North Carolina county and municipal governments continue to be cautious when it comes to launching capital improvement building projects. Local government borrowing this year is $28.4 billion, about the same as a year ago, and down by 0.7 percent from January, according to the North Carolina Treasurer’s Office. Cities and counties generally issue bonds to pay for such infrastructure as new school buildings, libraries and roads. The borrowing figure drops when the governments let current bond packages mature without issuing new ones. Local government borrowing, and building, would seem to help the struggling construction industry, but it hasn’t happened yet to a significant degree. Wake County voters did approve the issuance of $200 million in bonds to support projects at Wake Technical Community College.

by Lee Weisbecker
(TRIANGLE BUSINESS JOURNAL)
11/13/12

(WASHINGTON)—Voters on November 6 demonstrated once again the importance of transportation by approving 68 percent of the measures to increase or extend funding for highways, bridges and transit, an American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) review finds.

The association tracked 31 measures overall—five were statewide initiatives and 26 were local. All of the seven bond initiatives were approved by voters. Eighteen measures were for increasing, extending or renewing a sales tax for transportation purposes, two were property tax extensions and one was for a local gas tax. The total value approved was $2.4 billion.

The results are consistent with previous elections, ARTBA says. In 2010, voters approved 61 percent of similar measures, 78 percent in 2008, 77 percent in 2006 and 76 percent in 2004.

“The results show the American people are looking for solutions to address their transportation challenges and are willing to pay more if they know the revenue generated will be used for its intended purpose,” says ARTBA Chief Economist Alison Premo Black, who compiled the list.

Three of the four statewide measures to raise additional transportation funds passed with an average approval rate of 63 percent. Arkansas voters approved a one-half cent increase in the state sales tax to cover a $1.3 billion bond issue for roads and bridges. The temporary sales and use tax will help fund improvements for state highways and bridges, county roads, city streets and other surface transportation.

Alaska voters approved a bond issue of $453.5 million for transportation.

Although a strong majority of voters (65 percent) in Los Angeles, Calif., supported Measure J, which would have extended the 30-year one-half sales tax passed in 2008 for an additional 30 years, the ballot initiative needed a 66 percent super majority for approval. The current sales tax measure is set to expire in 2039. Had the measure passed, it would have extended the current sales tax to 2069.

Three ballot initiatives did not specifically ask voters to increase funding for roads, bridges or transit, but they did address transportation issues. Voters in Michigan opened a path to one of the largest bridge projects in the nation by rejecting an initiative that would have required a statewide referendum before building an international crossing to Canada. The referendum was initiated by the owner of the Ambassador Bridge to prevent a new crossing over the Detroit River. Earlier this year, the Canadian government announced an agreement with Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) to build and pay for a new, publicly owned bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, just two miles south of the Ambassador Bridge. The Canadian Transport Minister said the bridge will now be built “as soon as possible.” The cost of the project is estimated to be $1 billion.

Voters in Cornelius, Ore., rejected a measure to repeal the local fuel tax, which is used to improve roads. Residents of Virginia Beach, Va., approved a nonbinding referendum in support of having the local city council explore extending a local light rail system into the city.

A complete copy of ARTBA’s report can be found in “current issues” of the “government affairs” section of www.artba.org.

Established 110 years ago, ARTBA advocates for strong investment in the nation’s highway, bridge, rail, airport, port and waterway infrastructure systems. The association also develops programs, products and services aimed at helping its members operate more efficiently in a 21st century global economy.

(ARTBA)
Series: News
11/07/12

On election night, many observers were pointing out that Republican lawmakers had a “veto proof” majority in both the state House and Senate. But with a Republican governor in Pat McCrory, vetoes may not be quite the problem they were for the GOP during the past two years.

However, a veto-proof majority is also the same three-fifths number needed to send constitutional amendments to voters. While ballot measures are never a sure thing, this does give Republicans a chance to lock in some ideas and policies that could reverberate into future General Assemblies. Even if Republicans lose their grip on power down the line, amendment the state constitution could ensure that future lawmakers would have to work within certain parameters.

