Newsletters - North Carolina Metropolitan Mayors Coalition

Press Releases and Newsletters

Mobility Fund Update 6.2.2010

The House Appropriations Committee debated and voted on the budget today. Next stop, the floor of the House tomorrow morning at 10 AM for debate and first vote. They will vote a second time after midnight. (Each bill needs two floor votes and the budget bill requires those votes to be on two separate days, which is why they will vote again after midnight.)

The Mobility Fund was included in the House budget with enough money to do the I 85 widening at the Yadkin River Bridge. While the leadership was not amenable to including the expansion of Powell Bill funds nor the dedicated money for Interstate maintenance, we were able to add the stakeholder process back in.

If the Mobility Fund remains in the budget after the full House votes tomorrow it will be eligible for debate in the conference committee where the House and Senate resolve their differences.

You can see the amendments to SB897 (the House version of the budget not reflecting amendments made in Appropriations today) by clicking here.

National and State Economies Presentation by Dr. Harry Davis

Mayor Knight forwarded me this presentation by Dr. Harry Davis, an economist at ASU, entitled National and State Economies.

Mobility Fund Update 6.1.10

The House has included a Mobility Fund in their budget at this time. The budget bill (both the money report and the bill) is posted on line at http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2009/budget/2010/S897-CSLRxf-40.pdf and http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2009/budget/2010/budgetreport06-01-10.pdf. You can search on the term “Mobility” to find the language.

The House has written a new version of the Fund and it is substantially different from the Governor’s version.

1. The Governor’s proposal included new additional Powell Bill funds for cities; the House version does not.
2. The Governor’s proposal included new dedicated funds for Interstate maintenance; the House version does not.
3. The Governor’s proposal included a stakeholder process for designing the criteria for project selection; the House version does not.
4. The Governor’s proposal (after funding the Yakin River Bridge) included funds for future projects(DMV fee increases and a phase out of the transfers from the Highway Fund and Highway Trust Fund); the House version does not.

What does this mean and where are we?

The good news is that the House is creating a Mobility Fund. The bad news- its sole funded purpose at this time is the Yadkin River Bridge. If all goes as scheduled, the House Finance Committee will be voting on the bill at 4pm today, the House Appropriations Committee will be voting on the bill at 9 am tomorrow, and then to the House floor for votes later this week.

Please keep talking to your legislators about the importance of the Fund and the need to include it in the Budget bill. Ask them to include the Governor’s stakeholder process in the bill so your community can have a voice in the prioritization process.

There were news articles and editorials over the weekend in support of the fund you can read on the Metro Mayors Daily Clips page.

Mobility, yes (News and Observer)

One of the biggest problems in North Carolina’s highway system is on the road to a solution. But there’s another big problem right on its doorstep, and an even larger one lurking outside.

The first problem is the grossly inadequate Yadkin River bridge on Interstate 85 in Davidson and Rowan counties. The bridge’s old, narrow roadways have exasperated engineers and Greensboro-to-Charlotte motorists for years. This fall, work gets under way on a $136 million replacement, plus related upgrades in the immediate area.

The other big problem is a stretch of interstate north of the bridge. It needs widening from four lanes to eight. That $100 million-plus project isn’t optional, because it makes zero sense to eliminate the bridge bottleneck but neglect to widen the road. However, as the DOT candidly states, “The department currently does not have the money available to fund phase two.”

That’s largely because of that third problem. North Carolina’s longstanding formula for spreading highway funds around the state, balancing east and west, rural and urban, etc., simply doesn’t allow for a painful but necessary concentration on megaprojects such as the Yadkin bridge – even though it’s key to the statewide road system and even to north-south travel from Virginia to Atlanta.

When it comes to really big projects, there simply has to be a way to git ‘er done.

Here, Gov. Beverly Perdue deserves credit. She saw a problem and tried to fix it.

First, her administration made a serious bid for federal stimulus funds intended for big projects. But the feds split that pie into too many pieces to help the Yadkin bridge much. Then she took a new tack, working out a funding combination that, while it regrettably takes on debt, got the new bridge going.

Second, in her budget for next year Perdue asked the General Assembly to create a Mobility Fund, essentially a pot of money focused on high-priority, hard-to-fund projects such as its first intended target, the lane widening north of the bridge.

