Tag: "state government"

Balancing Environmental and Economic Concerns

While climate change is a consideration for most Americans, some metro areas are adopting unnecessary draconian growth restrictions. The best example may be the state of California. California Assembly Bill 32 mandates that by 2020 the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Research indicates that the state has just about reached that goal. But instead of celebrating that goal, California lawmakers want to go much farther. Assembly member Quirk has introduced a bill to plan for carbon reductions of 80% by 2050. A 2012 report by Greenblatt and Long found that commercially available technology would be sufficient to enable California to reduce greenhouse gases by 60% by 2050. However, meeting the 80% threshold will require technological advances.

Over the last twenty years, the Los Angeles region has actually lost jobs. Between 2001 and 2011 alone, L.A. County lost 7.1 percent of its jobs. Since 1990 the region has lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs. While all metro areas have lost manufacturing jobs, Los Angeles has lost the second highest number in the country; and those jobs made up a larger percentage of the economy than first place New York. And while poor leadership and national factors have contributed to these losses, the biggest factor may be environmental regulations. Many of Los Angeles’ industrial jobs have moved to other states such as Texas with looser environmental laws. Obtaining an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases would require the city to control emissions from ships and trucks at the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Yet the ports are the largest and second largest container ports in the country and supply a significant percentage of metro area jobs. The ports are the biggest supplier of manufacturing jobs.

While an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases may be desirable, it will also eliminate some of the few manufacturing jobs in the region. Los Angeles needs to be increasing not decreasing the number of blue-collar jobs. And manufacturing jobs are high-paying quality jobs. In a region with major economic problems, a little balance could go a long way.

May 19, 2014 | 1 comment | by

How The West Was Won – By The Feds

Well sometimes feels like we never won it when so much of our land and resources are under the direct control of the U.S. government and tribal authorities. If you take a look at the American “west”, you will see a very big difference from the other half of the country in terms of land owned by the government and land that is “free” to own by the public.

The federal government owns approximately 29% of the land area in the United States, more than 653 million acres. The U.S. General Services Administration’s report on Federal Real Property Profile, 2004 shows how much land the government owns in each state. The top 10 federally owned states:

  • Nevada 85%
  • Alaska 69%
  • Utah 57%
  • Oregon 53%
  • Idaho 50%
  • Arizona 48%
  • California 45%
  • Wyoming 42%
  • New Mexico 42%
  • Colorado 37%

Out of the top 10 states (all are in the American “west”), the federal government owns 505 million acres or 77% of the total land area owned in the United States by the federal government.

The White House acknowledges the fact that not only is the United States government the largest property owner in the country, but also a major source of government waste because of this fact. Efforts to make much of this property available to the public for purchase have been minimal. The White House Federal Excess Properties site shows the federal government’s effort in selling off properties.

The Federal Government is the biggest property owner in the United States, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year on government properties that are no longer needed. The President has proposed an independent Civilian Property Realignment Board to help the Federal Government cut through red tape and competing stakeholder interests to sell or get rid of property it no longer needs. Over time, this could save taxpayers billions of dollars and help to reduce the deficit.

This map shows just the tip of the iceberg in terms of opportunities for downsizing the Federal real estate portfolio. Under the President’s proposal, more properties, in some cases with significant market value, would be added to this map and dealt with more quickly and effectively than they are today.

President Obama and Vice President Biden launched the Campaign to Cut Waste to eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government. Getting properties like those highlighted below off our books is a key first step in this effort.

The Civilian Property Realignment Board was cancelled by congress and a very painful and slow process for eliminating this waste is still in place.

Before any agency sells a surplus property, it is required by federal law to ensure that no other U.S. agency wants it. It must then offer a right of first refusal to state and local governments as well as nonprofits. Buildings must be assessed as potential homeless shelters and reviewed for environmental contamination and historic significance.

All of these federally owned properties have the potential to be transferred to state/local governments or to private interests. Benefits could include:

  • less government waste of resources and taxpayer dollars
  • increased efficiency of remaining federal properties
  • greater use of agriculture, energy and natural resources for private use

The bipartisan Federal Real Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2013 is intended to expedite the sale of federal property that is underutilized. A greater effort in this direction is very obvious and needed.

Apr 16, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Road Pricing Can Reduce Pollution

California’s Legislature is considering modifying the cap and trade program in order to charge drivers a direct carbon tax at the pump. Sacramento should be applauded for realizing that the state’s cap and trade program needs revision, but legislators should put the program out of its misery and kill it. Instead, the body and other Legislatures across the country should enact market-based pricing to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.

Three of the largest emissions sources are volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). VOC emission rates decline as travel speeds increase up to 65 mph, NOx emission rates decline as travel speeds increase up to 35 mph and CO emission rates decline as travel speeds increase up to 25 mph. As a result typical rush hour traffic speeds of 5-20 miles per hour reduce emissions more than free flow speeds of 30-60 miles per hour. Reducing congestion can help reduce emissions.

Road pricing is one effective way to reduce emissions. The long-term solution is to enact mileage-based user fees (MBUFs) to drive on all roads. MBUFs would vary based on type of road and time of day. Traveling on a freeway during rush hour would cost more than traveling on a local road in the middle of the day. This pricing could help divert traffic from traveling during peak periods to traveling during off-peak periods. It would take only a shift of 5-10% of all vehicles to substantially reduce congestion and emissions.