Among the potential amendments almost certain to get some discussion is something that falls under the general heading of TABOR, or taxpayer bill of rights. There are many different flavors of TABOR, but the idea is the same: the growth in the state’s tax rate is limited to some calculation of inflation and population growth unless some extra hurdle is met by lawmakers or the citizens. In some cases this is a vote of the people, in others it is a super majority of the legislature.

Colorado may have the most venerable, and most criticized, TABOR law in the country.

In interviews, both House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger acknowledge that TABOR may be part of the legislative discussion in the new year. While lawmakers will have other issues top of mind, both men said it would not be a surprised if a constitutional amendment limiting the growth of future state government spending is heard during next year’s legislative session.

“I think that it may (come up), but I don’t believe that it would look like any of the ones that have passed in other states,” Tillis said.

Tillis said some states may have found that TABOR amendments placed constraints on lawmakers that proved hard to work with during tough fiscal times or emergencies.

“We do believe that there is something to be said for some safeguards about the rate at which any future legislation can grow government,” Tillis said. “That may happen. I don’t know where it will be on the priority list.”

(As an aside, Tillis said he’d like to see an amendment limiting how long someone can serve in top legislative positions, such as Speaker or Pro Tempore.)

“It’s important for the people to feel comfortable that when we see recovery as far as the economy is concerned, that we don’t have the kinds of spurts in spending that result in real problems when the economy slows down,” Berger said. A TABOR amendment could fight back the temptation to expand government, he said.

“I certainly think that will be part of the conversation,” Berger said. “What exactly it will look like, I don’t know.”

( WRAL)
Posted: 27 minutes ago

The relationship between traffic congestion and land use is an important one to explore when developing and implementing stronger communities, Arizona Department of Transportation concluded in a report released last week.

ADOT’s report sought answers on how the relationship between land uses and traffic congestion might help lead the agency to better decisions in the areas of planning, safety, environment, and cost effectiveness. The report, “Land Use and Traffic Congestion,” was prepared by J. Richard Kuzmyak, a transportation consultant, for ADOT, which worked in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to complete the report.

The study ultimately found that roadways in more “compact, mixed, and multimodal communities” are normally less congested due to fewer vehicle trips, more use of public transit and/or walking, and more connected street networks, which offer lots of route options and cut down on congestion on major urban arterials. Arizona residents in such areas drive about 33 percent fewer daily miles than those in suburban areas, the study found.

The findings from the report are now serving ADOT as a tool going forward, as they will help ADOT develop and implement Smart Transportation policies in the future.

“ADOT, like many state departments of transportation, recognizes the relationship between transportation and land use decisions,” said ADOT Director John Halikowski in a statement. “Through a concentrated effort to better link transportation planning and land use planning, we can support economic growth and create jobs, meet demand for quality of life and livability in communities, be better stewards of our natural environment, and manage our financial resources more efficiently.”

(AASHTO Journal)
November 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — Here are a few items that largely have been missing from the presidential campaign: planes, trains, roads and bridges.

But as Superstorm Sandy reminded the world so vividly, we can’t afford to do without them. So why isn’t the nation’s transportation infrastructure a hot topic?

Money, for one. Neither President Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has a good idea for how to pay for what needs to be done.

Most of the transportation network was built in the last century; in some places, it dates to the 1800s. Aging highways, bridges, trains and buses are frequently in need of repair or replacement, and no longer can handle peak traffic demands. More than 140,000 bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete. The problem only will worsen as the U.S. population grows.

The aviation system is struggling, too. A long-delayed program to modernize air traffic control and use satellite-based technology is projected to cost tens of billions of dollars. The current system is based on World War II-era radar technology. The annual number of airline passengers is forecast to rise from 730 million today to 1.2 billion in 2032, and the old system won’t be able to keep up.

The tab to keep the surface transportation system running is even greater. A congressional commission estimated that all levels of government are spending $138 billion a year less than is needed to maintain the current system and make modest improvements.

