What will 7¢ a gallon save you?

On July 1, our state fuel tax will increase by 7¢ per gallon, and our annual vehicle registration fees will increase as well. In total, the increases are expected to raise nearly $95 million in additional transportation funding per year. That “new” money will be used to help address a $262 million backlog, statewide, in transportation maintenance.

I like low gas prices as much as the next person, but I’ll be glad to see the increase. While I understand that even small increases in fuel costs can be tough, especially when budgets are tight, we all will reap the benefits. You might even save some money!

Transportation delays, caused by everything from a lack of maintenance to a lack of capacity to a traffic wreck, have economic and social costs — to individuals, to businesses, and to the community. A poorly maintained or inefficient transportation system costs you time, and, quite literally, costs you money.

Time you lose with your friends and family can’t be replaced. While it’s hard to put a dollar value on missing your daughter’s first “at bat” in softball or your son’s band concert, because you were stuck in traffic, you know you’ll never get those moments back. They are truly priceless.

On the other end of your commute, if you and your coworkers are chronically late due to traffic, that can impact your employer’s bottom line, which can trickle down and affect you. Lower profits can lead to fewer raises, less benefits, and even layoffs. 

We all also pay for an inefficient transportation system in the goods we buy. If a trucking company must reroute its trucks to avoid a weight restricted bridge or plan for extra travel time to account for being stuck in traffic, they are going to charge more to haul their goods. That cost eventually works its way to us – the consumers. The more it costs to ship a loaf of bread from the bakery to the store, the more we pay for it.

In addition to costs of delay, we also all pay more to maintain our cars if we drive on poorly maintained roads. Have you ever hit a big pothole and knew immediately you just knocked your wheels out of alignment? That is a direct cost to you of a poorly maintained road. According to a national transportation research group, the average motorist pays about $377 per year in additional vehicle operating costs as a result of driving on bad roads. Tire wear, front end alignments, and other maintenance costs are accelerated and compounded when roads fall into disrepair. In addition, you also pay the cost of the fuel you burn when stuck in traffic, going nowhere.

So, while you will be paying more at the pump and when you register your car, you’ll also have savings in other areas. Unfortunately, those savings aren’t as easy to see. It’s hard to notice what you don’t pay – the loaf of bread that didn’t cost more because of extra transportation costs, the alignment you didn’t have to get because you didn’t hit that pothole, the family event you weren’t late for.

As you fill your tank for the first time after the tax increase in July, pause for a moment to consider what those extra few cents are buying you.

Don’t let the Treasure Valley fall through the cracks

Congress needs to step up, too

On April 11, 2015, the Idaho legislature passed a bill to increase funding to maintain Idaho’s roads and bridges by nearly $95 million per year. It was a much-needed boost for Idaho’s – and the Treasure Valley’s – transportation system.

However, call me greedy, but it is not enough. COMPASS estimates a $159 million per year shortfall for Ada and Canyon Counties alone. While the additional funding will help, it will be divided statewide, so will only represent a drop in the bucket for the Treasure Valley.

We’ll continue to work with Idaho citizens and the Idaho legislature to find ways to meet transportation funding needs. However, while the Idaho legislature made some much-needed progress in 2015, the burden doesn’t fall entirely on them. Congress needs to step up, too.

There are two interrelated issues on the federal level that are hampering our ability to address our transportation needs.

First, we need new federal transportation legislation. The current act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century, or “MAP-21,” expires May 31, 2015 – just 13 days from now! This bill was passed in July 2012 and was originally set to expire – and be replaced with a new bill – no later than October 2014. Shortly before the bill expired, Congress extended it until May 31, 2015.

May 31 is coming quickly and it appears that members of Congress will once again pass a short-term extension. These short-term extensions simply delay substantive action and hamper the ability of local and state transportation agencies to implement transportation projects.

Without a long-term transportation authorization bill, federal transportation funding will continue to be distributed in drips and drabs. The transportation bill is what allows the federal government to distribute federal transportation funding around the nation. If the bill were to expire without being extended, federally funded transportation projects would grind to a halt, as funding cannot be distributed without a transportation bill to authorize that distribution.

