrats at a time of surging oil prices.
A spokesman for Mr. Oberstar said he "still believes we need to address the problem." Mr. Oberstar's committee will hold a hearing on the matter tomorrow, and a Senate hearing is scheduled for next week.
Meanwhile, the calls to step up infrastructure spending will likely grow. In its report, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission yesterday said the country would need to spend $225 billion annually over the next 50 years to fix current deficits and address future transportation needs. Currently, the report said, the nation spends less than 40% of that amount each year.
