News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Current Legislative Proposals to Increase State DOT Budgets

Started by Plutonic Panda, March 04, 2019, 07:37:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Plutonic Panda

Eh, I'm not really sure how to word the title, but I think I did alright. This thread is meant to track the current proposals as well as updates to them regarding moves by individual states to increase the budgets for their respective DOT's for road and freeway funding. I wouldn't mind mass transit either, but that seems better to be tracked in a separate thread.


Plutonic Panda

Michigan has a proposal to increase the gas tax by 45 cents raising an additional 2 billion a year or so. It's phased out to increase over a 9 year period.

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3057483002

Plutonic Panda

Alabama has a measure to increase theirs by 10 cents a gallon.

http://rebuildalabama.com

I'm generally supportive of these from what I know but I'm not very optimistic. Alabama due to the conservative nature of the state and Michigan because of how high the proposed tax is. Other than California's, would this qualify as one of the largest fuel tax increase proposals in the US?

froggie

I know Kentucky has legislation proposing a gas tax and vehicle registration increase, but not sure offhand what the level is.  There is also a forum regular who is very opposed to it on Facebook.

TheHighwayMan3561

Minnesota's new governor has suggested a gas tax hike, but given the state legislature's makeup it likely won't go anywhere where Republicans in the state senate are eager to use it as a political weapon.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Big John

Wisconsin's new governor proposed a 8-cent gas tax increase, but is also unlikely to go anywhere with the opposing party controlling the legislature.
https://www.wpr.org/gov-tony-evers-calls-gas-tax-increase-first-budget

formulanone

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2019, 07:40:50 PM
Alabama has a measure to increase theirs by 10 cents a gallon.

http://rebuildalabama.com

It actually has some bi-partisan support, but whether one infrastructure plan is the same as the others' still needs to hammered out.

Quote
I'm generally supportive of these from what I know but I'm not very optimistic. Alabama due to the conservative nature of the state and Michigan because of how high the proposed tax is. Other than California's, would this qualify as one of the largest fuel tax increase proposals in the US?

If I remember correctly, Florida had a state gas tax increase of 15 cents per gallon effective on January 1, 1994. The day before was the last time I'd ever see 0.999/gal fuel.

Rothman

NY has just been borrowing more money against income tax revenue (Personal Income Tax or "PIT" Bonds).  The amount borrowed overall since the practice started is quite substantial and has more recently gone towards megaprojects.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jp the roadgeek

CT's proposal can pretty much be summed up in 1 word (times 53 locations): T O L L S
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

hbelkins

Quote from: froggie on March 04, 2019, 08:28:37 PM
I know Kentucky has legislation proposing a gas tax and vehicle registration increase, but not sure offhand what the level is.  There is also a forum regular who is very opposed to it on Facebook.

A dime a gallon, plus a huge increase in fees including nearly doubling the annual registration cost for passenger vehicles, a substantial increase in motorcycle registration, and a bunch of other fees that I can't recall offhand. Of course I'm opposed to it. I may be a roadgeek and a DOT employee, but I'm a taxpayer first and foremost.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2019, 07:38:23 PM
Michigan has a proposal to increase the gas tax by 45 cents raising an additional 2 billion a year or so. It's phased out to increase over a 9 year period.

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3057483002

Michigan's proposed increase is more than Kentucky's total. Insanity.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

froggie

^ As I recall, you were asked, in light of your opposition to the gas tax/registration fee increase, how you would proposed to pay for new transportation infrastructure and improvements to existing infrastructure, given that the need far exceeds available revenue.  I don't recall seeing a response, though.

hotdogPi

Even with a 45¢ increase, the gas taxes would still be less than most other developed nations.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

TheHighwayMan3561

There's also a misconception that user fees are a majority of transportation funding when generally it's about 20-30%. Simply increasing gas taxes is a band aid fix.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

PHLBOS

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2019, 01:28:47 PM
There's also a misconception that user fees are a majority of transportation funding when generally it's about 20-30%.
Maybe such needs to be fixed first.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Buck87

Ohio's new Governor has proposed an 18 cent gas tax increase

hbelkins

Quote from: froggie on March 05, 2019, 01:00:49 PM
^ As I recall, you were asked, in light of your opposition to the gas tax/registration fee increase, how you would proposed to pay for new transportation infrastructure and improvements to existing infrastructure, given that the need far exceeds available revenue.  I don't recall seeing a response, though.

No, I hadn't responded to that yet, but my general answer would be prioritization (I don't like the current prioritization model Kentucky's using, as it gives to the "haves" while continuing to ignore the "have nots", and have expressed my opinion about it in the past) and elimination of regulations and bureaucracy. I'm convinced that about 20 percent of the administrative costs KYTC faces comes from federal regulation compliance.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: hbelkins on March 05, 2019, 04:02:02 PM
No, I hadn't responded to that yet, but my general answer would be prioritization (I don't like the current prioritization model Kentucky's using, as it gives to the "haves" while continuing to ignore the "have nots", and have expressed my opinion about it in the past) and elimination of regulations and bureaucracy. I'm convinced that about 20 percent of the administrative costs KYTC faces comes from federal regulation compliance.

