Transportation | Publications | Competitive Enterprise Instittue

Coalition Letter to Surface Transportation Bill Conferees

Marc Scribner — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:39:59 +0000

CEI signed a coalition letter to House and Senate members of the conference committee of the surface transportation reauthorization bill in which we expressed our concern over provisions that limit states' ability to toll their highways.

Marc Scribner

Wed, 2012-05-16

Transportation bill stymied in Congress

Marc Scribner — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:05:49 +0000

From Alfonso A. Castillo's article in Newsday:

Marc Scribner, a spokesman for the Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a think tank that advocates limited government -- said that passage of the Senate bill would be a lost opportunity to reconsider the federal government's role in transportation, including the fairness of drivers funding mass transit through gas taxes. "I think this current Senate bill basically represents the do-nothing Congress not willing to take a hard look at the status quo and say, 'Hey, this isn't working,'" Scribner said.

Marc Scribner

Tue, 2012-05-01

Citation Source:

Newsday

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/transportation-bill-stymied-in-congress-1.3691532

Coalition Letter to Minnesota Legislature on MnPASS

Marc Scribner — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:38:55 +0000

Full Document Avilable in PDF

Dear Members of the Minnesota House and Senate,

Highway congestion during peak traffic times is an ongoing and seemingly intractable problem in the Twin Cities and across the nation. Only a few tools exist to help relieve congestion. Expanding the lanes of traffic on a highway is clearly one tool that helps. Congestion pricing through high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes—lanes where drivers pay a voluntary fee that varies with congestion levels to guarantee their access to a free flowing lane of traffic—is another tool. Both tools are essential to relieving traffic congestion in America.

We believe that the MnPASS HOT lanes proposed to be included in the I-35E corridor upgrades would be a cost-effective tool to relieve congestion along the corridor. These dedicated lanes create space for bus transit, car poolers, and single-occupancy vehicle drivers willing to pay for free flowing traffic. On top of creating a free flowing lane for these users, studies show that HOT lanes relieve congestion for the general purpose lanes as well. Thus, everyone benefits.

Some people may call the fees charged for the use of HOT lanes a tax. But unlike taxation, no one is forced to pay the extra fee to use the HOT lane. Drivers using the regular lanes are still able to use those lanes—which are, importantly, less congested lanes—at no charge beyond the current level of taxation. Instead of a tax, the voluntary HOT lane fee is actually a mechanism to manage congestion for all users.

Even where brand-new HOT lanes are created using general transportation tax dollars, as is the case in the I-35E corridor, the issue isn’t whether a new tax is being applied. The same taxation scheme on the general public is in place. The issue is whether current taxes are being used to fund something worthwhile.

We believe the I-35E corridor MnPASS HOT lane upgrades are indeed worthwhile. In fact, we believe the voluntary fees charged to users of the HOT lane will manage traffic in way that relieves the pressure to raise transportation taxes on Minnesotans in the future.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Nelson, Director of Public Policy, Center of the American Experiment

Shirley Ybarra, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation

Marc Scribner, Land-use and Transportation Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Marc Scribner

Fri, 2012-04-27

New Cars Affordable to Fewer People

Marlo Lewis, Jr. — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:32:42 +0000

From Chris Woodward's column on OneNewsNow:

Marlo Lewis, senior fellow for the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), says the theory underpinning NADA's conclusions is straightforward.

"Before an auto dealer will write you a loan for a new car, he wants to make sure that you have a certain debt service-to-income ratio. In most cases, the maximum payment that they will consider is a monthly interest payment that's up to 40 percent of your monthly income," Lewis explains.

So if the car is more expensive, and the interest payment goes up beyond 40 percent, then fewer people will be eligible for the loans, explains Lewis.

"Then, they argue that the government's estimate of how much additional cost will result from these regulations is unrealistically low," the CEI senior fellow notes. "They say it's more like $4,800 rather than $3,000."

If that is true, Lewis estimates that anywhere from 10-11 million drivers would be priced out of the new car market by 2025.

Marlo Lewis, Jr.

Tue, 2012-04-24

Citation Source:

OneNewsNow

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1583718

Highway Bill Needs Real Reform, Not Politics as Usual

Christine Hall — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:02:29 +0000

Washington, D.C., April 17, 2012—With another Tax Day upon us, taxpayers have something else to worry about: potential action on pending multi-billion dollar highway program reauthorization today in the House of Representatives, says an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

The House is set to consider yet another extension of 2005’s SAFETEA-LU surface transportation law. The current extension, which is the tenth since the law expired in 2009, is set to expire on June 30. While the purpose of today’s Rules Committee hearing is ostensibly to enact another extension to continue existing highway program funding through the rest of Fiscal Year 2012, proponents of the Senate-passed MAP-21 bill are working overtime to push their deeply flawed legislation into conference.

“MAP-21 doubles down on the failed policies that are bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund and merely kicks the can further down the road,” said Marc Scribner, land-use and transportation policy analyst at CEI. “It undoes important bipartisan Transportation Enhancement reforms—meant to limit wasteful, non-highway expenditures of Highway Trust Fund dollars—while relying on one-shot funding gimmicks that do not address any of the existing core fiscal problems.”