Planning for future projects would also stall, because states and regions don’t know how much funding they can expect in the long term, and what policy or priority changes a new authorization bill might bring. Plus, as projects delay, project costs increase, thus putting additional burden on the already strapped Highway Trust Fund.

This, in turn, brings us to the second issue: federal transportation funding. Quite simply, the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money. The fund, which is used to provide transportation funding to states and local agencies, is funded through the federal fuel tax. That tax hasn’t been increased since 1993, meaning we are trying to pay for 2015 projects with a 1993 income. It just doesn’t work. Not only are we behind by 22 years’ worth of inflation, but decreases in driving and increases in fuel efficiency mean that the amount of money being collected is not keeping pace with needs.

The highway trust fund nearly went broke last August, but was “saved” at the last minute with an infusion of other funds. There is talk again of using other funds to contribute to the Highway Trust Fund – mainly by making changes to the tax code. This idea appeals to many, as it raises more funding for the Highway Trust Fund without raising taxes. However, it is not a viable long-term solution.

We need a reliable funding source for the Highway Trust Fund to pay for transportation projects and we need a long-term transportation bill to allow the funds to be spent and to provide our transportation agencies with long-term policies, priorities, and expectations so they can plan for future needs.

The question is, how do we get there?

• We need Congress to step up and raise the fuel tax and index that fuel tax to inflation so that we are not in this same situation again in a year, or two, or ten.

• We need to recognize that the fuel tax, even if raised, will not be able to cover our long-term transportation needs due to increasing fuel efficiency.

• We need Congress to start seriously looking at long-term funding options, such as a vehicle mile tax, to eventually replace, or augment, the federal fuel tax without dipping into other existing funds.

• We need to tell our Congressmen that we, their constituents, understand that sometimes the right decision and the popular decision are not the same thing, and that we have their backs. 

We need a modern, efficient transportation system to support economic prosperity, a high quality of life, and a better life for our children.

Failure to act now simply kicks the can down the road. Let’s tell Congress that is not what we need.

Don’t let the Treasure Valley fall through the cracks.

What does $95 million mean to the Treasure Valley?

After more fits and starts at putting together a transportation funding package than I want to count, the Idaho legislature passed a bill to increase transportation revenue by an estimated $95 million per year in the wee hours of Saturday, April 11. As some had predicted, it turned out to be the “going home” bill.

First, I’d like to say “thank you.” Thank you to the many members of both houses and both parties who considered “out of the box” ideas, worked to educate themselves on transportation funding issues, or drafted legislation. While I’ll admit it wasn’t always pretty, I do believe the conversation about transportation funding was raised to a new level in 2015, and that in itself was valuable, in addition to the $95 million.

Now that the dust has settled, what does the nearly $95 million per year in increased transportation funding mean for Ada and Canyon Counties?

1.    The estimated $95 million per year in additional funding will be split between the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) (60%) and local roadway agencies (40%).

·         ITD is expected to receive approximately $56.5 million statewide per year in additional funding. It is unknown at this point how much of that funding will be spent in Ada and Canyon Counties.

·         Local roadway agencies will receive approximately $37.6 million statewide per year in additional funding.

·         Of that $37.6 million, local agencies in Ada and Canyon Counties combined are projected to receive approximately $9.2 million per year in additional revenue.  

2.    The additional funding can only be spent on maintenance of roads and bridges. Of the projected $159 million shortfall in the two-county area, approximately $30 million per year is maintenance on local roads and bridges. The $9.2 million discussed above will be used toward this $30 million shortfall.

3.    The additional funding cannot be used to expand or improve roads and bridges (e.g., add traffic lanes) nor can it be used for public transportation. Of the $159 million annual shortfall in Ada and Canyon Counties, $129 million falls into these categories. The additional funding does not help here.

4.    ITD will receive additional funding for the next two years if there is a budget surplus at the end of the fiscal year (“surplus eliminator” funding). It is unknown at this point what the total amount will be or how much of that will be spent in Ada and Canyon Counties.

So, where does that leave us?

In short, it leaves us short. It helps, but does not cover our maintenance shortfall, nor does it help the Treasure Valley prepare for the future by providing for public transportation or expanding our roads and bridges.

