|
Highway Funding and Safety
GLOSSARYTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Federal law that authorizes federal surface-transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the six-year period from 1998 to 2003 .Trunk line Any road for which the Michigan Department of Transportation has responsibility.
BACKGROUND[APRIL 1, 2002] In 1913 the Michigan Legislature passed the State Trunk Line Act, authorizing a state highway network. Then, it totaled about 3,000 miles of roadway; today it comprises nearly 122,000. Responsibility for today's roads is split among the state (9,711 miles), counties (89,499 miles), cities and villages (20,667 miles), and the federal government (2,102 miles). The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has jurisdiction over the state highway system, identified by I, U.S., and M designations. County roads are under the jurisdiction of the 83 county road commissions, and municipal streets are owned by 535 incorporated cities and villages. The federal government is responsible for roads in national forests, parks, and federal installations. FundingMonies for the state's transportation system comes from state, local, and federal sources. State-generated revenue supplies the majority of the income and is collected primarily through Michigan's fuel taxes (19 cents per gallon on gasoline and 15 cents per gallon on diesel fuel), motor-vehicle registration fees, and sales tax collected on vehicles. This revenue is earmarked (dedicated) to transportation, and it may be spent only for purposes established by law. Local units of government help to fund the construction or reconstruction of state trunk lines in their jurisdiction. The federal government provides funding for transit and state highways through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Signed into law in 1998, TEA-21 allocates to the states a share of the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax for state use on highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface-transportation programs. Michigan's allocation during the program's six-year life (1998–2003) is expected to exceed $800 million a year. Michigan's transportation programs and the appropriation of revenue collected for them are governed by Public Act 51 of 1951, as amended. The Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) is the primary collection and distribution fund for transportation monies; from it dollars are allocated, using the statutory funding formula, to state, county, and city and village road agencies as well as to the special funds: Critical Bridge Fund, Comprehensive Transportation Fund (in support of public transit programs), and Economic Development Fund (for roads in support of economic development projects). This description greatly simplifies the complicated Act 51 MTF distribution formula, and for more information, readers are directed to “Road Funding,” in Michigan in Brief, 6th Edition, which may be found at www.michiganinbrief.org. In addition to creating the MTF and setting out the spending formula, Act 51 specifies how the state and locals shall spend the money from the various funds, how federal funds shall be allocated (roughly 75 percent for repairing and rebuilding state roads and 25 percent for building, repairing, and rebuilding local federal-aid eligible roads), and how compliance and reporting shall be accomplished. The FY 2001–02 state transportation budget of $3.1 billion is approximately $1.3 billion more than the FY 1995–96 budget—an increase of 70 percent in six years. This is due partially to the enactment of TEA-21 in 1998, which is bringing an additional $300 million a year in federal funding for Michigan roads and transit systems. Also, Build Michigan, Governor Engler's three-phase transportation funding program of $5 billion over 10 years has increased revenue: A 4-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax hike and increases in commercial truck registration fees are bringing $300 million more annually to the state transportation budget. SafetyAccording to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), traffic crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States (the leading cause for 5–27-year-olds) and cost Michigan taxpayers nearly $10 billion a year. The good news is that while the number of vehicles on Michigan roads and the number of miles traveled are increasing, traffic crashes and fatalities are not, and this probably is due to a number of actions taken in recent years.