Ah yes, Regulations: The Source of All Evil™

kphoger

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 05, 2019, 04:04:55 PM
Ah yes, Regulations: The Source of All Evil™

Regulation being beneficial or necessary does not mean that all regulations are beneficial or necessary.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2019, 04:08:02 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 05, 2019, 04:04:55 PM
Ah yes, Regulations: The Source of All Evil™
Regulation being beneficial or necessary does not mean that all regulations are beneficial or necessary.

Obviously. But you wouldn't know that from the way certain people speak of them as though they're swear words.

Rothman

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 05, 2019, 04:23:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2019, 04:08:02 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 05, 2019, 04:04:55 PM
Ah yes, Regulations: The Source of All Evil
Regulation being beneficial or necessary does not mean that all regulations are beneficial or necessary.

Obviously. But you wouldn't know that from the way certain people speak of them as though they're swear words.
^This.  As much as I suspect some collusion in certain contract bids, I know it would be much, much worse if regulations were relaxed.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

hbelkins

Quote from: Rothman on March 05, 2019, 05:10:21 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 05, 2019, 04:23:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2019, 04:08:02 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 05, 2019, 04:04:55 PM
Ah yes, Regulations: The Source of All Evil
Regulation being beneficial or necessary does not mean that all regulations are beneficial or necessary.

Obviously. But you wouldn't know that from the way certain people speak of them as though they're swear words.
^This.  As much as I suspect some collusion in certain contract bids, I know it would be much, much worse if regulations were relaxed.

OK, here's an example. We're probably all aware of DBE set-asides, which are federal requirements. I'm philosophically opposed to this type of thing, and there's lots of room for abuse. (There was one instance in Kentucky about 20 years ago when a guardrail company with connections to the governor at the time set up a dummy subsidiary with a female CEO to become eligible for DBE contracts.)

Turns out that the KYTC office that certifies DBE participants for highway contracts also certifies them for all state government contracts where DBE set-asides are required. If it's someone hanging drywall for a new dormitory at the University of Kentucky, they've been certified by KYTC. Eliminate the DBE program and the state could probably save $300,000 alone on salaries, plus other administrative costs.

How many environmental hoops, with associated costs, do states have to jump through? Can anyone say with a straight face that significant harm was done because Tennessee built US 23 (now I-26) using its state guidelines and not the federal guidelines?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2019, 11:22:52 AM
OK, here's an example. We're probably all aware of DBE set-asides, which are federal requirements. I'm philosophically opposed to this type of thing, and there's lots of room for abuse. (There was one instance in Kentucky about 20 years ago when a guardrail company with connections to the governor at the time set up a dummy subsidiary with a female CEO to become eligible for DBE contracts.)

Turns out that the KYTC office that certifies DBE participants for highway contracts also certifies them for all state government contracts where DBE set-asides are required. If it's someone hanging drywall for a new dormitory at the University of Kentucky, they've been certified by KYTC. Eliminate the DBE program and the state could probably save $300,000 alone on salaries, plus other administrative costs.

$300,000 is chump change for state government. This is embodiment of the penny-wise, pound-foolish type of thinking.

And if it's that easy to game the system, de-regulation isn't going to solve anything. In fact, it's likely to make abuses and corruption worse.

Rothman

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 06, 2019, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2019, 11:22:52 AM
OK, here's an example. We're probably all aware of DBE set-asides, which are federal requirements. I'm philosophically opposed to this type of thing, and there's lots of room for abuse. (There was one instance in Kentucky about 20 years ago when a guardrail company with connections to the governor at the time set up a dummy subsidiary with a female CEO to become eligible for DBE contracts.)

Turns out that the KYTC office that certifies DBE participants for highway contracts also certifies them for all state government contracts where DBE set-asides are required. If it's someone hanging drywall for a new dormitory at the University of Kentucky, they've been certified by KYTC. Eliminate the DBE program and the state could probably save $300,000 alone on salaries, plus other administrative costs.

$300,000 is chump change for state government. This is embodiment of the penny-wise, pound-foolish type of thinking.

And if it's that easy to game the system, de-regulation isn't going to solve anything. In fact, it's likely to make abuses and corruption worse.
Right.  And, in any matter, regulations were imposed at the public's request, one way or another.  To relax DBE and environmental regulations would lead to a political storm that few would want to instigate.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

Take the ADA mandate from the Department of Justice requiring curb ramps be upgraded in resurfacing contracts, for example.  Such work would otherwise be WAY beyond the scope of a typical resurfacing job, and as such is more than doubles the cost if there are a significant number of ramps in the project area (to the point where many municipalities are no longer paving streets with deficient ramps, at least not in election years), making it an unfunded mandate.  On the other hand, the reason this mandate happened is because very little progress was being made in upgrading pedestrian infrastructure even though the ADA law is slightly older than I am.

Meanwhile, in DBE/MBE land, the regulation does lead to a strange incentive - there are DBE/MBE designated contractors who pick up a lot of work being a token subcontractor on a larger job, and they sometimes refuse work because they'd otherwise lose DBE/MBE status - defeating the entire purpose of the regulation in the first place.

IMO what we need is not less regulation, but smarter regulation, so that it has as little imposition as is possible and still do its job, and so loopholes can't be exploited.

(personal opinion)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Plutonic Panda

Alabama's gas tax seems to have passed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Illinois has a proposal to bring an additional two billion dollars to spend.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.