Living Car Free - no to the gas tax

Gas Taxes Are High Enough
By MARY E. PETERS
January 18, 2008; Page A13

Anyone who drives on the highways knows we have a serious and growing traffic problem. This problem has grown from a nuisance to a major economic, environmental and energy threat that costs the country over $78 billion each year in lost time and wasted fuel.

Traffic is just as bad in areas that have low gas taxes as it is in areas that have high gas taxes. And roads are just as jammed in areas that spend a lot on transportation as they are in areas that spend a little. It's clear that our national approach to transportation isn't working. This failure is bad for families, business productivity and the environment. It also distorts real estate markets.

Three years ago Congress created two commissions to examine surface transportation policies and financing. Yesterday, one of those commissions, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, gave its recommendations to Congress.

Unfortunately, its report maintains a strong emphasis on status quo solutions at a time when the country needs an entirely new transportation policy. As a result, I and two other commissioners have declined to endorse the report's central recommendations. Instead, we issued a chairman's statement that's available at www.dot.gov.

Among the most troubling proposals, the report recommends an up-to 40-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax increase over the next five years, with automatic increases every year thereafter tied to inflation. This would more than triple federal fuel taxes from current levels by 2018.

The report also calls for even larger increases to state gas taxes, and the creation of a new federal bureaucracy to centralize transportation spending decisions. It recommends new limitations on states' ability to attract billions in private sector capital available to invest in transportation infrastructure. And it supports federal taxes on all public transportation and intercity passenger rail trips, which, if enacted, would be the first time ever a federal tax was added to the cost of a public transportation ride.

Contrary to the views of the majority of the commission, we do not believe Washington is capable of spending billions more of Americans' money wisely when it comes to transportation investments. Anyone who doubts that should review the more than 6,000 earmarks in the last transportation bill or visit the new Woodstock Museum in upstate New York.

Even if Congress loses its taste for pork, raising gas taxes and spending more on highways still won't improve the quality of Americans' commutes, though it would likely make them more expensive. We tried this already and it simply doesn't work.

Over the past 25 years, the federal government has increased transportation spending by 100%, yet traffic has grown by over 300%. Not surprisingly, recent studies, including one last summer by the Government Accountability Office, have found that higher gas taxes do nothing to improve traffic congestion.

We believe that this country can do much better than simply charging drivers more to sit in never-ending traffic jams. Thanks to technology, an innovative private sector, pioneering state and local officials, and a sustained effort by our administration to encourage reform, a clear alternative has emerged.

This past year, over 20 major cities in the U.S. have submitted proposals to the Department of Transportation to implement some form of electronic tolling that will both reduce congestion and generate needed revenue for transportation projects. Thanks to new open-road technology, these pricing programs can be put in place without forcing a single driver to slow down to pay a toll or have their transponder "read."

Unlike much of the rest of the world -- including China, India and Europe -- as a nation we've barely taken advantage of the billions of private-sector dollars currently available for investment in new road, bridge and other transportation projects. With the kind of encouragement we're recommending, many more states could soon be able to pay for new transportation projects without having to increase taxes, sell new bonds or go further into debt.

California, Florida, Indiana, Texas and the city of Chicago have already raised significant new revenue and improved highways with the support of the private sector. Just last month, Virginia announced that it had reached agreement with private investors to construct some of the most sophisticated, variably priced lanes in the world on the Capital Beltway. The symbolism of that project's location should be lost on no one.

We are at a point where change is no longer theoretical, it is actually happening across the country. We need to encourage, not constrain, state and local leaders willing to pursue fundamentally different strategies to finance and manage transportation systems. And we need to recognize that the needs of commuters and shippers, not the desires of central planners, should drive investment decisions.

The choice is clear. Americans can have higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution. Or they can let the market and state and local governments bring the benefits of a technologically advanced, reliable and high-speed surface transportation system.

Ms. Peters is the secretary of transportation.

Are you kidding me. Toll road across america
"The choice is clear. Americans can have higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution. Or they can let the market and state and local governments bring the benefits of a technologically advanced, reliable and high-speed surface transportation system."

To bad the solution isn't as clear as this ranting. IF state and local gov. could they would have done this over the last 50 years. Look at Chicago they have good highways but mass transit if falling apart. And what part of the market is going to reduce the congestion and greater pollution?

The choice is clear with out leadership we will get higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution.

I so can't wait for those stupid tolls to go away... I don't mind paying tolls--they make sense on certain roads, so as to help pay for them--but they aren't supposed to be on interstates if they are paid for with federal dollars (if I'm mistaken, please correct me), and they do waste gas. Most people slam on the brakes for them, and do the lane weave while annoying people, then everyone has to get back up to speed. Waste waste waste. High speed tolls would fix a number of ills, albeit it'll cost jobs -- couple years ago, NH looked at dropping a toll on I95 (in one direction), and that was mentioned. Can't reduce the number of people on the gov't payroll, now can we?

