As states attempt to weather the struggling economic
recovery, Congress may be preparing another financial blow -
reducing federal aid for highways some $4 billion below FY 2002, at
a cost of some 170,000 jobs.
The 108th Congress is expected to act
swiftly in January to complete some unfinished business - enactment
of the FY 2003 funding legislation for the Department of
Transportation and other federal departments. It appears that all
the funding bills may be combined in a massive omnibus bill, which
may ultimately be considered without the possibility of
amendment.
Work is
underway now to prepare that omnibus bill. The critical question for
states is whether the Congress will continue the $31.8 billion
funding level of FY 2002, or reduce funding to the $27.7 billion
contained in the most recent continuing resolution and the House
version of the DOT appropriations bill.
"Reducing highway spending is
short-sighted," said AASHTO President James Codell, Secretary of the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. "Every billion in highway spending
produces jobs. And transportation investment has a direct impact on
economic growth and international competitiveness. Highway spending
is one area we cannot afford to cut."
"This is a real lose-lose proposition,"
said AASHTO Executive Director John Horsley. It cuts thousands of
jobs without cutting a cent from the federal deficit, because the
Highway Trust Fund has more than enough revenue to fund a $31.8
billion program, without touching the General
Fund."
A survey
conducted by AASHTO of state transportation departments when the
funding cuts were initially proposed last year found that reductions
in federal highway funding would result in:
-- Unacceptable job losses;
-- Substantial
project delays and increased costs, even if federal funding is
eventually restored;
-- Reduced funding for local transportation and transit
agencies;
--
Negative impacts to numerous high-profile projects across the
country;
--
Additional negative financial and project impacts due to
corresponding cuts in state funding for
highways;
-- Adverse
impacts on the states' ability to engage in bonding and accelerated
construction for projects; and
-- Increased strains on state budgets
during a time when the economy and state tax revenues are
declining.
Because federal highway funding is matched by state funds for
capital projects, the actual extent of a $4 billion cut is, in fact,
multiplied in terms of jobs impact. And since federal funds
generally are devoted to capital investments, such a reduction would
have the effect of delaying some of the most critically needed
highway construction projects.
"We believe that Congress needs to help
states recover from the economic downturn. Investing in
transportation is one of the best and most immediate ways they can
help. And the money is already collected in the Highway Trust Fund
and waiting to be used. We hope to see full funding for the highway
program for FY 2003, and in the future," said
Horsley,.
Below is a
state-by-state chart of the potential cuts from FY 2002 funding that
could occur if Congress fails enact a $31.8 billion highway
obligation ceiling.
Reduction in Federal Highway Funds & Employment
Resulting From $4.1 Billion Cut in Federal Highway
Program |
| State |
FY 2002 Highway Program Funds |
Est. FY 2003 Program Funds |
FY 2003 Highway Funds Lost |
Employment Loss/2 |
|
| Alabama |
$560,430,831 |
$488,174,420 |
$72,256,411 |
3,035 |
| Alaska |
$319,540,065 |
$278,341,728 |
$41' 198,337 |
1,730 |
| Arizona |
$485,392,037 |
$422,810,386 |
$62,581,651 |
2,628 |
| Arkansas |
$365,616,483 |