Gas tax revenues that pay for federal transportation aid to states are declining because people are driving less and cars are more fuel efficient. Inflation also has taken a toll. The 18.4 cents-a-gallon federal tax hasn’t been increased since 1993, and the federal Highway Trust Fund is projected to go broke in 2014.

“Obama mentions roads and bridges every once in a while, which I suppose is better than not mentioning it, but no one is really having any significant policy discussion about it or how it fits into our national debate over the debt,” said Joshua Schank, president of the Eno Center for Transportation, a think tank.

If the candidates were to raise the issue, “it calls into question how you are going to pay for it, and there’s a reluctance to talk about specifics,” said Pete Ruane, president of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.

When Obama discusses transportation, it’s usually in the context of pumping money into projects to generate jobs and boost the economy. Romney usually doesn’t mention it unless he’s answering a rare transportation question.

During his first months in office, Obama persuaded Congress to pass an economic recovery bill that included $48 billion in highway and transit aid beyond normal federal spending, including $8 billion to jump-start a national high-speed rail program. But when House Democrats drafted a long-term transportation plan, the administration quietly asked them to shelve that proposal. Obama’s focus was on health care and there was no extra money to go around, Democrats were told. The White House also was unwilling to spend political capital trying to raise the gas tax to pay for transportation improvements, knowing Republicans would label the president a tax raiser.

The 2010 elections swept into the House dozens of tea-party Republicans determined to shrink the government, making it even less likely Congress would agree to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a long-term transportation plan.

Obama proposed a six-year, $476 billion transportation program this year; Congress ignored it. Administration officials said the program would be paid for through the “peace dividend” created by bringing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. But the wars were largely financed by borrowing, and phasing them out doesn’t create a new pool of ready cash.

Facing the prospect that the trust fun
d would run out of money and that highway aid would be cut off, Congress passed a two-year plan in June that uses money from increases in employers’ pension insurance premiums and pension accounting changes to keep transportation programs going at current levels, plus increases for some programs to account for inflation, through the 2014 budget year. After that, the fund is once again forecast to go broke.

Romney hasn’t offered a transportation plan. When answering questions about the subject, he has said he favors more toll roads, including government and industry partnerships that generate private investment to pay for construction of new highways and bridges in exchange for the right to charge motorists for their use. Such partnerships are practical for a relatively few large-scale projects that can guarantee investors a steady income.

“It’s all well and good to say let’s have private investment, but that’s just another way of saying we don’t want to talk about the money,” Schank said.

Romney has called for ending subsidies to Amtrak, the nation’s passenger railroad network. Obama has supported Amtrak, and Vice President Joe Biden is one of the railroad’s biggest fans.

Historically, transportation has been one of the few issues to span the ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans. The only Democrat in President George W. Bush’s Cabinet was Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, a former California congressman. The only Republican currently in Obama’s Cabinet is Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Illinois congressman.

But that bipartisan consensus has evaporated in recent years.

House Republicans were unable to pass their own transportation bill this year — they ultimately accepted the Senate’s version — largely because of division in their own ranks. Some GOP lawmakers wanted to continue the large federal role in transportation that began with construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s. More conservative members wanted to turn transportation policy almost completely over to the states.

On the Democratic side, environmentalists and smart-growth advocates have increased their influence on transportation policy. They want to use transportation aid to encourage denser housing close to mass transit that will encourage people to rely less on their cars. They argue that highway aid ought to be limited to repairing and improving existing roads and bridges rather than new construction.

“There have always been differences in emphasis,” said Rob Atkinson, who headed the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission set up by Congress. “But now we have starkly different visions of the federal role in surface transportation policy that we haven’t had since the interstate highway system was built.”

(The Washington Post)
By Associated Press
Published: November 5

Durham and High Point have been named among 20 finalists in Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Mayors Challenge.

Two North Carolina cities have been chosen as finalists in Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Mayors Challenge, a nationwide competition created to inspire cities to generate innovative ideas to solve major challenges and improve city life, L.A. Biz reports.

Durham and High Point are among 20 finalists, narrowed down from 305 submissions from 45 states, that will be competing for a grand prize of $5 million, while four runner-up cities will receive $1 million each.

