Feds should put up money for Michigan road projects

http://www.freep.com/graphics/mastlogo.gif

June 5, 2009


Miller: Feds should put up money for Michigan road projects

By TODD SPANGLER
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Candice Miller called today for the federal government to put up money for Michigan road projects without the cash-strapped state being forced to pay its usual share, saying she’d introduce legislation to that effect if the White House can’t see its way to granting a waiver.

Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, carped in a news release and a letter to Ed Montgomery, President Barack Obama’s point man to help auto communities and workers, that recent news of the state’s intention to cancel 137 road and bridge projects because it can’t come up with its share is unacceptable at a time when thousands are being thrown out of work.

The federal government typically pays about 80% of the cost of projects through its Highway Trust Fund, but the state has to come up with its 20% share. This week, Michigan Department of Transportation Director Kirk Steudle said the state’s 19-cent-per-gallon gas tax hasn’t generated enough cash, meaning it will cancel $740 million in road and bridge repairs.

“I understand the concept that states need to provide matching funds in order to receive federal dollars,� said Miller. “However, these are extraordinary times and Michigan has been uniquely devastated by the current economic crisis. Withholding $740 million in road projects will only make things worse.�

There’s an issue of fairness as well, she said.

For years, Michigan officials have complained of the state’s standing as a so-called donor state – meaning it pays more into the federal highway fund via gas taxes then it gets out for road and bridge projects. In 2007, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., issued a report showing Michigan got about 87 cents back for every dollar it put into the fund, compared to a state like California – which got a nearly dollar-for-dollar return, or Florida, which got $1.27 for every $1 it put into the trust fund.

And that’s with Michigan getting a return. If it is forced to forgo $740 million in projects because it can’t come up with its share, that federal money, said Miller, could go to other states – making Michigan’s rate of return even worse.

That, said Miller, means “subsidizing other state that are not experiencing near the economic upheaval as we are in Michigan. That is simply not acceptable.�

Any efforts such as Miller’s, however, would be a long shot.

Nick Farber, a transportation policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said today that most, if not all, states are seeing a decline in transportation revenues because of more fuel efficient cars and high gasoline prices. Any move such as the one contemplated by Miller – which would ask to waive Michigan’s contribution to get road money for two years – would see a parade of states lining up for similar treatment.
The White House declined to comment on the legislation and letter. But the state Department of Transportation said it would take whatever help it could get.
“We certainly welcome the congresswoman’s effort and support,� said Ron DeCook, an MDOT spokesman. Asked if he knew of any state getting such a general waiver from the match for federal dollars, he acknowledged he had not.



Okay, how many of us wake up this morning thinking we would be rooting for Candace Miller?

Wow there is a solution! Just fix 20 percent less roads? Watch the system deteriorate even faster? How about transit? Do we buy 20 percent fewer buses? Side-rail the rail projects? Short term fixes like this lead to worse problems. Thanks but no thanks.

People need to accept that they cannot get something for nothing. If we don't fix the roads right, reduce our trips, by moving closer to work and walking our fat butts more, then we get what we deserve, a sprawled out mess with poor capacity during peak hours and crappy giant parking lots near empty giant strip malls. It ain't rocket science, its just good land use and transportation planning folks.

We should not be going to the feds for this kind of hand-out, it will do nothing to fix our current situation. Instead it will make things worse.

Amen, Detroitplanner!

I don't think she was suggesting that only 80% of road repairs be made. I think she was saying that the federal government should pay for 100% of the repairs.

Nearly 20% of the road project funding being cut is for new roads and expanding existing roads.

Why is MDOT building new roads when there obviously is not enough funding to maintain the ones we have?

And the out of state answer to Miller's request will be:

"We've already had our tax dollars stolen to bail out your auto industry and now you want us to pay for your roads too?"

Since half of the cars on the road come from foreign countries, maybe those countries ought to pay for half our road projects.

The feds should give us the money with the stipulation that it go towards mass transit, something that will help solve the deficit instead of just putting it off and passing it on. If that can't be done because of fund allocation issues or what have you, I'd rather we not get any at all. Please stop giving our state fish, and instead help teach our people how to fish, thanks.

Keep in mind the reason our roads are in such shape is due in no small part to the allowable weight of trucks in Michigan.

Michigan allows 165,000 pounds in those trucks, The most in the nation I believe. Alaska might allow more.

State Truck weight [[pounds) Trailer length [[feet)
Illinois 80,000 65
Indiana 80,000 None
Iowa 80,000 None
Kansas 80,000 None
Michigan 164,000 58
Minn. 80,000 75
Nebraska 95,000 65
N.Dakota 105,000 75
Ohio 80,000 None
SDakota 129,000 None
Wisc. 80,000 65


More than Double than Ohio ... double. We are tearing up our own roads, and now Candice wants to use Fed Tax dollars to patch roads that we allow to be destroyed.

