It should be noted at the outset that in large part I support the work of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, with one major exception that deals with some of the uses of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF)-in particular, the use of these funds for transit.
Throughout the report there is the common theme of "user pays," with which I agree, but it is not consistently applied.
My disagreement comes from the fact that the Commission is proposing to increase user fees paid only by the driving public (the source of funding for the HTF), yet at the same time the HTF and thus the driving public is currently subsidizing Mass Transit. Over the last few years these subsidies have averaged about $5 billion annually and will conceivably increase in the future unless legislation changes this subsidy and puts the cost for transit where I feel it belongs-and that is with the user. Further compounding the issue is the fact that the beneficiaries of Mass Transit do not pay into this fund. People who use bus, light/heavy rail, subways, and commuter rail systems do not pay into the HTF for the trips they take. This is unfair to the millions of Americans that do pay into the HTF for driving. Likewise, millions of Americans do not have access to simple forms of Mass Transit for commuting to work or other types of trips as well as for pleasure.
While I believe in Mass Transit, and support an enhanced rail system across our country for the movement of people and goods, I do not believe this should be at the expense of those who choose not to use it or do not have an alternate choice. It should be funded by those who use it. Remember the "user pays" concept.
While we talk in our report about the need for more direct user fees and congestion pricing, which I believe are ideas worth strong consideration by Congress and State legislatures, we completely stay away from making any recommendations that perhaps transit should do the same. As the discussions move forward, perhaps it should be seriously considered that if any monies go to transit at all, then it should be with the same concept as being considered for highways.
During the Commission deliberations we discussed the fact that tolls and transit fees are typically set by the local jurisdictions that own or operate them, as well as federal incentives to those local jurisdictions to encourage them to raise transit fees. I believe such incentives should be short-term in length and should only be offered as a way of moving transit agencies toward greater self-sufficiency and to encourage use of new and improved transit systems. However, I am not in favor of these incentives becoming part of a permanent or long-term package.
The idea of capping the subsidy at the recent historical level ($5 billion), not an ever-increasing pot of money, was discussed; however, this was not agreeable to some. The HTF was designed to maintain our bridges and highways and to expand them as needed. Given the current state of our highways and the magnitude of our highway investment gap, we cannot allow more funds to move to other non-highway purposes such as transit and continue to ask the driving public to pay for transit while the highway infrastructure they use on a daily basis is beginning to crumble around them.
I sincerely hope that Congress will entertain this discussion because their constituents cannot and should not be asked to finance special projects such as transit with funds that are intended to support the road system. I strongly urge our elected officials to look at the many and varied reports regarding the conditions of our roads and bridges and whether it is fair to ask the driving public to pay even more dollars to fund the critical repairs that are needed for the highways and bridges they are driving on while still taking money from the HTF for other uses.
Conclusion: I feel that the Commission has accomplished a great deal. My fundamental difference is regarding how transit needs should be funded; I strongly believe the current approach, which dedicates a portion of the federal motor fuels tax to transit, should be reviewed. I do strongly endorse the Commission's primary suggestion, which is that we need to implement a VMT system tax and that we should start sooner rather than later.
I would like to congratulate my fellow commissioners as well as to thank the Administration, Members of Congress, and the Department of Transportation for enabling this discussion and for me being able to participate in it.