Obama Administration Delivers $302 Billion Transportation Funding Proposal Before Congress

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

A $302 billion, four-year plan to fund the U.S. Highway Trust Fund — and, in turn, any road and transit projects on the table during the period — was brought before Congress by the Obama administration through the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports the proposal would add $87 billion on top of what is currently in the trust fund in order to bring much-needed dollars to the many bridges and transit systems seeking rehabilitation while creating “millions of jobs” and, thus, boosting the economy, according to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. The fund, currently subsisting on gasoline and diesel taxes, would be funded by a temporary tax increase on overseas earnings by companies, which is the method proposed by President Barack Obama back in February 2014 in his budget request.

Meanwhile, both houses of Congress are seeking six-year funding proposals, though none have any financial resources to draw upon thus far. Further, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have claimed there currently are not enough votes to raise the 18.4-cent tax levied per gallon of gasoline to boost the trust fund’s coffers. One such proposal, made in 2012, failed due to being unable to decide upon a funding source, resulting in a two-year stop-gap measure funded through general tax revenue to keep construction projects moving forward.

The proposal also requested an increase in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s maximum fine for automakers who fail to issue recall notices on defective vehicles in a timely manner. The current maximum fine of $35 million would rise to $300 million “to ensure when a violation occurs it is more than a rounding error,” Foxx explained.

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
11 of 98 comments
  • An innocent man An innocent man on Apr 30, 2014

    Haven't had time to think it through, but I am curious of others' thoughts here: Is the Interstate System a big part of the problem? It costs so much to maintain our infrastructure because there's just so damn much of it? We made it easy to live 60 miles from where we work and to commute every day. We made it easy to spread out and that made it necessary to put freight on trucks instead of rail, etc,etc...or is that system what underlied our tremendous growth? An irrelevant question, at this point, I am just curious.

    • See 5 previous
    • Geeber Geeber on May 01, 2014

      @Hillman A more "local" use of trucks still involves driving the container to the customer, which is often located 50-100 miles away from the rail terminal or warehouse. Harrisburg is a major railroad center. The freight portion of the railroad business is doing quite well, but there are still a TON of trucks on the road, delivering goods along the East Coast or to the interior via I-81, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-83. No one would be more relieved than me if railroads displaced trucks on highways, but that simply has not been happening around here. As freight rail has boomed, so has the number of trucks.

  • TW5 TW5 on Apr 30, 2014

    NPS has a $12B maintenance backlog. Hopefully someone will cut them into the mix. Roads and parks are some of the few programs that everyone uses throughout their lives.

  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Apr 30, 2014

    I do believe if the money used to subsidise vehicle manufacturers and the UAW was used to develop transport infrastructure and not business in the US (and other countries) the country would gain more benefit economically. The construction of better roads/transport serves everyone, not just the socialist UAW and hand picked industries. Increasing the cost of fuel would also help in the reduction in the use of gasoline/diesel in surface transport. This would also benefit the US.

  • Hillman Hillman on Apr 30, 2014

    I have always said if someone can tell me what costs the same as it did in 1993 then I will agree that the tax does not need to be increased. Funny how people can never answer that question with an example proving me wrong.

    • Cronus Cronus on Apr 30, 2014

      Things that cost less now then in 1993? Computers, computer software, phone service, natural gas, internet service, cell phones, and airline tickets. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many others. Highway construction by the way costs about the same now as it did 10 years ago. See figure 6-7 here, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter6.cfm (Kinosh posted the link above)

Next