However the state Senate, in its version of the budget, did not go along for the Mobility ride. Senators balked at raising money from motorists and taxpayers – the fund would involve some fee hikes – and Perdue stepped on the toes of the N.C. Automobile Dealers Association too, rarely the route to legislative success.

Now the House is working on its budget, and Perdue hasn’t given up. She’s enlisted mayors on behalf of the special fund. Presumably she’s open to compromise on how to fill up the money pot, trying to make the Mobility Fund palatable to both houses. But everyone involved must realize that worthwhile projects are worth raising money for – cutting unspecified “waste” goes only so far.

Here’s hoping Perdue succeeds. Sure, the long-term solution is a more forward-looking distribution of all the highway money (including transit projects), but until that blessed day, a special-duty fund meets a real need in a realistic way.
Published Sun, May 30, 2010 02:00 AM
Modified Sun, May 30, 2010 06:00 AM

Mobility Fund (Winston Salem Journal Editorial)

Mobility fund (Winston Salem Journal Editorial)

North Carolinians must pay higher taxes and transportation-related fees if they want highways and mass-transit systems that work effectively in the future.

Put aside all of the generalities about “tax-and-spend,” “fraud and waste,” and “no new taxes,” and look at reality: North Carolina’s roads are in bad shape and getting worse. It’s hard to imagine that we once called ourselves “The Good Roads State.”

Transportation planners foresee a $65-billion difference between what the state will collect in transportation-related revenues over the next several decades and the projected cost of the state’s transportation needs.

Some taxpayers scream at the first mention of a tax increase. They say the DOT has enough money already, if it will just use it efficiently.

Well, expecting the DOT, or any huge organization, public or private, to operate at 100-percent efficiency is simply quixotic. Just look at British Petroleum. Waiting for 100-percent performance means we’ll all be stuck in traffic, bouncing our way to and from work on pothole-pitted streets, for years to come.

Gov. Bev Perdue has a new idea. She wants to create a new N.C. Mobility Fund. It would include new money, raised from higher fees and taxes. It would cost more to register our cars every year and we’d pay a higher tax when we buy a new car. In all, she figures to raise $300 million a year to meet urgent road needs and other transportation projects, The Associated Press reports.

We don’t argue with the need for more funds. Considering the high cost of land, road-building material and maintenance projects, it’s just unreasonable to think that the state can meet its needs without new money.

Our concern with the Perdue plan lies elsewhere, with the process of deciding how this fund operates. Perdue wasn’t absolutely clear regarding who would choose the most deserving projects. She says the Yadkin River Bridge over I-85 is the first priority, and we don’t argue with that. But what is next, and who decides?

Perdue must develop a plan that shows exactly how those decisions would be made on truly need-based criteria and out in the public. We don’t need a repeat of the last administration, which sent a disproportionate share of funds to the DOT secretary’s home county.

Some taxpayers would prefer to deny the need for extra money. They are, in effect, voting for congestion and bumpy roads. The bottom line, however, is that we’ll get what we pay for, and right now we’re falling way behind on our transportation infrastructure.

You wanted another round of TIGER grants, we’ve got another round of TIGER grants (US DOT)

We’re calling it “Tiger II,” and the application period is open!

If you’ve been following DOT news, you know that I’m talking about the next round of our wildly successful Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery discretionary grant program. Funds in this program are available on a competitive basis to support capital investment in surface transportation projects. The projects must have a significant impact on the nation, a region, or a metropolitan area–and they must create jobs.

You know, we received over 1,400 applications from all 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia for the first round of TIGER. These applicants sought nearly $60 billion in funds, more than 40 times the $1.5 billion available.

That shows we were onto something, and we know from that experience that there’s a real backlog of worthwhile transportation projects in need of funding.

And Congress recognized that, too. That’s why, in December 2009, they authorized another $600 million for TIGER II.

Application information is available on the Federal Register. You can also view a DOT webinar on Competing for a Discretionary Grant.

But the basic criteria are simple: America needs the kinds of projects that help spur lasting economic growth, reduce gridlock, provide safe, affordable and environmentally sustainable transportation choices and create jobs.

Renewed infrastructure, economic activity, sustainability–it’s no wonder I’m looking forward to those applications.