And I'd like to know just how much of the tolls and gas taxes actually wind up paying for transportation-related items, and not onto pet projects.

it's just been bad planning paired with bad decisions, from the bottom to the top. Cities have allowed developers to build up an area with no regard to the required infrastructure to keep vehicles moving smoothly through the area. Then once it's built up, it's too late because there usually isn't the right of way to expand capacity. How many developments have you seen going in on a single two lane highway with no turning lane. Then cut to five years later when it's an 18 hour a day traffic jam and people wonder wtf happened.

Same thing with the freeways. Whoever thought it was a good idea to squeeze I-5 down to two lanes going through Seattle should be strung up. How many examples like that are there around the country?

Tolling isn't the answer and higher taxes aren't necessarily the answer either. There are tons of low cost ideas floating out there that would be easy to implement and save the tax payer tons of money.

Flex schedules for government workers. No reason some guy working in a cube all day with no interaction has to punch in from 9-5. Make two scheduled start times; 6AM and 10AM. Also give tax bonuses to companies that offer flex scheduling as well (and can demonstrate x% of workers are taking advantage of it). Same thing with telecommuting.

I've mentioned this before in other posts, but we need to impound cars of drivers that are driving with a suspended license, or no license at all. That would take up to 20% of the cars off the road right away.

Increase bus scheduling, upgrade the buses and make them easily tracked by gps. I would probably take the bus if it didn't involve two transfers and take twice as long as driving a car (even with heavy traffic). Offer more tax incentives to businesses that encourage bus commuting (i.e. provides free passes).

Vanpool and carpool. There needs to be systems in place to pair up riders not just within the same company, but with people within the same geographical areas.

Finally, Ban delivery and LTE trucks from the major roads during rush hour. Nothing gums up the system more than a 40' truck trying to navigate across four lanes of bumper to bumper traffic.

None of these solutions would cost a ton of money, and just implementing one of them would do much more to relieve congestion than tolling would ever do. However, the bottom line is, cities and states don't want to relieve congestion, they just want more tax money.

More toll roads??? Just another way big money is turning the government into a private profit center.

People are "coming apart" mentally without their cars/trucks as it is. If this so-called recession hits oil dependent idiots any harder, I am not sure if the rest of society is ready for worsening anarchy higher taxes might bring.

countersTrike

People are "coming apart" mentally without their cars/trucks as it is. If this so-called recession hits oil dependent idiots any harder, I am not sure if the rest of society is ready for worsening anarchy higher taxes might bring.

countersTrike

Just like the 20s were built up on hollow stock-trades, our current economy has long been based on useless cars and impractical homes. No wonder it's crashing.

The worst thing about privately owned toll roads is that the agreements generally include a non-compete clause... these clauses have been used to force cities to lower speed limits on adjacent streets, as well as to block needed upgrades to local roads near the toll roads.

Then again... big corporations practically own the government anyway, right?

What happens to these privately owned toll roads when/if they are no longer profitable? Would they just shut down?

What happens to these privately owned toll roads when/if they are no longer profitable? Would they just shut down?

No... they put more pressure on the city governments to slow down alternate routes to FORCE more traffic onto the toll roads. (It happened here in Denver!)

Among the most troubling proposals, the report recommends an up-to 40-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax increase over the next five years, with automatic increases every year thereafter tied to inflation. This would more than triple federal fuel taxes from current levels by 2018.


Wouldn't that reduce the number of cars blocking my way to work each day? If so, I vote yes.

Tolls are coming folks.

Gas taxes are being rejected by Republicans and Democrates but tolls roads and selling off highways to private investors (who will build tolls) is seen as the next alternative. I still think if you tax the hell out of gas and make it very expensive (10 dollar tax) it will have the same effect as a costly toll.

I can assure you once private investors start building tolls, motoring is going to get very expensive. It's just another way state governments can get rid of the high cost of freeway maintenance by selling them to private investors who are going to **** the motorist.

New Jersey wants to double the Turnpike toll over the next four years to balance the budget. Wasington is just not giving us our money and the motorist is going to have to subsidize government.

I traveled over 2 bridges and 1 tunnel and paid close to $18.00 dollars in tolls and $10.00 dollars in gas for a three hour ride last weekend. It was the first time I've driven in close to a year but I was amazed at how expensive motoring has become. More reason to become car free.

It frightens me that someone in her position feels that privatization of roads is a good thing.

It sounds like a nightmare to me, primarily because of the attached non-compete clauses.

--------

I actually think that gas taxes should be increased. A flat tax simply cannot keep pace with inflation. That said, I strongly believe that new roads is not the answer. If we are going to keep building new roads I would prefer to have the costs billed directly to the developers. How many times have we seen huge subdivisions, or shopping centers built that immediately require huge infrastructure expenditures to accommodate them. The only people who benefit from this expense are the developers themselves. Yes, it can increase the tax base, but typically not enough to even recoup the expense of the utilities to support them.

don't forget the tinfoil hat angle of tolled roads. The government will be able to track your movements 24/7 if all the roads are tolled.

