The money isn’t in hand — that will have to wait for Congress to complete the federal budget process before October — but two transportation projects in Snohomish County are in line to receive federal funding that represents confidence in their value and necessity to commuters and recognizes the commitment that local voters already have demonstrated with their support.

Among $3.5 billion for 31 projects in 18 states, President Barack Obama’s budget proposal for the 2017 fiscal year includes funding for projects that will improve commutes in the short term and in the future.

The president’s budget includes $43 million for Community Transit’s Swift II Bus Rapid Transit line, which will launch a 12.5-mile east-west route between Paine Field in Everett and Canyon Park in Bothell. Since 2009, Community Transit has operated its 17-mile Swift bus route between Everett and Shoreline. In November, Snohomish County voters approved a three-tenths of a cent increase of the sales tax to support the operation of the Swift II line as well as expansion of other Community Transit routes and services. Community Transit plans to have the new Swift II route running by 2018, while other route additions could start in a matter of weeks.

Longer term, the president’s budget proposal also seeks $125 million for Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail extension to Lynnwood from Northgate in Seattle, scheduled to begin operation by 2023. Voter support of a tax increase also was key to the Link extension to Lynnwood, as it will be when voters are asked this fall to support a tax revenue package that will provide significant funding for the light rail system’s extension into Everett. The $125 million is part of about $1.1 billion in federal funding that could go toward construction of Sound Transit’s light rail system from Everett to the north, Tacoma to the south and Bellevue and Issaquah to the east.

Projects, like those above, are dependent on funding at the local and national level. More than just issuing a wish list of projects, President Obama also proposed a funding source that could provide an estimated $300 billion over a 10-year period for other rail, transit and highway projects throughout the country. His proposal for a $10-a-barrel tax on crude oil was quickly dismissed by Republicans in Congress, noting that it would add about 24 cents to the price of a gallon of gas.

Republicans — and any reluctant Democrats in Congress — should reconsider.

Whether it was foresight or just lucky timing, Republicans in the Legislature paid for a 16-year, $16.1 billion transportation package by proposing and passing a gas tax increase just as gas prices were falling last year. The state gas tax now is 44.5 cents per gallon, that’s compared to a federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. With gas now around $2 a gallon, the state increase has barely been noticeable.

State Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, crowed about the transportation package during a meeting Thursday with newspaper editors and publishers and said he has yet to hear complaints from constituents about the gas tax increase.

Too bad Congress didn’t take advantage of the same good timing. The five-year $305 billion transportation package it passed last year, for which only the first three years are funded, relies on shakier sources of funding, including selling oil from the federal strategic reserve on the hopes that oil prices will increase at some point.

Increases in the gas tax have at least one other advantage beyond the revenue they raise for transportation projects. Economists typically see taxes on fossil fuels as a good idea, chiefly because low gas prices encourage more consumption of gas and add to the problems with pollution and carbon-dioxide that come with it.

The debate about a carbon tax will continue at both state and national levels, but a modest tax on oil would achieve some of the benefits of a carbon tax while also providing funding the nation needs to improve its transportation infrastructure and make it better at moving people efficiently and with less harm to the environment.

Oil and gas prices won’t always be this low; now is Congress’ best chance to implement a funding source that pays for needed improvements as well as some of the costs inherent in fossil fuels.