$318,477,508 |
$47,138,975 |
1,980 |
| California |
$2,535,814,783 |
$2,208,871,892 |
$326,942,891 |
13,732 |
| Colorado |
$356,571,570 |
$310,598,757 |
$45,972,813 |
1,931 |
| Connecticut |
$413,939,498 |
$360,570,231 |
$53,369,267 |
2,242 |
| Delaware |
$122,338,437 |
$106,565,328 |
$15,773,109 |
662 |
| Dist.ofCol. |
$110,052,561 |
$95,863,472 |
$14,189,089 |
596 |
| Florida |
$1,287,447,472 |
$1,121,456,722 |
$165,990,750 |
6,972 |
| Georgia |
$987,127,223 |
$859,856,797 |
$127,270,426 |
5,345 |
| Hawaii |
$142,143,566 |
$123,816,980 |
$18,326,586 |
770 |
| Idaho |
$210,894,491 |
$183,703,840 |
$27,190,651 |
1,142 |
| Illinois |
$931,425,218 |
$811,336,458 |
$120,088,760 |
5,044 |
| Indiana |
$644,611,374 |
$561,501,556 |
$83,109,818 |
3,491 |
| Iowa |
$332,403,649 |
$289,546,808 |
$42,856,841 |
1,800 |
| Kansas |
$324,346,857 |
$282,528,780 |
$41,818,077 |
1,756 |
| Kentucky |
$483,093,023 |
$420,807,784 |
$62,285,239 |
2,616 |
| Louisiana |
$440,733,363 |
$383,909,560 |
$56,823,803 |
2,387 |
| Maine |
$146,809,418 |
$127,881,263 |
$18,928,155 |
795 |
| Maryland |
$453,570,096 |
$395,091,251 |
$58,478,845 |
2,456 |
| Massachusetts |
$517,214,719 |
$450,530,166 |
$66,684,553 |
2,801 |
| Michigan |
$893,370,463 |
$778,188,107 |
$115,182,356 |
4,838 |
| Minnesota |
$412,466,274 |
$359,286,950 |
$53,179,324 |
2,234 |
| Mississippi |
$358,284,438 |
$312,090,784 |
$46,193,654 |
1,940 |
| Missouri |
$651,908,448 |
$567,857,817 |
$84,050,631 |
3,530 |
| Montana |
$271,592,640 |
$236,576,170 |
$35,016,470 |
1,471 |
| Nebraska |
$215,960,513 |
$188,116,699 |
$27,843,814 |
1,169 |
| Nevada |
$198,741,203 |
$173,117,477 |
$25,623,726 |
1,076 |
| New Hampshire |
$142,342,289 |
$123,990,081 |
$18,352,208 |
771 |
| New Jersey |
$723,390,343 |
$630,123,543 |
$93,266,800 |
3,917 |
| New Mexico |
$271,099,283 |
$236,146,421 |
$34,952,862 |
1,468 |
| New York |
$1,417,346,965 |
$1,234,608,258 |
$182,738,707 |
7,675 |
| North Carolina |
$775,124,344 |
$675,187,473 |
$99,936,871 |
4,197 |
| North Dakota |
$181,163,035 |
$157,805,664 |
$23,357,371 |
981 |
| Ohio |
$967,365,570 |
$842,643,016 |
$124,722,554 |
5,238 |
| Oklahoma |
$427,612,076 |
$372,480,002 |
$55,132,074 |
2,316 |
| Oregon |
$340,684,607 |
$296,760,102 |
$43,924,505 |
1,845 |
| Pennsylvania |
$1,389,343'461 |
$1,210,215,249 |
$179,128,212 |
7,523 |
| Rhode Island |
$165,144,826 |
$143,852,685 |
$21,292,141 |
894 |
| South Carolina |
$464,965,557 |
$405,017,494 |
$59,948,063 |
2,518 |
| South Dakota |
$200,732,567 |
$174,852,094 |
$25,880,473 |
1,087 |
| Tennessee |
$635,243,821 |
$553,341,762 |
$81,902,059 |
3,440 |
| Texas |
$2,142,744,035 |
$1,866,479,801 |
$276,264,234 |
11,603 |
| Utah |
$216,239,371 |
$188,359,604 |
$27,879,767 |
1,171 |
| Vermont |
$126,500,031 |
$110,190,367 |
$16,309,664 |
685 |
| Virginia |
$723,407,902 |
$630,138,838 |
$93,269,064 |
3,917 |
| Washington |
$492,910,328 |
$429,359,343 |
$63,550,985 |
2,669 |
| West Virginia |
$311,418,326 |
$271,267,125 |
$40,151,201 |
1,686 |
| Wisconsin |
$544,732,900 |
$474,500,425 |
$70,232,475 |
2,950 |
| Wyoming |
$193,412,432 |
$168,475,745 |
$24,936,687 |
1,047 |
|
| State Total |
$28,026,764,782 |
$24,413,270,782 |
$3,613,494,000 |
151,767 |
| Other/1 |
$3,773,235,218 |
$3,286,729,218 |
$486,506,000 |
20,433 |
| Grand Total |
$31,800,000,000 |
$27,700,000,000 |
$4,100,000,000 |
172,200 |
|
Source. ARTBA analysis of FHW A data. FY 2003
figures based on FY 2002 percent distribution of funds.
1
Assumes 12 percent set.aside for administration, territories
and allocated programs.
2 Employment loss is spread over 7
years, with most loss occurring in 2003 and
2004. | |