Until we decide to fix systemic problems, zero money should go towards road construction. We build roads that cannot take the pounding we give them. Trucking lobby has bamboozled Lansing into thinking that heavy trucking weight is tied to job creation. The road building lobby agrees to build the roads to specs that match and exceed those in other midwestern states; however, they know that those specs are no match for the 164,000 pound monster that hurtle down the Lodge, the Fisher, the Ford at 70 and 80 mph.

here is the link:

http://www.csgmidwest.org/MemberServ.../2008/0308.htm

Well said, DetroitDad. They ought to redistribute all the transportation funds to the states in proportion to where they're collected and let us decide which projects to spend them on. Maybe we don't want as many expressways and would rather have other forms of transportation.

Better yet, how about the Feds not taking the money from us in the first place and let us control it from the very get-go. I understand the concept of having interstate roads to ensure the free flow of commerce for the nation as a whole, but if any state is foolish enough not to maintain their roads, then let them face the lack of revenue that that commerce will bring.

They can start with Evergreen Road in Southfield, then Lahser:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Until we decide to fix systemic problems, zero money should go towards road construction. .

---

Exactly. Why should the Feds subsidize this State when they allow the roads to be torn up with, as you say, double the weight limits of Ohio for example? I fully believe this is the root cause since you can drive into Canada [[well, as long as you're carrying that bulky passport), Ohio, Illinois, etc. and notice an immediate improvement in the roads and they have the same weather we do. I realize there are differences in the way roads are funded with taxes and/or tolls but I think that is a small part of it.

It is not just the weight it is the length of the trucks ... we allow the shortest [[58 feet) trucks with the most weight ... a sure-proof way to shred a road surface.

Whenever you hear those politicos talk about road building as job creation, keep the above numbers in mind. We have to change how we do things, everything. That includes how we fund our transport system. Right now fund roads through gas taxes. Road funding is down because we're driving fewer miles and therefore using less gas. The worse the economy gets, the fewer miles we'll be driving thereby shrinking funds for transportation and even if money rains down from heaven and we all start driving 45 mpg hybreds we will use even less gas ... still driving our funding stream into the ditch.

There needs to be an entire overhaul of how we think of transportation starting from how it everything is funded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Keep in mind the reason our roads are in such shape is due in no small part to the allowable weight of trucks in Michigan.

Michigan allows 165,000 pounds in those trucks, The most in the nation I believe. Alaska might allow more.

State Truck weight [[pounds) Trailer length [[feet)
Illinois 80,000 65
Indiana 80,000 None
Iowa 80,000 None
Kansas 80,000 None
Michigan 164,000 58
Minn. 80,000 75
Nebraska 95,000 65
N.Dakota 105,000 75
Ohio 80,000 None
SDakota 129,000 None
Wisc. 80,000 65


More than Double than Ohio ... double. We are tearing up our own roads, and now Candice wants to use Fed Tax dollars to patch roads that we allow to be destroyed.

Until we decide to fix systemic problems, zero money should go towards road construction. We build roads that cannot take the pounding we give them. Trucking lobby has bamboozled Lansing into thinking that heavy trucking weight is tied to job creation. The road building lobby agrees to build the roads to specs that match and exceed those in other midwestern states; however, they know that those specs are no match for the 164,000 pound monster that hurtle down the Lodge, the Fisher, the Ford at 70 and 80 mph.

---

Bogus arguement, there are not many 80 ton trucks on my street and it is in worse shape than most artierials. While I am not disputing that the weight is a factor, there are bigger factors to consider such as routine maintenance. I suppose you can blame the heavy trucks on us not having transit too.

The feds will not give us 25 percent more money to fix our roads under this, read it. Our roads will erode much faster because people refuse to accept that we can no longer ignore our economic backbones. The funding mechanism must be fixed in a way that rewards those who stay off of the system. This is why high mileage cars like Hybrids are so problematic, they allow people to sprawl even further and clog the roads during peak hours. People with then scream about traffic until a politico caves in and spends tens of millions to widen a road that really only needs it during peak hour. At the same time a hybrid will generate less gas taxes but will be used my many over a longer distance because you must be a heavy driver for hybrids to make sense due to their added costs. You must amortize that cost over time and compare it to fuel savings.

For the record, I am not against road widening if it makes sense and all other travel demand measures have been tried; including transit, non-motorized, staggered work hours, ride-share or adjusting the timing of lights.

