TollRoadsNews: Road Usage Charging Is Focus of Toll Industry Discussion (http://tollroadsnews.com/news/road-usage-charging-is-focus-of-toll-industry-discussion)
QuotePortland, OR —- The toll road industry wrapped up its Portland conference on financing and road usage charging (RUC) this week and found that charging motorists for the miles they drive could be a useful tool to pay for transportation infrastructure. Even though the pace of road usage charging activity is picking up around the country widespread adoption is a long way off.
QuoteThe International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA) conference on Transportation Financing and Road Usage Charging was both an education effort and an exercise in alliance building. With state and national gas tax revenue dwindling, and Congress unable to provide a sustainable revenue stream for the Highway Trust Fund, the surface transportation sector is seeking new and stable funding sources for the nation's aging roads, bridges and tunnels.
Quote"As we look to the future, I think clearly RUC can be a viable option as a replacement for the motor fuel tax. However I do believe it's going to be a long term solution," said John Lawson, chief financial officer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Ed Regan, senior vice president of CDM Smith, said he's seeing a gradual "warming of the relationship between road user charging and tolling." He maintains that "road user charging is not a threat to the tolling industry but rather has a lot of potential positive impacts."
They can discuss it all they like but it will be politically DOA in most areas, especially red states. Nobody will be OK with the government attaching a GPS to your car, and any other implementation leads to issues like how to handle out of state mileage and odometer tampering. That is, unless the program is federally run, which will never happen, since people seem to think that the federal government is literally Satan.
One excellent way of funding infrastructure is to actually raise the gas tax, but we will never do that because we are weenies who are afraid to pay for things.
Tell me to wear a tin foil hat all you like, but I wouldn't be surprised if the elite are making it more difficult than it needs to be to raise the gas tax so that the idea of having a GPS tracking every car is more palatable.
We have a red gov who hates all taxes except maybe a GPS device. It came up in the so called Listening sessions in Illinois _trust me we are a blue state and when after proposing big cuts to social programs and a 35% cut to the state universities ..if this is his only tax well he will look back fondly on his current 40% ......
I think the key observation (among the snippets C.P. quoted) is that GPS charging is a "long-term" solution, which I have said in the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
It is also rather interesting that the operators of existing toll facilities appear to see GPS charging as a threat.
the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 04, 2015, 08:40:17 PM
They can discuss it all they like but it will be politically DOA in most areas, especially red states. Nobody will be OK with the government attaching a GPS to your car, and any other implementation leads to issues like how to handle out of state mileage and odometer tampering.
What about GPS tampering? Any device connected to a car can be removed. Oh whoops, my bad, I went on a big long road trip but left the GPS in my garage so it looked like my car was parked the whole time. So sorry.
You can program things so the car won't start if the GPS isn't connected, but then people will find a way to spoof it or crack it. You can officially seal it and make it so the intactness of the seal is checked upon regular inspection, but inspectors will routinely pass things that shouldn't because they're doing their buddy a favor, because you slip them a couple of dead presidents, or because they just don't give a fuck.
The benefit of the gas tax is that it is impossible for the end user to dodge it since the end user physically cannot falsify the basis for its collection. A mileage tax would have to be collected from individuals rather than from businesses, which is so much more difficult to enforce and administratively a lot less efficient.
Meanwhile someday in the future when a lot of cars no longer run on gas, there are more straightforward means of collecting revenue. Make registration fees higher. Add a surcharge to the purchase price of a new car. Tax car insurance policies. Put a transportation tax on electricity if that's what everyone's using to power their vehicles. Or, if you really want to go crazy, drop the regressive user fee model and bump corporate income taxes up to compensate.
QuoteMeanwhile someday in the future when a lot of cars no longer run on gas, there are more straightforward means of collecting revenue. Make registration fees higher. Add a surcharge to the purchase price of a new car. Tax car insurance policies.
The problem with these is that miles driven (and conversely, traffic created) has zero bearing on them. While the gas tax isn't perfect either due to a number of factors, there's at least a rough correlation between VMT and gas tax paid.
Quote from: 3467 on May 04, 2015, 10:24:26 PM
the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon
Which is horseshit in Illinois. We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste. How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 04, 2015, 10:24:26 PM
the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon
Which is horseshit in Illinois. We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste. How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?
Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work. If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 06, 2015, 01:16:18 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 04, 2015, 10:24:26 PM
the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon
Which is horseshit in Illinois. We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste. How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?
Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work. If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.
Traditional pavement only lasts about 10 years; maybe 15 at the most, before it starts to deteriorate. Heavier traffic, snow, accidents, etc., all eats away at a road's surface as well. And you can only go after a company if they're still in business. Want a 20 year warrantee? Don't be surprised if you see paving companies close down and restart under a different name every 10 years or so.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 06, 2015, 01:16:18 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 04, 2015, 10:24:26 PM
the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon
Which is horseshit in Illinois. We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste. How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?
Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work. If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.
I take it you've never seen one in Illinois. We have a political culture here that rewards corporate citizens at the expense of the average citizen when it comes to road building. The idea here is that it is better to keep people employed at the large corporate donor (such as AECOM or Walsh) than to actually build anything that really lasts. May I present to you Exhibit A: William F. Cellini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Cellini). It is not without reason that Illinois is considered the most corrupt state in the Union.
Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.
What about tolling the left lane only?
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.
We've been reluctant to do that because it means less wealthy drivers will be pushed onto less safe highways.
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.
You've driven in Mexico enough to understand how well that works. Beautiful, well-built toll facilities paralleled by free highways in horrific condition that are full of truck traffic, while passing through and polluting the towns through which they pass, since the free routes usually don't bypass city centers.
Trucks use them to save money, and they lose less time anyway since they can't go as fast. In the US, with the steady push to given commercial trucks to 62, the same thing workse probably happen here.
Communities bypassed by interstates would get more traffic again, but not the traffic they want.
As noted above, like in Mexico, our parallel free highways would fill with trucks and poor people, which on lesser roads is a dangerous combination.
Hey it works in West Virginia (I-64/77), Oklahoma (I-44 and other toll roads), northern Indiana / Ohio (I-80/90), Pennsylvania (I-76 & 476), New York (I-87 & 90), Massachusetts (I-90), New Jersey (I-95 and other toll roads), Hew Hampshire (I-95), Maine (I-95), Florida (I-75 & the FL turnpike), Illinois (Chicago area) and Kansas (I-35, I-70, and I-335) . I feel as though it can work in other states too. I've avoided several of those toll roads I mentioned and took alternative routes. I have never felt unsafe because of traffic. If anything it seemed like most of the traffic stayed on the toll road.