(Charlotte Business Journal)
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012, 6:06am EST
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 6, 2012, 8:10am EST

Here are seven burning questions for North Carolina as this election year reaches its climax on Tuesday.

1. Will Pat McCrory have coattails?

Polls put the GOP candidate for governor ahead by double digits going into Election Day. If McCrory does win big, will he manage to carry down-ballot Republicans across the finish line with him? Namely, Dan Forest, who’s running for lieutenant governor, and other Council of State candidates.

Republicans now occupy only two of the 10 seats (secretaries of Labor and Agriculture) on the council. A Gov. McCrory would claim a third. And fishing for a fourth, he recently called on voters to give him a teammate by electing Forest – a tea party conservative who’s the son of retiring U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of Charlotte.

Republicans who have served as lieutenant governor make up a tiny club. Except for Jim Gardner (1989-93), North Carolina hasn’t had a GOP lieutenant governor since Charles Reynolds at the dawn of the 20th century.
Unlike McCrory, Forest is in a close race, with Democrat Linda Coleman.

2. How many N.C. congressional pickups will GOP get?

The National Republican Congressional Committee is betting on three, and hoping for four.
The GOP-controlled legislature in Raleigh set the table for a rightward shift in the state’s congressional delegation by redrawing several districts to favor Republican candidates.

Two Democrat incumbents – Rep. Heath Shuler in the 11th and Brad Miller in the 13th – decided not to run again, with Republicans favored to take their seats. That leaves two vulnerable Blue Dog Dems: Rep. Larry Kissell in the 8th and Mike McIntyre in the 7th, each busy distancing themselves from Obama and highlighting their votes to repeal Obamacare.

If both lose – McIntyre has the better shot at survival – the delegation will go from 7-6 Democratic to 10-3 Republican.

3. Will Mecklenburg and Wake save Obama again?

Four years ago, voters in North Carolina’s urban counties gave Obama the kinds of victory margins he needed to counteract lopsided defeats in the state’s many rural counties.

Statewide, then-U.S. Sen. Obama won by just 14,177 votes. But he won Mecklenburg by 100,000-plus votes and Wake by almost 64,000.

With the state’s unemployment rate at 8.9 percent – still one of the highest in the country – now-President Obama faces another tight race. To have any chance of reclaiming North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes, he’ll need to run the numbers again in the 13 urban counties where 50 percent of the state’s voters live.

Especially in Charlotte and in the Triangle, where early voting totals will tell the tale – be it happy or sad for Obama – on Election Day .

4. Will Latino voters make the difference?

Obama’s 2008 victory margin in North Carolina was 0.3 percent. Translation: Every vote really does count. And if Obama wins the state by a whisker again, one reason will be North Carolina’s fastest-growing population: Latinos.

They still make up only about 3 percent of the state’s voters. And their turnout rate tends to be lower than other groups. Still, more than 100,000 Hispanics are now registered to vote here.

Both campaigns are wooing them in North Carolina. Like Latinos around the country, those here appear to favor Obama over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by a wide margin.

Much has been written about the president’s need this year for a repeat of big turnouts from African Americans and young people. But Hispanic voters could also claim some credit if he pulls off another win in Carolina del Norte.

5. Will the “banjo ad” work?

N.C. judicial races are usually sleepy affairs. Not this year – at least not the one pitting N.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby against Sam Ervin IV for a seat on the high court.

It’s officially a non-partisan contest. But outside groups with big money and partisan agendas have entered the fray, sending out mailers and airing TV ads on behalf of Republican Newby and Democrat Ervin, who now sits on the N.C. Court of Appeals.

One TV spot, paid for by a super PAC called the N.C. Judicial Coalition, features a banjo-playing balladeer singing the praises of Newby as a “tough but fair” judge while two cartoonish criminals flee in fear. Another ad links Ervin to “convicted felon” Mike Easley, the former Democratic governor who re-appointed him to the N.C. Utilities Commission in 2007.