DISCUSSIONBuild MichiganThe Build Michigan program has been the topic of debate since its debut in 1992. The 4-cent gasoline tax hike was particularly onerous to some and, more recently, Build Michigan III has been criticized because it requires a one-time $100 million General Fund/General Purpose (GF/GP) appropriation and an additional $800 million from bonding. Critics disapprove of using GF/GP monies for roads; they point out that many important programs have no source of funds other than GF/GP, whereas roads get upwards of $2 billion a year from revenue dedicated solely to that purpose. They further disapprove of engaging in long-term borrowing to fund road improvements, which they equate to the state's getting a credit card and making future generations pay off the debt. Supporters contend that long-term debt is appropriate in this instance because future generations will benefit greatly from the projects, which were carefully selected to address safety, congestion, and economic development, because they will serve the state for 100 years. Local road agencies worry that some of the money needed to repay the bonds could be diverted from road maintenance and construction. Although Build Michigan III has $900 million in funding in addition to the $12.5 billion set aside for Michigan roads in the next five years, organizations such as the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and the Michigan Road Builders Association (MRBA) say it is insufficient to meet growing needs. SEMCOG predicts that by 2025, the metropolitan Detroit area alone will have a $17 billion shortfall in meeting its transportation needs, which include public transit and rail as well as roads. Many are concerned about Build Michigan III's emphasis on expanding the highway system to the detriment of repairing roads. Although traffic volume has increased 30 percent since 1991 and capacity only 3 percent, critics question the wisdom of failing to fix deteriorating roads before taking on expansion projects. Environmental organizations fear that Build Michigan III's focus on expansion will widen urban sprawl by leading to more development in rural areas. Organizations such as the Michigan Land Institute claim that the Build Michigan program has ignored public transit, and they recommend increasing and stabilizing transit funding. Supporters point out that Build Michigan I repaired more roads than any other program in a similar period of time in Michigan history, and, furthermore, Build Michigan III is not focused solely on expansion. Moreover, according to MDOT, the Build Michigan II and III programs have focused on “fixing the worst roads first,” with a goal of bringing 90 percent of state roads to good condition by 2007. The department points out that annually, less than 25 percent (and sometimes much less) of the state's transportation budget is invested in new roads. They also dispute environmentalists' claims that new road construction leads to urban sprawl, saying that this phenomenon generally is caused by local land-use planning. TEA-21 ReauthorizationOrganizations such as MDOT and the MRBA have begun working on the reauthorization package that is expected to replace TEA-21 in 2003. Although TEA-21 brought record investment and improvements in all forms of Michigan transportation, current allocation formulas return only 90.5 cents for every federal gas tax dollar sent to Washington. To bring more transportation funding to Michigan and address certain safety and security concerns, they are lobbying for several changes that will benefit the state.
Diesel Fuel TaxLegislation (House Bills 5733–36) has been introduced to extend the 4-cents-per-gallon gasoline-tax hike to diesel fuel and simplify its collection. Opponents (including the Michigan Trucking Association) argue that truckers already pay their fair share through other fees and taxes, and they contend that it would negatively affect the industry, which already is suffering in the declining economy. Proponents (including MDOT, county road commissions, the Michigan Association of Counties, and the MRBA) cite a recent Federal Highway Administration study that estimates that commercial trucks are responsible for up to 40 percent of the cost to design, build, maintain, and repair roads and bridges; in 2000 the trucking industry contributed only 16 percent of Michigan funding for such work. MDOT reports that equalizing the tax by extending it to truck fuel will yield an additional $38 million annually in revenue and, if at the same time, reporting and collection are simplified, an additional $10 million will be realized. SafetyIn late 2000 federal legislation was enacted requiring all states either to adopt .08 percent blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) as the presumptive level of intoxication for driving or lose a portion of their federal highway monies. Michigan's BAC level currently is .10 percent, and legislation to lower it to .08 (HBs 4084 and 4134) was introduced in 2001. The Michigan Licensed Beverage Association and Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers oppose lowering tolerances on the ground that when driving is a factor in a serious accident, the driver's blood-alcohol level more often is near or above .15 percent. They favor targeting these drivers and repeat offenders. Road safety advocates, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, strongly support lowering the limit to .08 percent. Since 1966 Michigan has required motorcyclists to wear helmets while operating their machines, but many motorcyclists vociferously oppose the requirement. Many consider the law an abridgement of freedom—an example of the state dictating behavior to persons who should be free to choose how to live their lives. Safety organizations urge continued resistance to allowing exceptions to this law, claiming that all society pays a price when a cyclist or passenger is injured or killed. House Bill 4823, which would limit the helmet requirement to operators under 21 years old, awaits action. See also Emergency Preparedness and Response; Land Use and Sustainability; Substance Abuse. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONMichigan Department of Transportation Michigan Field Office Michigan Road Builders Association Michigan Secretary of State Michigan State Police
CONTENT CURRENT AS OF APRIL 1,
2002
|