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 01:24:15 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 06, 2015, 01:16:18 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: 3467 on May 04, 2015, 10:24:26 PM
the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."
Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon
Which is horseshit in Illinois. We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste. How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?
Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work. If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.
I take it you've never seen one in Illinois. We have a political culture here that rewards corporate citizens at the expense of the average citizen when it comes to road building. The idea here is that it is better to keep people employed at the large corporate donor (such as AECOM or Walsh) than to actually build anything that really lasts. May I present to you Exhibit A: William F. Cellini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Cellini). It is not without reason that Illinois is considered the most corrupt state in the Union.
We've had threads here that demonstrate that many states are the most corrupt, but I won't argue the point.
It sounds like the problem in Illinois is failure to enforce basic standards. If work fails prematurely, someone's supposed to hold the negligent party accountable or sue. If those don't happen, no warranty will ever mean anything.
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Hey it works in West Virginia (I-64/77), Oklahoma (I-44 and other toll roads), northern Indiana / Ohio (I-80/90), Pennsylvania (I-76 & 476), New York (I-87 & 90), Massachusetts (I-90), New Jersey (I-95 and other toll roads), Hew Hampshire (I-95), Maine (I-95), Florida (I-75 & the FL turnpike), Illinois (Chicago area) and Kansas (I-35, I-70, and I-335) . I feel as though it can work in other states too. I've avoided several of those toll roads I mentioned and took alternative routes. I have never felt unsafe because of traffic. If anything it seemed like most of the traffic stayed on the toll road.
And those facilities genrtally toll at a lot less than $.10/ mi for a 2-axle vehicle, or are in dense enough areas that it makes sense to suck up the cost. The Mexico model is high toll rates with parallel facilities in rural areas, and it is fairly ugly.
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2015, 10:17:05 AM
QuoteMeanwhile someday in the future when a lot of cars no longer run on gas, there are more straightforward means of collecting revenue. Make registration fees higher. Add a surcharge to the purchase price of a new car. Tax car insurance policies.
The problem with these is that miles driven (and conversely, traffic created) has zero bearing on them. While the gas tax isn't perfect either due to a number of factors, there's at least a rough correlation between VMT and gas tax paid.
True for registration fees. Not 100% true for insurance since they will charge you more if you tell them you drive more miles per year than is typical. As for the purchase price of a new car, one can presume that the lifespan of a car is measured in miles and there is *some* consistency between cars as to how long they last. If you base the surcharge on vehicle weight rather than on purchase price, you probably have an assessment of how much wear and tear every vehicle is putting on the road that is decently fair.
All that said, this being an issue hinges on the assumption that charging people based on how many miles they drive is the most purely "fair" way of doing things, which I would argue is a hasty conclusion. Consider that the per mile cost of building and maintaining a road can vary A LOT, the per VMT cost even more so. Depending on your typical travels you may frequent relatively expensive or relatively cheap roads.
When it comes to these sort of things, there are so many variables which are in constant flux. Making it "fair" is an ultimitely Sisyphean pursuit. Therefore, rather than wasting our time trying to figure out what is the most fair, I say the focus should be on figuring out what is the most simple while not causing large numbers of people undue hardship. The more complicated you make the process, the more money you waste on administrative overhead.
I like the method of putting a surcharge on the price of new vehicles because it is efficient (you only have to collect revenue from dealerships), avoids placing a large burden on impoverished people (used vehicles may see a modest bump in price but won't have to pay the surcharge itself), maintains some proportionality to usage (you can divide the surcharge by expected life of the vehicle to get a per mile rate), and is extremely difficult to dodge (car dealers can't just make sales in cash and pretend the transaction never happened).
Quote from: corco on May 06, 2015, 06:09:13 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Hey it works in West Virginia (I-64/77), Oklahoma (I-44 and other toll roads), northern Indiana / Ohio (I-80/90), Pennsylvania (I-76 & 476), New York (I-87 & 90), Massachusetts (I-90), New Jersey (I-95 and other toll roads), Hew Hampshire (I-95), Maine (I-95), Florida (I-75 & the FL turnpike), Illinois (Chicago area) and Kansas (I-35, I-70, and I-335) . I feel as though it can work in other states too. I've avoided several of those toll roads I mentioned and took alternative routes. I have never felt unsafe because of traffic. If anything it seemed like most of the traffic stayed on the toll road.
And those facilities genrtally toll at a lot less than $.10/ mi for a 2-axle vehicle, or are in dense enough areas that it makes sense to suck up the cost. The Mexico model is high toll rates with parallel facilities in rural areas, and it is fairly ugly.
I will agree. Mexico charges way too much to drive on their toll roads. You'd expect the prices to be lower since it is a country with a lot of poverty, but that isn't the case.
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2015, 09:02:40 PM
I will agree. Mexico charges way too much to drive on their toll roads. You'd expect the prices to be lower since it is a country with a lot of poverty, but that isn't the case.
France has
Autoroutes that are (usually) tolled, and charge about €1 per 10 miles (http://about-france.com/travel.htm#tolls).
The
Autoroutes can be shunpiked (http://about-france.com/travel.htm#Free) via arterial routes, but they tend to be a lot slower in terms of speed limits (posted limit on most
Autoroutes is 130 km/h, or about 82 MPH.
France also has a robust intercity rail network and $6 per gallon gas. So if you're trying to save some money on your travels, taking the train is likely a better value proposition than driving via surface roads.
Unless you can replicate both of those things, along with the surface roads being a lot slower (not true in much of the US), the transportation market in the US will not respond the same to tolling all freeways.
Split solution: GPS-track commercial vehicles (which should probably be happening regardless due to logbook fraud) with a per-mile charge, but toll general public vehicle use on interstates and other "high-cost" infrastructure. For the general public, if its not easily excludable (ie: local roads), it should be paid out of general government revenue. If its excludable (ie: interstates, bridges, etc), it should be paid out of direct user fees. Commercial vehicles pay a per-mile fee to incentivize them away from populated areas.
Quote from: Zmapper on May 07, 2015, 01:24:44 AM
Commercial vehicles pay a per-mile fee to incentivize them away from populated areas.
But don't the most direct routes involve going thru the populated areas? If I was continuing in the same direction I was already in, generally speaking the shortest route would be directly thru a city, whereas a route away from populated areas would be much longer, and thus more costly.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2015, 06:03:55 AM
But don't the most direct routes involve going thru the populated areas? If I was continuing in the same direction I was already in, generally speaking the shortest route would be directly thru a city, whereas a route away from populated areas would be much longer, and thus more costly.
Quite obviously, you would make the 'bypass' route cheaper to incentivize the thru-traffic to avoid city centers. At the very least, it wouldn't count against a commercial vehicle when, say, they are forced onto the Atlanta Perimeter instead of uses a 'shorter' route through the core of the city.
