(The following editorial appeared on the News Tribune website on February 14.)
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — As one of the nation’s wealthiest states, New Jersey has always sent more tax dollars to Washington than it gets back in federal aid, about 70 cents on the dollar. The one area in which New Jersey nearly breaks even is transportation funding. For every dollar the federal government collects in taxes on fuel and other transportation-related items, the Garden State gets back about 90 cents.
This last percentage is in danger of a sharp decline, however, under a Bush administration proposal that calls for punishing cuts in federal transportation money for New Jersey and its Northeast neighbors. Amtrak, mass transit, airports and infrastructure would all get fewer dollars.
The plan is not only unwise as a matter of general transportation policy, but it could not come at a worse moment for New Jersey, which is buckling under the weight of enormous state debt and structural budget deficits as the most densely populated state in the nation struggles to fund its many and diverse transportation obligations. One need only reference Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s plan to aggressively raise highway tolls as a way to pay for bridge, road and rail improvements to realize just how desperate a situation New Jersey finds itself in. If federal aid tanks, the noose will only tighten.
If there is one bright spot, it is that New Jersey’s tandem of U.S. senators are on the case. Kudos to each. Both Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez have come out swinging against the Bush budget, which both understand would not only weaken the region’s transit systems but its economy as well. The pair of Democrats can argue that efficient roads and rail are an economic boon of special significance at a time when recession is looming, if it isn’t already here. There is no argument that investment in infrastructure contributes enormously to business expansion, housing values and public services, while enhancing conservation as a bonus, as more cars are able to move more freely or are removed from the roads.
As more fodder for that argument, the suggested cuts in federal dollars were announced against the backdrop of a fresh report out of Rutgers University that shows congested conditions in New Jersey are prompting more commuters to turn to rail and bus as a means of getting around, further evidence that mass-transit options should be supported by Washington’s planners, not the other way around.
While the study rated New Jersey’s highways the most congested in the nation, even ahead of California’s, it also noted that New Jersey residents are now second in the nation in the use of public transit, behind only the residents of New York; 10.3 percent of New Jersey commuters used public transportation to get to work in 2005, more than double the national average.
“It’s the congestion that makes New Jersey fertile ground (for mass transit),” said Rick Remington, Voorhees Institute spokesman. “Transit investments have yielded economic development.”
So rather than view a proposed $523 million reduction in Amtrak funding and $203 million in cuts to mass-transit assistance as a savings on the federal books, the Bush administration should readjust its view and look at those expenditures as revenue producers. Otherwise, prospects for moving New Jersey’s people and its economy are dimmed.
Surely the White House understands as much. Or does it?