Highways Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

Highways Bill

1. The federal fuel tax, the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and subsidies to mass transit programs are eliminated as of FY 2007.
2. The federal government shall no longer appropriate any funds for the construction and financing of highways.

Sponsor: Sen. Dave 'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

As if our roads aren't sh**tty enough, this will make them worse. There is no need to vote for this so I'll be voting against it.

[Speed of Sound]

I must agree with my Mideastern colleague. Our highways desperately need government help, in fact it could use more. You can count me in as nay #2.

[Јas]

I, like the two preceding Senators, would also need strong convincing to vote in favour of this bill.

[Virginian87]

One of my main issues has always been increased federal funding for Atlasia's transportation systems.  This bill goes against everything that I stand for on transportation.  Therefore it will not receive my support, and I urge my fellow senators to do the same.

[Dr. Cynic]

Roads are awful around here! There is no way I'm voting for this bill

[jerusalemcar5]

I support more mass transport.  I don't think we should be making cars attractive.  So I'll vote aye.

[Ebowed]

Roads are awful around here! There is no way I'm voting for this bill

The purpose is to move highway construction to the regions, so if they wish, they can handle their highways more efficiently instead of the federal government keeping them "awful."

[Dr. Cynic]

I would like to see more federal funding for highways, not less... Or perhaps a plan that allows for both federal and local governments to pay for improvements... I just don't see anything getting better if you completely cut funding like this, Mr. President.

[Ebowed]

I just don't see anything getting better if you completely cut funding like this, Mr. President.

The regions, should they choose to continue the route of the federal government, will take control of their own highways and will handle them more efficiently, as they will be more oriented with the areas they are working with and therefore better prepared to deal with problems that may arise.  Alternatively, regions could choose to flow more funds into encouraging public transportation.  Regardless, the current situation will do nothing about your "awful" roads; this is one step that could improve the situation for everyone.

[Bono]

The fact is, the current system perpetuates the "sh**tty roads" rather than doing anything to improve the condition of the road system.
There are several problems with the current financing system which contribute to this, and keeping it in place will only perpetuate the adverse incentives inherent in the system:

Federal financing encourages low priority and unnecesary projects: the regions retain formal responsablity for the financing of their highways but they don't have to meet more than a small part of the financing--federal contributions range from 75 to 90%. That allows regions to break ground on less important projects and boondoggles at the expense of road users in other regions. The federal funding of regional roads tends to result in excessive demand for expensive facilities, because to the regions--which are only nominally responsible for their funding--federal funds are virtually free. Obviously, regions line up for this "free" money. Thus, this sytem allows for the construction of white elephants like Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project(known as 'Big Dig'), for which local funding probably wouldn't even have been considered. Initially estimated at 3.3$ billions, the  cost balloned to 14.6$ billion.

Fuel taxes are used for all sorts of other spending: the large-scale diversion of money from the Highway Trust Fund started in 1982 with the opening in the FHTF of the Mass Transit Account and was accelerated by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The 1998 Transportation Equity Act funded items that were cleary for roads, such as the "Interestate Maintenance Program", items that could be for roads, such as "miscellaneous Studies" and items that most definitely weren't for roads, like "Recreational Trails Program". the non road expenditure nears 25% of the gas tax funds, including the hundreds of billion dollars for the Puerto Rico Highway Program, that is for roads, but is benefiting people who don't even pay the gas tax.

Federal financing inflates road costs, in three main ways: Regions are required to follow labor regulations such as the Davis-Bacon rules and "Buy America" provisions, both of which can raise highway costs substantially. Davis-Bacon rules only increase highway costs in an estimated 30%; federal specifications for road construction can be higher, and therefore more expensive, than reginla standards; finally, there are significant administrative costs in sending monies from the regions to the feds and back again. Published data indicates that in FY2002 administrative costs atributable to federal involvment, at both federal and state levels, increased highway costs about 5%. Ralph Stanley, an entrepeneur who concieved and launched the Dulles Greenway, a 14-mile private road from the Dulles airport to Leesburg in north Virginia, estimated that federal involvment increased project costs by 20%. Robert Farris, who was comissioner of the Tennessee Departent of Transporation and federal highway administrator has sugested similar numbers.

Federal financing misallocates funds between regions: some regions get persistently more out of the FHTF than they pay into it. This probably has more to do with the particular political clout of certain senators and less with transportation needs. there is a tendency for the Southeast to subsidise the Northeast. Since 1982 this has been exacerbated by the diversion of FHTF funds to pay for mass transit programs, most of which are in the Northeast.

The senate should get commited to federalist alues and decentralize the road system financing to the regions, which would then be free to chose their own method of financing, either by gas tax, or by alternative taxation methods. Some regions could opt by taxing emissions, for example. Also, each region would have the incentives to fund the most needed projects rather than those who'd get most federal money.