We still need…

1.    Local option funding authorization to allow local agencies to ask citizens if they want to tax themselves for a specific project (see my blog of April 14, 2015).

2.    Dedicated funding for public transportation. Right now, we do not have this in Idaho. This could be local option funding, it could be something else, or it could be a combination of funding sources. We can’t serve our growing population if we can’t provide adequate public transportation.

3.    A means to “grow” our transportation funding. It took 19 years for the Idaho legislature to increase the gas tax, and even then it was a difficult, painful process that yielded far less than needed. We need to index our gas tax to inflation, or provide some other means of automatic increases, so that future legislators are not forced into this position again. Even with the $95 million increase, we continue to fall behind.

4.    To continue to look at “other” ways to fund our transportation system. Our gas tax revenues will continue to fall further behind as vehicles become more fuel efficient. We need to be thinking about what we can, and should, do in the future. While the concept of a fee based on vehicle miles travelled is not popular, something that raises funds based on an individual’s use of the transportation system needs to be on our radar.

5.    Congress to act. In Idaho, 54% of our transportation funding comes from the federal government. This is extremely high compared to most states (which is an issue in and of itself), but it highlights the importance of federal funding to Idaho. We need Congress to follow Idaho’s lead and increase the federal fuel tax – unchanged since 1993 – to help keep pace with inflation. I’ll talk more about that in my next blog.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…this is too important an issue to only discuss the three months of the year when the Idaho legislature is in session. We need to keep the conversation alive, year-round, at the local, state, and federal levels.

Don’t let the Treasure Valley fall through the cracks

Public Involvement on Public Involvement? Huh?

As you no doubt know, COMPASS solicits feedback on its plans and projects – most notably Communities in Motion, the regional long-range transportation plan for Ada and Canyon Counties, and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP.

This time, we’re asking for your feedback on our public involvement plan. Yes, we are conducting public involvement on public involvement.

COMPASS’ public involvement program is one part of COMPASS’ overall communication program. The work that COMPASS does affects every resident of Ada and Canyon Counties; therefore, we strive to involve all residents in our planning efforts. Depending on circumstances, that participation may range from being an active participant throughout a planning process, such as serving on a committee, to submitting comments on a draft plan.

The public involvement plan is part of a larger COMPASS Integrated Communication Plan. As all of COMPASS’ communication programs are interrelated, COMPASS chose to include its public involvement plan under the “umbrella” of its broader communication plan. This allows the user of the plan to better understand how different aspects of COMPASS’ communication programs support and augment each other.

COMPASS has developed a public involvement plan to serve two primary purposes:

1. To help you, COMPASS stakeholders and the general public, know what to expect from COMPASS when we conduct public outreach. The public involvement plan tells you where you to find public comment forms and other public comment materials, how we promote opportunities for public comment, how we use your comments, and more.

2. To help COMPASS staff understand what is expected of them. The plan outlines best practices for our staff to use when engaging in public involvement. Our staff will use the plan as a checklist to ensure we are meeting, and whenever possible, exceeding, all requirements for public involvement.  

The public involvement plan outlines requirements, recommended best practices, and optional outreach elements for public involvement on different types of plans and projects. These provide a base from which to build, while allowing COMPASS staff the flexibility to assess each situation individually and use additional, creative outreach elements as they are appropriate for the plan or project.

While we welcome comments on any portion of the COMPASS Integrated Communication Plan, we are particularly seeking feedback on the public involvement plan section (Section II, Chapters 2 – 6). These chapters include an overview of COMPASS’ public involvement processes (Chapter 2), and project-specific public participation guides for plans and programs for which we regularly seek public involvement, including the public involvement plan itself (Chapter 3), the long-range transportation plan (Chapter 4), the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Chapter 5), and other plans and projects (Chapter 6). I encourage you to take a few minutes to review the plan and let us know what you think.

Visit www.compassidaho.org/comm/comments.htm to review the plan and submit your comments online. You will also find a list of libraries in the two county area where you can review a hard copy of the plan. And, of course, you are always welcome to stop by the COMPASS office to pick up a copy, or request one be sent to you in the mail. Contact COMPASS at 208/475-2229 or aluft@compassidaho.org for assistance or with questions.