America needs to start by having one toll transponder you can use anywhere in the damn country. What do we have now; like 5 or 6? That's silly. It's like going to a another state and they have different shaped electrical outlets. It's the same technology, but because you don't have the special plug, you're forced to dig out your wallet. And what's the deal with toll booths that don't take credit cards? It's 2015 for Christ's sake. I would think they would have implemented this technology from the 1970's (or whatever) by now.
As far as the privacy concerns about GPS-based tolling; people show again and again that they will trade privacy for convenience. If they cared that much, they'd never use Google or pay for anything with a credit card.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 07, 2015, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2015, 06:03:55 AM
But don't the most direct routes involve going thru the populated areas? If I was continuing in the same direction I was already in, generally speaking the shortest route would be directly thru a city, whereas a route away from populated areas would be much longer, and thus more costly.
Quite obviously, you would make the 'bypass' route cheaper to incentivize the thru-traffic to avoid city centers. At the very least, it wouldn't count against a commercial vehicle when, say, they are forced onto the Atlanta Perimeter instead of uses a 'shorter' route through the core of the city.
The biggest issue remains: How do you enforce any vehicle to verify their tracking device is in the car. What will stop someone from just leaving it at home while they drive around the country? You have police already trying to enforce a zillion different laws, with everyone complaining that the laws aren't enforced enough. Do you take those limited resources away by now requiring cops to try to locate the tracking device on every vehicle they pass by, which at minimum are located either on the bumper or the windshield, and then try to figure out where exactly on that windshield it is?
QuoteAmerica needs to start by having one toll transponder you can use anywhere in the damn country. What do we have now; like 5 or 6? That's silly. It's like going to a another state and they have different shaped electrical outlets. It's the same technology, but because you don't have the special plug, you're forced to dig out your wallet.
Actually, it's not the same technology when it comes to toll collection. The technologies are always evolving. What a toll road may have used when they started their system in the 90's is going to be different than what a toll road may use that is starting up their system today. It's actually an accomplishment that several states agreed on a single technology in order to make EZ Pass regional in nature. They are pushing for interoperability across all the various systems, but it will take a while to get there. Currently, it's only for customer convenience, so the incentive isn't exactly there.
QuoteAnd what's the deal with toll booths that don't take credit cards? It's 2015 for Christ's sake. I would think they would have implemented this technology from the 1970's (or whatever) by now.
Some actually did use it and took it away; others currently do use it; and some never used it. There's a significant expense to the toll agencies in regards to equipment costs, merchant fees, batching, stolen card use, unreadable cards, and so forth. Electronic tolling doesn't require a vehicle to stop at all. Cash transactions can be handled very quickly when using exchange change, and slows down a bit when change needs to be given back. With a credit card, it would be no faster than a slow cash transaction, leading to delays. Overall, the preference is to go toll-booth free, so most agencies will invest their funds in electronic toll collections, rather than toll collections that require stopping at a booth.
QuoteAs far as the privacy concerns about GPS-based tolling; people show again and again that they will trade privacy for convenience. If they cared that much, they'd never use Google or pay for anything with a credit card.
Overall, people are stupid when it comes to privacy. Someone will be arguing that they want privacy, while posting on Facebook their exact location. If they cared that much, they wouldn't be using a cell phone in the first place. Using your credit card example: They'll be swiping that with no problem, while having a big issue with the security camera above their head.
Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:
Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.
Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on May 07, 2015, 01:03:44 PM
Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:
Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.
Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.
I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.
Quote from: corco on May 07, 2015, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on May 07, 2015, 01:03:44 PM
Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:
Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.
Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.
I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.
Vehicles designed for great gas mileage generally are built as lightly as possible, and the plug-in hybrids and electrics even more than gas powered hybrids. Road wear and tear is proportional to the 4th power of the weight, so road wear from hybrids is very small. I'm okay with letting them get a break. (No, I don't own a hybrid.)
They could always add a small tax to the electric bill then to accommodate that. Yes, it won't be fair, because those with gasoline powered vehicles will be paying a road tax at the pump and when they run their fridge and turn on the lights. It'll help fund those bicycle lanes that bicyclists don't pay to use as well.
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 01:32:44 PM
Quote from: corco on May 07, 2015, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on May 07, 2015, 01:03:44 PM
Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:
Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.
Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.
I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.
Vehicles designed for great gas mileage generally are built as lightly as possible, and the plug-in hybrids and electrics even more than gas powered hybrids. Road wear and tear is proportional to the 4th power of the weight, so road wear from hybrids is very small. I'm okay with letting them get a break. (No, I don't own a hybrid.)
Not really true. A Nissan Leaf weighs 3,493 lbs. A gas Ford Focus weighs 3,243 lbs. Those cars are very close in size. They also use road capacity just as much as a regular car, which is a big part of what the gas tax pays for. We only need giant, massive infrastructure projects because there are a lot of cars- if there were half as many cars, we'd need half as much infrastructure, so no matter how the car is propelled it should pay its share.
With CAFE standards getting stricter,
everybody is trying to build cars as light as possible while still including required safety equipment. Electric batteries arenr exactly light either.
Quote from: corco on May 07, 2015, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on May 07, 2015, 01:03:44 PM
Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:
Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.
Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.
I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.
We seem to already give tax credits and rebates on those vehicles, so why not get rid of the initial incentive for getting the alternate fuel vehicles, and have the subsidy provided by not having to pay the gas tax? Also makes it more fair to the intended goal as we won't end up subsidizing these vehicles that are not actually on the road and bought for secondary use or as a show off vehicle (not that it is much of a problem).
Quote from: UCFKnights on May 07, 2015, 10:24:49 PM
Quote from: corco on May 07, 2015, 01:11:32 PM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on May 07, 2015, 01:03:44 PM
Here's a solution that doesn't involve the expense and intrusion of GPS tracking:
Introduce a gas tax that is indexed to the average gas mileage of vehicles on the road. The way it would work is that when the average mileage of vehicles increases, the gas tax would increase a certain percentage along with it. So even though the total amount of fuel people purchase might decrease, the increase in gas tax would offset that automatically, and overall tax revenues would remain steady. Some type of algorithm would be created to determine the exact numbers used in the index.
Having an index that adjusts automatically would eliminate the need to make the politically unpopular move of having to raise the tax by legislative action each time. Average vehicle mileage could easily be determined by compiling vehicle registration information each year.
I like the idea, but what about vehicles that don't use gas? They probably aren't going away, especially if gas users continue to subsidize their wear and tear on highways.
