Here's hoping the confidence isn't misplaced.
An announcement last week that Arkansas will let bids in October on 27 delayed road and bridge projects is predicated on an expectation that the U.S. Congress will act on longer-term transportation funding.
It hasn't happened yet, mind you. Congress recently did another of those kick-the-can-down-the-road funding patches.
Certainly, talk has picked up about the prospect for a six-year highway bill; but Congress hasn't been able to get one together for a very long time.
Nevertheless, there is money enough in the latest short-term fix to give state highway officials a bit of encouragement that the federal Highway Trust Fund will remain solvent at least into the springtime.
State highway officials have seized on that immediate infusion of federal dollars to restart projects that had been delayed.
"We're so confident that you're going to come up with a solution, we're going to start letting contracts on the 87 contracts that were delayed earlier."
Or so Dick Trammel, chairman of the Arkansas Highway Commission, told U.S. Sen. John Boozman last week.
The two men were home in Rogers for a civic club meeting, where Boozman was the featured speaker and highways are a perpetual part of the conversation.
Trammel brought the news that the state Highway and Transportation will let some bids as early as next month, with more to come in December and maybe in February.
In a statement released the same day, Scott Bennett, director of the state highway department, also thanked all members of the Arkansas congressional delegation for supporting the recent extension and providing these new dollars to the Highway Trust Fund and, therefore, to the states.
The highway director hailed this latest stopgap funding as "great news for the state's economy," even as some in the construction industry groused that the delays had cost them an entire construction season.
The 87 projects Trammel mentioned are altogether worth about $411 million and were delayed some time back because of the uncertainty of federal funds.
The state depends on the federal Highway Trust Fund for something like 70 percent of the Arkansas highway construction program, and state officials acted responsibly by holding up projects while Congress stewed over a highway bill.
For the record, Sen. Boozman has talked optimistically about the prospect for Congress to pass a long-term highway bill by the end of the year, although he, like others in Congress, can't quite see how they will fund the $478 billion legislation needed to repair the nation's infrastructure.
That's really why Arkansas was one of five states to pull construction projects that require federal funding. They couldn't count on the money.
The state's decision to let bids on some of the delayed projects signals some greater confidence in the feds. But state officials can only count on the flow of federal highway dollars for a few more months.
It will be like that until Congress manages to do more than short-term funding.
And, remember, this isn't the only element of the federal budget that Congress must resolve in these last months of 2015, with the 2016 elections drawing ever closer.
No one facing an election will want to talk about tax increases or other funding options to support a six-year, multi-billion-dollar highway bill.
Such a bill wouldn't just address growing problems with the nation's highways and bridges but would also be a huge job creator, something all those candidates ought to be able to promote to their constituents.
But approving a revenue source, even if called something other than "taxes," will be difficult. And the job gets harder the closer the 2016 elections come.
Seriously, what politician would want to defend any reach into voters' pocketbooks?
Nonetheless, a common argument these days is that there might be no better opportunity. With fuel prices down, a hike in gasoline and diesel taxes would be somewhat easier to sell. Federal fuel taxes have not increased since 1993.
It gets a bit more complicated when you layer on the talk in Arkansas of a hike in state motor fuel taxes, too. They were last increased in 2001.
Of course, part of the reason for fuel-tax avoidance at both levels is tied up in the search for an alternative model for funding highway maintenance and construction.
The search has been going on ever since more fuel-efficient vehicles slowed consumption of fuel and lessened the tax take.
Until Congress works through these issues, it's hard to believe there will be a long-term highway bill any time soon.
Commentary on 09/09/2015