The Highway Trust Fund is set to become insolvent in Fiscal Year 2013. Analysts from across the political spectrum have called for major structural reforms to prevent such a scenario from playing out. But, as Scribner argues, few policymakers are calling for needed reforms.

“From the left, the answer is to dramatically increase programmatic spending as well as fuel tax rates,” said Scribner. “From the fiscally conservative position, the answer is to begin devolution of highway funding responsibilities to the states while permitting additional flexibility on tools such as public-private partnerships. But this middle-of-the-road, do-nothing attitude from the Hill—which has included proposals to bail out the Highway Trust Fund with oil and natural gas lease revenue—is completely unacceptable given the importance of mobility to the economy and Americans’ daily lives.”

> Read more by Marc Scribner

Christine Hall

Tue, 2012-04-17

Sub Title:

Adopting Senate Bill Would Represent Major Setback for Fiscal Conservatives

Congress Must Act Now on Federal Transportation Bill

Nicole Ciandella — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:29:35 +0000

From a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial:

As we noted in a February editorial, that bill has received significant opposition from such conservative and libertarian groups as the Club for Growth, the Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Club for Growth urged all House members to vote no on the bill and called it "a remarkably bloated and inefficient piece of legislation."

CEI Staff

Wed, 2012-03-28

Citation Source:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/congress-must-act-now-on-federal-transportation-bill-co4op65-144468055.html

Highway Bill Now Over to John Boehner

Marc Scribner — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:58:56 +0000

From Kathryn A. Wolfe's article in Poltico:

Marc Scribner, writing on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s blog, urged the House to reject the Senate bill and pass an extension instead. “[T]he best fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates can hope for is a true reform bill being introduced after the November elections,” he wrote.

Marc Scribner

Wed, 2012-03-14

Citation Source:

Politico

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74038.html

Senate Considers Ill-Conceived Ban on Highway Tolls

Christine Hall — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:05:46 +0000

Washington, D.C., March 12, 2012—The Senate is set to vote Tuesday on additional amendments to the massive surface transportation bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, S. 1813). One amendment offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) seeks to prohibit states from using new tolling to pay for federal-aid highways. It's a move that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) believes would constitute a major step in the wrong direction.

Statement of Marc Scribner, CEI Transportation Policy Analyst

Much of the country's Interstate system is nearly 50 years old and will soon need to be completely reconstructed. Without expanded tolling or dramatic tax increases, there will not be enough funding available to complete these very important projects.

The question is not if we pay for these improvements; it is how we pay for them. Without tolling as an available revenue collection mechanism, it will be all the more difficult to devolve transportation funding responsibility from the federal level and move toward more innovative public-private partnership models in the future.

Sen. Hutchison’s amendment to the Senate surface transportation bill is a dangerous rejection of current transportation realities. While the prohibition on new tolling contained in the amendment is bad enough, it also cuts from three to two the maximum number of projects allowed under the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program. Currently, two of the three existing slots are filled by Virginia’s I-95 and Missouri’s I-70 projects.

In contrast, Democratic Senator Tom Carper (Del.) has offered his own amendment—supported by Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.)—that would preserve and enhance the existing federal tolling programs.

It is extremely disappointing that some fiscal conservatives in Congress seem so intent on protecting socialized road funding. The Senate must reject any effort to roll back the progress that has been made with tolling in recent years.

Christine Hall

Mon, 2012-03-12

Sub Title:

Anti-Tolling Amendment to Senate Highway Bill Threatens America’s Highways

Senate Highway Bill Offers More Big Government Business as Usual

Marc Scribner — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:33:31 +0000

Washington, D.C., March 1, 2012 --The U.S. Senate is currently considering the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, S. 1813), which would reauthorize the federal government’s surface transportation programs for two years. While the duration of the proposed bill is itself concerning, as reauthorizations typically cover five years, this legislation includes several provisions that run counter to fiscally conservative, free market principles.

“This has been touted as a coming together of both parties, which should set off red flags,” said Marc Scribner, land-use and transportation policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Included in the current draft and in several amendments submitted are provisions that would ratchet up regulations and remove oversight over federal grants to the states.”

Scribner highlights an amendment submitted by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) as the bill’s most egregious provision. “Sen. Kohl’s legislation would roll back crucial reforms that helped save the U.S. railroad industry from extinction,” said Scribner. “The dystopian future Sen. Kohl is attempting to usher in would see expensive, frivolous complaints from antitrust attack dogs at the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission. These two agencies are still living in the Antitrust Theory Dark Ages and are frequently and easily captured by corrupt political interests.”

These reckless provisions include:

1. Amendment 1591 to S. 1813 – Attaches Sen. Kohl’s Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011 (S. 49), which failed in the previous session. The language would end the practice of granting sole jurisdiction in matters of competition policy with respect to U.S. rail carriers to the Surface Transportation Board (STB). Instead of allowing experts of this peculiar network industry from the STB review complaints, this provision will put biased and political antitrust enforcers from the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission in charge.