We seem to already give tax credits and rebates on those vehicles, so why not get rid of the initial incentive for getting the alternate fuel vehicles, and have the subsidy provided by not having to pay the gas tax? Also makes it more fair to the intended goal as we won't end up subsidizing these vehicles that are not actually on the road and bought for secondary use or as a show off vehicle (not that it is much of a problem).
I guess I disagree that we need to subsidize at all at this point. It made sense twelve years ago when gas was less than $2 per gallon and the technology was new, but now the technology has evolved to the point that hybrid/electric cars are affordable and a sensible purchasing decision without subsidy and the free market (with the help of pesky things like CAFE regulations) should be able to carry them forward. They still use just as much highway capacity and contribute just as much to wear and tear as everybody else. They're no longer a rare minority on our highways, and are now a healthy chunk of all the vehicles on the road. They should have to pay proportionally for that road use.
At some point, we need to realize as a country, for all fuel types, that driving is not nearly as cheap as we like to think it is. I don't know what the right solution is to collect those taxes- an end of year odometer certification subject to audit would work well, but then people would have to pay a large tax bill at the end of the year. Tolling has its own equity problems, and GPS-based tolling has privacy concerns. I'd say something like as mentioned above would be the solution for gasoline powered cars.
For electric cars, I feel like the technology has to be just about there for people who own electric cars to be required to get a new meter type that can detect when a car is plugged in and charge for that electric usage accordingly. There will always be some fraud, but if you can get 90% of people, it's a good solution.
The big question is hybrids. They aren't lighter and they pay less in tax to drive. They're really the kink that makes some kind of distance based tolling an inevitability. If a car is propelled by one power source, it's easy to figure out a solution. With multiple power sources, they essentially freeload, and would continue to do so even with a gas tax increase like the one proposed above. I think as a country we want to support hybrids, but I don't support subsidizing things that don't have an explicit need to be subsidized. I guess, if we get to a point where >50% of America's fleet is hybrid, the solution above would work, so maybe we just have to wait for that.
Quote from: corco on May 07, 2015, 10:51:30 PMThe big question is hybrids. They aren't lighter and they pay less in tax to drive. They're really the kink that makes some kind of distance based tolling an inevitability. If a car is propelled by one power source, it's easy to figure out a solution. With multiple power sources, they essentially freeload, and would continue to do so even with a gas tax increase like the one proposed above. I think as a country we want to support hybrids, but I don't support subsidizing things that don't have an explicit need to be subsidized. I guess, if we get to a point where >50% of America's fleet is hybrid, the solution above would work, so maybe we just have to wait for that.
I don't think the heavier weight per unit of fuel consumed for hybrids will be a concern unless 18-wheeler hybrids emerge. The reason for this is that axle weight, which is the true determinant of structural wear and tear on pavements and bridges, is much higher for trucks than it is for either conventional or hybrid passenger cars.
The roadspace occupancy of hybrids is a problem, but I don't think it is serious enough to justify breaking them out as a separate category for some form of use taxation. Phasing-out of the existing subsidies (preferential access to managed lanes, reduced vehicle excise tax, etc.) is probably sufficient. Part of the problem with hybrids is that they really fall on a continuum, ranging from strictly economy-oriented (such as the Prius) to the "mild hybrid" versions of luxury cars like the Lexus LS, Lincoln MKZ, and so on.
Since congestion is usually worse in cities, it may make sense to have a tax enhancement (such as a locally higher gas tax or a higher vehicle excise tax) that reflects the greater cost of providing uncongested roadspace in urban areas. The proceeds of this tax would remain with the conurbation in which it was collected, and would be used to fund transport improvements there, including but not limited to highways. Congestion pricing as practiced in London and Oslo has significant boundary effects, so I don't think it would work well in the majority of urban areas.
As for the suggestion that rural Interstates be tolled, I frankly would dismiss the idea out of hand, for these reasons:
* It gives motorists a financial incentive to take less safe parallel roads, which is a recipe both for congestion and for increased traffic fatalities
* In terms of structural wear, it costs far more to accommodate a unit ESAL on a surface highway than on the parallel Interstate--in Kansas the disparity has been quoted as something like $1 on surface highway, 10c or less on Interstate. Why charge more for the highway that has the lower cost basis?
If structural condition is the principal concern (and it is not the only one, since we also have needs for capacity expansion even in rural areas), it would make more sense to jack up road use taxes for trucks. However, taxes for trucks that are low in comparison to the structural damage they inflict--so that there is a tendency for cars to cross-subsidize trucks when traffic levels stay generally flat, so that capacity considerations do not apply--is part of the bargain we agree to for cheap goods in the stores. Are we prepared to renegotiate that deal?
I don't see hybrids as sticking around for the long haul. They're a transitional technology meant to bridge the gap between gas and electric. Once electric cars become as cheap and convenient as gas cars, I fully expect that both gas cars and hybrids will go the way of the dodo.
In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.
Quote from: US 41 on May 09, 2015, 08:30:46 PM
In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.
The flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.
At this point, especially if you drive during peak hours in an urban area or live in an incredibly rural area, you aren't paying anything close to the cost it actually costs to maintain the infrastructure that you use.
Do you have any evidence that contractor fraud is a systemic problem at a nationwide level? You can probably link me to a few one-off instances, but that doesn't mean that all roads are built poorly.
People complain about taxes, but the percentage of your income that goes to taxes is just about the lowest it has been since we industrialized as a society. Go back to 1975 if you want to complain about taxes. I agree that it's hard to raise taxes in today's environment, but that means that we as a country need to start to shift the message, but no, you don't pay for your road use. Roads are really expensive.
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 08:52:41 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 09, 2015, 08:30:46 PM
In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.
The flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.
At this point, especially if you drive during peak hours in an urban area or live in an incredibly rural area, you aren't paying anything close to the cost it actually costs to maintain the infrastructure that you use.
Do you have any evidence that contractor fraud is a systemic problem at a nationwide level? You can probably link me to a few one-off instances, but that doesn't mean that all roads are built poorly.
People complain about taxes, but the percentage of your income that goes to taxes is just about the lowest it has been since we industrialized as a society. Go back to 1975 if you want to complain about taxes. I agree that it's hard to raise taxes in today's environment, but that means that we as a country need to start to shift the message, but no, you don't pay for your road use. Roads are really expensive.
But you don't like the idea of tolling interstates??? That's the most fair way. If you want to drive 70 everywhere pay for it. If you want to drive 55 and then 30 through every little town and stop a couple times at lights or 4 way stops on the way you shouldn't have to pay extra for that. Most people will probably pay the tolls as long as they aren't overly expensive.
