Diverse groups link up to push for infrastructure overhaul

Union heads, public officials and business leaders plan to mount a renewed campaign this fall to convince Congress to spend billions of dollars more on maintaining and upgrading the nation’s infrastructure.

Lobbyists argue the Minneapolis bridge collapse presents a tragic case study of the potential consequences of ignoring infrastructure needs. However, these groups acknowledge that finding money to pay for the upgrades could still be politically difficult.

{mosads}One method, raising the gas tax and other “user fees,” has support in some quarters, but it also faces significant opposition, including from President Bush.

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, plans to open the debate Wednesday with a hearing on his proposal to increase the gas tax by 5 cents to provide an infusion of cash.

Much of the lobbying effort will be directed at making such a move more politically palatable.

“There is tremendous political pressure not to raise the gas tax, and it’s not just coming from Republicans,” said Steve Sandherr, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC).

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has said he opposes a gas tax. A spokeswoman said Baucus is committed nevertheless to finding more money to repair “structurally deficient” bridges in the United States, a designation given to a quarter of the nearly 600,000 spans in the country, including the 35W bridge that collapsed in August.

The gas tax hasn’t been raised since 1993. Advocates of a hike argue that its purchasing power has depleted by as much as 30 percent as a result of inflation and the growing costs of the materials to build bridges and roads.

There is evidence that the debate has shifted in light of the tragic bridge collapse and other infrastructure breakdowns like the explosion of a steam pipe in New York City.

“There is a growing understanding that these issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later,” said Pete Ruane, the president and CEO of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.

He said the budget crunch is projected to grow in 2009, when a decline in user fees is expected to leave a $4 billion shortfall.
That sum is the estimated gap between what Congress authorized in the 2005 surface transportation bill and the resources that will actually be available in the trust fund that finances road and bridge work. The 2005 bill directed $218.6 billion in money for roads and bridges and transit systems over five years.

One consequence of the renewed effort could be a change in how the federal government participates in federal infrastructure funding.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), for instance, introduced a bill, the National Infrastructure Back Act of 2007, to create a new funding mechanism relying in part on contributions from the private sector.

Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are crafting another measure that would use more private equity to pay for large-capital projects.

For advocates, the bills represent a welcome sign that the political winds have shifted.

“There is an acknowledgement of the need,” said Janet Kavinoky, the director of transportation infrastructure at the Chamber of Commerce.

Kavinoky is also the executive director of the Americans for Transportation Mobility, which includes a number of business and labor groups.

The bridge collapse has served as an “unpleasant reminder of the infrastructure crisis that we face,” said Sandherr of the AGC.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates as much as $1.6 trillion is needed over the next five years to bring infrastructure to good working order.

Brian Pallasch, lobbyist for ASCE, said as much as one-half or two-thirds of that money gets appropriated from federal and state budget coffers.

“That leaves you a pretty significant gap,” Pallasch said.

The ASCE has given the country’s infrastructure a D grade. Funding for bridges and roads alone is estimated to be some $40 billion a year short of the need.

Complicating the lobbying push could be fallout from the negative publicity surrounding congressional earmarks. In speaking out against an increase in the gas tax, Bush noted that Congress should change how it spends taxpayer money instead of trying to get more of it.

The 2005 highway bill came under criticism for its more than 6,000 earmarks. Oberstar’s measure tries to avoid that fight by prohibiting earmarks. It also sets up a firewall so that the money is not siphoned off into general fund revenues and used to pay for projects other than infrastructure.

Two big business groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, are stepping up their own lobbying efforts to increase money available for infrastructure, noting the economic costs of bad bridges and roads and traffic congestion.

Kavinoky said she prepared a $1 million Chamber budget for the campaign but was told by President and CEO Thomas Donohue, who was the former head of the American Trucking Associations, to come back with a more aggressive campaign.

“Part of our job is to create the environment to educate the public on what is needed, and create the public will to do what is necessary,” Kavinoky said.

“It’s an issue of people understanding, ‘What do I get for it,’” said Sandherr of AGC.

Advocates also hope whatever momentum there is for spending more on bridges and roads will transfer to other infrastructure efforts, like the Water Resources Development Act and a bill to up aviation user fees to pay for a new air traffic
control system better able to handle increases in air traffic.