Luetkemeyer Discusses Need for Funding Transportation

By Paul Hackbarth, Missourian Staff Writer | Posted: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:00 am

Ninth District Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer told area citizens and officials that federal lawmakers recognize the need to fund transportation infrastructure but that a sense of urgency is lacking.

“If you look at what’s going on in (Washington) D.C., there is more of a focus on politics being played within parties of both sides of (Congress),” Luetkemeyer said.

Luetkemeyer along with Brendan Fahey from Sen. Claire McCaskill’s office, and Emily Romines, from Sen. Roy Blunt’s office, were invited to the Missouri Highway 47 Bridge Committee meeting Tuesday morning to discuss transportation issues, particularly funding for a new Washington bridge.

While Congress approved a six-month extension to a federal transportation funding bill that is set to expire in March, local and state officials say that without a long-range bill, state transportation departments, like the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), cannot plan for projects.

“Even with a six-month extension, it’s troublesome to an organization the size of MoDOT because it can’t make long-term plans,” said Bob Zick, bridge committee chairman.

Luetkemeyer agreed, saying the extension does not solve any problems.

Ed Hassinger, St. Louis district engineer, said MoDOT officials feel better with the extension than they did three months ago, but there is not enough funding to commit to projects like replacing the Washington bridge.

A Top Priority

“The Washington bridge has to be in the state’s top three priorities, if not maybe the top by now,” Hassinger said. “We want to build this bridge, but money is always an issue.”

Luetkemeyer said part of the problem of reauthorizing a long-term bill is getting lawmakers from different regions of the country to agree on how much funding should go to address their transportation needs.

“In the Midwest roads are our biggest concern, but they must have public transportation in the East,” Luetkemeyer said. “In the East, they don’t understand how important roads are to us. It’s a question of who gets what? Does public transportation in the Northeast take precedence?

“Everyone realizes there is a need, but how do we get there?” Luetkemeyer said.

Bill Miller Sr., Missourian editor and publisher, asked if local delegates in Congress have enough clout to find and divert transportation funding to Missouri like former Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond did when securing funds for the new Hermann bridge.

“The days that Bond was able to do that are over,” Luetkemeyer said. “We did away with earmarks. It’s a thing of the past. With funding so short, everyone is going to have to fight for dollars.

“We, as a people, need to make a decision if we want better roads and bridges and how to pay for them,” Luetkemeyer said. “I hope the decision is put up to the people. If they want to pay taxes for better things, it’s their dollars.”

Bill Straatmann, chair of the Washington Area Highway Transportation Committee, asked if Congress has looked at other funding mechanisms besides a formula based on gallons of gasoline used as more fuel-efficient cars and electric cars become popular.

Luetkemeyer said there is no consensus on what other mechanisms to use.

New Revenue Source

A new source of revenue for transportation projects could come from opening up additional oil reserves in the western United States or Gulf of Mexico, according to Luetkemeyer.

He told The Missourian that by selling oil leases on additional reserves, it would generate a revenue stream based on their output that could be put toward transportation infrastructure.

Luetkemeyer said now that money from existing reserves goes into general revenue, but that money could go to fund projects into a long-term transportation bill.

According to Fahey and Romines, there are proposals in both the Senate and House of Representatives for the surface transportation program (STP).

The Senate proposal would call for STP funding to stay at the same rates plus inflation costs for two years, while the House proposal would last for six years but reduce STP funding by about 30 percent.