Quote from: US 41 on May 09, 2015, 09:35:39 PM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 08:52:41 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 09, 2015, 08:30:46 PM
In all honesty I feel as if I pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay a road usage tax too. I already pay a road usage tax it's called the gas tax. It's not my fault the government spends it irresponsibly. Maybe if they actually made sure the roads are built good and that contractors are actually doing the job right, they wouldn't have to fix the roads so much. There are multiple states looking at tolling rural interstates and that's most likely the way it will go. Politicians know that adding new taxes will not go over well with the people that vote for them.
The flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.
At this point, especially if you drive during peak hours in an urban area or live in an incredibly rural area, you aren't paying anything close to the cost it actually costs to maintain the infrastructure that you use.
Do you have any evidence that contractor fraud is a systemic problem at a nationwide level? You can probably link me to a few one-off instances, but that doesn't mean that all roads are built poorly.
People complain about taxes, but the percentage of your income that goes to taxes is just about the lowest it has been since we industrialized as a society. Go back to 1975 if you want to complain about taxes. I agree that it's hard to raise taxes in today's environment, but that means that we as a country need to start to shift the message, but no, you don't pay for your road use. Roads are really expensive.
But you don't like the idea of tolling interstates??? That's the most fair way. If you want to drive 70 everywhere pay for it. If you want to drive 55 and then 30 through every little town and stop a couple times at lights or 4 way stops on the way you shouldn't have to pay extra for that. Most people will probably pay the tolls as long as they aren't overly expensive.
Because that ignores the laws of supply and demand- if you build a toll road and charge the "true cost to drive," you're looking at toll rates like those in Mexico or on E-470. If you do that, then in rural areas if there is a free route that isn't that much slower, the free route will build up to capacity quickly, and then you either have to widen the free route or lower the toll on the highway (to the point that the toll facility would still be mostly dependent on fuel taxes and other "normal" highway revenue to pay for their construction). The alternative is to be Mexico and have dangerous parallel highways in horrible condition that most folks use. Those 55 MPH roads through town aren't built to the same standards as interstate highways are, and if you load them up with truck traffic, they will get ugly very quickly. Either way, you're defeating the purpose.
It's kind of a Malthusian Tragedy-of-the-Commons type dilemma- if one person goes the cheap route and uses a free parallel facility, then it's fine and it benefits that person. If most people, all acting rationally, decide to do that, it costs society as a whole and each individual more money in wear and tear. If we all pay into the same pot, we can have better roadways for everybody.
We want to be encouraging cars to use that highway system as efficiently as possible for everyone, because that is what will lower the cost for everyone to drive. The cost to build and maintain an interstate is less per car when they have more cars on them. That means letting through traffic get on the interstate.
Even driving at 55 off freeway at current gas tax rates, you're still not paying for the entirety of your road use.
Quote from: US 41 on May 09, 2015, 09:35:39 PMBut you don't like the idea of tolling interstates??? That's the most fair way. If you want to drive 70 everywhere pay for it. If you want to drive 55 and then 30 through every little town and stop a couple times at lights or 4 way stops on the way you shouldn't have to pay extra for that. Most people will probably pay the tolls as long as they aren't overly expensive.
Tolling the Interstates only is a fee-for-premium-service model, not "the most fair way." Tolling reduces consumer's surplus because it drives a share of price-sensitive drivers onto less suitable roads where journeys take longer, use more fuel, etc. When a transportation system is supported by taxes or fees on its users, it makes more sense to maximize consumer's surplus. Charging to use the better-quality facility is a form of price discrimination, which makes sense only in the context of profit maximization. A transportation agency is serving derived demand (no-one buys transportation services as end products), so it should not be in business to turn a profit--only to cover its costs. (There are certain theoretical exceptions to the last rule, specifically cases where the profits can be reinvested to achieve a higher sustained rate of return than the transportation system; these are discussed in Christopher Foster's
The Transport Problem.)
Charging tolls on rural freeways is also an excellent way to end up with white elephants, as TxDOT has done with SH 130.
At least those people who are low income would have a choice of whether or not they want to take a toll road or not. A mileage tax wouldn't give them much of a choice. I'll admit it, I'm poverty level, which is why I avoid toll roads even if adds to my travel time. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend when I travel. Driving is a hobby for me and I often will drive 3-4 hours on any given day just for a fun cruise. I don't want to pay extra taxes to drive. Gas taxes pay for the roads. Two lane highways are not as costly to fix as interstates. Tolling interstates is not discrimination, it's smart.
EDIT: Mexico's two lane highways do not look like they are in disrepair. They look like any other two lane highway in the US except maybe a little narrower. For the most part they look like nice and smooth highways. When I go to Mazatlan, Mexico in the future I plan on taking MX 30 and 40 libre over 85D and 40D to save around $170. If the roads looked that bad I wouldn't plan on taking them.
QuoteGas taxes pay for the roads.
The problem here is the gas tax doesn't come close to covering the cost of roads. Even if you didn't have the diversions to transit and bike/walk, the amount of gas tax revenue falls short of what's annually spent by an order of about 11-digits...
Quote from: US 41 on May 10, 2015, 08:11:31 PM
At least those people who are low income would have a choice of whether or not they want to take a toll road or not. A mileage tax wouldn't give them much of a choice. I'll admit it, I'm poverty level, which is why I avoid toll roads even if adds to my travel time. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend when I travel. Driving is a hobby for me and I often will drive 3-4 hours on any given day just for a fun cruise. I don't want to pay extra taxes to drive. Gas taxes pay for the roads. Two lane highways are not as costly to fix as interstates. Tolling interstates is not discrimination, it's smart.
EDIT: Mexico's two lane highways do not look like they are in disrepair. They look like any other two lane highway in the US except maybe a little narrower. For the most part they look like nice and smooth highways. When I go to Mazatlan, Mexico in the future I plan on taking MX 30 and 40 libre over 85D and 40D to save around $170. If the roads looked that bad I wouldn't plan on taking them.
The problem is that interstate routes aren't the only roads out there paid with fuel tax. Sure, that's where your 18.4cpg goes to, mostly, but then you have your state tax that also covers all those other roads you run. Do you think some small town with their own roads is also collecting a gas tax as well?
Paved roads are EXPENSIVE. Trying to 'value-added service' the freeways in exchange for booting the less capable onto the free roads makes the roads even more expensive. Now you have the toll roads charging and maintaining the toll roads. And then you have over-burdened free roads that must be paid and maintained while also bearing the brunt of the traffic.
Just as everyone can probably agree that traffic moves better when all traffic can go the same speed (no split speed limits like IL and OH had before), the cost of road construction is better when all roads are funded the same way.
