WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Transcription

1

2 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Wendy Franklin Director of Finance Programs, AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance Jack Basso Director, AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance Polly Trottenberg Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, US Department of Transportation

3 INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES ON FINANCIAL RESOURCES John Fischer Moderator Specialist in Transportation Policy, Congressional Research Service Pete Rahn Director, Missouri DOT; Former President, AASHTO; Chair, AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance Management Ron Epstein Chief Financial Officer, New York State Department of Transportation tion Phillip Washington General Manager, Regional Transportation District Denver Ron Kirby Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

4 TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX: TAX INCENTIVES TARGETED TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Will Mallett Moderator Specialist in Transportation Policy, Congressional Research Service Nathan Musick Principal Analayst,, Congressional Budget Office Nancy Clawson Managing Director, Bank of America Merrill Lynch James Bass Chief Financial Officer, Texas Department of Transportation Cherian George Managing Director, Global Infrastructure and Project Finance Group, Fitch Ratings Dan Keen Assistant VP Policy Policy Analysis, Association of American Railroads

5 Tax Preferences for Financing Infrastructure Investment Provide a federal subsidy that lowers the cost of spending on infrastructure Goal is to induce spending that offers broad public benefits and that otherwise would not take place Types Tax Exempt Bonds Tax Credit Bonds Investment Tax Credits 5

6

7 Tax-Exempt Bonds Issued by state and local governments for public and (in some cases) private purposes Governmental Bonds: Municipalities themselves make primary use of the bond proceeds, and they repay that debt Qualified Private Activity Bonds (QPABs): Private entities can use these bonds to finance certain projects, as specified by the Tax Code Examples: High speed intercity rail; Highway or surface freight transfer facilities Interest income is exempt from federal income tax Lowers the cost of borrowing because bond buyers don t need to be compensated for taxes on interest payments to them For example, a bond buyer in a 25 percent tax bracket should be indifferent between a taxable bond yielding 6 percent, and a tax exempt bond yielding 4.5 percent 7

8 Tax-Credit Bonds Bond purchasers or, in some cases, borrowers receive a credit in lieu of interest income For tax credit bonds authorized prior to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), bond holders receive a taxable credit that can be applied against their federal income tax and the AMT For certain tax credit bonds authorized by the ARRA (e.g., qualifying Build America Bonds, or BABs), municipalities that borrow can opt to receive the credit directly Lowers the cost of borrowing, in one of two ways If bond buyers claim the credit, they can reduce their tax liability and are consequently willing to accept a lower rate of interest to purchase that debt If municipalities claim the credit (paid to them from the U.S. Treasury), they can reduce the net amount they pay in interest The amount of subsidy varies significantly across different tax-credit bonds Pre ARRA bonds typically offer a large subsidy to borrowers, approaching 100 percent of interest costs Bonds authorized by the ARRA apply a 35 or 45 percent credit to the interest payment on the bond (for Build America Bonds or Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, respectively) 8

9 In Principle, Tax-Credit Bonds are More Efficient than Tax-Exempt Bonds Tax-credit bonds are more cost effective, and less regressive The federal revenue loss from the tax exemption on interest income probably exceeds borrowers cost savings Difference accrues to bond holders in upper tax brackets In contrast, the federal revenue loss through the tax credit is equal to borrowers cost savings However, tax credit bonds have tended to be expensive particularly in their pre ARRA incarnation Because the amount of tax credit can be set at any level, the subsidy provided by tax-credit bonds can vary according to the project being financed 9

10 Investment Tax Credits Private entities that spend on certain types of infrastructure can claim a credit against their tax liability Example: The Railroad Track Maintenance tax credit is equal to 50 percent of the qualified track maintenance expenditures paid or incurred by an eligible taxpayer, 26USC45(G) Tax credits can apply to all relevant spending or only to those expenditures above some base amount Incremental tax credits are intended to encourage firms to spend more on targeted infrastructure than they otherwise would 10