Comments will be accepted through 11:59 pm, Sunday, May 31, 2015.

Local Needs Call for Local Solutions

My oldest daughter wants a new iPod. My youngest wants an autographed soccer jersey. Each girl is unique in her needs and wants, but the answer to both is the same: “If you want ‘X,’ you need to buy it yourself, which means you need to find a way to pay for it.”

Each girl will need to decide if what she wants is worth the effort, and if so, how she will come up with the money to achieve her goal. One daughter may decide to take on extra babysitting jobs; the other may choose to set up a lemonade stand. The point is, it is each girl’s decision and my wife and I have given them both the tools and support they need to make their own decision and reach their goals by themselves.  

If we can trust our daughters to develop their own unique “solutions” to their own unique needs, why can’t our legislature trust Idaho citizens to do the same?

I’m talking about the need for the Idaho legislature to grant authority to local agencies to add local option sales tax as a tool to help meet local needs.

What is local option sales tax authority and how does it work? A taxing district, such as a county or city, presents a local sales tax proposal, along with a description of the project the revenue would be used for, to the voters. The voters then decide if they wanted to tax themselves for that project. If the proposal passes, the tax is instituted and the project proceeds. If the proposal fails, no new tax is instituted and the project does not proceed – or at least goes back to the drawing board.

But, outside of a few resort communities, we don’t have access to that tool in Idaho. We need it. To get it, we need our legislators to provide local entities with the authority to use local option sales tax to develop their own solutions to their own needs. Local option authority is not a statewide tax – local option authority just provides permission for local entities to ask their voters if they want a tax.

The key to local option sales tax is that it is local – a local tax, voted on by local taxpayers, for a local project.

Community A may choose to initiate a small tax for a short period of time for a small project, such as a library. If that’s what that community wants, that’s OK.

Community B may initiate a larger tax for a longer period of time for a larger project, such as building a new water treatment plant. If that’s what that community wants, that’s OK.

Community C may choose to not use the tool at all. If that’s what that community wants, that’s OK.

Ironically, most of the arguments I hear against granting local option sales tax authority to local governments actually underscore why it is a good choice for Idaho, as it lets each community decide what is best for its own situation.

Argument #1. “It would make my county/city less competitive by having a higher tax than my neighbors.” If it’s not a good fit for your city or county, your city or county doesn’t have to use it. It is a local decision.

                                Shouldn’t each community be able to decide what works for them?

Argument #2. “I said I wouldn’t raise taxes.” All that is being requested of the Idaho legislature is authorization for local entities to access the local option sales tax tool. A vote for authorization is NOT a vote for higher taxes. A local option sales tax can only be implemented if the voters in the taxing district vote for the tax. If area residents don’t want higher taxes, they vote against the tax. It is a local decision.

Shouldn’t each community be able to ask its voters if they want to tax themselves?

Argument #3. “It’s only for public transportation; my community has different needs.” This is a common misconception. Many people use public transportation as an example of how local option could be used, which has led to the belief that that is the only way it could be used. That is simply not true. While I can’t say if the legislature would put restrictions on the types of projects local option could be used for, in concept, at least, it can be very broad, allowing each community the opportunity to address its unique situation. It could be used for a park in community “X,” a bridge in community “Y,” and, yes, a public transportation project in community “Z.” Once again, it is a local decision.

Shouldn’t each community have the ability to address its own unique needs?

So, if it’s that important, why am I talking about it now, when the legislature is no longer in session? I’m talking about it now because it’s too important an issue to relegate to the three months a year when the legislature is in session. We need to talk about it today, tomorrow, next month, and in January when the legislature convenes. Our legislators need to provide the tools that allow local needs to be addressed with local solutions.

Don’t let the Treasure Valley Fall through the Cracks

Safety: Worthy of Investment

James Dean. Princess Diana. “60 Minutes” correspondent Bob Simon.

What do these celebrities have in common? They all died in car crashes.

I have no doubt you can name many more people who fall into that category. We all can. Friends, colleagues, neighbors, family.

