Jobs Next Exit

NATSO, a member of the Partnership to Save Highway Communities representing truckstops and travel plazas, is urging Missouri lawmakers to oppose a proposal to toll Interstate 70 between St. Louis and Kansas City.

In a letter to state Sen. Bill Stouffer (R-21) and state Rep. Charlie Denison (R-135), co-chairs of the state’s Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight, NATSO said both traditional tolling and public private partnerships negatively impact consumers and interstate businesses that have grown up in towns and communities near interstate exits.

NATSO said while it recognized the need to maintain I-70, study after study shows that tolls carry astronomically higher capital and overhead expenditures compared with the fuel tax.  NATSO also expressed concern with the structure of public private partnership deals that typically offer states most of the revenues up-front and that are most often used by states to fix short-term budget woes.  “For highway users and taxpayers, the long-term leases that typically last for 75 to 100 years mean nothing more than tolling without input from elected officials,” NATSO said.

Several states, including New Hampshire, Washington, and New York, could consider legislation this year regarding rest area commercialization. New Hampshire and Washington are interested in authorizing the sale of commercial services in rest areas pursuant to a change in federal law. Legislation in New York, meanwhile, has been introduced to authorize the use of public-private partnerships in transportation including rest areas and a number of other facilities.

The Partnership to Save Highway Communities opposes passage of these bills, which would increase pressure on Congress to act on the issue.

Measures under consideration, all of which would require a change in the federal law prohibiting rest area commercialization, include:

•    Legislation in New York, A 8487, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Joseph D. Morelle, would authorize the use of public-private partnerships in transportation, including rest areas and other transportation facilities.

•    Legislation in New Hampshire, HB 1293 sponsored by state Rep. Ken Sheffert (R), would establish a commission to study retail opportunities and the sale of gasoline at rest areas on interstate highways. The House Public Works and Highways Committee will hold a hearing on the bill on Feb. 7.

•    Legislation in Washington state to allow for commercial rest areas was up for consideration last year and has been reintroduced. SB 5218 sponsored by state Sen. Paul Shin (D), would authorize commercial activities at rest areas pursuant to federal law.

House Republicans unveiled plans for a five-year transportation reauthorization that would fund the Highway Trust Fund at current levels through revenues from expanding offshore oil and gas drilling, expanded oil shale production and exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR).

Though the legislation has not yet been released, House Democrats were quick to criticize the plan, saying it was short on details and failed to identify real, sustainable revenue solutions. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, issued a statement denouncing it as a “contentious” plan to mire the surface transportation bill in controversy.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the House bill will be considered before the end of 2011 and there has been talk of a Transportation and Infrastructure Committee mark-up as early as the week of Dec. 5.

Many in the transportation community believe it is increasingly unlikely that Congress will reconcile their differences with transportation reauthorization until after the Nov. 2012 election.

Prospects for passage of a surface transportation reauthorization got much brighter last week with the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee preparing for this week’s markup of its two-year legislation, and an announcement by House-Speaker John Boehner that he will move a transportation bill by year’s end.

Following eight extensions of surface transportation legislation, late last week EPW released “MAP-21,” a two-year transportation reauthorization at current funding levels, scheduled for markup on Wednesday, Nov. 9.

The Senate legislation does not expand tolling or allow commercialization of rest areas. While encouraging, the Partnership to Save Highway Communities will remain vigilant in watching for potential amendments as the legislation moves forward.

Meanwhile, in the House, Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to pass “an energy and infrastructure job bill” before the end of the year. The speaker intends to fund a six-year transportation reauthorization with new revenues from expanded domestic energy production.

The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is scheduled to consider surface transportation reauthorization legislation on Nov. 9. But the question over how to pay for it still looms.

Senate EPW Chairman Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) bill reportedly will fund transportation policy for two years at current funding levels. To achieve this goal, the Senate will need to find an additional $12 billion because of declining revenues from fuel taxes. However, the committee is moving forward with its proposed policy despite the lack of a funding source.

Members of the Partnership to Save Highway Communities are working to keep policy provisions that would allow rest area commercialization out of the legislation.

Just last week, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) introduced legislation in their respective chambers of Congress to establish a national infrastructure bank, similar to what President Obama called for in his jobs plan.