Will such ads by deep-pocketed political groups spell the end of understated N.C. judicial campaigns, where the emphasis had been on experience and impartiality? Stay tuned.

6. How will Watauga County vote?

The answer matters because Watauga – county seat: Boone – has become something of a bellwether in recent years for North Carolina and maybe the country.

It’s home to students at Appalachian State University, retirees in Blowing Rock and rural folks in places like Deep Gap. In voter registration, Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds each account for about a third.

In 2008, Watauga went for Obama – as did the state and country. Then in 2010, the year of the tea party in North Carolina and nationally, Republicans unseated Democrats to take over the board of county commissioners.

This year, both the Democratic mayor of Boone and the Republican chairman of the county board are predicting a close race between Obama and Romney.

7. Will the legislature get even redder?

Republicans took over the N.C. General Assembly in 2010. Two years later, they’re trying to swell their numbers, pouring money from the GOP and allied groups into a dozen House districts they dramatically redrew to increase their chances of winning.

Among their targets: Democratic Rep. Martha Alexander. Her redrawn district has lost its six African American precincts. And her GOP opponent, attorney Rob Bryan, has raised $287,000 to Alexander’s $35,000.

By unseating just four Democratic House members, Republicans in the House – presided over by Speaker Thom Tillis of Cornelius – would have a supermajority able to override vetoes by the next governor and affect the balance of power in Raleigh.

North Carolina voters don’t appear to like some of what the GOP-controlled legislature has done – especially its cuts in education spending. One poll released after the House and Senate adjourned in July found only 22 percent of North Carolinians approved of the General Assembly.

But because of the way they’ve drawn legislative districts, some analysts say the honorables may have insulated themselves from such opinions.

By Tim Funk
(CHARLOTTE OBSERVER)
PUBLISHED IN: POLITICS
Posted: Saturday, Nov. 03, 2012

After an hour of discussing different ways to pay for a streetcar Tuesday, Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx asked City Council members which proposals they liked best.

The response: Silence.

“These are the crickets I was worried about,” said Foxx, who is trying to forge a budget compromise that includes a streetcar. A $119 million streetcar extension derailed a capital budget in the summer, causing Foxx to begin 2013 budget discussions months earlier than usual. But it might still be difficult to find six council votes for the project. At Tuesday’s meeting, city staff had prepared a long list of ways to pay for a streetcar. They include charging
•fares for the streetcar (the city has planned for it to be free);
•increasing the special property tax rate charged to property owners inside Interstate 277; and
•soliciting donations from businesses and institutions along the line, such as Johnson & Wales University.Another option would be to use a portion of new property taxes created from development along the line.

City Manager Curt Walton told council members all of those options had been studied, but he decided to propose funding the streetcar with property taxes. “These all have some kind of issues,” Walton said. He said that a special assessment would “put a burden on undeveloped property,” which would undermine one of the streetcar’s goals of economic development. All of the above funding options could be done by the City Council. The city also listed a number of options that would raise more money, but would require approval from the General Assembly in Raleigh. They include increasing the rental car tax, hotel/motel tax or prepared food and beverage tax; levying a special fee on parking spaces; or lobbying for a higher vehicle registration fee.

The city will soon begin building the first 1.5 miles of a streetcar line that will run from Time Warner Cable Arena to Presbyterian Hospital in Elizabeth. That will cost $37 million, with the federal government contributing $25 million through a grant. The city’s long-range plan is for the line to run from the Rosa Parks Transit Center on Beatties Ford Road to the old Eastland Mall site. Earlier this year, Walton proposed a $926 million capital plan, which included $119 million for a streetcar extension. That would have taken the line through uptown to Johnson C. Smith University. But six of 11 council members balked at Walton’s plan, with the streetcar being the primary hang up. In June, council members Michael Barnes, Andy Dulin, Warren Cooksey, Beth Pickering, Claire Fallon and Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Cannon backed a smaller capital budget without the streetcar. Foxx vetoed their plan. On Tuesday, most of those officials said they would be OK with extending a streetcar line, so long as other funds were used in addition to the property tax. But there was no clear direction Tuesday as to what other taxes or funding sources they want to use. Foxx has said he hoped to vote on a firm streetcar plan by Nov. 26, though that could be difficult. Other council members are still pushing for the streetcar to be fully funded in the capital program, through property taxes. “It’s our responsibility to get this done,” said council member John Autry, who represents east Charlotte, where part of the line would be built. “It’s this body’s responsibility to build infrastructure.”

