The 'TEA' Party is over... National Transportation Policie

1
The TEA Party is over National Transportation
Policies Must Change

• Gregory Cohen, President
• American Highway Users Alliance
• Presentation for The American Dream Coalition
• September 16, 2006

2
Who we are State affiliate organizations, AAA
Clubs (the brave ones), truckers, bus companies,
RV and motorcyclists, businesses that desire safe
and efficient road networks

• Lobbying
• Media
• Grassroots / Internet activism

3
Net Federal Subsides by ModeChained 2000 (in
millions)
4
Transit ridership up 7FTA
5
Transit funding up 108 percent(FTA stats)
6
Transit ridership - APTA

• Transit ridership peaked in 1946, when Americans
  took 23.4 billion trips on trains, buses and
  trolleys.  (100 million less Americans than
  today)
• By 1960, ridership dropped to 9.3 billion trips.
• In 1972 ridership dropped to a low of 6.5B trips
• Beginning in 1973, ridership started to increase,
  reaching 9.6 billion trips in 2004.

7
Passenger travel

• 86.6 of trips in America are made in private
  vehicles, 1.5 are on public transit (most over
  roads), 8.6 are walking trips, and 3.4 are
  other trips
• Less than 15 of trips are commutes. More than
  half of trips are family oriented, social,
  shopping, and recreational generally not
  conducive to transit

8
Freight

• 69 of freight moves by truck 14 rail
• 2.7 million trucks today on the road today
• 3.7 million trucks in 10 years
• 30 growth in imports from 2004-2006

9
Congestion

• Impact is at least 200 billion per year (DOT
  stat).
• 40 increase in number of major traffic
  bottlenecks causing over 700,000 hours of delay
  (AHUA). Over 50 million hours of delay at 3
  interchange bottlenecks in Atlanta.
• Safety, time, fuel, pollution, carbon, and
  economic productivity all negatively impacted by
  severe congestion.

10
Would you like some pie with your TEA? Everyone
does.

• ISTEA (1991) de-emphasized highways and hurt
  those paying highway user fees in favor of
  subsidizing transit intermodalism, creating new
  planning regulations, and enhancements.
  Programs designed to pay-off environmental groups
  smart growth activists
• TEA 21 (1998) added guaranteed multiyear
  funding increases and expanded the number of
  interest groups clamoring for a piece of the pie.
• SAFETEA-LU (2005) continued these programs
  largely unchanged. One positive was the
  streamlining provisions. However, no new funding
  could be freed up and increased spending
  guarantees exceeded incoming revenues. The
  Highway Trust Fund will be broke by 2009.

11
Sudden demand for reform

• The TEA party is over because
• Were spending more than were collecting in fuel
  and truck taxes.
• The Highway Trust Fund will be broke in 2009
  forcing major cuts as soon as 2008.
• The public is fed up with earmarks and with a
  program that doesnt solve congestion, provide
  national mobility, or properly steward their user
  fees.

12
Options for National Highway Policy

• No policy changes Major cuts in federal funding
  would either lead to less national investment in
  transportation or more splintered state and local
  programs. No public support for more user fees.
• Major policy changes Reforms focused on
  national congestion relief priorities (see
  Georgias Congestion Mitigation Plan), bottleneck
  removal, and interstate freight mobility could
  lead to greater support for the national program

13
Is there a legitimate Federal interest in a
national network of roads?

• Interstate commerce travel
• Security, evacuations, and defense
• 43,400 lost lives/yr is a national epidemic
• National economy is tied to mobility

14
Other options

• Increased state involvement
• GAO study found strong evidence that States
  reduce transportation funding when fed-aid
  increases and vice-versa.
• Increased private involvement
• Leasing and construction of private toll roads
  provide a limited solution in select markets.
  But citizen opposition is strong, especially if
  the deals favor politicians more than highway
  users.

15
Highway Users Position

• The Highway Users supports a strong national
  highway program funded fully by highway users.
  We dont want to ever be accused of being
  subsidized
• The new national program must be dedicated to
  achieving true national mobility needs. We will
  support users paying ALL of the costs needed to
  achieve safety and mobility IF we do not have to
  pay for diversions, waste, and special interest
  groups TEA and pie.

16
But there are some things we dont accept

• New taxes and tolls without the requisite major
  reforms.
• Backroom privatization deals without full and
  fair reinvestment in relevant highway
  infrastructure, free competition on parallel
  routes, and level-of-service guarantees. (No more
  Chicago deals)
• Continued growth in diversion of user fees.

17
In conclusion the problems are real

• 34 of major roads are in poor or mediocre
  condition 27 of bridges are functionally or
  structurally deficient, and 36 of our major
  urban roads are congestion. 
• VMT increasing at 26 times the rate of new
  capacity
• More people will die on the roads over the course
  of SAFETEA-LU than attended Super Bowl XL.
• No more money left in Highway Account

18
Yet solutions are there.

• Pessimistic voices are no longer ruling the day
• Minetas Congestion Relief Initiative
  Congestion is NOT inevitable.
• Georgia Congestion Mitigation Plan proves that
  proper funding priorities can actually increase
  mobility. It should be a national model.
• Reason Foundations latest study lays out the
  investment requirements for mobility in 2030 and
  shows that it can be done.

19
Thanks

• Its time for a strong, visionary national
  highway program. There is little doubt that the
  benefits would far exceed costs.
• But Highway Users need to trust their government
  to do the right thing and that means reforms
  first, more money second.

Greg Cohen 202-857-1200 gregcohen_at_highways.org www
.highways.org