Look at the PA Turnpike for an example in how not to run a toll road. Look at US30, PA283, US322, US422, US422, etc and how traffic is affected by a road being tolled. And seeing as volume doesn't meet the desired revenue, how the toll rises and pushes even more traffic onto other routes. Personally, I never take the PA Turnpike. I take US422 to US22 to I-99 to US30 to I-70 in Breezewood instead of just taking I-76 from Ohio if I were headed to DC or Baltimore areas. And a lot of other people do it, too.
Quote from: US 41 on May 10, 2015, 08:11:31 PMAt least those people who are low income would have a choice of whether or not they want to take a toll road or not. A mileage tax wouldn't give them much of a choice. I'll admit it, I'm poverty level, which is why I avoid toll roads even if adds to my travel time. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend when I travel. Driving is a hobby for me and I often will drive 3-4 hours on any given day just for a fun cruise. I don't want to pay extra taxes to drive. Gas taxes pay for the roads. Two lane highways are not as costly to fix as interstates. Tolling interstates is not discrimination, it's smart.
It is certainly smart for you! If the plan you suggest were adopted, you would have the rest of us pay more (as a result of forgone consumer's surplus as a result of Interstate tolling, which would have knock-on effects all the way down the supply chain) while you get preferential pricing for the roads you yourself use.
Quote from: US 41 on May 10, 2015, 08:11:31 PMEDIT: Mexico's two lane highways do not look like they are in disrepair. They look like any other two lane highway in the US except maybe a little narrower. For the most part they look like nice and smooth highways. When I go to Mazatlan, Mexico in the future I plan on taking MX 30 and 40 libre over 85D and 40D to save around $170. If the roads looked that bad I wouldn't plan on taking them.
Have you actually been south of the border yet? I know you have mentioned driving to Mazatlán, and Corco's posts upthread suggest you have already been and gone, but your last paragraph makes it sound like south-of-the-border travel is still only in prospect.
I wouldn't describe the
libres as a soft option. Some of them are paved quite well, but as a whole the surface quality is quite rough and striping and delineation tend to be quite old. The unit lane width is probably an even three meters, about 10 feet in old money, which is pretty narrow compared to American standards (unit lane width of 12 feet with shoulders that include some paved width adjacent to the traveled way). Long lengths have concrete-paved drainage gullies, called
cunetas in Spanish, which start right at the edge of the traveled way and are too steep to permit easy recovery from tracking errors.
This is fairly typical of my experience of Mexican
libres:
Mex. 16 near Coyame, Chihuahua (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.530229,-104.988126,3a,75y,113.41h,84.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1soO96YYsdW2xOCeBVHhuWxA!2e0!6m1!1e1)
They can be very scenic, but they are not a fast way to travel and since they are narrow and curvy, often with speed limits that are quite low (Mex. 16 between Chihuahua city and the US border at Ojinaga is mostly 70 km/h, if memory serves), they are limited in the extent to which they can act as an industrial factor. Meanwhile, the
autopistas, which are more versatile, are barely used because of the sky-high charges. (I am not sure the charges even cover their true cost to build, operate, and maintain since they were the main cause of Mexico's mid-1990's economic crisis and I think there may have been a debt restructuring that resulted in some First World investors being required to take a bath.)
Setting aside the many reasons the Mexican model is not for us--as an example, it takes three weeks to open a bank account in Mexico--if we are in the position of having to consider tolling high-class roads to keep the rest of the network at a low cost of entry to accommodate low-income people, then perhaps what we really need is an incomes policy.
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 10:17:04 PM
It's kind of a Malthusian Tragedy-of-the-Commons type dilemma- if one person goes the cheap route and uses a free parallel facility, then it's fine and it benefits that person. If most people, all acting rationally, decide to do that, it costs society as a whole and each individual more money in wear and tear. If we all pay into the same pot, we can have better roadways for everybody.
This is why I always argue that in order to use tolls effectively, you have to set them up in such a way that there is no practical shunpike route available. The best way to do this is to set up toll walls, such as what exists on the Hudson River south of Albany - every crossing is tolled eastbound. Every single one. No free routes. It's an imperfect example since there is a wide variance in the amount of the toll between different bridges, and the toll on the Verazzano throws things out of whack by effectively making the Staten Island crossings tolled both ways instead of one, but it can still serve as a source of inspiration.
What if, for example, all the authorities involved teamed up to place a toll on every crossing of the Ohio River downstream from Pittsburgh? And then every crossing of the Mississippi downstream of Cairo?
Rivers are the easiest place to do this since they have the fewest crossing points where you'd have to collect tolls, but the same could apply elsewhere - say, for example, you barricade some of the more minor roads crossing the Smokies between Tennessee and North Carolina, and then toll the remaining ones at the state line. Or keep the minor roads open but sign quite prominently that they are for local traffic only, and ticket anyone caught driving through without stopping like MWAA does with the Dulles Access Road.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 10, 2015, 10:46:49 PM
Look at the PA Turnpike for an example in how not to run a toll road. Look at US30, PA283, US322, US422, US422, etc and how traffic is affected by a road being tolled. And seeing as volume doesn't meet the desired revenue, how the toll rises and pushes even more traffic onto other routes. Personally, I never take the PA Turnpike. I take US422 to US22 to I-99 to US30 to I-70 in Breezewood instead of just taking I-76 from Ohio if I were headed to DC or Baltimore areas. And a lot of other people do it, too.
I don't think it's a lack of volume problem, I think it's mostly the horrible Act 44, which dictates massive amounts of money be handed over to PennDOT, and I think the rate hikes themselves are legislated in (though not 100% sure about that).
I also have my doubts how much extra traffic the routes you mention actually get just because people do not want to pay tolls. I'm sure there is some, including you, but I doubt it's really that much.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2015, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 10:17:04 PM
It's kind of a Malthusian Tragedy-of-the-Commons type dilemma- if one person goes the cheap route and uses a free parallel facility, then it's fine and it benefits that person. If most people, all acting rationally, decide to do that, it costs society as a whole and each individual more money in wear and tear. If we all pay into the same pot, we can have better roadways for everybody.
This is why I always argue that in order to use tolls effectively, you have to set them up in such a way that there is no practical shunpike route available. The best way to do this is to set up toll walls, such as what exists on the Hudson River south of Albany - every crossing is tolled eastbound. Every single one. No free routes. It's an imperfect example since there is a wide variance in the amount of the toll between different bridges, and the toll on the Verazzano throws things out of whack by effectively making the Staten Island crossings tolled both ways instead of one, but it can still serve as a source of inspiration.
What if, for example, all the authorities involved teamed up to place a toll on every crossing of the Ohio River downstream from Pittsburgh? And then every crossing of the Mississippi downstream of Cairo?
