Skip to main content

US Highway Trust Fund faces funding shortfall

In the US, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) released a key statement on HR 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014. The bill was introduced in the House by Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), and cosponsored by Shuster. He said, “We have an immediate, critical need to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and extend the current surface transportation law. This bill does that in a responsible way with policies that have all previous
July 11, 2014 Read time: 2 mins
In the US, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) released a key statement on HR 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014. The bill was introduced in the House by Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), and cosponsored by Shuster. He said, “We have an immediate, critical need to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and extend the current surface transportation law.  This bill does that in a responsible way with policies that have all previously received strong bipartisan and bicameral support.  If Congress fails to act, thousands of transportation projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country will be at risk.”

He continued, “By funding surface transportation programs through May 2015, this legislation provides certainty and stability for states, while also providing Congress time to continue working on a long-term funding solution and a surface transportation reauthorisation bill.  A shorter extension would guarantee a manufactured crisis in December when some might be inclined to play politics with these issues or use them as vehicles for unrelated policies that should be subject to the full and open debate they deserve.

Shuster concluded, “This bill in no way precludes Congress from continuing to work on addressing a long-term funding solution, and a long-term reauthorisation bill remains a top priority for the Transportation Committee.  However, this legislation is the responsible solution at this time, ensures that we don’t play politics with these programs, and provides for making continued improvements to our surface transportation system.”

Related Content

  • US Tranportation Secretary pessimistic?
    March 15, 2012
    US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has expressed doubts that the reauthorisation bill will be passed in the current session of Congress, according to the Innovation Briefs report by Ken Orski.
  • David Barwell suggests six steps for closing the UK funding gap
    January 11, 2019
    Six steps for closing the UK funding gap Plenty of private money is seeking UK investment opportunities. The government and the infrastructure sector in general must make projects more attractive, writes David Barwell* It is widely acknowledged that the UK faces mounting economic, environmental and social problems if the nation's infrastructure fails to meet present and future demands. Government estimates propose that almost €561 billion is required to bridge the infrastructure funding gap. As part o
  • Transport investment bill plea in open letter to US Congress
    March 15, 2012
    A partnership of American road and transport-minded bodies and individuals has delivered an open letter to Congress urging the approval of the multi-year surface transport investment bill. More than 1,000 entities signed the letter from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-led Americans for Transportation Mobility (ATM) coalition.
  • Financing safer, more sustainable European roads
    April 12, 2012
    The future financing of the European road network has again become a hot topic in Brussels On 15 October, 2010 in the Belgian capital, the Council of Transport Ministers hammered out a political compromise on the revision of the Eurovignette Directive that paves the way for the imposition of additional charges on road transport as a means of internalising externalities. Whether the imposition of these additional costs is justified or not remains the subject of protracted debate.