Infrastructure development is rapidly becoming one of the hottest issues on the political scene within the trucking industry.
Equally controversial is the issue of how to fund the necessary infrastructure developments. Recent studies have shown that traffic congestion is becoming more and more problematic for commercial transportation and daily commuters alike. One solution is to invest in the infrastructure of the transportation system and plan for the future. Most would agree that infrastructure improvements on the transportation grid are needed, but the debate comes with the questions of where and how much.
The Pennsylvania Legislature passed a bill in July 2007 that would add tolls to Interstate 80. The purpose of the tolls is to fund the continued maintenance and infrastructure development of the interstate. This is a significant test case, because if this is allowed to occur, other states could follow suit and convert other interstates to toll roads. Congress, however, has taken action to prevent it. U.S. Rep. John Peterson and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson introduced legislation in September to prevent the tolling of interstates.
“The American public should never be charged to use interstate highways that were built with their own tax revenues. As it stands, toll roads create an unnecessary fiscal burden on citizens and the idea is one that I fundamentally oppose. This legislation will provide an important safeguard against this practice by ensuring that drivers are never tolled for using roads that were built with federal funds,” said U.S. Rep. Charles Gonzalez, a co-sponsor of the House bill.
“This bill will protect drivers from paying tolls on roads that were already paid for by taxpayers,” said Hutchison.
Peterson said, “The recent news that the state is re-engaging potential bidders for the turnpike is a crystal clear indicator that we are making inroads in overturning Pennsylvania’s reckless, short-term fix to toll Interstate 80, which passed without consideration of the negative, long-term economic consequences. The court of public opinion – which was virtually shut out before Act 44 was passed – is increasingly on the side of keeping freeways free.”
Closely related to the question of how to fund infrastructure improvements is the question of where to begin. The Federal Highway Administration announced on Sept. 10 that it has identified six interstate routes as “Corridors of the Future,” including parts of I-95, I-70, I-15, I-5, I-10 and I-69.
According to the FHWA press release, “Today’s announcement follows a yearlong competition to select a handful of interstate corridors from among the 38 applications received from public and private-sector entities to join the department’s ’Corridors of the Future‘ program, aimed at developing innovative national and regional approaches to reduce congestion and improve the efficiency of freight delivery. The selected corridors carry 22.7 percent of the nation’s daily interstate travel.”
The routes will receive the following funding amounts to implement their development plans: $21.8 million for I-95 from Florida to the Canadian border; $5 million for I-70 in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio; $15 million for I-15 in Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California; $15 million for I-5 in California, Oregon and Washington; $8.6 million for I-10 from California to Florida; and $800,000 for I-69 from Texas to Michigan.
What does this mean for truck drivers? It means more construction delays, but sometimes that is acceptable if the infrastructure is truly being improved. The real question is whether this program will address congestion in a meaningful manner that will not ultimately cost the trucking industry more money through user fees, increased fuel taxes or tolls. With the movement in Congress to stop the tolling of interstates, and a lack of commitment to increasing the fuel tax, there are legitimate questions about how future infrastructure improvements – including the “Corridors of the Future” – will be funded in the next budgeting cycle.