We have been talking about the need to maintain and improve our transportation system and the needed increase in transportation funding to do that. We’ve talked about the economy. We’ve talked about growth. But truthfully, there is nothing more important than safety when we talk about transportation. There are an average of 30,000 traffic fatalities in the US each year and an average of 200 per year in Idaho. One death is too many, much less 30,000!

What can we do?

No one “fix” will solve all transportation safety issues. It takes a combination of infrastructure improvements, enforcement of safety laws, improved vehicle safety, and most of all, personal action.

Improvements to our transportation system don’t have to be big. Often, the improvements with the most “bang for the buck” – the most lives saved for the investment – are simple: better signage, rumble strips, speed limits.

Coupled with these is enforcement. Unfortunately, getting to one’s destination safely often isn’t enough to convince people to drive the speed limit, not run stop signs, and not drink, or text, and drive. We need enforcement of our traffic safety laws.

Improvements in both of these categories – infrastructure and enforcement – cost money. Will an increase in transportation funding help us to improve our infrastructure and save lives? Yes. Is the investment worth it? I think so.

However, as I said, those aren’t the only pieces to the puzzle. Auto manufacturers are working to make our vehicles safer all the time – think of air bags, backup cameras, and cars that alert you to a potential accident. When my parents were growing up, cars didn’t even come with seatbelts…we’ve come a long way since those days.

But, all the improvements and safety measures in the world can’t protect us from ourselves.

We are still human, and despite all the hype over autonomous cars, right now, we are the ones behind the wheel. There are actions we can all take, that cost nothing, that make our roads safer: 

• Wear your seatbelt.
• Buckle your kids into their car seats.
• Don’t drink and drive, or text and drive.
• Wear a helmet if you’re on your bicycle or motorcycle.
• Obey traffic safety laws.
• Watch for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Regardless of whether you agree with me on transportation funding, the economy, taxes, or anything else, I hope you’ll agree with me on this: be safe, for yourself and those who care about you.

Keeping our Ag Economy Moving

Idaho's agricultural exports have more than doubled in the last seven years, according to data released by the Idaho Department of Agriculture in late January. Clearly, at least in the agricultural sector, we are emerging from the Great Recession.

This is great news, but not news that can simply be acknowledged and forgotten. Success doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It must be nurtured. COMPASS is committed to doing its part to support our agricultural economy so that it can continue to grow and thrive.

In fact, support of agriculture – specifically goals to preserve agricultural land and protect and enhance transportation routes for agriculture -- is explicitly addressed in Communities in Motion 2040, the regional long-range transportation plan for Ada and Canyon Counties.

To that end, COMPASS has begun work on a farm freight study to ensure the transportation routes and needs of farm freight in Ada and Canyon Counties are being addressed in transportation planning. We are seeking to gain a more complete understanding of the routes used to move agricultural freight, the volume being moved, and the equipment used to move it. This information will then feed into Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 for documenting maintenance needs, choke points, and other issues along those routes.

Identifying key routes is a first step in ensuring they are maintained and improved so they can continue to serve the agricultural community. COMPASS will also use the study results to be proactive in developing projects that help make freight movement safer, faster, easier, and more efficient for all roadway users.

COMPASS began the study last summer by working with major regional processors to map their freight routes and volumes, and has now expanded its efforts to reach out to all local growers, producers, processors, and drivers to help gather more complete information on farm freight routes. Anyone involved in transporting agricultural freight in Ada or Canyon Counties is encouraged to take an online survey before March 10, 2015, to help COMPASS ensure your routes are included when we consider road maintenance and improvement projects.

If you have questions on the study, or would like to participate in the survey, but missed the survey window, contact COMPASS at tfuller@compassidaho.org or 208/475-2231 for assistance. Study results and report will be available this fall on the COMPASS web site.

Let’s keep our agricultural economy moving.

Strong Transportation System = Strong Economy

Last February, as part of our 2014 education series, COMPASS hosted Chandler Duncan, EDR Group, to speak on transportation infrastructure and how it affects our economy.

This February – February 5 and 6 to be exact – we are hosting Todd Litman, founder of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, to speak about the same topic as part of our 2015 education series.

Why are we talking about the same topic again this year? Haven’t we heard it all?