[Bdub]

I will be voting against this bill.  The Roads are already crappy enough.

[Bono]

Can we please get past knee-jerk "the roads are crappy 'round here" reactions and actually think about this issue?
I doubt many of the roads y'all are talking about are even federally funded.

[Dr. Cynic]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

[Bono]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

[Dr. Cynic]

Who said that?... I didn't... I don't like words being put in my mouth, nor do I like to be told that I have my own interests at heart.

Already, I have said that most of the highways around here are federally funded... I want to see good reasons as to why I should vote on a bill that would cut the funding to the roads that we have around here?

My intrest is for what's best for the citizens of my district... Not myself.

[Democratic Hawk]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

Why must you insist on slashing and burning just about everything within the remit of the federal government?

And I, for one, happen to think that often enough its better for certain things to operate more efficiently and effectively at the regional level; however, I'm far from decided as to whether highways is one of them

'Hawk'

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

[Bono]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

The regions can create a gas tax to fund the roads, or any other alternative tax they want to. In fact, I strongly suggest they do. I just don't see why this has to be done federally, and I wrote my case about the problems of the federal intervention back there. I think the only reason you are against this is that the Northeast benefits disproportionally from FHTF funds, including for projects that aren't even road related.

[Bono]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

Why must you insist on slashing and burning just about everything within the remit of the federal government?

I believe the regions can be more efficient in the fuding of roads. I explained the problems of the federal funding system back there. I don't remember ever propising to this chamber slashing and burning "everything", like defense, for instance.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

The way I see it, if highways remains under the auspices of federal government we can endeavour to retain a commitment to universally improving standards. Left to the regions, such universality might diminish with standards varying region to region. Highways might be a priority for some regions but not necessarily others

I'm sure there are highways within my own district, which are sub-standard, so I'm minded to raise this issue with the Mideast and Southeast governors, were this Bill to pass, which seems doubtful

Nevertheless, since the rationale underlying this Bill stems from the notion that the regions, as opposed to the federal government, should construct and maintain highways, I'd pretty much welcome their thoughts as to the intent of the Bill before us

'Hawk'

[Bono]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

The way I see it, if highways remains under the auspices of federal government we can endeavour to retain a commitment to universally improving standards. Left to the regions, such universality might diminish with standards varying region to region. Highways might be a priority for some regions but not necessarily others

So, if the voters of one region want to fund highways less, why shouldn't they be able to do so? In this system it's the same thing, the federal money is distributed on what the regional needs supposedly are. If a region thinks highwyas aren't very important they aren't going to recieve funding without asking for it. In the end, it just leaves us with expensive, inneficient roads.

[True Democrat]

I urge my Senators to vote in favor of this.  Not only will this make self-reliance for the regions essential and improving the roads in the long run, but it will also cut the deficit.

[Dr. Cynic]

Of course... Let's not slash defense, but please, let's slash internal improvements.

Once again, I stand by my position... I do not believe that I should burden my already distressed reigon anymore than it already is.

I'd be open to a plan that allowed for joint funding, but I still I think as far as my region goes, the federal government will have to front for a majority of the cost. I will not, and can not in good conscience cut off funding for most of my district, which a majority of highways are federally funded.

Senator Hawk, as I was about to post my feelings, you beat me to it, so I wish to address your comments as well.

As I said, I'd be open to a joint effort, but highways are a high priority here, specifically, because they wear in certain places rather quickly, and you can't go three days without seeing some construction. Either way, Senator, as I said, I will not cut the proverbial legs out from underneath District One.

[Bono]

Of course... Let's not slash defense, but please, let's slash internal improvements.

Once again, I stand by my position... I do not believe that I should burden my already distressed reigon anymore than it already is.

I'd be open to a plan that allowed for joint funding, but I still I think as far as my region goes, the federal government will have to front for a majority of the cost. I will not, and can not in good conscience cut off funding for most of my district, which a majority of highways are federally funded.

Senator Hawk, as I was about to post my feelings, you beat me to it, so I wish to address your comments as well.

As I said, I'd be open to a joint effort, but highways are a high priority here, specifically, because they wear in certain places rather quickly, and you can't go three days without seeing some construction. Either way, Senator, as I said, I will not cut the proverbial legs out from underneath District One.

The northeast is an extremely wealthy region. I don't see why its citizens cannot bear the replacement of the federal gas tax by a regional one. Of coruse, the senator is perfectly happy with poor people in the poorer southeast subsidizing roads and mass transit projects in his region.

And I support cuts in the defense department, but not "slash and burn", which was what Senator Hawk was talking about.