The bill would provide $20 billion for a bank to help fund infrastructure projects across the nation. Proponents of the plan said the money could be leveraged to provide financial support to infrastructure valued at 10 times that initial amount, or more. Opponents have expressed concerns with the government running such a large financial institution.

At a House transportation committee hearing earlier this month, nearly every Republican present spoke out in favor of expanding an existing loan program called TIFIA, instead of creating a new bank. Chairman John Mica asked why a bank was needed when “we have a successful example” in TIFIA.

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) filed a companion bill to legislation offered earlier this summer by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act. But while Kirk’s bill allows for development of commercial rest areas, the version filed in the House of Representatives by Rep. Hultgren does not.

The members and Government Affairs staff of NATSO, the trade association representing truckstops and travel plazas and a member of the Partnership to Save Highway Communities, communicated with Rep. Hultgren’s office extensively during its “Day on Capitol Hill” and in follow-up meetings about the devastating effects that rest area commercialization could have on truck stops, restaurants, and gas stations along the interstates.

NATSO has strong concerns about both bills, however, as they dramatically expand tolling on existing interstates under a pilot program. NATSO continues to work with members of an anti-tolling coalition to educate members of Congress about tolling and its negative impact on business and highway users.

The debate over whether states should commercialize rest areas is making headlines, with the Boston Globe and the (Iowa) North Scott Press marking the latest news outlets to argue opposing sides of the issue.

A recent editorial in the Boston Globe (“For Cash-Strapped DOT, There’s Gold in Rest Stops” Aug. 23) called for Congress to overturn the federal prohibition against commercial development along the interstate right-of-way to give states the ability to independently fund their highway needs.

North Scott Press Columnist Phil Roberts, meanwhile, championed the existing ban in coverage of presidential candidate Rick Perry’s recent meet and greet at Iowa 80 Truckstop in Walcott, Iowa (“Privatizing State Rest Areas Would Hurt Consumers, States Alike” Aug. 24).

The Globe said “expanding options along the highway would serve both bottom lines and motorists, who currently lack convenient food and gas choices along vast stretches of the interstate.”  The Globe suggested that Congress replace the existing ban with a more flexible policy that included allowing commercial activities in isolated areas, placing limits on signage, capping an overall number of commercial rest areas and banning commercial rest areas on scenic stretches of interstates.

The Independent Oil Marketers Association (IOMA), a member of the Partnership to Save Highway Communities, quickly criticized the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDot) and the Boston Globe for recommending that the state add commercial services to interstate rest areas.

IOMA President and Chief Operating Officer Peter Romano said allowing the state to set up shop along the interstates jeopardizes 1,350 businesses that operate along the Massachusetts highway exits and more than 25,000 jobs.

North Scott Press Columnist Phil Roberts opposed commercial rest areas, writing, “Perhaps if the present system isn’t broken, we shouldn’t fix it.”

Roberts interviewed Iowa 80 At-Large Director Delia Moon Meier, who said privatization of rest areas would be catastrophic to businesses like hers.

“The ban was and is still right,” she said, “and it created opportunity and jobs and still does. Washington’s whims should not be determining winners and losers. We believe customers should. And hard work and reinvestment should. And employees should.”

The Independent Oil Marketers Association (IOMA), with assistance from the Partnership to Save Highway Communities, criticized the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDot) and The Boston Globe for recommending that the state add commercial services to interstate rest areas in an op-ed published Aug. 23.

In its response, IOMA President and Chief Operating Officer Peter Romano said allowing the state to set up shop along the interstates jeopardizes 1,350 businesses that operate along the highway exits and more than 25,000 jobs.

“Massachusetts already has a monopoly on highway services on the Turnpike,” Romano said. “If MassDOT commercializes the other rest areas, it won’t create new demand for food or gas. It will only transfer sales that would have benefited local communities to the state, threatening well-established small businesses and the jobs they have created, along with the local taxes they pay.”

IOMA also criticized Boston Globe claims that highway businesses fear competition, saying, “Boston Globe reporters should travel the interstate a little more often and visit one of the exits. With businesses going toe to toe on fuel, food and everything else, they would find that competition is alive and well.”