I think a better question is why don’t we talk about the relationship of transportation and the economy every year? The two are intricately tied; strong transportation infrastructure is a necessity for a strong economy. On the other side of the coin, a strong economy can strengthen our transportation infrastructure, if we choose to let it.

Below, I quote a few “factoids” from Mr. Duncan’s presentations in February 2014 that demonstrate how our transportation system supports our economy:

• In 2013, Idaho exported $33 billion of goods
• $16.8 billion of exports were carried over Idaho roads by truck alone
• That number jumps to $22 billion if we combine truck and truck/rail exports
• The goods exported by truck alone supported 97,000 jobs and over $4 million in wages in 2013
• Wages in “traded” industries (industries that bring money in from out of state, such as exports) were 23% higher than the average Idaho income in 2012

But, while transportation is supporting our economy, we aren’t supporting it:

• The Idaho fuel tax has remained unchanged at 25 cents per gallon since 1996, paying for 36% less than it did 19 years ago.
• The federal fuel tax has fallen even further behind, remaining unchanged at 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline (24.4 cents for diesel) since 1993.

I invite you to consider these figures and what they mean to you and to your personal bottom line, then join COMPASS as we welcome Todd Litman on February 5 and 6 as he shares his perspective and research on the relationship of transportation and our economy.

The more we know about the relationship between transportation and our economy, the better prepared we are to make informed decisions.

…Don’t let the Treasure Valley fall through the cracks

How do we pay for transportation, anyway?

We have been talking a lot about our transportation funding needs and shortfall between now and 2040 – for Ada and Canyon Counties we project $359 million in annual transportation funding needs, but only $200 million in annual transportation funding, for a shortfall of $159 million per year.

You are probably aware that COMPASS supports increasing transportation funding to help bridge this gap, and that the transportation funding issue will likely be discussed in depth at both the state and federal levels in 2015. I encourage you to be part of that conversation; however, I know it can be difficult to do that without first understanding where the money comes from now. Let me try to shed some light…

Simply put, funding for our transportation system is first collected through taxes by various branches of our government, then distributed to transportation agencies to maintain and improve our transportation system. Transportation funding is designed to primarily be a user-pay system, with the majority of the money coming from fuel taxes. The concept is simple: the more you drive, the more fuel you use, the more you pay in fuel tax. That tax, in turn, is used to build and maintain the transportation system.

However, once we move beyond the very basics, it gets complicated quickly.  

Where does transportation funding come from, and who collects it?

As I mentioned above, most transportation funding comes directly from transportation “users” through fuel taxes, as well as registration fees, impact fees (fees paid by developers to offset costs due to growth), and public transportation fares. Some funding also comes from more general taxes, such as property taxes.

Fuel taxes are collected by both the federal government (18 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24 cents per gallon for diesel) and the State of Idaho (25 cents per gallon for both gas and diesel). It is important to note that these amounts have not changed since the mid-1990s and do not change with the price of fuel. Because the tax rates have remained unchanged for 20 years, they have not kept pace with inflation. This, combined with more fuel efficient vehicles and national trends that show that people are driving less, means that the “user-pay” concept isn’t working as it once was. Costs are continuing to increase, but the funds to pay for those expenses are not.

Vehicle registration fees are collected by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), through a local option registration fee approved by voters, and by the State of Idaho. Valley Regional Transit and ACHD Commuteride both collect fares from users, and ACHD and the City of Nampa both also levy transportation impact fees on new development. In addition, local municipalities can use a portion of property taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure and services. Valley Regional Transit operations are mainly supported by local cities, primarily from property taxes.

How is transportation funding spent, and by whom?

Here is where things get really complicated. Unfortunately, there isn’t just one “pot” of transportation money to draw from. Each of the different types of taxes, above, have strings attached that limit how they can be spent. In addition, in some cases funding is further divided into different funding “silos,” even within one funding source. I’ve highlighted just a few examples below to give you a feel for how this works. 

• Federal Fuel Tax: Fuel taxes collected by the federal government are returned to the states. Idaho is in the enviable position of receiving more back from federal fuel tax than it pays in – at least $1.50 for every $1 contributed. A portion of the federal funding that comes to Idaho is specifically for the Idaho Transportation Department to use on state managed highways. The rest of the funding is for use by local transportation departments, based on size – some funding is for rural areas, some is for small urban areas, some is specifically for the “Boise Urbanized Area” (basically northern Ada County). Some of those funding “silos” are further divided, with specific funding allocated for safety, for bridges, for public transportation, for roads, etc. 

