"I believe that States should be credited for their non-Federal investment in revenue-generating transportation facilities to address their regional transportation needs"
About this Quote
The argument calls for a federal funding framework that recognizes and rewards states that commit their own money to revenue-generating transportation assets. By emphasizing non-Federal investment, it favors a federalism model where initiative and self-help are encouraged. Revenue-generating facilities include toll roads and bridges, ports, airports, and certain transit elements that produce user fees or lease revenues. Crediting states can take many forms: counting these investments in formula calculations, easing matching requirements, allowing toll revenues to qualify as local match, or granting regulatory flexibility and access to federal credit programs.
The context is decades of strain on the Highway Trust Fund and persistent fights over donor-versus-donee states. Fast-growing states like Texas, home to Michael Burgess, often argue they contribute more in gas taxes than they receive back. Texas has leaned heavily on tolling, public-private partnerships, and major port and freight investments. The goal is to ensure that such initiative is not penalized by lower federal apportionments and instead is leveraged through tools like TIFIA loans or state infrastructure banks.
The policy logic is about incentives. If federal aid is indifferent to state effort, innovation and user-pay solutions lose momentum. Crediting state investments encourages pricing strategies that can manage congestion, aligns costs with beneficiaries, and allows tailored responses to regional needs: freight corridors near ports, cross-border trade routes, urban chokepoints, and rural access challenges.
There are trade-offs. Over-crediting could widen disparities by favoring wealthier states with stronger tax bases and financial expertise, and toll-dependent systems can burden low-income users. National cohesion matters; safety, interoperability, and interstate commerce rely on common standards. The task is designing formulas and credit assistance that reward genuine self-help without undermining equity and national goals.
The stance ultimately argues for partnership: keep a strong federal role, but tilt it toward amplifying state-led, revenue-backed projects rather than imposing one-size-fits-all spending.
The context is decades of strain on the Highway Trust Fund and persistent fights over donor-versus-donee states. Fast-growing states like Texas, home to Michael Burgess, often argue they contribute more in gas taxes than they receive back. Texas has leaned heavily on tolling, public-private partnerships, and major port and freight investments. The goal is to ensure that such initiative is not penalized by lower federal apportionments and instead is leveraged through tools like TIFIA loans or state infrastructure banks.
The policy logic is about incentives. If federal aid is indifferent to state effort, innovation and user-pay solutions lose momentum. Crediting state investments encourages pricing strategies that can manage congestion, aligns costs with beneficiaries, and allows tailored responses to regional needs: freight corridors near ports, cross-border trade routes, urban chokepoints, and rural access challenges.
There are trade-offs. Over-crediting could widen disparities by favoring wealthier states with stronger tax bases and financial expertise, and toll-dependent systems can burden low-income users. National cohesion matters; safety, interoperability, and interstate commerce rely on common standards. The task is designing formulas and credit assistance that reward genuine self-help without undermining equity and national goals.
The stance ultimately argues for partnership: keep a strong federal role, but tilt it toward amplifying state-led, revenue-backed projects rather than imposing one-size-fits-all spending.
Quote Details
| Topic | Investment |
|---|
More Quotes by Michael
Add to List