By Steve Harrison
(Charlotte Observer)
Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2012

The issue:

From bridges to broadband, America’s infrastructure is supposed to be speeding along commerce, delivering us to work and piping energy and water into our homes and businesses. But just repairing all the breakdowns and potholes would cost tens of billions more than we’re currently spending each year. Experts warn the resulting infrastructure and innovation deficit is jeopardizing our global economic competitiveness. Traditionally nonpartisan territory, spending for transportation and other megaprojects is now routinely caught up in politics, with Democrats and Republicans divided over how to pay for public works and which ones.

Where they stand:

President Barack Obama has favored stimulus-style infrastructure spending plans, talking up highway, bridge and rail repairs as job creators, and pushed for innovations like high-speed rail and a national infrastructure bank to finance projects with the help of private capital. But Republican opposition to increased spending and taxes has blunted many such plans.

Mitt Romney favors less involvement by the federal government in infrastructure, preferring to let states lead the way. Romney shuns the idea that public-works spending is a good way to jumpstart the economy, saying decisions on worthy projects should be based on need and potential returns. Romney also wants to privatize Amtrak by ending federal subsidies for the money-losing passenger rail system. He’s OK with borrowing to pay for megaprojects if there’s a revenue stream to pay the money back, like tolls or port fees.

Why it matters:

Much of America’s infrastructure, including its interstate highway system, is more than half a century old and in need of serious work to keep pace with a rising population. Highway, rail and airport bottlenecks slow the movement of goods and commuters, costing billions in wasted time and fuel and even measurably slowing the economy.

The World Economic Forum put the U.S. 24th last year in the quality of its infrastructure, down from fifth in 2002. The rest of the developed world sets aside on average about 53 percent more of its gross domestic product on transportation infrastructure than the U.S. does, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The dilemma facing any president is how to maintain critical public works at a time of fiscal austerity and to exert enough leadership to get plans through a divided Congress. That challenge was apparent in the partisan wrangling earlier this year over a long-term bill to reauthorize federal transportation spending, which finally passed after nine temporary extensions.

Both parties highlight the need for infrastructure investment, but neither side has been willing to take the politically painful step of proposing an increase in the gasoline tax or some other way to pay for it. The main source of federal transportation aid to the states, the Highway Trust Fund, is going broke. The gas tax that feeds it hasn’t been raised since 1993 and does not keep pace with inflation.

Trying to work around those logjams, cash-strapped states and cities are experimenting with creative alternatives, including public-private partnerships with financial institutions that are being invited to put up the initial cash in exchange for a slice of revenue from tolls, other user fees and the like. The idea has support from both Democrats and Republicans but is most heavily promoted by conservatives.

Proponents say such deals get projects off the drawing table faster than traditional routes. Skeptics warn the model could end up turning control of critical public works projects to entities more concerned with profit than serving the public. A focus on projects that generate the most revenue could also neglect rural areas and poor inner-city neighborhoods.

(Washington Post)
By Associated Press
Published: October 23, 2012

The N.C. Railroad Co. Board of Directors has voted against providing $70 million over 10 years to help build wood-pellet-handling facilities at the ports of Wilmington and Morehead City. State officials recently asked the state-owned Railroad Co. for the cash to help finance the facilities at the two ports, which would cost an estimated $120 million and receive, store and transfer wood pellets to ships for transport to Europe for use by utility companies. Port officials have said that combined, the two wood pellet facilities would be the most expensive infrastructure project ever at the ports. “I think you could say that without worry, that this is the largest undertaking by the ports,” said Thomas Bradshaw, Ports Authority executive director.

by Patrick Gannon
(WILMINGTON STAR-NEWS, 10/18/12)