11 TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX: TAX INCENTIVES TARGETED TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Will Mallett Moderator Specialist in Transportation Policy, Congressional Research Service Nathan Musick Principal Analyst, Congressional Budget Office Nancy Clawson Managing Director, Bank of America Merrill Lynch James Bass Chief Financial Officer, Texas Department of Transportation Cherian George Managing Director, Global Infrastructure and Project Finance Group, Fitch Ratings Dan Keen Assistant VP Policy Policy Analysis, Association of American Railroads

12 Congressional Staff Forum: Legislative Issues in Transportation Finance Tax Incentive Instruments Targeted to Surface Transportation January 29, 2010 Nancy J. Clawson Managing Director 222 North LaSalle Suite 1800 Chicago, IL

13 Growth of Municipal Market Volume (USD - $bn) Volume of Municipal Market 1 $500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $ * Year Municipal market volume increased 104 percent from Forecasted six percent growth in 2010 to $435 billion $64 billion Build America Bond (BAB) volume in nine months of 2009 Forecasted 17 percent growth of BABs in 2010 to $75 billion Other tax credit bonds comprise a minor portion of the municipal market (1) Source: BAS/Merrill Lynch Research 1/21/2010, The Bond Buyer, 1/21/2010 (*) Forecast: BAS/Merrill Lynch Research 1/25/2010

14 2009 Snapshot of Municipal Market % Allocation in Municipal Market 1 General Obligation 38% Revenue 62% Revenue bonds equaled 62 percent Refunding 23% Combined 16% New Money 61% New money financings equaled 61 percent Variable Rate 10% Taxable 20.7% Fixed rate bonds equaled 90 percent AMT 0.4% Tax-exempt bonds equaled 79 percent Fixed-Rate 90% (1) Source: BAS/Merrill Lynch Research 1/21/2010, The Bond Buyer 1/21/2010 Tax Exempt 79.0%

15 Municipal Market Sectors % Municipal Market % Municipal Market General Purpose 22% Development 4% Education 24% General Purpose 30% Development 2% Education 23% Utilities 7% Transportation 13% Public Facilities 5% Housing 10% Health Care 9% Electric Power 3% Environmental Facilities 3% Utilities 10% Transportation 12% Housing Public 3% Facilities 3% Electric Power 4% Environmental Facilities 2% Health Care 11% Transportation sector represented an average 11 percent of market volume from 2000 to $48.8 billion, or 12 percent, was issued in 2009 to fund transportation projects (1) Source: BAS/Merrill Lynch Research 1/21/2010, The Bond Buyer 1/21/2010 (2) Transportation includes: airports, seaports, marine terminals, toll roads, highways, streets, bridges, tunnels, parking facilities, and mass transit.

16 TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX: TAX INCENTIVES TARGETED TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Will Mallett Moderator Specialist in Transportation Policy, Congressional Research Service Nathan Musick Principal Analyst, Congressional Budget Office Nancy Clawson Managing Director, Bank of America Merrill Lynch James Bass Chief Financial Officer, Texas Department of Transportation Cherian George Managing Director, Global Infrastructure and Project Finance Group, Fitch Ratings Dan Keen Assistant VP Policy Policy Analysis, Association of American Railroads

17 Funding Rail Capacity AASHTO Congressional Finance Forum January 29, 2010

18 Rail Funding Issues Huge capital requirements Vast majority self-financed Unfunded mandates Passenger investments are opportunity and challenge JANUARY 29, 2010 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

19 When Rail Earnings Rise, So Do Rail Reinvestments $ billions $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 Net Income '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 $250,000 $225,000 $200,000 $175,000 $150,000 $125,000 $100,000 RR Spending Per Mile '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 Source: AAR JANUARY 29, 2010 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

20 Railroads Spend a Lot Too! RR Spending on Way & Structures vs. State Highway Agency Spending ($ billions) Total 1. Texas $ Florida $ California $5.43 Union Pacific $4.16 BNSF $ New York $ Pennsylvania $ Illinois $ Michigan $ North Carolina $2.51 CSX $ Georgia $ Ohio $ New Jersey $2.08 Norfolk Southern $2.07 Data include capital outlays and maintenance expenses. Sources: FHWA, AAR JANUARY 29, 2010 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

21 Why Should the Public Invest in Rail Networks? Enables win-win combinations for both public and private interests. Allows projects to be undertaken sooner. JANUARY 29, 2010 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

22 Tax Incentives to Bridge the Funding Gap 25% tax credit for projects that expand rail capacity and help fund positive train control (PTC). Tax credits are a well-established way to promote actions that are in the public good (e.g., R&D, home purchases, greening initiatives). Cost effective and timely with clear economic benefits that well exceed costs. Leverages private investment. Project selection based on market need, not politics. Not overly complex, does not dissipate funds in program administration. JANUARY 29, 2010 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

23 LUNCHEON WITH SENATOR RON WYDEN (D OR)

24 EXAMINING ALTERNATIVES TO THE GAS TAX Jack Basso Moderator Director, AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance David Ellis Research Scientist, Texas Transportation Institute Craig Lentzsch Former Chairman, American Bus Association and member of National Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission Martin Wachs Director of RAND Corporation s s Transportation, Space, and Technology Program

25 The Fuel Tax, Fuel Price and VMT: The Long Term Viability of Business as Usual David R. Ellis, Ph.D. Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

26 The Traffic Congestion Story in Texas

27 Annual Percent Increase in Texas: 1970 to % 3.50% Annual Percent Increase Per Year 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Population Registered Vehicles Vehicle Miles Traveled State-Maintained Lane Miles

28 The Disappearing Tax

29 The Disappearing Tax Eroded by fuel efficiency and increasing construction costs

30 Effective Texas and Federal Fuel Tax Rate as Adjusted by the Consumer Price Index Effective State Tax Rate Effective Federal Tax Rate Cents per Gallon

31 Effective Texas and Federal Fuel Tax Rate Adjusted by Inflation in Roadway Constructions Costs Effective State Tax Rate Effective Federal Tax Rate Cents Per Gallon

32 Estimated Fleetwide Fuel Efficiency of Gasoline Powered Vehicles in Texas Miles Per Gallon

33 Total Fuel Taxes Paid in 2009 Dollars (assuming 12,000 miles per year) State Federal $300 $250 $200 $100 $95 $132 $116 $112 $108 $105 $150 $97 $92 $91 $85 $89 $88 $77 $100 $62 $141 $134 $130 $126 $122 $118 $114 $105 $100 $99 $92 $97 $95 $51 $49 $42 $52 $50 $84 $67 $55 $54 $46 $56 $

34 Gallons of Gasoline Consumed Driving 12,000 Miles Per Year Gallons of Gasoline

35 Total Fuel Tax Revenues Revenue (in billions) Gasoline Tax Revenues Diesel Tax Revenues

36 Over the next 20 years: VMT is projected to increase 33 percent Fuel tax revenue is projected to decrease 23 percent

37 Fuel Price and VMT

38 Vehicle Miles Traveled in the United States (in millions): 1936 through 2009 (2008 VMT is estimated VMT in based on data through August 2009.) (Source: Federal Highway Administration ) 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 Nominal Price: +36% Real Price: +23% VMT: -1.0% Nominal Price: +46% Real Price: +38% VMT: -3.3% 2,000,000 1,500,000 Nominal Price: +33% Real Price: +20% VMT: -2.5% 1,000,000 WW II Rationing 500,

39 Year Over Year Percent Change in Consumption of Gasoline Per Capita Versus Year Over Year in Percent Change in Gasoline Price (All Months - August 1998 through December 2009) 60.0% 40.0% Percent Change in Price Consumption Down Price Up 20.0% 0.0% -60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% Consumption Down Price Down -20.0% Consumption Up Price Up Consumption Up Price Down -40.0% -60.0% Percent Change in Consumption Per Capita

40 EXAMINING ALTERNATIVES TO THE GAS TAX Jack Basso Moderator Director, AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance David Ellis Research Scientist, Texas Transportation Institute Craig Lentzsch Former Chairman, American Bus Association and member of National Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission Martin Wachs Director of RAND Corporation s s Transportation, Space, and Technology Program

41 National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING COMMISSION ALTERNATIVES TO THE GAS TAX Mechanisms for Funding Highways and Transit Based on the Final Report Presented by: Craig Lentzsch, Commissioner Jan. 28, 2010 AASHTO Congressional Staff Forum Legislative Issues in Transportation Finance

42 About the Commission 42 Created in SAFETEA LU (sec ) to: Assess highway and transit investment needs Examine federal HTF revenues, status, and projections Consider alternative funding options and finance techniques Report back to Congress with findings and recommendations Federal role and how funds are spent were not in mandate 15 Commissioners diverse backgrounds, appointed by Congress or Secretary of Transportation Open and transparent process National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 19-March-09

43 Who pays now? 43 Highway users only pay 60% of the cost Average user pays 3 cents per Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT) in Motor Fuel Taxes A user on a congested highway generates 10 to 29 cents per VMT in cost DOT data suggests that heavy vehicles generate more cost than they pay in taxes and fees Transit users pay 20 to 70 % (ave. 35%)of their cost National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 19-March-09

44 Commission Principles, Process 44 Six guiding principles: Enhance mobility of all system users Generate sufficient funding on a sustainable basis Cause users to pay full cost of system use to greatest extent possible Encourage efficient investment Incorporate equity considerations Support broader public policy goals (i.e., energy and environment) Four alternative federal funding roles: minimal, comprehensive, targeted, targeted+ 40+ existing and potential funding options plus financing techniques National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 19-March-09

45 Assessment of Options 45 Established 14 evaluation criteria: Revenue stream considerations Implementation and administration Economic efficiency and impact Equity considerations Evaluated 40+ funding options: Existing sources New vehicle related taxes and fees New fuel related taxes Broad based taxes Freight related sources Tolling and pricing mechanisms National National Surface Surface Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure Financing Financing Commission Commission 19-March-09

46 Assessment of Options (cont d) 46 Options evaluated based primarily on relevance to federal funding gap or extent federal action can facilitate state and local options National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission

47 47 Commission Recommendations Immediate Action: Existing Sources Protect and preserve Highway Trust Fund Increase existing HTF revenue sources: Modest fuel tax increases (10 gas, diesel) Increase (double) Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (HVUT) Index motor fuels tax, HVUT, and truck tire tax to inflation Maintain existing tractor/trailer sales tax Together these short term measures will: Generate $20B annually Recapture purchasing power lost since last increases Close 30 40% of combined federal funding gap Enable continuation of current program spending levels Cost typical household only $9 per month ($5 per vehicle, ½ per mile) for gas tax increase (additional increment for freight charges passed through) National National Surface Surface Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure Financing Financing Commission Commission 19-March-09

48 48 Commission Recommendations Transition to Mileage Based User Fee Begin transition to VMT as soon as possible Set federal fee at level to fund federal share of needs (approx. 2 per mile for autos under current policies and estimates) Additional charges at state/local level, incl. congestion based Reduce / eliminate HTF reliance on fuel and vehicle based taxes (carbon charges may still be required) Ancillary benefits ITS (traveler info) and VII (safety applications) National National Surface Surface Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure Financing Financing Commission Commission 19-March-09

49 Transition to VMT (cont d) 49 Significant but resolvable issues: System reliability / security / enforceability / fairness Privacy Implementation and administration cost Technology standards/equipping vehicles Next steps: R&D programs (technologies and standards) Pilot programs and state level VMT initiatives Extensive public outreach to address concerns, problems, possible solutions Independent advisory committee or policy oversight body to coordinate efforts National National Surface Surface Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure Financing Financing Commission Commission 19-March-09

50 Concluding Thoughts 50 Looking to the future, Commission supports transitioning to funding approach based more directly on use of the transportation system ideally a mileage based user fee as the right foundation. Who pays now? Average user pays 3 per mile in motor fuel taxes (compared to 10 to 29 per mile cost on congested highway). Gas taxes pay small share of typical new urban capacity cost. Who pays in the future? We still pay Question is how much, when, and what do we get Build infrastructure for economic growth, personal mobility, less congestion, and safer travel. Pay more in fuel taxes, VMT fees, tolls, higher state and local taxes. Don t build infrastructure and pay with reduced mobility, lower productivity growth, more time on congested roads, worse environment, and reduced safety. Financing can accelerate improvements. But, still need source of funding. Imperative to fix system so users pay close to cost of their use in turn, encourages efficient system use and improved system performance. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 19-March-09

51 For More Information 51 or National National Surface Surface Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Infrastructure Financing Financing Commission Commission 19-March-09

52 EXAMINING ALTERNATIVES TO THE GAS TAX Jack Basso Moderator Director, AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance David Ellis Research Scientist, Texas Transportation Institute Craig Lentzsch Former Chairman, American Bus Association and member of National Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission Martin Wachs Director of RAND Corporation s s Transportation, Space, and Technology Program

53 WHAT MAKES A VIABLE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK? Emil Frankel Moderator Director of Transportation Policy, National Transportation Policy y Project, Bipartisan Policy Center Emilia Istrate Senior Research Analyst, Metropolitan Policy Institute, Brookings s Institute David Seltzer Principal, Mercator Advisors

54 A National Infrastructure Bank and the Federal Investment in Surface Transportation Emilia Istrate, Senior Research Analyst January 29, 2010 US Capitol Visitor Center, Washington DC

55 A National Infrastructure Bank and the Federal Investment Process I Federal Investment in Transportation II Limitations of the Federal Investment in Surface Transportation III Existing National Infrastructure Bank Proposals

56 I The Object of Federal Investment Federally- financed capital Capital owned by the federal government and capital belonging to local and state governments but financed by the federal government the net federally financed nondefense physical capital stock in real terms: 26% federally owned 74% state and local capital financed by federal investment, out of which: 63% is transportation capital

57 I Federal Investment in Surface Transportation Federal Investment Federal annual spending on federally financed capital $ billion in total 10% in surface transportation, in state and local assets.

58 I Federal Investment in Surface Transportation Is a Fraction of Federal Spending 2008 (in billions of dollars) Federal spending, 100% ($2,983) Discretionary spending, 38% ($1,135) Federal investment, 15.4% ($459) Nondefense federal investment, 8.5% ($253) Nondefense federal physical investment, 3.6% ($107) Federal investment in surface transportation, 1.6% ($46.5) Source: Brookings analysis based on OMB 2009.

59 II Limitations of the Federal Investment in Surface Transportation Flawed selection process Funding formula do not provide incentives to the states and localities to increase the performance of the federal investment Benefit cost analysis (BCA) is not used consistently by recipients in deciding among alternative projects Neglect of multi-jurisdictional projects of regional or national significance Siloed distribution of surface transportation funding

60 III The National Infrastructure Bank Proposals What s in the: National Infrastructure Development Bank Act (NIBDA) 2009 The 2010 Budget proposal Design Wholly owned Government corporation (NIBDA) 2009 Designated federal entity The 2010 Budget proposal In this case: NIB investment WOULD BE included in the federal budget

61 III The National Infrastructure Bank Proposals What s in the: National Infrastructure Development Bank Act (NIBDA) 2009 The 2010 Budget proposal Products Grants, loans, loans guarantees For infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national significance Capital Paid in capital of $25 billion over five years through appropriations NIBDA- the paid in capital- only 10 percent of the subscribed capital Leverage No leverage for the NIB in the 2010 Budget NIBDA- NIB would be able to issue bonds

62 III The National Infrastructure Bank Proposals Characteristics: Focused on physical infrastructure Multi-jurisdictional projects with regional or national impact Projects that cut across stove-piped federal transportation programs The bank would be a centralized federal mechanism to compare and prioritize infrastructure projects based on a benefit-cost analysis

63 VI What a National Infrastructure Bank is Not An NIB is: Not a revenue source, but a financing mechanism Not a solution for the problems of the current federal programs Not a replacement of the current federal funding for transportation

64 A National Infrastructure Bank and the Federal Investment in Surface Transportation Emilia Istrate, Senior Research Analyst January 29, 2010 US Capitol Visitor Center, Washington DC

65 WHAT MAKES A VIABLE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK? Emil Frankel Moderator Director of Transportation Policy, National Transportation Policy y Project, Bipartisan Policy Center Emilia Istrate Senior Research Analyst, Metropolitan Policy Institute, Brookings s Institute David Seltzer Principal, Mercator Advisors

66 OPEN DISCUSSION AMONG ALL PARTICIPANTS

67 CONCLUSION AND WRAP UP

68