Bush Transp Plan Unveiled
The Bush administration on Wednesday unveiled a plan to spend $247 billion over six years on highways, rails and other types of transportation. But the proposal is far less than the $375 billion that a bipartisan group of congressional leaders say is needed. The President proposed a 2 percent increase in transit spending. The full Administration Proposal can ber found on the US Transportation Department “website”:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/.
Highway funding plan criticized
By Gordon Dickson
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May. 15, 2003
In the Metroplex, whether there will be enough money to expand clogged highways such as Texas 183, Texas 360 and Interstate 35W is still about as clear as a mud-coated windshield.
“At less than $250 billion, there are a lot of projects that are going unfunded and not going to get done,” said Sandy Greyson of Dallas, a member of the Regional Transportation Council. “These are critically needed projects, and they also provide jobs.”
Highway funding is determined by Congress about every six years, with the next deadline Sept. 30.
But with widespread disagreement in Washington, D.C., about how to fund surface transportation, some officials say it may be necessary to extend current funding levels by one or two years to allow Congress to work out a long-term plan.
On Wednesday, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled the plan, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, or SAFETEA.
“SAFETEA, when enacted by the Congress, will help ensure transportation projects are completed on budget and on time, while protecting the environment,” he said. “More importantly, this proposal will further the administration’s commitment to dramatically reducing the number of highway injuries and fatalities.”
The Bush plan was widely criticized. Pro-highway advocates want more money spent on additional highway lanes. Environmentalists say many laws designed to protect communities along highways would be weakened. Rail supporters say there aren’t enough incentives for cities to expand the use of trains.
“You may have strange bedfellows, alliances of those who do not like the policy in the bill and those who do not like the low funding in the bill,” said Alex Taft, executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Others criticized a component that would reduce the federal government’s share of transit start-up projects to 50 percent, down from 80 percent.
“We’re taking a step back in terms of the federal share for transit new-starts,” said Anne Canby, president of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a group that advocates increased spending on transportation.
Several aspects of the proposal received wide support, including provisions to spend $8.6 billion encouraging states to make roads safer.
Other highlights:
• Funding for public transit would increase about 2 percent, to $46 billion.
• The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon would not be increased or indexed to rise with inflation.
• The environmental permitting process would be streamlined for many highway projects.