Rivers are the easiest place to do this since they have the fewest crossing points where you'd have to collect tolls, but the same could apply elsewhere - say, for example, you barricade some of the more minor roads crossing the Smokies between Tennessee and North Carolina, and then toll the remaining ones at the state line. Or keep the minor roads open but sign quite prominently that they are for local traffic only, and ticket anyone caught driving through without stopping like MWAA does with the Dulles Access Road.
I'm actually okay with tolling massive, expensive pieces of infrastructure like bridges. Those tend to cost a massive amount and serve a localized market, without having much in the way of alternate routing or nationwide relevance. Even the Verazzano, while certainly a very important bridge, priimarily serves local, and not national traffic.
Because of the tendency for them to be localized in importance (excepting Mississippi River crossings and the like), I'd be highly against using those tolls to fund national highway improvements- bridge tolls that go to pay off bridge construction bonds and save up for ongoing O&M expenses and future bridge replacement are acceptable. I do have an issue with MTA charging $15 to go over the Verazzano when the Verazzano is paid for, and then pumping that money into things like transit*, but at least in that case it's a local decision made at the local level on a bridge that primarily serves local traffic, so it's somewhat defensible.
Putting tolls on I-70 through western Kansas and then maintaining a free US-24 parallel to it is where I become anti-toll. That just doesn't make any sense and is a horribly inefficient use of capacity. The sheer expense to have I-70 out there in the first place isn't really worth it- had it not been for the interstate system, there is no way it would be a freeway. Put tolls on it to reflect the cost to drive, and they'd have to be astronomical to be worth it, and then there's US-24 next to it that doesn't pass through very much and you can legally go 65 on it. There's absolutely no point in maintaining a "rich people freeway" next to a "poor person/truck 2-lane" when the freeway isn't remotely close to capacity.
*I'm pro-transit and do think transit funding should come partially from the national level (and possibly even from auto-usage taxes like the fuel tax if it can be demonstrated that those dollars are going into activities that directly offset capacity/O&M issues on roadways) since a very healthy chunk of taxpayers live near and can use transit, and transit does relieve the burden on nationally-important highways through cities. In the case of a toll to pay off a bridge, I don't think it's right to use that money for things other than that bridge (or other bridges that serve the same function), unless the intent is to serve as congestion pricing of some type, but that's back to being a local decision.
If all the interstates were toll roads I doubt trucks would waste their time taking free 2 lane highways. They have places they have to be. Maybe lowering the weight limit on interstates would help make the interstates last longer.
To JN Winkler: I have not been to Mexico yet. All my knowledge is from looking at Mexican highways on streetview.
Quote from: US 41 on May 11, 2015, 10:34:42 PM
If all the interstates were toll roads I doubt trucks would waste their time taking free 2 lane highways.
At opening of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1940, the toll rate for cars was approximately 1¢ per mile; truck rates were significantly higher. A year earlier, the BPR's "Toll Roads and Free Roads" report concluded that, since the cost of operating a private automobile was also approximately 1¢ per mile at the time, motorists would view such a toll as a doubling of their driving expense and therefore would use alternate free routes. History would seem to have proven the BPR wrong, because the volume of paying customers on the Pennsylvania Turnpike far exceeded all expectations. Though the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association threatened a boycott over the high truck tolls, its members voted with their wallets, and truck volumes were also higher than projected.
If we adjust that original 1¢ toll rate for inflation, it would equal approximately 17¢ per mile today–still 4¢ higher than today's outrageously hiked cash rate, and nearly double the current E-ZPass rate.
If we instead use the metric of the toll being "equal to the cost of operation of a motor vehicle" , we'd be looking at toll rate of 50 or 60¢ per mile–or $180-$200 just to cross the Commonwealth.
I'm not saying that tolls
should be that high, nor do I support the kind of inefficiency and corruption that the PTC represents–nor am I ignoring the fact that the tolls were instituted to recoup construction costs that have long since been recouped. What I am saying, however, is that I think people are willing to pay more in tolls to use a fast, direct route than you might expect.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2015, 11:24:13 AM
The biggest issue remains: How do you enforce any vehicle to verify their tracking device is in the car. What will stop someone from just leaving it at home while they drive around the country?
It'll be integrated into the car I bet. And the vehicle probably won't be able to get on the interstate without it. The 'gates' won't open without your GPS transponder or whatever.
Not something I'm necessarily advocating, but it seems to be a likely way to implement such a system. The GPS tolling being restricted to interstates and other freeways due to them already being controlled environments.
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 08:52:41 PMThe flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.
So raise it?
Better than bringing in tracking systems, etc and also has the effect of penalising those who burn more fossil fuels more.
Quote from: english si on May 16, 2015, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 08:52:41 PMThe flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.
So raise it?
Better than bringing in tracking systems, etc and also has the effect of penalising those who burn more fossil fuels more.
I agree with raising it. However do you realize how many more cars there are on the roads? The government is getting plenty of money to take care of the highways. They just choose to waste it and then complain when they don't have enough. I'd rather the gas tax get raised though than to track cars.
This will probably get deleted because it's "not related to roads", but really it is. The government gives over 50 Billion dollars a year to foreign countries (most that don't even really like us) when we can't even take care of ourselves. Do you know how many highways we could maintain and build with 50 Billion? A lot. We spend more money on welfare benefits than the military now. If we were to reform welfare we would even have more money to maintain our roads. The government literally collects every tax imaginable. They don't need more tax money whether it's state or federal. They get enough. They need to learn how to spend the money they get instead of just giving it away.
Quote from: US 41 on May 16, 2015, 08:42:28 AM
Quote from: english si on May 16, 2015, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2015, 08:52:41 PMThe flat gas tax hasn't been raised in 22 years, so you're really not paying your fair share anymore. If gas tax were indexed as a percent, then yeah, you wouldn't be paying more than you used to, but the gas tax is a flat 18.4 cent per gallon amount that hasn't kept up with inflation. We pay significantly less to drive than we used to. In the meantime, our infrastruture is aging and there is no money to maintain or expand it.
So raise it?
Better than bringing in tracking systems, etc and also has the effect of penalising those who burn more fossil fuels more.
I agree with raising it. However do you realize how many more cars there are on the roads? The government is getting plenty of money to take care of the highways. They just choose to waste it and then complain when they don't have enough. I'd rather the gas tax get raised though than to track cars.
There's several giant assertions here that, at the very least, need citations. During the era when we were construction lots of interstates and maintaining the roads better, gas taxes were quite a bit higher compared to construction costs. Now not only has the percentage of the pump price devoted to construction and maintenance gone down, but vehicles are quite a bit more efficient so they use fewer gallons of fuel as well. You can't just handwave that away as the result of wasteful spending. The amount of the federal gas tax spent on nonroads is very small, and even mass transit projects have good effects on roads by diverting traffic that would otherwise be on the roads.