Editorial: Fix the current highway fund (Greensboro News and Record)

Gov. Bev Perdue’s administration keeps working on new ideas to meet state transportation needs.

Some are better than others.

The latest proposal calls for creating a Mobility Fund, a pool of money to pay for big maintenance projects — such as replacing the Yadkin River bridges on I-85 — and even city road work. It would tap some of the revenue currently diverted from the state’s Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund and raise some taxes, including the motor vehicle registration fee.

This is a poor economic environment for raising taxes, although even fiscal conservatives must acknowledge the long-term problem with relying so heavily on the motor-fuels tax for transportation needs. People keep driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and paying less tax, while highway construction and maintenance costs are not decreasing.

The bigger question, though, is why create a Mobility Fund when the state already has a Highway Trust Fund? The easy answer is that the Highway Trust Fund isn’t adequately meeting the state’s transportation needs, but that should be addressed by correcting its problems, not coming up with a new entity that supposedly would exist within the Highway Trust Fund but operate separately.

The state can’t deal with its top maintenance priority, the Yadkin River bridges, because of the politically motivated Equity Formula that governs the spending of Highway Trust Fund dollars. Money has to be doled out evenly across the state, no matter where it’s needed most. That doesn’t allow for an allocation of $300 million in one location, even on a major artery like I-85. Perdue has had to think creatively to get started on the Yadkin River project, borrowing against future federal appropriations for the first phase.

It would be better to use the Highway Trust Fund as the state’s major transportation funding mechanism but give the Board of Transportation authority to target funds to the most urgent projects, regardless of location. The legislature should put politics aside to make that happen — an idea travelers could support.

Thursday, May 27, 2010 (Updated 3:00 am)

Editorial: Mobility Fund still has life (Salisbury Post)

Mayors from around the state flanked Gov. Beverly Perdue last week as she urged state House members to help create the Mobility Fund to pay for major road projects, starting with the I-85 bridge over the Yadkin Bridge.

Missing were the mayors of Salisbury and Lexington, the cities closest to the bridge. But don’t read that as a non-endorsement. Salisbury Mayor Susan Kluttz and Lexington Mayor John T. Walser say they’re all for a new fund to tackle highway projects like the Yadkin River bridge that have statewide significance. How to raise the money for the fund is another matter — one they’re happy to leave to the General Assembly to figure out. Neither has taken a stand on the increased vehicle fees the governor proposed for the fund.

They may not need to. The governor and the mayors kept working on House members. Late in the week, a posting on the N.C. Metro Mayors Association website said “word is spreading” that the House budget will include Mobility Fund (the Senate’s did not), but without the DMV fee increases. That improves the fund’s chances of survival. But where will the money come from?

Because of that persistent question, legislators have been cool to the Mobility Fund, but it’s not dead yet. Some have said the Mobility Fund would be unnecessary if the Department of Transportation would stop tapping the road-building Highway Trust Fund to pump money into the General Fund for other purposes. Until a few years ago, the transfer was $172 million a year.

That is indeed part of Perdue’s solution. The legislature voted in 2007 to phase out the transfer by 2013. Perdue wants $22 million of the “phase-out” to go to the Mobility Fund in the coming year. That’s a start, but still far short of the more than $90 million Perdue wanted the fund to start with.

The other weakness in North Carolina transportation funding is the equity formula used to divvy up highway money. Yes, that process needs to change, but projects like the Yadkin River bridge go beyond the regional scope of the equity formula. The bridge is not a local project; it affects a major East Coast traffic corridor — much as Interstate 95 does. Virginia wants to fund I-95 improvements with a toll rather than its existing funding mechanisms. Perdue appears to be turning over every possible funding rock in search of ways to avoid putting a toll on the I-85 bridge.

Keep looking, governor. The mayors and the people they represent are behind your Mobility Fund. They don’t know how on earth you’ll put it together, but they are behind you.

Ferry tolls likely to rise (News and Observer)

Tolls paid by ferry riders cover less than 6 percent of operating costs for the State Ferry Division, and House budget writers want that figure to rise to 100 percent.

“We agree that the ferries are a crucial part of the state’s transportation system,” said Rep. Grier Martin of Raleigh, co-chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. “But in an era of declining revenues, we need to take a look at this – given what we know about their operating costs.”

