Commonwealth Foundation and Reason Foundation urge lawmakers to slow down on the transportation proposal

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Pennsylvania State Senate, Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
FROM: Matthew J. Brouillette, Commonwealth Foundation, and Geoffrey F. Segal, Reason Foundation
CC: Governor Ed Rendell and Members of the Media
DATE: July 3, 2007
RE: Funding PA’s Transportation Infrastructure and Transit System Needs

The proposal currently under consideration to fund Pennsylvania’s transportation infrastructure and transit system needs is highly flawed. Therefore, we urge you not to rush into legislation that will dramatically alter the Commonwealth’s transportation policy direction for decades to come. There are at least three reasons why a delay in considering this proposal is warranted:

1. Inadequate vetting of the proposal. Gov. Rendell was rightly criticized for failing to provide details of his proposed leasing of the Turnpike. Nevertheless, the general public, affected constituencies, and interested parties were given more than six months to express their opinions on the idea before anything was done legislatively.
   • The currently proposed legislation would be thrust upon the people of Pennsylvania with ZERO input from the general public, affected constituencies, or interested parties.
     Only the lobbyists of special interests who will benefit financially
     have been privy to the development of this proposal. There have been no
     policy hearings, no committee meetings, and no public discussions with
     lawmakers. In a time when the public is demanding more open,
     transparent and accountable government, shouldn’t we end the backroom
     deals crafted by the lobbyists for the special interests at the expense
     of the people of Pennsylvania?
   • Waiting a few months will not hinder the proposal’s timetable.
     If the proposal currently before you is the best transportation policy
     for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it will withstand the public
     scrutiny over the coming months. Toll increases on the Turnpike and
     I-80 will not go into effect until 2009, and bonds for immediate
     revenue could be issued later this fiscal year. Why must this
     critical and far-reaching piece of legislation be rushed into law in
     July 2007? Rushed legislation is usually flawed legislation.
   • The entire funding mechanism of this proposal is based upon a faulty premise—the tolling of I-80.
     The Federal Highway Administration has stated, in no uncertain terms,
     that the federal government would not approve tolling of I-80 to pay
     for other roads or mass transit. While there is an alternative tolling
     program under federal law, only one slot remains open and several other
     states are already competing for it. It is also intended for
     interstates in dire need of congestion reduction. For most of its
     length, I-80 does not fit these federal parameters. What is Plan B if the Federal Highway Administration prohibits the tolling of I-80?
2. Paying interest rather than earning interest.
   The current proposal would strap Pennsylvanians with significant debt
   for decades to come. Other transportation funding options should be
   fully considered before bonding for billions of dollars.
   • While other states are earning interest from their toll roads, the current proposal would force taxpayers to pay interest on multi-billion dollar bonds. Is this legislation truly in the best interests of citizens and citizens? Or are their better financing arrangements?
3. Perpetuating the status quo fails to solve the problems.
   By subsidizing the current system without significant reforms, the
   proposal under consideration would merely postpone the current crisis
   for another day—it will not solve it.
   • The Pennsylvania Transportation Funding and Reform Commission stated: “The Commission concludes that no additional funding
     should be provided for highways, bridges and transit unless a series of
     parallel actions are taken to reform funding structure and a number of
     transportation business practices.” [Emphasis added] What significant reforms have been enacted to merit additional funding?
   • As other states move toward new ways of financing and operating its transportation infrastructure and transit systems, Pennsylvania will be left behind once again. Why
     would Pennsylvania lawmakers ignore the examples from across the nation
     and around the world of how to solve transportation problems WITHOUT
     borrowing billions or raising taxes and fees?

It is clear that the proposal currently before you has not been fully
vetted, may not be in the best interests of taxpayers and commuters,
and will likely only postpone and perpetuate—rather than solve—the
current crisis. Therefore, we urge you not to rush through legislation
that will dramatically alter Pennsylvania’s transportation
infrastructure and transit systems for decades to come. It is too
important of a policy issue to be used as a budget bargaining chip.

Thank you for considering this request. We encourage you to visit our websites (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org [0] and www.Reason.org [1])
for additional information on possible ways of adequately addressing
Pennsylvania’s transportation infrastructure and transit system needs.
Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

[signed]
Matthew J. Brouillette
Commonwealth Foundation

[signed]
Geoffrey F. Segal
Reason Foundation