but the House refused to back off its May timeline. With the August recess fast approaching, the Senate relented and passed the House version. Action could still occur in December, but now Congress will have no incentive to do anything until May. At that point, the presidential election will be heating up, Roth said. The ATA has made it clear what
funding source it supports: an increase in the fuel tax, which since 1993 has been 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel. The ATA is not proposing a specific increase, but Roth said an increase of 12 cents per gal- lon, indexed to inflation, would fund the program at current levels without requiring subsidies from the general fund, as is occurring now. Studies have shown that meeting all of the nation’s maintenance and congestion needs would require fuel taxes to be doubled at the national, state and local levels, he said. Shannon Newton, president of the
Arkansas Trucking Association, said they support raising fuel taxes – even if it’s just diesel taxes. Industry voiced support for the proposal made in June by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would have raised fuel taxes by 12 cents over two years. Fuel taxes are a user fee, meaning
those who directly use the service are the ones who actually pay for it. Roth said the ATA has considered other user fee options, including vehicle registra- tion fees and a tax on barrels of oil, but the fuel tax remains “the most efficient, most fair way to fund highway projects.” One potential funding source, cur-
rently being pilot-tested in Oregon, is a vehicle miles traveled tax (VMT), where drivers’ mileage totals will be tracked, and they will be taxed accordingly. That solution involves higher administrative costs and runs into enforcement issues because resourceful drivers can tamper with the tracking equipment. “The troubles with vehicle miles
traveled fees are like an onion,” Roth said. “Every time you peel away a layer,
20
you find another problem with it.” Some in Congress favor a concept
known as “devolution” – making the states responsible for funding most of their own highways with the federal government remaining in charge of the interstate system. An amendment by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would have gradually reduced the federal gas tax to 3.7 cents.
“I THINK IF IT WAS A SECRET BALLOT, YOU WOULD HAVE OVERWHELMING
SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR A FUEL TAX
INCREASE. THEY JUST DON’T WANT TO TAKE THE RISKY VOTE.
—DARRIN ROTH,
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS
Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., was
one of 28 senators who voted for the amendment. His legislative director, Kathee Facchiano, said Boozman favors devolution as one option for funding highways, but he is open to other ideas. “We think the states know their proj- ects better than the federal government, and they should have a bigger role in how much money they’re putting towards those projects and how they manage those projects,” she said. Roth said the ATA is opposed to
devolving highway funding to the state level. There is no guarantee states would increase funding to make up the dif- ference. Meanwhile, some states with vast highway stretches but small popu- lations, such as Montana, would be placed at a disadvantage. “To get from one part of the coun-
try to the other, you have to cross those states, and if they aren’t able to main-
tain their highway systems, Congress has fumbled its responsibility, its consti- tutional responsibility to promote inter- state commerce,” he said. The Arkansas Trucking
Association’s Newton said a devolved system might result in different states having vastly different taxes and infra- structure priorities. Carriers might decide to avoid states entirely because of the quality of their road system. “Predicting what it costs to move
freight in that type of environment becomes extremely complicated and troublesome,” she said. Regardless, states likely will have
to shoulder more of the burden of their own highway systems. During a July meeting with consulting engineers, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Director Scott Bennett said Congress’ inability to fund highways means, “We’ve got to keep making that transition to where we’re relying on it less and less, and there are a lot of states that have done that.” About 50 percent of Arkansas high-
way dollars comes from the federal gov- ernment, but federal dollars pay for 70 percent of state highway construction, Bennett said. According to Bennett,
Washington’s inability to fund highways was a selling point of the Connecting Arkansas Program, the $1.8 billion highway construction program passed by voters in 2012 and funded with a half-cent sales tax. Arkansas vot- ers in 2011 also approved the Interstate Rehabilitation Program, which will be funded by a bond issue. Those two pro- grams are funding $3 billion worth of work but apply only to 4 percent of the state’s highway miles. Any proposed revenue increase will
run up against a political reality: Voters want roads, but many don’t want to pay more money for them. According to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Aug. 5, while 59 percent of Americans say the economic benefits of good high- ways, airports and railroads outweigh
34 ARKANSAS TRUCKING REPORT | Issue 4 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52