Pa. road projects safe from feds' transportation funding delays
State construction projects will continue to get federal money until December even if Congress does not pass a bill that would increase funding temporarily to the nation's nearly empty highway trust fund, PennDOT officials said on Wednesday.
The federal Department of Transportation said reimbursement payments to states will begin being delayed on Friday to ration money from a fund in which expenses are projected to outpace revenue next month. PennDOT relies on about $1.5 billion of federal transportation money annually, about one-third of the $4.4 billion it spends on road and bridge work.
The payment delays, if they last for months, could hold back projects in other states, but PennDOT officials credit this state's transportation funding law, passed in November as Act 89, with providing some buffer from federal budget woes. The law hikes wholesale gasoline taxes and vehicle-related fees.
“We expect that because of Act 89 we wouldn't see project impacts until the end of the year. We will continue to monitor and evaluate any reduced reimbursements and take appropriate action if necessary, but we're continuing to invest state funds into projects at this time,” PennDOT spokeswoman Erin Waters-Trasatt said. “The longer we go without a resolution in Washington, the prospects rise that the benefits of Act 89 could to be undercut without a federal solution.”
The House and Senate passed dueling versions of temporary funding for the highway trust fund this month. A House version passed two weeks ago for which all 18 Pennsylvania representatives voted would fund the trust until May; the Senate version passed on Tuesday funds it until December. Neither side has approved the other's bill, and Congress heads for a five-week recess after Friday.
Many industry groups are confident Congress will pass a temporary fix soon but said a longer funding solution is needed.
“We support a long-term fix, and we don't think May is long-term. We'd prefer they come up with something and fix it this year. We're getting into permanent, temporary funding situation,” said Jeff Shoaf, senior director for government affairs with the Associated General Contractors of America. “The way highway programs work ... is that you make priority decisions based revenue streams. This (lack of funding certainty) makes it hard to make good decisions.”
There are competing views on how to fund infrastructure repairs.
Emily Goff, a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative policy group, agreed that the short-term patch does not address the nation's needs.
“We'd like to see a real honest debate of thinking outside the box; devolving more highway programs to the state level and the private sector,” Goff said. “We recognize that most transportation challenges today are regional or local in nature, not federal.”
Lawmakers say the problem is basic: The 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax has not changed since 1993, while costs have risen and cars have become more fuel-efficient.
Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said he likes the Senate version better because it keeps pressure on lawmakers to come up with a long-term solution.
“The idea of kicking the can down the road until May is a bad idea. This is crazy. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us. ... I'm a firm believer that the Highway Trust Fund should be funded by user fees,” said Doyle, who said an increase in the federal gas tax is one option.
Susan Mosychuk, chief of staff for Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, said in a statement that a gas tax hike was not necessary because her boss supports a plan to direct revenues from increased offshore drilling for infrastructure repairs.
“We're pressing on House leadership to take up this alternative approach,” Mosychuk said.
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Former Marines who served with alleged killer said couple fought constantly
- Poor sales sink multi-state Monopoly Millionaires’ Club lottery
- Western Pennsylvania lawmakers among 200 who lost pensions for bad behavior