Doesn't sound like a big deal, until you hear of private citizens using the data for civil lawsuits (divorces). Your employer will be able to track you at all times. Your insurance company will be able to track you at all times and adjust your rates accordingly.

I also find it rather ironic that people who are against tolled roads don't seem to have a problem with red light or speeding cameras. Those are just another form of toll, and cities make damn sure you get nicked (usually by lowering yellow light timings).

It's all designed to nickel and dime you to death. If people actually added up all the day to day little taxes that go by unnoticed (or were forced to pay them twice a year like property taxes), they would be ****ting bricks.

don't forget the tinfoil hat angle of tolled roads. The government will be able to track your movements 24/7 if all the roads are tolled.

Doesn't sound like a big deal, until you hear of private citizens using the data for civil lawsuits (divorces). Your employer will be able to track you at all times. Your insurance company will be able to track you at all times and adjust your rates accordingly.

I also find it rather ironic that people who are against tolled roads don't seem to have a problem with red light or speeding cameras. Those are just another form of toll, and cities make damn sure you get nicked (usually by lowering yellow light timings).

It's all designed to nickel and dime you to death. If people actually added up all the day to day little taxes that go by unnoticed (or were forced to pay them twice a year like property taxes), they would be ****ting bricks.
+1

I don't want an RFID transponder on my car, I don't want APNR technologies that read license plates and record the locations where they've been seen, and I don't like red light cameras because they're clearly about getting more money out of people, not actually making anything safer. The yellow lights are so damn short at the intersections where they're installed, and speed limit signs sometimes are nowhere near to intersections, for any driver who doesn't know the area well, they're just going to have to guess.

Privatizing things like our nations road infastructure is a hideously stupid idea.

I hope you don't carry a mobile phone if you're worried about being tracked...

Red light cameras, seatbelt laws, the way traffic laws are enforced, the traffic court "business" -- they could all be ranted about.

You know what though... none of that means a thing if I'm not driving. It is sad that we're content to let our government abuse us like this. It's just another in a long list of necessary evils required to get your car fix.

This is a tough issue - who pays to build roads? who pays to repair existing ones?

Personally i am a big fan of "if you use it, you pay for it". Some sort of use-based toll or fee taking into account how far, when & where you went, in what kind of vehicle.

i.e. you drive to the movie house, in the 'burbs, on "off-hours", an a Civic. You pay a lot less than the 18-wheeler driving through Seattle on I-5 during rush hour.

You use the road (not just the use, but when also, like cell phone minutes), you pay for it.

The current situation is a mess with public & private toll roads, tolls & other fees being treated as part of the budget and a way for the gv't to waste more money, corruption between the government & private road owners...

Heck, I've convinced myself! I want a piece of this business, sounds like an awesome racket! :D

Tolls are a good thing. For one thing, I don't have to pay them because I'm carfree. I'm sick of paying for roads that I don't use. Another good thing about tolls is that they reduce unnecessary trips. That reduces both congestion and pollution. I'm all for that, like most carfree people.

Think it through. If you're carfree or carlite, toll roads make a lot of sense.

I also find it rather ironic that people who are against tolled roads don't seem to have a problem with red light or speeding cameras. Those are just another form of toll, and cities make damn sure you get nicked (usually by lowering yellow light timings).

It's all designed to nickel and dime you to death. If people actually added up all the day to day little taxes that go by unnoticed (or were forced to pay them twice a year like property taxes), they would be ****ting bricks.

It might nickel and dime bad drivers, but most of us on this board are carfree cyclists. We like to see redlight runners and speeders get "nicked". Actually, I'd like to see them go to jail. It makes the roads safer for those of us who actually ride bicycles. Tolls and high traffic fines are the way to go.

It might nickel and dime bad drivers, but most of us on this board are carfree cyclists. We like to see redlight runners and speeders get "nicked". Actually, I'd like to see them go to jail. It makes the roads safer for those of us who actually ride bicycles. Tolls and high traffic fines are the way to go.

will you say the same thing when they require bicyclists to have a toll transponder attached to their bike to pay for all the bike lanes and MUP's? Or the required bike license that seems to be gaining traction in some of the states around the country? You may say it will never happen, but if it becomes widespread for drivers, they will raise holy hell about cyclists, who they already mistakenly think are getting a "free ride" and "don't pay their fair share".

And we've gone round and round about the red light cams before. It's been proven that many cities shorten the length of the yellow light to grab more drivers and increase the revenue. It's also been proven that it doesn't make the intersection any safer.

Would you rather have some guy swerve into the bike lane and take you out because the person in front of him slammed on his brakes to avoid getting a ticket due to a short yellow?

There are ways to reduce congestion, pay for required upgrades, and make the roads safer, however none of the politicians are interested in doing any of them, so we are stuck with poorly thought out fixes like road privatization and red light cams.

Tolls are a good thing. For one thing, I don't have to pay them because I'm carfree. I'm sick of paying for roads that I don't use. Another good thing about tolls is that they reduce unnecessary trips. That reduces both congestion and pollution. I'm all for that, like most carfree people.

