News Detail

• As the funding picture goes for federal transportation programs, so will go New Jersey’s plans to build roads, bridges and transit projects.From experts’ opinions to a state Department of Transportation forecast, the funding picture looks bleak.Transportation experts worry states will receive less federal money, due to a deficit in the federal Highway Trust Fund and a push to cut federal spending to reduce the national debt. The flip side of that coin: An aging highway and transit infrastructure that is wearing out and, in some cases, is overburdened.
• “Two national commissions concluded we’re investing, at all levels of government — federal, state, county and local — about $90 billion a year,” said Jack Basso, director of program finance and management for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “They concluded that what’s needed is $225 billion a year. We’re investing 40 percent of what experts suggest we should to meet congestion needs and economic needs.”Experts predict the burden is likely to fall on drivers and transit riders to pay more — through gas taxes, fares, tolls or other user fees. Government will have to do a better job proving all the money is going to transportation and will fund the most-needed projects to win public support, experts said.
• The course of investment for at least the next six years will be determined by the ongoing reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act, currently being debated by Congress.The state Department of Transportation’s capital investment strategy for 2012 to 2021 assumes federal funding remains flat. For the fiscal year 2012, of a $3.5 billion capital project budget, 35 percent — or $1.699 billion — comes from the federal government, according to state DOT documents.“Roughly half the funds for state projects come from Washington, so any change in federal funding, up or down, has a sizable impact,” said Janna Chernetz, New Jersey advocate for the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a watchdog group.
• The current reauthorization extension expires March 31, and the federal government is having the same problem that states are — the federal gas tax isn’t bringing in enough revenue to support the Highway Trust Fund.“The Highway Trust Fund has a financial problem: Next fiscal year 2013, the trust fund will only be able to support an $11.5 billion program of new commitments (projects),” Basso said. “Today we have a $42 billion program.”For New Jersey residents, the federal scenario probably sounds familiar after 2011’s debate about reauthorizing the Transportation Trust Fund and whether the state gas tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1988, would have to be increased. Gov. Chris Christie decided to spare drivers a gas tax hike during the current slow economy, opting to use money from a canceled project that would’ve built a second rail tunnel under the Hudson River to pump revenue into the fund for five years.
• But even Christie said he couldn’t predict what happens to the trust fund after six years. Chernetz called the revenue issue “the pink elephant in the room.”“We need to find a dedicated revenue source and those discussions needed to have been started yesterday,” she said. “Transportation should not be part of the political process .”AAA clubs of New Jersey have called on state and federal officials to make a renewed commitment to find a long-term solution to the transportation funding problem.“Relying on quick fixes, in particular, debt refinancing, only undermines the integrity of the state’s transportation system and negatively impacts New Jersey’s economy, quality of life, safety and security,” AAA Mid-Atlantic spokeswoman Tracy Noble said.
• How much funding comes from Washington will be the first factor in determining what the state’s transportation program will be and how much revenue will have to be raised locally. Basso expressed concern that federal funding may drop.Stable or lower federal funding means more competition for money between reconstruction/maintenance projects and expansion projects, said Richard Arena, president of the Association for Public Transportation.The demand for more “State of Good Repair” projects over expansion will come from commuters who’ve been stranded when transportation systems fail them, he said. That’s happening now as advocates lobby NJ Transit to make repairs on the Northeast Corridor Line that Amtrak can’t afford to do, after overhead wire and signal system failures this year.
• “Commuters’ first priority is that roads are fixed, (such as) pothole and bridge repair and commuter rail and subway systems that operate close to schedule,” Arena said.The toughest sell will be to expand transit systems due to the high cost and the need for additional funds beyond construction costs to operate those new systems, he said.Chernetz said she’s concerned that cuts will also mean eliminating pedestrian and bicyclist safety projects.“That would make it harder for states to ensure kids have safe walking paths to school, and harder to retrofit the wide suburban roads, which we’ve found are among the deadliest for pedestrians,” she said. “The best we can hope for is that Congress will maintain the status quo when it comes to bike and pedestrian safety funding.
• Arena said future project funding will likely mean increases in gas taxes, tolls and other user fees, since most of the short-term financing “gimmicks” have been used up. New revenues and user fees will have to come with accountability and safeguards in order to be supported by drivers and transit riders, he said.Surveys done by AAA and Monmouth University show people want more accountability for transportation money so they know it’s being used efficiently and for the best projects that serve the most people.“The majority of those surveyed would support an increase in the gas tax, if that money was dedicated to transportation infrastructure projects,” AAA’s Noble said. “While no one ever wants to pay more, declining road conditions continue to be a cause for concern, leading motorists to believe that infrastructure investments must be made.”
• Basso said other states that put transportation borrowing and funding out to a referendum have had the most success when they provide the most details on what benefits taxpayers will get for their money and follow through with transparency as construction proceeds.More transparency and accountability also is needed as states look at public-private partnerships and contracting out for some operations to maintain the public trust, Kim said.“State governments should move cautiously into these agreements (with private companies), whether it be for parking lots, red light cameras, or other projects,” Kim said. “One of our biggest concerns is that DOT will sign away control and accountability for public money and services in the interest of increasing revenue. There should be protections.”

Source