Anyway, at least we agree on raising the gas tax rather than a Stasi wet dream track everybody everywhere system.
Uhhhhh....no. Unless you define "welfare benefits" to include Social Security and Medicare, which are wage-deferred programs, or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which only applies to working Americans, there is no proof that non-military social spending is bankrupting Americans. Tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations and bloated military budgets for endless wars are far more a drain on the budget than SNAP or even "foreign aid".
I do agree with raising and indexing the gas tax, though...it is far and away the fairest alternative for transportation funding. A carbon tax that could fund alternative means of transport would not hurt, either.
QuoteI agree with raising it. However do you realize how many more cars there are on the roads? The government is getting plenty of money to take care of the highways. They just choose to waste it and then complain when they don't have enough. I'd rather the gas tax get raised though than to track cars.
More cars = more wear = significantly more expense for operation and maintenance, especially as states allow heavier and heavier loads
More cars = more need for capacity = more expense on large-scale, specialized infrastructure projects that accommodate a ton of cars in urban areas
So, no. Assuming that more cares = more money = plenty of money is a significant oversimplification. In this country cars are distributed about as poorly as possible for the "economies of scale" argument to make sense. In cities, you have incredibly dense numbers of cars that drive during a few peak hours, and those require incredibly expensive infrastructure solutions to keep traffic from functioning at something better than gridlock. Those cost enormous sums of money to build and maintain. On the flip side, out here in rural Montana we have dozens of fifteen mile long county roads that serve three houses. Those cost more money to maintain than the $150 each home pays into the county road fund each year (even with federal subsidy under the now-defunct Secure Rural Schools Act, those roads still are still deeply rutted, only graded every other year with new material brought in probably once every five, and impassable by low ground clearance vehicles much of the year).
If cars were distributed uniformly across the country and were on the road at evenly distributed times (just as many cars on the road at 2 AM as at 2 PM), I'd agree more with "more cars = more money = plenty of money," but that's just not the case.
As far as "we waste so much money on other things"- government doesn't really budget that way, for better or worse. The highways people don't talk to the foreign aid people - could you imagine what that would look like from a bureaucratic perspective? If you think nothing gets done now.... You can whine about that, but it won't change. Support taxes and policies that go to things you want to spend money on, and oppose taxes and policies that spend money on things you don't - saying "I don't want to pay more in gas tax because too much of my tax money goes overseas" is unproductive and isn't going to affect change, given the way our government is and always has been set up, unless you can demonstrate that gas tax money is going overseas (which you can't).
Government takes a compartmentalized view of government, so in your protest of taxes, you should also take a compartmentalized view, since that's going to be the only way to actually fight the beast. If you just say "I'm paying too much in taxes already," then they can probably keep your tax rate the same, but in government's budgeting process it will then focus on keeping money in already existing programs at the same rate.
QuoteBetter than bringing in tracking systems, etc and also has the effect of penalising those who burn more fossil fuels more.
I agree with raising it as part of a package, and I agree with avoiding the Orwellian tracking system. To a degree, I'm okay with penalizing fossil fuel users, but I also think with increased CAFE standards and increased fuel prices (pre-tax) the incentive to sell and buy alternative energy vehicles is as high as ever, and we need to start looking at how to integrate those vehicles into our existing system so that they pay for their road usage sooner rather than later, before we get to a point where 50% of the national motor fleet is either not reliant or barely reliant on fossil fuel. I don't know what the solution to doing that is, but I think it has to be more than just raising the gas tax and it has to be better than tracking everybody.
Quote from: corco on May 16, 2015, 11:47:26 AMAs far as "we waste so much money on other things"- government doesn't really budget that way, for better or worse. The highways people don't talk to the foreign aid people - could you imagine what that would look like from a bureaucratic perspective? If you think nothing gets done now.... You can whine about that, but it won't change. Support taxes and policies that go to things you want to spend money on, and oppose taxes and policies that spend money on things you don't - saying "I don't want to pay more in gas tax because too much of my tax money goes overseas" is unproductive and isn't going to affect change, given the way our government is and always has been set up, unless you can demonstrate that gas tax money is going overseas (which you can't).
Government takes a compartmentalized view of government, so in your protest of taxes, you should also take a compartmentalized view, since that's going to be the only way to actually fight the beast. If you just say "I'm paying too much in taxes already," then they can probably keep your tax rate the same, but in government's budgeting process it will then focus on keeping money in already existing programs at the same rate.
There is a concept called "program budgeting" where not just the budget itself (which is basically a collection of line-item expenditures) but also program design and the structure of the agencies administering programs are included in an optimization exercise, with the goal of obtaining the highest social rate of return for a given amount of tax revenue.
From a political point of view, there are some obvious problems, such as the high probability that the path to a higher social rate of return involves making some agencies bigger while making others smaller, which gives the lobby groups linked with the latter a reason to obstruct the necessary changes, which is very easy to do in Congress given its current procedural setup.
However, when program budgeting was tried under LBJ, the main problem discovered with it was one of information processing. In order to optimize an entity as large and with as many spheres of activity as the US Government, it is necessary to collect a tremendous amount of data, and try to reach an optimum by adjusting the values of literally dozens of variables. In comparison, increment budgeting--where the budget of each agency is adjusted up or down according to the perceived value it offers during a given budget cycle, or is tied to the proceeds of a dedicated revenue source like the fuel tax--is much easier to implement.
As for government waste, while it exists, finding it can be not just a fool's errand, but also a way to spend more than you save. In the highway sector, the most expensive forms of waste typically originate from "spilt milk" or "shattered egg" mistakes, where the cost to rectify is much higher than the cost to do it right the first time, and the money spent abortively on the mistake cannot realistically be claimed back. An example of this is Kansas DOT's decision to use a sealant rather than an asphalt underlayer to waterproof the subgrade when reconstructing US 50 in concrete between Newton and Florence. The sealant failed, letting water into the subgrade, so slabs cracked, forcing years and years of expensive repairs (dowelling and probably mudjacking as well) and premature application of an asphalt overlay. This is money KDOT cannot reclaim from anyone. The contractors are not responsible because they built the road according to the plans and specifications, and the engineers responsible for design don't have pockets deep enough.
There are many other much more well-known examples of this kind of error--such as every bridge design mistake that has ever resulted in a fatal collapse, like I-35W in Minneapolis--but I cite the sealant problem specifically to show that it is possible for costly errors to arise even in apparently simple and straightforward paving projects.