Think it through. If you're carfree or carlite, toll roads make a lot of sense.


here is a good example of why you should care
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Harrisburg,+PA,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=40.22083,-76.814346&spn=0.124782,0.32135&z=12&om=0

To get across a river, I need to into a downtown urban area 6 miles away, cross the bridge provided, then travel back down 6 miles to be on the other side of the river.

Toll road 76 would ruduce this trip to 1 mile and cost 75 cents but they don't allow a frikin bike.
When they talked about replacing the bridge, They wanted to tear it down and build a new one next to it.
Not even a peep of keeping it open for peds and bikes.

Tolls road must allow bikes if no other route is close. Because it is private they can do what they want as in terms of rules.

I think we need tokeep it public space. Or provide public space for people not wanting to use private entities.

I can assure you once private investors start building tolls, motoring is going to get very expensive. It's just another way state governments can get rid of the high cost of freeway maintenance by selling them to private investors who are going to **** the motorist.


And then there are the unseen costs. How much will be spent on politicians to ensure that alternative ways to get from point a to point b are unavailable? That includes bikepaths, sidewalks and city streets.

No... they put more pressure on the city governments to slow down alternate routes to FORCE more traffic onto the toll roads. (It happened here in Denver!)

OK, So couldn't bikes be considered to be competing with the toll roads? As a way to get around paying? So the owners of the toll road could pressure cities to limit bike useage?

Toll roads aren't good for anyone except the corporations that own the roads. If you cycle, they don't have to let you on their roads. Alternative routes will be more conjested because lots of motorists aren't going to pay, no matter what. This means more accidents, wasted fuel, and wasted time.

The roads belong to the people. Let's keep it that way.

Well normally I think that private corporations and individuals can do most things better than the government, but if the government can't build, maintain, and operate roads, then what good is the government?

And what, exactly, do you think the roads will be like when the people in charge of them answer only to shareholders? Local roads will go to hell for motorist and cyclist alike, and I imagine private roads will be just as poorly maintained as they are now. From a cycling perspective, it would not at all surprise me if cycling is banned on many of them as they're restructured for maximum cars and to prevent liability to the corporations that own the roads.

At least with the government, any of us can access the people in charge of the roads, and even possibly get change.

We already known what the private sector means.

Look at a Malls, airports, toll roads.

Don't see to many benefits there.

I'm not car free, but I do have a recent toll road story:



Here in FL, when I don't bike commute, I take a toll road to work. $1.25 each way for <2 miles on the toll road. I don't have the "Sun Pass" transponder, because I really don't see the value in paying an extra $25 bucks for it.



I also take various toll roads when driving longer distances if the driving time difference or destination warrants it. I probably pay something like $400/year in tolls.

I was recently down in Miami & wanted to drive back home. I asked a local colleague how to get to the road I wanted. He told me to jump on the toll road just a couple of hundred feet away & take the first exit. I responed that the toll road entrance was marked "Sun Pass only". He told me that they had just changed over & were still accepting a quarter if you didn't have a Sun Pass transponder.

I had no reason to doubt him, so I followed his advice. Of course, when I pulled up to the single toll booth, no one was inside & there was no automatic machine. In front of me was a FL State Police car, with another car pulled over (he's facing against traffic, so he can see the toll booth).

Quite obviously, if I go through the toll booth without paying, I'm getting a ticket. But there is no option, as I'm trapped inside a "chute" with a line of cars behind me. There is no way to turn, and no way to back up. So I go through, the Trooper writes me a $170 dollar ticket for not paying a $0.25 toll.

The toll booths are equipped with cameras that take photos of your liscense plate if you pass through without paying. The toll authroity then decides whether to mail you a ticket or not (they typically don't if it's a "one time" event, and will if they notice you're a habitual offender). So it's already set up to automatically catch offenders.

But the ticket the trooper writes generates more cash ($170 vs $25) than the automatic ticket. During the 8 hour shift that trooper was "protecting and serving" the people of Miama by nabbing $0.25 violators on a system already equipped to automatically catch them, 2 people were killed in Miami/Dade, 6 local high speed traffic accidents occured (2 blamed on reckless driving, 1 on a drunk driver) and who knows how many other crimes were committed.

That's what toll roads get you... not just toll revenue, but the chance for LEO to meet quotas. BTW, if anyone ever gets a LEO ticket on Florida Sun Pass, if you send a check directly to FDOT rather than going through the court system, you only have to pay the $25 (+toll) and there's no points added to your dl.

I'm not car free, but I do have a recent toll road story:



Here in FL, when I don't bike commute, I take a toll road to work. $1.25 each way for <2 miles on the toll road. I don't have the "Sun Pass" transponder, because I really don't see the value in paying an extra $25 bucks for it.



I also take various toll roads when driving longer distances if the driving time difference or destination warrants it. I probably pay something like $400/year in tolls.

I was recently down in Miami & wanted to drive back home. I asked a local colleague how to get to the road I wanted. He told me to jump on the toll road just a couple of hundred feet away & take the first exit. I responed that the toll road entrance was marked "Sun Pass only". He told me that they had just changed over & were still accepting a quarter if you didn't have a Sun Pass transponder.

I had no reason to doubt him, so I followed his advice. Of course, when I pulled up to the single toll booth, no one was inside & there was no automatic machine. In front of me was a FL State Police car, with another car pulled over (he's facing against traffic, so he can see the toll booth).

Quite obviously, if I go through the toll booth without paying, I'm getting a ticket. But there is no option, as I'm trapped inside a "chute" with a line of cars behind me. There is no way to turn, and no way to back up. So I go through, the Trooper writes me a $170 dollar ticket for not paying a $0.25 toll.

The toll booths are equipped with cameras that take photos of your liscense plate if you pass through without paying. The toll authroity then decides whether to mail you a ticket or not (they typically don't if it's a "one time" event, and will if they notice you're a habitual offender). So it's already set up to automatically catch offenders.

But the ticket the trooper writes generates more cash ($170 vs $25) than the automatic ticket. During the 8 hour shift that trooper was "protecting and serving" the people of Miama by nabbing $0.25 violators on a system already equipped to automatically catch them, 2 people were killed in Miami/Dade, 6 local high speed traffic accidents occured (2 blamed on reckless driving, 1 on a drunk driver) and who knows how many other crimes were committed.

That's what toll roads get you... not just toll revenue, but the chance for LEO to meet quotas. BTW, if anyone ever gets a LEO ticket on Florida Sun Pass, if you send a check directly to FDOT rather than going through the court system, you only have to pay the $25 (+toll) and there's no points added to your dl.


Wasn't there a sign Transponders only?

Are you kidding me. Toll road across america
"The choice is clear. Americans can have higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution. Or they can let the market and state and local governments bring the benefits of a technologically advanced, reliable and high-speed surface transportation system."

To bad the solution isn't as clear as this ranting. IF state and local gov. could they would have done this over the last 50 years. Look at Chicago they have good highways but mass transit if falling apart. And what part of the market is going to reduce the congestion and greater pollution?

The choice is clear with out leadership we will get higher taxes, more wasteful spending, more congestion and greater pollution.

Maybe more to the point is to look at Chicago: It has tolls and the roads are in TERRIBLE condition and have intense traffic and congestion.

Tolls certainly are not the answer from a macro view. If there is one thing the USA did right was to develop tranportation infrustructure that allows the flow of products, people, and commerce. Spend some time reading about the development of transportation system in the USA when private tolls were common and every bridge and pass had a toll. It was a great hinderance to commerce and transportation in general. Privatization of roads in the USA would be a mess and clearly a step backwards.

There is a lot of talk about how to reduce traffic. An even more immediate concern is how to stimulate the economy and keep it going. Well folks, traffic is the result of successful commerce and a robust economy. I remember going to Seoul, Korea immediately before and after the economic crash of 1997. Before the crash, the roads were jammed and just crept along. Within three days of the economic crash, the streets were empty except for bits of paper trash whirling in the wind across the broad avenues.

Taxing fuel and tolling traffic to the point that traffic is significantly reduced would essentially mean adding enough cost to slow down the economy. I know the hope of many is that by taxing fuel and tolling traffic that the evil automobile would give way to mass transit and rail, but the fact is that the USA simply does not have the rail infrustucture to take on the demand. Right now, as the cost of transportation increases, the only choice available is to pay the price or stop transporting the goods/people. The option of non-truck, non-automobile transport simply does not exist in this country and it will take generations to develop rail to the point that it could make a significant impact.

~snip~
Taxing fuel and tolling traffic to the point that traffic is significantly reduced would essentially mean adding enough cost to slow down the economy. I know the hope of many is that by taxing fuel and tolling traffic that the evil automobile would give way to mass transit and rail, but the fact is that the USA simply does not have the rail infrustucture to take on the demand. Right now, as the cost of transportation increases, the only choice available is to pay the price or stop transporting the goods/people. The option of non-truck, non-automobile transport simply does not exist in this country and it will take generations to develop rail to the point that it could make a significant impact.

Gas taxes have remained flat while the cost of building and maintaining roads has climbed, as well as the number of miles of roads. Some increases in taxes are inevitable. I have no problem with them phasing in increased fuel taxes as long as a portion of it is dedicated to improving the mass transit infrastructure. However I don't think we can trust government to spend the money the way we think it should be spent. We still have rail to move freight and it is doing a good job. For just about every small town that has been in existence prior to the 1950's they should still have rail sidings and rail lines leading to them. I have no problem with items being trucked reasonable distances, but from FL to CA IS NOT a reasonable distance to be trucking everyday items. From what I recall the average box car is capable of carrying as much as 5-7 semi loads in comparable weight. I say beef up the freight railroads, then get going on the passenger railways. The jobs lost from long haul trucking will be replaced with short haul and warehouse work, and maybe some of the manufacturing jobs lost could be made up in the building of a new passenger rail system.

Aaron:)

Being in favor of widespread tolling and not in favor of higher gas taxes makes no sense. It's like favor of higher business taxes but lower personal taxes (or vice versa). Either way you pay, it's just a matter of how the money is collected.

We have a highly efficent and relatively equitable system of collecting tax money now to pay for our transportation infrastructure - fuel taxes. The more you use the roads, the more you pay. Except for special circumstances (like a new major bridge), why do we want to create an alternative system of paying for use of the roads when we already have a good system in place? And one that encourages fuel efficiency.

The arguments for widespread tolling make no sense. A gradually phased in fuel tax of several dollars a gallon over time does. And it should apply to all fuel uses, not just motor fuels. If the idea of the government raking in more money bothers you, then make it revenue neutral by lowering other taxes. We need to follows Europe's example - high fuel taxes, while nobody likes paying them, are a necessary evil which has lowered fuel use, encouraged alternative transportation, and resulted in much wider adaptation of alternative transportation methods (like bicycling). It's simple, clean, efficient, and fair.

- Mark

I think a fuel tax increase is a great idea from a number of angles. It's a consumption tax, which will decrease specific consumption without changing the overall economic balance. It will also drive the car companies to finally develop viable alternatives.

On the other hand, who am I to talk. Being in the high tax bracket, I certianly wish that all taxation was consumption based. I just hope there will not be a carbon fiber tax :)

Wasn't there a sign Transponders only?

Absolutely. As I stated, I would not have gotten to the toll booth had a local colleague not told me that the sign said that transponders only, but that they were still accepting money as it had recently changed over. I had no reason not to believe a person who took that entrance daily. However, once there & discovering this was not the case, I had not option other than proceed. In any event, I'm not saying that I should not have gotten a ticket, I'm just pointing out that cops needed elsewhere are babysitting toll booths (that already have built in ability to ticket toll violators) in order to maximize infraction revenue.

I have no problem with items being trucked reasonable distances, but from FL to CA IS NOT a reasonable distance to be trucking everyday items.

One of the "funniest" things I've ever seen was semi's coming from FL to CA with "FL oranges" to be sold in CA and making the return trip with "CA oranges" to be sold in FL.

One of the "funniest" things I've ever seen was semi's coming from FL to CA with "FL oranges" to be sold in CA and making the return trip with "CA oranges" to be sold in FL.

IIRC Tom Stormcrowe was one of the ones that actually did that. Seems that Florida mostly grows juice orange and CA grows eating oranges. But it is a perfect illustration of how cheap energy costs can be abused.

Aaron:)

Maybe more to the point is to look at Chicago: It has tolls and the roads are in TERRIBLE condition and have intense traffic and congestion.
Most roads in Chicago are non-toll; a few charge tolls. Are the toll roads in Chicago more congested or in worse shape than the "free" roads? Even if they are, you're on weak ground if you're making a general point based on one case.


Tolls certainly are not the answer from a macro view. If there is one thing the USA did right was to develop tranportation infrustructure that allows the flow of products, people, and commerce. Spend some time reading about the development of transportation system in the USA when private tolls were common and every bridge and pass had a toll. It was a great hinderance to commerce and transportation in general. Privatization of roads in the USA would be a mess and clearly a step backwards.

You and others are confusing the nature of toll roads. Toll roads in the US are NOT privately owned. They're all "owned" by the public. A few fringe libertarians like Ron Paul have advocated privatization, but this issue really isn't on the table in a serious way. OTOH, there has been talk about turning over the management of roads to private companies, and allowing them to profit from tolls. But this is a very different issue. I support tolls on some roads and bridges, but with the revenues going to government, not private companies.


There is a lot of talk about how to reduce traffic. An even more immediate concern is how to stimulate the economy and keep it going. Well folks, traffic is the result of successful commerce and a robust economy. I remember going to Seoul, Korea immediately before and after the economic crash of 1997. Before the crash, the roads were jammed and just crept along. Within three days of the economic crash, the streets were empty except for bits of paper trash whirling in the wind across the broad avenues.

Many of us believe that a robust economy can be (actually, must be) sustainable in both an economic and ecological sense. Your image of the wind whistling through the streets of Seoul is highly poetic, and I think also highly exaggerated. Fantasies like this weaken your entire argument, so try sticking with the facts, please.


Taxing fuel and tolling traffic to the point that traffic is significantly reduced would essentially mean adding enough cost to slow down the economy. I know the hope of many is that by taxing fuel and tolling traffic that the evil automobile would give way to mass transit and rail, but the fact is that the USA simply does not have the rail infrustucture to take on the demand. Right now, as the cost of transportation increases, the only choice available is to pay the price or stop transporting the goods/people. The option of non-truck, non-automobile transport simply does not exist in this country and it will take generations to develop rail to the point that it could make a significant impact.

Nor will the US ever have rail infrastructure or good public transit, unless we decide to pay for it. Nothing in this life is free, but some things are cheaper than others. Rail shipping is more efficient that trucks for long distances, and inherently cheaper once initial capital investments for infrastructure are made. Buses are also more efficient and cheaper than cars, once initial changeover costs are paid. Cars and trucks are not cheap--they're just paid for, partially, by somebody other than the user. Take those subsidies and externalities away from them, and highways start to look like white elephants.

BTW, you say it will take generations to redevelop rail. Poppycock. Massive infrastructure historically develops rapidly. In 1840 there were no railroads in the US. In less that 25 years, there was an extensive rail network stretching from coast to coast. Paved highways went from almost zero in 1910 to thousands of miles by 1930, and intensive highway development continued throughout the Depression. The Interstate highway system was substantially built between 1955 and 1965. There's no reason to believe that new rail (or whatever system is chosen) won't also be developed quickly. New times require new systems of transport. You can't stop progress, mike.

Being in favor of widespread tolling and not in favor of higher gas taxes makes no sense. It's like favor of higher business taxes but lower personal taxes (or vice versa). Either way you pay, it's just a matter of how the money is collected.

We have a highly efficent and relatively equitable system of collecting tax money now to pay for our transportation infrastructure - fuel taxes. The more you use the roads, the more you pay. Except for special circumstances (like a new major bridge), why do we want to create an alternative system of paying for use of the roads when we already have a good system in place? And one that encourages fuel efficiency.

The arguments for widespread tolling make no sense. A gradually phased in fuel tax of several dollars a gallon over time does. And it should apply to all fuel uses, not just motor fuels. If the idea of the government raking in more money bothers you, then make it revenue neutral by lowering other taxes. We need to follows Europe's example - high fuel taxes, while nobody likes paying them, are a necessary evil which has lowered fuel use, encouraged alternative transportation, and resulted in much wider adaptation of alternative transportation methods (like bicycling). It's simple, clean, efficient, and fair.

- Mark

To start with, most highway expenditures are from local governments (according to the Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs99/tables/reccht.pdf)). This means that property and sales taxes, not fuel taxes, account for much of highway disbursements.

I'm all for higher gas taxes. I'm not sure that they'll ever be revenue neutral, however, due basically to the limited elasticity of demand for gasoline. In other words, if you raise the gas tax, people might continue to buy gas, but defer spending on other (taxed) goods and services. Governments could end up with a lot more money for highways but less money for everything else. Also if it's made revenue neutral, a fuel tax won't necessarily decrease demand. People might just use the money they save on other taxes to pay the fuel tax, in which case fuel consumption won't be much affected.

User fees account for 78% of highway funding nationally- That is, initial capital spending, maintenance of existing structures and traffic enforcement. 11% of the whole comes from state and local government general funds and 11% from dedicated set asides out of local sales and property taxes.

This and more than you could ever want to know can be found at this and surrounding pages:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11568&page=24

Tailwinds!

The option of non-truck, non-automobile transport simply does not exist in this country and it will take generations to develop rail to the point that it could make a significant impact.

Take half the military's budget for 2009 and start building rail as fast as possible. I bet you cover a HUGE area of the country.

I agree that it will never happen, but not because it's not financially or logistically possible.

To start with, most highway expenditures are from local governments (according to the Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs99/tables/reccht.pdf)). This means that property and sales taxes, not fuel taxes, account for much of highway disbursements.

I'm all for higher gas taxes. I'm not sure that they'll ever be revenue neutral, however, due basically to the limited elasticity of demand for gasoline. In other words, if you raise the gas tax, people might continue to buy gas, but defer spending on other (taxed) goods and services. Governments could end up with a lot more money for highways but less money for everything else. Also if it's made revenue neutral, a fuel tax won't necessarily decrease demand. People might just use the money they save on other taxes to pay the fuel tax, in which case fuel consumption won't be much affected.


So what were we trying to accomplish again?

The people promoting these toll roads and just trying to get the roads built, to keep the construction industry working. These tolls could be easily avoided by simply choosing somewhere different to live/work.

I suspect that many here are wanting taxes to curb use - or perhaps to repurpose the tax towards alternative transit options. I think this is a no-win situation. As long as almost everyone wants to drive, it will take more than a tax to deter them.

I still maintain that the best thing we could do is stop building new roads, and absolutely stop widening existing ones. This would both reduce expenditures, upkeep and use. Of course, if you don't follow that up with zoning changes and viable transit options the people will riot within ten years.

Well normally I think that private corporations and individuals can do most things better than the government, but if the government can't build, maintain, and operate roads, then what good is the government?

hahaha.. so true. It comes down to a choice of who do we give our money to. I think in both scenarios, we won't see any great improvements come back to us. Action and the steps that lead to improvement come from pressure. I support the movement to target consumption. make gas cost $10/gal the appropriate pressure will ensue and alternative transportation will become more important and those who can drive will. This of course affects the cost of foods and goods that need to be transported and although the large gas price solution might seem shortsighted, I think, or at the very least hope, very much that people will exploit the resources around them and gone will be the days of tomatoes trucked in from South America in the middle of winter.

So what were we trying to accomplish again?


The first thing I'd like to accomplish would be some accountability and honesty. People are entitled to know how much their transit system is really costing them--how much they're paying and how much they're NOT paying. National Geographic (a fairly unbiased publication) estimated that the "true" cost of a gallon of gas is twice what we pay, including the taxes.

Some things just should not be left to the free market. We will need government to create the rules and regulate a private system no matter what. Does anyone actually believe that a private entity will run a cheaper and safer road?

I like fuel taxes because"
1) Road users are taxed not everyone.
2) The tax will act as an incentive for more economical vehicles.
3) Will reduce unneeded car use
4) System is already in place.

Problems with fuel tax—
1) More economical vehicles and less car use mean less revenue for bridges and roads, since people will buy less gas per capita.
2) Unlikely that the money will be divided evenly across the states.
3) Arguments that since cyclists don’t pay for fuel, they don’t belong on the road might make more sense.

Road Privatization-

Like—
?

Don’t like--
1) Because where is the incentive to make safer roads, remove snow, do regular maintenance, etc?

2) Because it still entails government oversight, regulation and initial taxpayer funded capital outlay.

3) Don’t like if used to justify building roads at taxpayer’s expense to serve elite areas or areas of less need. The idea here is that what if a private company says if you build this road to nowhere, (instead of spending the money in an area of higher utilization), then we will give you some money every year.


http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=288690

There are four potential economic justifications for privatizing highways: greater revenues without increased taxes, improved highway use efficiency, production efficiency of maintenance, and quality of highway services. However, because of market imperfections of laissez-faire private provision of highways, the economic feasibility and desirability of privatization depend on regulatory structures to efficiently control and mitigate potential problems of excess tolls and inadequate maintenance. Possible types of regulatory structures are discussed.

Why the hell is everybody talking about privatized roads? AFAIK, 99.99% of toll roads are not privately owned. They're owned (if a public highway can be said to be owned) by the government, which perhaps contracts with, or licenses a private company to maintain it.

Further research shows that, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States), the only private highways in the US are the Indiana Turnpike and a few roads near Disney World by Orlando. However, there are 2200 privately owned bridges in the country. There are plans to privatize freeways in Seattle also. So maybe 1000 miles of road all together? Hardly enough to get all upset and off-topic about.

The first thing I'd like to accomplish would be some accountability and honesty. People are entitled to know how much their transit system is really costing them--how much they're paying and how much they're NOT paying. National Geographic (a fairly unbiased publication) estimated that the "true" cost of a gallon of gas is twice what we pay, including the taxes.

Actually I think they underestimated the "true cost" by about half...but I will have to assume they did their research better than I did mine. There is no doubt in my mind that gas and cars are heavily subsidized even by those that barely use them or even don't use them at all.

Aaron:)

slagjumper,
Couple of counter points...

Economy cars use less fuel and pay less tax...they are also much lighter by design and will not abuse and damage the roadways at nearly the same rate as a heavier vehicle (currently the auto driver subsidizes the damage caused by heavy trucks) IIRC the numbers a single 80,000# truck rolling over a given portion of roadway causes as much damage as 5,000 regular cars (at say an average weight of 5k#).

Most local roads are built and at least partially maintained by revenue generated from property taxes and in some cases sales taxes. All of which are paid by car free individuals and cyclists. So we do pay our way even if we don't own or operate a motor vehicle.

Aaron:)

An economist will tell you that if you want a person to use less of something, tax it.

We want to use less oil. We need to use less oil. There is only one way to do it that actually will work.

A more sophisticated version is the carbon tax. Excuse me while I laugh. Americans won't pull their heads out of their butts until it is far too late.

Actually I think they underestimated the "true cost" by about half...but I will have to assume they did their research better than I did mine. There is no doubt in my mind that gas and cars are heavily subsidized even by those that barely use them or even don't use them at all.

Aaron:)

Your post inspired me to check the original National Geographic article. I found that I was wrong, the "true cost" of gas is a lot more than twice the pump price. At the time of publication (June, 2004) a gallon of gas cost $1.57 (Ah the good old days--2004!).

The true cost by NG's estimate was $4.03:


HIDDEN GAS COSTS = $2.46
Leaking oil from refineries = .02
Risk of macronoeconomic disruptions = .12
Global warming cost of carbon emissions = .12
Local pollution; health effect = .40
Traffic accidents = .80
Congestion, time wasted, fuel wasted = 1.00
_______________________
U.S. GAS COSTS = $1.57
State & Federal taxes (avg.) = 27%
Crude oil = 48%
Refining = 15%
Distrib. & mktg. = 10%

I'm sensing that there's tremendous political pressure against a gas tax increase in the country right now. With prices being so high, many have suggested that we lower gas taxes to help the middle class keep using their cars as they're used to doing. (They don't explain how we'll pay for road repairs.)

I think it would be political suicide for a politician to back a gas tax increase right now. It will probably take a lot of potholes and some hot winters to get people to change their minds on this issue.