Last week Martin’s subcommittee endorsed a Senate proposal to increase the Ferry Division’s operating budget by $11.3 million, to $43.5 million. Jim Westmoreland, a Department of Transportation deputy secretary, said the money was needed to meet increased costs and maintain service levels.

Along with its budget recommendations, the subcommittee proposed a measure that would have the DOT develop a fee schedule for ferry routes that would cover operating costs.

Exceptions would be made for students and teachers who ride the ferry to school, and consideration would be given to daily ferry commuters.

If approved by the General Assembly, the measure would not change toll rates in the coming year.

But Martin said it would prompt a much-needed study of how the state can cover rising operating costs and meet the looming expense of replacing several aging vessels in its 21-ferry fleet.

Riders now pay tolls only on ferries from Ocracoke to Cedar Island and to Swan Quarter ($15 per car), and between Fort Fisher and Southport ($5).

North Carolina’s other four routes are toll-free – including the state’s busiest, from Hatteras to Ocracoke, with more than 900,000 riders and 300,000 cars each year.

“If there is an interest in tolling our routes at 100 percent cost recovery, that would be a very high mark,” Westmoreland said. “I don’t know of any system that does that.”

“It’s a regional issue,” said Rep. Nelson Cole of Reidsville, the subcommittee’s other co-chairman. “It’s hard to convince people in the mountains that we should be supporting the ferries to that extent, when the toll fees are the most reasonable anywhere.”

A 2009 N.C. State University study commissioned by the DOT found several states charging much higher tolls for comparable ferry services.

Although the Swan Quarter and Cedar Island ferries to Ocracoke charge less than 70 cents a mile for cars, NCSU found tolls of $1.65 to $3.64 a mile for comparable ferries in Arkansas, New York and Massachusetts.

New York, Washington, Delaware and Maine charge $4.13 to $13.60 a mile for service comparable to North Carolina’s three river ferries and the Hatteras ferry, which are all toll-free, the study said.

The proposed $43.5 million budget would be supported with an expected $2.3 million in toll collections. The rest would come from the DOT’s Highway Fund, which is supported by fees and fuel taxes.

The Martin-Cole subcommittee endorsed a transportation budget for inclusion in a House spending plan to be released this week. Along with ferry funding, the House proposal would:

Earmark $39 million to establish Gov. Bev Perdue’s proposed N.C. Mobility Fund to help build urgent road and transportation projects.

Cut Global TransPark Authority funding by 50 percent ($640,000). Cole said the state-owned industrial park in Kinston missed a recent filing deadline for a report on its plan to repay a $37.8 million debt to the state.

Preserve $5.6 million in highway maintenance money cut in the Senate budget.

Save $3.2 million by eliminating 51 vacant DOT jobs.
Published Sun, May 30, 2010 04:49 AM
Modified Sat, May 29, 2010 11:56 PM
[email protected] or 919-829-4527

Update on NC Mobility Fund 5.26.10

The Governor has been working hard on the Mobility Fund. She kicked off the week Monday by hosting a press conference with mayors to encourage the House to include the Fund in their budget. She had a sit down with key House members yesterday and they were able to reach agreement. Word is spreading that the Mobility Fund will be included in the House budget. It will receive $22 million of the funds currently transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund, GAP funds the NCDOT will not spend this year, and allow NC DOT to start their prioritization process. There will not be any of the proposed DMV fee increases. The first project will be the Yadkin River Bridge. I am hearing there will not be any additional funds or projects until NC DOT has finished their prioritization process and receives the blessing of the General Assembly.

Thank you for your resolutions in support of the Fund, your comments to the House budget website, and your calls to delegation members. Keep them coming!!! As soon as there is ink on a page to create the Fund I will alert you. In the meantime, please call your House delegation and thank them for recognizing the importance of creating the Mobility Fund this year. We want to keep talking to the members about the importance of the Fund to ensure it does not hit any snags between now and the final vote in the House.

After the House vote next week we are only half way there. After the House passes their version of the budget the work of the conference committee begins. The conference committee is charged with ironing out differences between the House and Senate budgets. Since the Senate did not include the Fund in their version of the budget we will have to encourage the Senate to agree with the House on this provision.

Stay tuned for updates.