• State of Idaho Fuel Tax: Funding from this tax is divided between the Idaho Transportation Department to fund state highways and local transportation departments (cities and highway districts) to fund local roads. Per the Idaho constitution, fuel taxes cannot be used to fund public transportation, leaving Idaho without dedicated public transportation funding. 

• Impact Fees: These fees, collected from developers in the City of Nampa and within Ada County, can only be used for transportation projects related to new development, and cannot be used for maintenance or operating costs. For example, impact fees could be used to add stoplights to accommodate increased traffic, but not to pay snow plow drivers. The specifics of how these fees can and cannot be used is spelled out in state law. It’s important to note that those fees do not have to be used at the exact site of the development; they can be used for traffic improvements to address growth-related challenges within the jurisdiction of the agency that collected the fees, based on specific criteria. 

So, what does all this mean to me?

You will undoubtedly hear more about transportation funding at both the state and federal levels over the coming months. As you form your opinions on what should be done, keep the following points in mind: 

The current system of funding our transportation system primarily with gas taxes no longer works as intended. Something needs to change. This may be raising the gas tax, augmenting the gas tax with additional funding mechanisms, or changing our expectations of what our transportation system should do for us…basically, consciously choosing to forgo maintenance and not expand to accommodate growth. Personally, I think it will take a combination of all of these.

The “silo” issue needs to be part of the discussion when looking at transportation funding options:

• We can’t simply move money around to solve our funding problems. I’ve heard people say, “I don’t want X; spend the money on Y instead.” That often simply isn’t possible. For example, if we want to widen I-84, we can’t simply take our “public transportation” money and put it toward widening the interstate. Or, we may have federal money we can use to buy more buses, but we don’t have enough money for the fuel to operate them. We can’t simply use the money designated for buying buses to pay for fuel. Within the current system, our funding can only be used within the appropriate “silos.” 

• Funding a more robust transportation system isn’t just about raising more money; it’s also about raising money that can be used to meet identified needs. As we explore new funding mechanisms or increasing the amount we collect from current sources, moving away from “silos” would provide flexibility to allow an individual jurisdiction to use transportation funding to best meet its transportation needs, whatever those may be. 

Don’t let the Treasure Valley fall through the cracks.

Bikes, Transit, and BUGS…Oh My!

We talk a lot about providing a more multi-modal transportation system, and I am frequently asked if we are making any progress. I can answer with a resounding, “yes”: we are making progress. You don’t need to look any further than this year’s Leadership in Motion award winners to see that we are definitely making strides in that direction.

The projects, organizations, and people honored at this year’s awards presentation reflect the spectrum of transportation options – roadways, transit, and bicycles and pedestrians. In addition, we honored the Boise Urban Garden School (BUGS) – an organization seemingly outside the transportation “world,” but whose work with youth on gardening and healthy, active living soundly supports the goals and vision of Communities in Motion 2040, the regional long-range transportation plan for Ada and Canyon Counties.

While our winners are diverse, what they all have in common is a look toward the future. The individuals, agencies, and organizations have all looked beyond “what is” to “what could be,” and the Treasure Valley is, and will be, a better place for it. We are all indebted to these leaders for their foresight and fortitude to make our lives better.

I list our recipients below. I encourage you to visit http://www.compassidaho.org/comm/awards.htm to learn more about their accomplishments.

Leadership in Government, Canyon County

·   City of Caldwell

o Ustick/Indiana Roundabout Project

Leadership in Government, Ada County

·   Ada County Highway District 

o Bicycle Education and Outreach Project

Leadership by Example, Private Business

·   Gardner Company

Leadership by Example, Nonprofit

·   Boise Urban Garden School

Leadership by Example, Elected Official

·   Commissioner John S. Franden, Ada County Highway District 

Leadership in Practice, Professional

·   Matt Edmond, AICP, Ada County Highway District 

Congratulations and thank you all for your vision and leadership.