I don't get it. I don't drive a car but I am expected to pay for those that do? Yes, for commerce I agree. But, for some suburbanite to get to a store. No.

jjw, federal transportation funds come from the federal gas tax. This does not mean you pay. However, gas tax is used to pay for much of transit, bike paths, sidewalks, and streetscapes. You do benefit from this tax even though you do not pay into it, particularly if you ever ride in a car with someone else driving.

The federal transportation trust fund is anticipated to be broke well before the end of the fiscal year. This is due to the sharp decrease in driving, the increase in fuel efficiency, and the greater cost for repairing roads, that if were maintained properly should not cost as much nor be as big of an inconvience to fix. However, since the transportation budget is so out of whack transportation providers resort to deffered maintenace and that why you see so many raggedy buses and roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Keep in mind the reason our roads are in such shape is due in no small part to the allowable weight of trucks in Michigan.

Michigan allows 165,000 pounds in those trucks, The most in the nation I believe. Alaska might allow more.

State Truck weight [[pounds) Trailer length [[feet)
Illinois 80,000 65
Indiana 80,000 None
Iowa 80,000 None
Kansas 80,000 None
Michigan 164,000 58
Minn. 80,000 75
Nebraska 95,000 65
N.Dakota 105,000 75
Ohio 80,000 None
SDakota 129,000 None
Wisc. 80,000 65


More than Double than Ohio ... double. We are tearing up our own roads, and now Candice wants to use Fed Tax dollars to patch roads that we allow to be destroyed.

Until we decide to fix systemic problems, zero money should go towards road construction. We build roads that cannot take the pounding we give them. Trucking lobby has bamboozled Lansing into thinking that heavy trucking weight is tied to job creation. The road building lobby agrees to build the roads to specs that match and exceed those in other midwestern states; however, they know that those specs are no match for the 164,000 pound monster that hurtle down the Lodge, the Fisher, the Ford at 70 and 80 mph.

---

You would have a good argument if it was 20 years ago.
The monster trucks you talk about were 11 axle steel haulers, 8 axle trailers/ 3 axle trucks, taking steel from mills to factories. Most of the 8 axle trailers are 45 to 52' long, and there are doubles that can have any combination of 8 axles. We know, we make very little steel around here anymore, and few cars, so the big steel haulers are like dinosaurs roaming the earth, their time passed about 10 years ago. You can see one on the road once in a while but most stay parked.

That leaves the 11 axle gravel trains and a few of the big canadian garbage scows.
There is still quite a few of those on the road, but dont quite carry as much weight as the steel haulers did, but still more than any other state.

Agreed, that the time has come to remove the high weight limits and go to 80k limits.
The main reason the roads are garbage was the decision to fix them on the cheap instead of rebuilding, and lousy construction quality/oversite. They just waste money and keep the fixing the same roads over and over..
Truck weight has nothing to do with the condition of the secondary and side roads, lousy construction and maintenance does.

Michigan probably still produces eight to ten million tons of steel a year and I'd have to say an educated guess is consume well over fifteen million tons, but Ohio must be close in both and Indiana has to produce over five times that and they still have a 80,000 max. Half of it already leaves the plants by rail so lower truck weight limits will just mean more by rail.

Seems that rebuilding the same roads over and over is why there's a shortage of funds to fix the other roads right so I'd say the root cause continues to be the excessive weight limits.

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1958 built the system we have by providing 90% of the financing for highways. It effectively ended mass transit projects & train travel, as it required states to decide between paying 10% of the costs for highway construction and 100% of other transit costs. Now Miller wants the feds to pay 100% of construction costs? Umm... that's kerosene on a fire.

Don't we miss Bonier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs

Michigan probably still produces eight to ten million tons of steel a year and I'd have to say an educated guess is consume well over fifteen million tons, but Ohio must be close in both and Indiana has to produce over five times that and they still have a 80,000 max. Half of it already leaves the plants by rail so lower truck weight limits will just mean more by rail.

Seems that rebuilding the same roads over and over is why there's a shortage of funds to fix the other roads right so I'd say the root cause continues to be the excessive weight limits.

---

Like I said, the weight limit is a problem but not close to what it was 15 to 20 years ago, the 11 axle steel haulers just are not on the road in the numbers that they were.
I cant remember the last 11 axle steel hauler I saw on the road. You can see them parked in yards in sw detroit and dearborn but thats about it.
The 11 axle gravel trains are still a problem and used in large numbers, but carry a little less weight than the steel trucks, maybe 100k for gravel and 120k plus for the steel.

You could have an 80k limit today and you would still be fixing many of the same roads over and over. I have lost count how many times in the last 10 years that they have rebuilt/repaired/capped I-75 downriver, and they are still working on it. :confused: