Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nds76]

Americans should be border-line freaking out, and not just those living in Missouri. Right now, Missouri lawmakers are figuring out how much to fleece motorists that use I-70 in the years ahead. The United States Department of Transportation has given Missouri the authority to convert I-70, an existing road that was toll-free, to one that costs as much as 10-15 cents per mile. The U.S. DOT has also given such authority to two other states- indeed the trend continues to grow.

What's so alarming? Existing free-to-use interstates and roads are becoming toll-roads. The craziest thing is that in some cases (such as in North Carolina) the roads are being built or rebuilt using taxpayer money AND the conversion to toll road is happening, so not only are motorists paying to built it, but they're paying to use it. Not only that, but in North Carolina's case, gasoline taxes also just got jacked up to start the new year.

In Missouri's plan, the conversion could cost passenger vehicles $20-$30 for the entire stretch from just east of Kansas City to Wentzville. In the case of truckers, it could be $60-$90!

What's next, folks? Are we going to see my current city, Chicago start to toll the hundreds of miles of local toll-free roads? Where do we draw the line? Can you imagine driving to work and paying $7 in gas and $15 in tolls? This is getting ridiculous! How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Conversion-of-I-70-to-toll-road-should-freak-Americans-out/1715-480024-746.aspx

[NE2]

Yawn.

[corco]

The fact is that current revenue streams don't pay for road construction and maintenance, and as cars become more fuel efficient the problem is only going to get worse.

Road maintenance has always come from user fees- either gas tax or tax appended to the sale of truck tires. Tires last longer and cars get better gas mileage. There are more cars than there were before, but that just means roads are damaged faster than ever before. The FLAT federal gas tax hasn't increased since 1993 (?)- but inflation has certainly occurred- a far smaller percentage of your fuel purchase goes to gas tax today than it did in 1993. Gas costs 3 times more but you're still paying the same 18.4 cents per gallon towards road maintenance as you were 19 years ago.

But yes, it makes sense to pay to build a road and then pay to use it. As soon as you start using a road, it's not as good as it was before. Somebody has to bear that cost- why shouldn't it be the person using the road?

I'm not sure that straight tolls are the answer- but since Americans don't want anything to do with a location based VMT tax and we don't want to pay $6/gallon for gas, it's probably the best we can. You propose cutting spending from other things, and that's a neat idea, but quite vague. Can you be more specific?  What would you cut?

Do you think that roads should be entirely user fee based? Do you think that all roads should be self-sustaining, or is there merit to some roads subsidizing other roads? Is it equitable to do that? Why should I, as somebody who works graveyards, be helping to pay for peak hour infrastructure? The six lane road I drive on when I go to work definitely doesn't need six lanes when I'm driving on it, so why should I have to pay for it? Should the guy who lives off a rural road in the middle of Wyoming have to pay $500 every time he leaves his house to help pay for the road to his house? Shouldn't we be subsidizing important freight corridors like I-70 in Missouri to encourage economic growth? If we do that, the consumer will eventually end up bearing the cost either way- does it really matter if the consumer pays in the form of more expensive products or a higher tax bill?

It's a very complicated matter and I don't know the right answer. It's not something that can simply be attributed to  "How about politicians across the country stop putting off tough decisions and trim budgets so that instead of our taxpayer dollars funding pork and wasteful spending we spend our money on roads!"

Maybe we should be freaking out about it- but it's something that's probably going to require a cultural/paradigm shift (one possible idea: more localized production. I live in Idaho. Why am I eating Washington potatoes while somebody in Washington eats Idaho potatoes. There has to be a way to make it most efficient for and Idahoan to eat Idaho potatoes and not Washington potatoes), not a bumper sticker.

[kharvey10]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-gets-glimpse-of-i--as-toll-road/article_9a36662b-b037-573d-8675-759610bfef8e.html?mode=comments

read the comments from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that was posted today.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Raising federal and state gas taxes 10c/gal each wouldn't impact anyone severely on an individual basis, but would drastically increase revenue.  Just sayin'...

[RoadWarrior56]

If I lived in Missouri and had to drive frequently between St. Louis and Kansas City, I would start to use US 50.

[nds76]

I'm not a fan of toll roads though fully understand the merits of their purpose. But I don't wanna be nickeled and dimed to death just to get from point A to point B. Sure you could take an alternative route but you shouldn't have to. As others mentioned, increasing the gas tax just a little would be equitable but everyone is afraid of that word. Something has got to change, plain and simple. Our infrastructure is aging and the current revenue system is inadequate. Maybe adding lets say a $10 fee when you renew your drivers license could help. It's really frustrating though that everyone wants a world class highway and bridge system buy nobody wants to pay for it. That formula isn't working. Let's face it, revenues are declining and the costs are going up.

[corco]

Raising federal and state gas taxes 10c/gal each wouldn't impact anyone severely on an individual basis, but would drastically increase revenue.  Just sayin'...

For sure- and I think that has to be the start of a multi-pronged way to solve this problem. But mention raising taxes in this economy and you're not getting re-elected. The only time people really embrace new taxes these days is option sales taxes earmarked to a specific project- unfortunately "let's repave I-70" isn't as splashy as "let's build a brand new freeway" and is far less likely to pass.

It's definitely the best short term fix until we figure out the long term fix (and that's not forcing people on buses or light rail) - we can't just keep raising the gas tax into perpetuity, but raising it back to the same percentage of total gas price as it was 20 years ago has to be seen as a fair thing to do.

It's really frustrating though that everyone wants a world class highway and bridge system buy nobody wants to pay for it.

Yep.

[RoadWarrior56]

I don't think most people have a problem if the road were built using tolls in the first place, but I think there will be signficant resistance if the road were constructed without tolls and then tolls added at a later date.  I am not arguing the merits of different sources of funding and why more is needed, except that I would fight a VMT tax with every fiber of my being, due to privacy considerations, even though many in my field are pushing it.

My main point is that I think others will have the same instinct as me, which is to find another route.  And if enough people do that, the traffic on the parallel routes will increase more than is forecasted while the traffic and revenue traffic projections may fall short on the toll facility.  And I suspect many long distance trucks would use I-80 in Iowa, US 36 further north in Missouri or other interstates in lieu of I-70 through Missouri.  In other words, demand for a tolled I-70 may be more elastic than they think.

[corco]

I don't think most people have a problem if the road were built using tolls in the first place, but I think there will be signficant resistance if the road were constructed without tolls and then tolls added at a later date.  I am not arguing the merits of different sources of funding and why more is needed, except that I would fight a VMT tax with every fiber of my being, due to privacy considerations, even though many in my field are pushing it.

My main point is that I think others will have the same instinct as me, which is to find another route.  And if enough people do that, the traffic on the parallel routes will increase more than is forecasted while the traffic and revenue traffic projections may fall short on the toll facility.  And I suspect many long distance trucks would use I-80 in Iowa, US 36 further north in Missouri or other interstates in lieu of I-70 through Missouri.  In other words, demand for a tolled I-70 may be more elastic than they think.

And that's why something like a VMT tax is probably an inevitability. I'm as against it as you are for privacy considerations, but it seems like the most efficient option for user fees. Push people from I-70 to US-36, and then you're going to have to start tolling US-36 to keep it maintained. Eventually you run out of alternate routes or you have expensive toll booths everywhere- which in itself are inefficient because you're paying to maintain those.

Shunpiking works in the short term- but the damage cost to drive a load of potatoes down US-50  is probably more than it is to drive down I-70 (I assume US-50 isn't as well built, property values around US-50 would be more likely to be impacted by noise pollution than property values around I-70, etc). Eventually the truck driver is going to have to pay the true cost, so in the long run it's better just to stay on I-70.

[agentsteel53]

Raising federal and state gas taxes 10c/gal each wouldn't impact anyone severely on an individual basis, but would drastically increase revenue.  Just sayin'...

I'd pay $6/gallon.  especially if the IRS increased the per-mile rate correspondingly.

I don't get the anathema towards toll roads.  There is this idea that once a road 'is paid off' there should not be any toll on it anymore ... because, apparently, it is rendered perpetually impeccable and free of decay?

[RoadWarrior56]

In the end, I don't think tolling existing roadways is a viable solution, for all the reasons stated in the previous post.

As far as VMT is concerned, I don't want big brother or the insurance companies seeing how many miles I drive.  I don't see any way to measure it other than some kind of electroinic device that is resident in my car, and how would you pay for putting all of those devices in the US vehicle fleet?  Finally, I fear in the end we would end up with both gasoline taxes and VMT taxes, the worst of both worlds.  I would just assume see the gasoline tax indexed for inflation to take care of party of th needs.

[corco]

The problem is that cars are getting more fuel efficient without getting lighter- a Prius does just as much damage to the road as a Ford Ranger, but the Ranger pays a heck of a lot more in user fee. That's not really equitable either.

Long run, gasoline is going away. It's happening, finally, as we speak. We need to have something in place for when a large chunk of cars on the road aren't using gas. I don't really know how you user fee an electric car without using VMT- maybe add an energy charge onto your power bill at home?

Privacy considerations not withstanding (and I really hope somebody thinks of something better because of that), you could include VMT transponder costs in vehicle registration fees- which would spread the cost around a lot easier and better than having tollbooths every few miles

[RoadWarrior56]

Gasoline is not going away and should not go away,  electric cars are not going to be viable until or unless the battery problem is solved, despite the government trying to ram them down our throats.  And IMHO, VMT taxation will not be accepted by the bulk of the public.  BTW, if they want to stick a surcharge on the electric bills for electric car users that are out there, that works fine for me.

[corco]

And IMHO, VMT taxation will not be accepted by the bulk of the public.

I agree- I think that's very true. That's why this is a very tricky issue and may rely more on a paradigm shift than any particular fiscal policy. If the solution rests in fiscal policy, nobody has come up with an adequate solution yet.

In the meantime, we can try to solve known problems. People have longer distance commutes than ever before in history. Let's try to move jobs closer to homes- let's see what we can do to reduce driving and freight transport without diminishing lifestyle. Why does the business day have to start at 8 AM and end at 5 PM for everybody? That's a lot harder, but long term I think it's the only thing that will a) work and b) keep everybody happy. Gosh- if we could cut peak period congestion down by even 10% across the country, we'd have a hell of a lot less infrastructure to invest in.

Solve the city problem and you can focus on rural freight links like I-70. The vast majority of transportation funding these days is going to urban areas. Start to solve that problem and you can divert more of that money to long distance corridors.

[3467]

The original plan for the Interstates was called Toll Roads and Free Roads.This is not a new idea
No one has pointed out that Missouri Voters have voted down andy kind of tax for the roads and under Missouri law they can again  so dont jump to a national conclusion ,there are local issues here.Please dont freak out America

[agentsteel53]

I could easily telecommute; if that became the most natural modality of work, especially in the Office Space sector, we'd be saving so much time, effort, and money.

[corco]

No one has pointed out that Missouri Voters have voted down andy kind of tax for the roads and under Missouri law they can again  so dont jump to a national conclusion ,there are local issues here.Please dont freak out America

It absolutely is a national issue- Missouri, for the reasons you stated, is probably a worst case example- but the highway trust fund is broke. General fund monies are paying for highway dollars. The state of highway funding is very much an under-talked about national crisis.

I could easily telecommute; if that became the most natural modality of work, especially in the Office Space sector, we'd be saving so much time, effort, and money.

Exactly. Service sector folks need to go to work five days a week- but if you're not really communicating with clients except over the phone, and you can do work at home just as easily as you can at an office, it's ridiculous for an employer to require you to expend resources and damage roadways to come in five days a week. Come in once or twice a week to show you're getting things done/attend whatever meetings, and work the other three or four at home. With technology these days, there's very little you can't do from home. You can forward your phone to your house, VPN to the server, and conference via Skype.

[nds76]

Just curious though, how many states are considered to be donor states for gas taxes? Maybe the formula needs changed?

[corco]

Here's the Heritage Foundation report- and if there's anybody you can trust for a matter like this it's the libertarian Heritage Foundation

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/federal-highway-program-shortchanges-more-than-half-the-states

In map form, you're looking at most of the south/southwest and midwest/great plains. 28 states are donors. It's the northeast and sparsely populated states that really benefit. Alaska gets 5 times what it puts in.

In fairness, though, I agree with some inequality. If I live in the middle of Wyoming (which gets 1.5x what it puts in), I pay the same amount (more, actually. Wyomingites drive more miles per year than any other state) in fuel tax as somebody in Michigan (which gets .8 what it puts in).  Why should I be denied a road in front of my house? Those rural areas, and you can exclude Alaska from this argument, are still vital links but nobody lives in that state. I-80 in Wyoming is the only extended stretch of interstate with mostly trucks (52%), and  most of those are neither originating nor terminating in Wyoming. There's a reason for somebody from Michigan to subsidize it, then. For instance, it's presumably in the interest of Ford Motor Company to be able to send cars to northern California, which helps Michigan's economy.

That said, no reason somebody from Michigan should be paying out more than they get while somebody from Minnesota gets more than they pay.

[nds76]

Here's the Heritage Foundation report- and if there's anybody you can trust for a matter like this it's the libertarian Heritage Foundation

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/federal-highway-program-shortchanges-more-than-half-the-states

In map form, you're looking at most of the south/southwest and midwest/great plains. 28 states are donors. It's the northeast and sparsely populated states that really benefit. Alaska gets 5 times what it puts in.

In fairness, though, I agree with some inequality. If I live in the middle of Wyoming (which gets 1.5x what it puts in), I pay the same amount (more, actually. Wyomingites drive more miles per year than any other state) in fuel tax as somebody in Michigan (which gets .8 what it puts in).  Why should I be denied a road in front of my house? Those rural areas, and you can exclude Alaska from this argument, are still vital links but nobody lives in that state. I-80 in Wyoming is the only extended stretch of interstate with mostly trucks (52%), and  most of those are neither originating nor terminating in Wyoming. There's a reason for somebody from Michigan to subsidize it, then. For instance, it's presumably in the interest of Ford Motor Company to be able to send cars to northern California, which helps Michigan's economy.

That said, no reason somebody from Michigan should be paying out more than they get while somebody from Minnesota gets more than they pay.

I agree with what your saying to an extent about the inequality though I think all states should get more back than they are currently getting. A lot of roads here in Michigan are being done cheaply because there isn't much money and we know doing things the cheap way isn't always the best way. Off hand I can think of M-18 in Roscommon County, kinda looks like gravel and tar. Driving on it seems loud and it spits up a lot of stones.

[corco]

And that's why we need to be creative. Is it fair that you should have shitty roads while you subsidize other people's roads? Definitely not. Is it fair that an Alaskan that probably pays more in fuel tax than you do should not get to  have access to a road? Definitely not.

The existing system fails on a bunch of levels, and it goes beyond just shifting money around. There's no known good way to achieve both objectives short of everybody paying a lot more than they want to, which is why we need to start re-evaluating transportation in its entirety.

[Chris]

They wanted to introduce the VMT in the Netherlands, but it failed due to opposition. The greatest alleged effect would have been a reduction of congestion by pricing people off the road and reduce peak hour travel. However more recent studies found out mobility is less price-elastic than what was previously assumed, as even $ 9.00 gasoline didn't have any effect on the mileage driven.

Though the cases of the United States and the Netherlands / Europe are different. In Europe, mobility is just seen as a cash cow, European motorists frequently generate 4 or 5 times more revenue than what is actually spent on road infrastructure. It's not necessarily a funding issue, though European funding for roads remains tight, but that's due to politics, not because motorists aren't paying enough to maintain and expand the road networks. There's enough money generated by motorists to 10-lane every rural freeway and keep them toll free.

What strikes me most is that the U.S. gas tax hasn't been inflation adjusted for two decades, just like some toll roads haven't increased their tolls for years while the cost of upkeep and expansion continues to increase, often even faster than the rate of inflation. Which means resources to fund roads are dwindling.

A gas tax is not the only way to generate revenue. In Europe people often have to pay an annual road tax, which in some countries may exceed $ 1000 per year. Furthermore, high taxes are levied on motor vehicles in some countries (for instance 75% tax in Denmark, and a 25% sales tax comes on top of that, effectively resulting in a 100% tax on cars). So there are basically three types of taxation on motoring; ownership, usage and fuels, each of which is in fact sufficient to fund the road network operations.

I don't think it's a good idea to follow the European example of over-taxing motorists, but some "thinking outside the box" may be required. It's a taxed road, it's a toll road, or it's no road, someone once said. There is no such thing as a free road.

[english si]

They wanted to introduce the VMT in the Netherlands, but it failed due to opposition.

Same in the UK, but it will remain part of every European Government's agenda while it remains the EU Commission's agenda.

[J N Winkler]

Just a few observations:

*  There are ways to perform VMT charging which get around the privacy concerns by taking payment while allowing the identity of the fee-payer to be obfuscated, at least in real time.  Oregon DOT has experimented with a pilot program along these lines.

*  An across-the-board 10c/gallon increase in the fuel tax would be a start, but in actuality the expert consensus is that fuel taxes need to be tripled at the federal and state level just to plug existing infrastructure deficits while maintaining capital improvement at an acceptable level.  Tripling would take taxes to around $1-$1.20/gallon in most states, which is fairly high but still low by European standards and also far smaller than the fluctuations in the price of fuel which have occurred since 2005.

*  Comparing the "damage" caused by a Ford Ranger to that caused by a Toyota Prius is not really meaningful.  Roads are generally designed to accommodate 18-wheelers and the fourth-power law means that, compared to an 18-wheeler, the damage caused by either a Ford Ranger or a Toyota Prius (or indeed any other type of four-wheeled private passenger vehicle) is negligible.  It is more meaningful to speak about the needs for improvement created by different types of vehicle.  Cars are a major driver of congestion in cities, which leads to pressure for expensive capacity increases, while trucks are a big driver of rehabilitation costs on trunk haulage routes like the rural Interstates.

*  At the margin it can make more sense to incentivize rail freight transport (especially for bulk cargoes) than to try to expand the ability of the road system to handle additional freight.  Each situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

*  A modest amount of cross-subsidization through the federal-aid program is one way we sustain a regional development policy.  The amount is modest because each state is guaranteed to get back at least 90% of what it pays in the federal gas tax.  There is ideological opposition (particularly in the Republican Party) to having a regional policy at all, but do you really want to bear the consequences of not having one?  These could range from the expansion of existing pockets of poverty and the emergence of new ones to gridlock in Congress since there would be nothing to log-roll.

*  There is a trade-off between localizing production and exchange relationships and centralizing production to reap scale economies.  Depending on the goods or services involved, localization of production (purely to reduce stress on the transport networks) could result in higher prices for consumers which would not necessarily be counterbalanced by surpluses arising from the transport networks (e.g. reduced congestion).  (In regard to the specific example of Washington potatoes eaten in Idaho, would you say that this is a nonsensical trade relationship, involving wasteful use of transport services, if Idaho potatoes were considered a premium product while Washington potatoes were intended for everyday eating?  Remember Akerlof's rule--"Export the best because it is more likely to pay the freight.")