States from Florida to Washington are still testing MBUFs, so a shorter-term solution is also needed. Managed lanes and managed arterials can be part of the temporary solution. Managed lanes are optional variably-priced freeway lanes with guaranteed travel speeds of 45 miles per hour. Managed arterials include priced bridges or tunnels that allow drivers to bypass congested interchanges. Such lanes and bridges allow drivers the option of paying a small fee for congestion relief. Traffic in managed lanes and managed arterials emits fewer emissions since vehicles travel at approximately 45 miles per hour on managed lanes and approximately 35 miles per hour on managed arterials. And traffic in the non-priced lanes also emits fewer emissions because with fewer vehicles in their lanes they encounter less congestion and travel faster.

Mar 24, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Stranded on “3-Mile Island”

It is 7am in the morning, and the second cup of coffee is just not cutting it. However, traffic congestion has been relatively smooth along the tollway and work is not too far away. Then, suddenly, traffic bottlenecks from several lanes down to two, and the quality of the road declines considerably. Essentially, a parking lot has been formed between one stretch of the toll road and another. In the Dallas Fort-Worth gridlock between the two George Bush Tollways is a daily occurrence for thousands who commute to work every morning.

Bottleneck Traffic

States around the country are looking for better ways to build roads, without taxpayer funds. Thus, a market for tollways has been created that has been able to keep up with the growing demand of growing metropolises. There are drawbacks to this growth as federal law from 1965 prohibits the removal of Interstate Highways in order to build tollways. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (D-Texas) authored a federal amendment to the same law in order to broaden the ban to include exist such as; turning an auxiliary lane, HOV lane into a toll lane or building a toll lane alongside the existing Interstate or State Highway. None of these are taxpayer friendly as the auxiliary and HOV lanes were originally paid for with tax dollars, and for them to become toll lanes would be an inexpensive way for toll companies to collect revenue at the hands of the taxpayers.

SH 161 in particular creates many problems for the taxpayers, toll associations, and the government to deal with. Because the stretch of road only is 3 miles, and is already a connector between two tollways it would be common sense to transform it into a tollway in order to improve traffic congestion and road safety. The road has minimal lighting and there are only two lanes in each direction which are severely deteriorated. One proposal that exists is sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) which claims that for 3.7 million dollars it can open the shoulder as another lane to ease bottle necking. The loss of the shoulder would create many hazards for accidents along the road so TxDot would build dead end driveways along the road and increase the amount of tow trucks on call to move stalled vehicles quickly. This however is and can only be a short term solution. This does not repair the roads, or increase the amount of lighting, and without a shoulder the danger of the road could increase as drivers can no longer safely pull off at any given time. One long term solution is to build a lane alongside the free lanes in order to add lanes while giving the benefit of the freeway.

The budget is not what it once was because the funds supplied from the federal government relies directly on the gas tax which has not been raised from 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Due to inflation, more fuel efficient cars, and now electric cars the fund is getting smaller and smaller. The population of the DFW metroplex increases 1 person every 4 minutes and needs proper highway infrastructure in order to support the continued growth. These issues are not specific to Texas, and every state with a fast growing metroplex is suffering similar growing pains. In order to support this growth a comprehensive federal plan must be created soon or else the amount of goods and services being transported will continue to slow down.

Mar 17, 2014 | 5 comments | by

Rethinging the Way Transportation Infrastructure is Funded

States are taking matters into their own hands

It may come as a surprise to you, but there is a quiet revolution in transportation funding underway these days. Faced with a depleted Highway Trust Fund and uncertain prospects for more money from a deficit-conscious Congress, many states are taking matters into their own hands and aggressively pursuing more fiscal independence.

A survey we have recently conducted documents significant funding initiatives in 18 states. Some states have raised their gasoline taxes (MD, WY, MA, and VT). Others have shifted to a tax on fuel at the wholesale level (e.g.PA). Still others have enacted dedicated sales taxes for transportation (e.g. AK, VA) or floated toll revenue bonds (e.g. OH).

Feb 17, 2014 | 1 comment | by

EPA vs Texas

A fight against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was won in Texas this past week as the EPA allowed Texas significantly more flexibility when dealing with state permits concerning pollution sources. Giving Texas more control over the environmental impacts that occur within the state. A hard fought win for Texas as they have been working for years to gain back the control that the EPA stripped away from them.

The compromise on Texas’s clean air plan can be used as an example for other states hoping to gain back some of their rights concerning environmental regulation. By allowing the states the ability to implement locally tailored plans and permits, plants will no longer fear being shut down due to overly strict federal regulation. Less regulation is for the better as Texas currently houses 832 drilling rigs, which accounts for 47% of all US oil rigs and 25% of the entire worlds!

number of rigs

This has boosted oil and gas severance tax revenue to an amazing $900 million dollars which has funded several projects. The projects would utilize the surplus to fund the State Water Plan which was create in 1997 but never received funding until now. The legislature in total created two funds that;

  • The State Water Implementation Fund (SWIFT) will contain $2.5 billion to fund projects in the State Water Plan.
  • The State Water Implementation Revenue Fund of Texas (SWIRFT) will contain $3.5 billion for road, port and rail infrastructure projects.

In a state that led national job growth in 2013, is a powerhouse in the energy industry, and increased environmental standards without EPA involvement; even less federal involvement can only be for the better.

Feb 05, 2014 | 4 comments | by
« Previous Page