In Northwest Arkansas, it's easy to come to the conclusion that orange barrels, lane shifts and the presence of construction crews are a normal part of the driving experience.
The region is always building yet never caught up. The demand for highways and roads remains strong.
So why can't our Congress develop a long-term approach to fund the nation's transportation system?
The Highway Trust Fund is the federal fund supported by revenue from the federal fuel taxes -- 18.3 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel. The funds have traditionally been allocated to the states to help pay for transportation-related projects. With long-term authority, state and local planners could, well, actually plan.
The fund, however, has teetered on the brink of insolvency for several years as more fuel-efficient vehicles reduced consumption. That's a good thing, unless a nation's transportation plan relies on per-gallon funding, and ours does.
Once upon a time, our national leaders debated transportation spending about every six years because they were capable of fashioning a long-term plan for highway and transportation-related spending. As we've heard from business owners in plenty of debates here in Northwest Arkansas and elsewhere, predictability is a critical factor in one's ability to commit to a future course of action.
The U.S. hasn't had a long-term plan of action for some time. In the last six years, it has passed 32 short-term extensions. Last Saturday, the U.S. Senate voted to patch the financially ailing trust fund through July. The House had done so a few days earlier.
Earlier last month, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department for the fourth time this year cut back on its list of projects that had previously been set for contract bids. At the time, the agency reported 70 projects worth $282 million had been suspended due to a lack of certainty about federal funding.
The agency predicted Arkansans will notice a lack of an overlay program that typically repairs damage from the previous winter.
Some advocate an increase in the federal fuel taxes to shore up the trust fund, but opponents -- primarily Republicans -- aren't having it.
Last week, Sen. Tom Cotton stopped by in Springdale for a short visit with our editorial board. He said he views highways as an essential part of government responsibility, but spoke with certainty that an increase in fuel taxes won't get enough support among his colleagues. Cotton said he believes the long-term solution involves work "on the spending side."
Cotton said federal highway dollars need to be spent on highways, but portions over time have been shifted to urban mass transit, bike paths and landscaping. He'd like to see a smaller federal role, but whatever role the federal government has should be focused on actual highways.
Some, such as the contractors who build roads and highways as well as provide jobs, will support that kind of approach. Others see highways as the past, not the future, of transportation.
Some, like our regular local columnist Art Hobson, suggest we should stop expanding capacity and allow the complications of gridlock to force new behaviors on our culture. Such notions are driven by concerns about the continued consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting damage it's doing to our planet's delicate balance.
Even if we stop expanding today, Arkansans will rely on the state's roads, highways and interstates for decades to come. Arkansans should benefit from the tax dollars we're paying at the pump. The inability of Congress to work out a long-term fix is a problem senators and representatives should be expected to fix.
Meanwhile, Arkansas is struggling itself to address its funding, so I'm not sure the feds need to shift more of the burden to states unless they're willing to provide some level of funding to the states as well. Gov. Asa Hutchinson has appointed a task force to look at long-term funding within the state.
Back in Washington, an Arkansas congressman demonstrated why optimism for a solution may be misplaced. U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, whose district covers southwest and parts of Northwest Arkansas, last week proposed a bill to cut the amount states receive for expanded Medicaid enrollment via Obamacare and shift a chunk of that funding to highways.
Does that sound like a politically plausible solution? Does it sound like a winner to tie funding of highways to the debate over Obamacare? It's tantamount to linking a resolution memorializing longtime GOP Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt of Harrison to a resolution stating support for same-sex marriage -- impossible to get the votes no matter how strongly one feels Hammerschmidt should be honored.
Westerman's proposal suggests to me a two-month extension is just a precursor to another extension. Our nation probably faces a long, pothole-filled road to a real highway funding bill.
Commentary on 06/01/2015