2. Section 1518 of S. 1813 – Innocuously titled “State Autonomy for Culvert Pipe Selection,” the increase in “state autonomy” is not any sort of devolution proposal that fiscal conservatives can support. Rather, this is a sop to the concrete pipe industry on behalf of the Louisiana delegation that would modify competitive bidding requirements contained in 23 CFR 635.411. The envisioned new regulation would allow states to purchase culvert and storm sewer materials for federal-aid highway projects, guided not by cost and quality, but by political favoritism.

3. Section 307 of S. 2132 – Quietly added to the reauthorization’s financing legislation (“The Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012”), this language would direct into the Highway Trust Fund all revenue collected from a 2.5-percent tariff on imported automobiles. This sets a terrible precedent in the same way as the House highway bill’s creation of a new dedicated revenue stream from energy production does. Further increasing the reliance of the Trust Fund on non-user revenue makes real reform that much harder to accomplish in the future. Since politicians hate to give up “free” money (i.e., revenue-raising that does not show up on your W-2 form), Sec. 307 would make it all the more difficult to repeal these protectionist measures outright.

Marc Scribner

Thu, 2012-03-01

A Highway Bill Everyone Can Hate

Marc Scribner — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:20:42 +0000

Also appeared in: The Arizona Daily Star, The Sacramento Bee, The Press of Atlantic City, South Bend Tribune, The Bellingham Herald, The Burlington Times-News, and Juneau Empire.

House Speaker John Boehner recently noted, "In the past, highways bills represented what was wrong with Washington: earmarks, endless layers of bureaucracy, wasted tax dollars and misplaced priorities."

He is correct that past highway bills have epitomized Washington's corrupt, unserious and inept standard operating procedure. Unfortunately, that same characterization also applies to the current highway bill now moving its way through the House.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act has the distinction of being the first highway bill to be hated by almost everybody. Fiscal conservatives, progressives, budget hawks, transit advocates and environmental activists have all called for its defeat.

The bill does have some positive elements. It would halt the harmful decades-long practice of diverting up to 20 percent of federal fuel tax revenue to mass transit, effectively ending the driver-to-transit-rider transfer. While transit may be important to urban residents and commuters in a handful of large cities, it has nothing to do with a national transportation program, which should presumably focus on promoting interstate commerce.

More than one-third of all transit trips in the United States take place in the greater New York City area. Only about 5 percent of Americans use mass transit to get to work, a figure that has remained flat for decades. More than 85 percent of Americans commute to work by car. And trillions of dollars' worth of freight are delivered annually by trucks on our roads.

President Obama has sought more federal urban transit spending. Such an increase would disproportionately benefit a small percentage of the country that also happens to be its wealthiest -- largely paid for by America's drivers. The House bill's transit funding reform is a welcome response to the Obama administration's anti-automobile, pro-urban transit policies.

In addition, this reauthorization bill is the first to include an energy provision that would open up oil and gas production on federal lands and in offshore areas. Noble as this goal may be, it should not be linked with transportation. By this expanded drilling, the bill creates a new revenue stream for the Highway Trust Fund from oil and gas lease royalties.

This mechanism -- dubbed "drilling for roads" by critics -- would undermine the longstanding highway funding principle that drivers should pay for the roads they use. The Highway Trust Fund was created with this in mind, and is primarily funded by federal fuel excise taxes. With each highway bill reauthorization, Congress estimates future tax receipts and then sets the funding level.

In recent years, however, revenues have been failing to cover federal expenditures, which has led Congress to bail out the Highway Trust Fund instead of cutting spending or raising revenue. And as drilling royalties are typically directed into the general fund, the House bill's funding scheme amounts to a bailout.

The user-pays principle helps restrain spending and keep investment mismanagement in check. Ending it would compound the serious problems the U.S. transportation system already faces.

It is clear that our existing transportation infrastructure is in trouble. Much of the Interstate Highway System is nearing the end of its intended life cycle and will need to be completely reconstructed. Revenue from highway users has plateaued while construction costs have greatly increased. Road congestion now costs the U.S. economy over $100 billion annually.

Solving these problems should start with winding down the federal government's funding role in surface transportation. The status quo, says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, is responsible for "more largesse and little check on spending efficiency."

If state, regional, and municipal authorities are made responsible for funding their own infrastructure, they will have an incentive to innovate and take advantage of the tools they need to do so. These include replacing fuel taxes with electronic tolling, implementing congestion pricing, and leveraging private financing through public-private partnerships. Current federal policy either explicitly prohibits or implicitly discourages wider adoption of these smart and innovative financing strategies.

The current House bill does nothing to address these problems. Contrary to the promises of House Republican leadership, this legislation would perpetuate the reckless, wasteful spending that has long characterized highway bill reauthorizations.

Marc Scribner

Sun, 2012-02-26

Citation Source:

St. Paul Pioneer Press

http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_20039089