TheHill.com: Feds: US drivers break mileage record (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/251609-feds-us-drivers-break-mileage-record)
QuoteThe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) said Thursday that U.S. residents have driven a record number of miles in the first half of 2015.
QuoteThe agency said drivers have traveled 1.54 trillion miles between January and June, topping a previous record of 1.5 trillion miles that was set in 2007.
QuoteThe figure is more than double the number of miles driven by U.S. residents in 1981, according to the agency.
Quote"The new data, published in FHWA's latest 'Traffic Volume Trends' report, a monthly estimate of U.S. road travel, show that 275.13 billion miles were driven last June, the most ever in June of any year and the highest VMT for the first half of any year – reaffirming calls for increased investment in transportation infrastructure as demand on the nation's highway system grows," the agency said in a statement.
QuoteThe finding comes as lawmakers are debating the future of federal transportation funding.
QuoteCongress attempted to pass a multiyear transportation bill before lawmakers left Washington for their traditional August recess, but the House and Senate failed to come to an agreement on a package.
So much for the trend of declining driving, and that people don't drive as much as they used to.
More people = more drivers = more miles.
What is the miles per capita? That's a better indicator of driving behavior.
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2015, 04:41:07 PM
So much for the trend of declining driving, and that people don't drive as much as they used to, and people driving less because they are taking transit.
FTFY.
Quote from: Road Hog on August 21, 2015, 05:02:30 PM
More people = more drivers = more miles.
What is the miles per capita? That's a better indicator of driving behavior.
The first relevant Google link I found was this 2014 article (http://www.ssti.us/2014/02/vmt-drops-ninth-year-dots-taking-notice/). Virtually every source I've seen in the last decade says that the number of miles driven per capita peaked in either 2004 or 2005. But yes, a rising population more than cancels that out.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2015, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2015, 04:41:07 PM
So much for the trend of declining driving, and that people don't drive as much as they used to, and people driving less because they are taking transit.
FTFY.
I agree with this. Public transit is great and people should take that in lieu of driving.
For some of us though, we have to drive. I live in rural Maine, I work in rural Maine and I do a lot of field work in rural Maine. By nature of my job, I HAVE to drive a lot. If I want to go to Boston, I could take the Downeaster but that requires an hour drive to Portland. Brunswick is closer but that service isn't regular.
I grew up in a rural area though and when I go to cities, I ALWAYS take public transit. Driving in cities is extra stress. Our population is urbanizing and more people are moving to cities. I imagine that the decline in miles driven per person is tied to that more than anything else.
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2015, 04:41:07 PM
So much for the trend of declining driving, and that people don't drive as much as they used to.
What I find interesting is this:
QuoteThe highway administration said Thursday "according to FHWA's Traffic Volume Trends report, the nation's driving has increased for 16 months in a row."
This means the upward trend began well before gas prices started dropping, so we can't pin it on that. Or at least can't pin it solely on that.
Quote from: Road Hog on August 21, 2015, 05:02:30 PM
More people = more drivers = more miles.
What is the miles per capita? That's a better indicator of driving behavior.
Vehicle miles traveled per capita peaked in 2004, at 10,126 miles per person. (source for VMT and population (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx) - math for VMT/pop done in my own spreadsheet)
Gross VMT peaked in 2007, at 3,031 billion miles. However by preliminary estimates, 2014 saw more VMT than any other year except 2007, at 3,016 billion miles (source) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/14dectvt/page2.cfm)
On a per capita basis, however, VMT has not changed much in the past several years. Based on the above data plus 2014 population numbers from the Census Bureau via Google (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&hl=en&dl=en)...
2001: 9,815 miles per person
2002: 9,930
2003: 9,962
2004: 10,126
2005: 10,114
2006: 10,101
2007: 10,062
2008: 9,790
2009: 9,639
2010: 9,592
2011: 9,468
2012: 9,459
2013: 9,452
2014: 9,459
I've collected a bunch of data on this subject over the years. Here's a graph:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLX0PF2V.png&hash=3abc90ef88385f933600d49d7c9013e7b63b699a)
And if anyone wants the spreadsheet where I keep all these numbers, here's a download link for the Excel file (http://www.filedropper.com/showdownload.php/trafficfatalities) and a less graphically pretty but also less perishable Google docs link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OiCoDwqn0fcVJTT42Ys6fWYJKmZ57lByZGkjmCIQJ6A/edit?usp=sharing).
And yet the gas tax remains the same.
Time for VMT (vehicle miles traveled) fees to get implemented.
Quote from: Bruce on August 23, 2015, 12:54:17 AM
And yet the gas tax remains the same.
Time for VMT (vehicle miles traveled) fees to get implemented.
No. If we're going to to something, we raise the fuel tax a bit (including taxing the electricity used for all-electric vehicles) and toll the freeways.
Quote from: Bruce on August 23, 2015, 12:54:17 AM
And yet the gas tax remains the same.
Time for VMT (vehicle miles traveled) fees to get implemented.
Oh hell no you don't! :angry: :banghead: Just raise gas taxes and let the people pay their fair share that way. We don't need another different type of tax implemented.
VMT fees would be a better replacement for gas taxes, according to some transportation experts (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/pay-as-you-go-000164). With the eventual transition into more and more fuel efficient (and electric) vehicles, gas tax revenue isn't going to keep up at a fast enough pace to maintain all of our worn out roads. Tolling the freeways wouldn't do all that much other than push traffic onto side streets, which will bring out the pitchforks.
Electric cars are not taking over the car market tomorrow. There are very few places to recharge them. So, for many years to come, the majority of cars will be gas powered. Gas taxes can fuel road projects for many presidential terms ahead.
Quote from: cjk374 on August 23, 2015, 11:25:22 AM
Electric cars are not taking over the car market tomorrow. There are very few places to recharge them. So, for many years to come, the majority of cars will be gas powered. Gas taxes can fuel road projects for many presidential terms ahead.
Considering the glacial pace of national legislation, it's better to start planning ahead.
Quote from: cjk374 on August 23, 2015, 11:25:22 AM
Electric cars are not taking over the car market tomorrow. There are very few places to recharge them. So, for many years to come, the majority of cars will be gas powered. Gas taxes can fuel road projects for many presidential terms ahead.
You know how technology works- there's a slow trickle of adopters and then one day it really takes off and everybody has one. If right now we're in, say, 1987 cell phone in terms of electric car charging infrastructure, then we have about 20 years before we'll have a full set of electric capacity infrastructure.
I'm all for getting rid of all tolls and gas taxes and replacing them with a VMT-based tax.
I have no idea why tolling has so many advocates -- that's what taxes are for.
VMT taxes have quite a few issues though. How does one handle out of state travel? I don't want a GPS on my car tracking my every move. And when does one pay? A lump sum would be quite the financial burden. And how to avoid double charging? You can bet that the gas tax won't go away if a VMT tax goes in.
The privacy concerns over a VMT tax's implementation have been much discussed, but allow me to offer a couple other concerns:
- it's a lot more administratively inefficient to collect than a gas tax since there are a lot more vehicles than gas stations out there. More points of collection = more people you need to collect from = more potential violators = more resources needing to be spent on enforcement. The best type of tax is one with as few points of collection as possible. The worst type of tax is one that individuals have to directly pay.
- it is psychologically much more difficult to ignore. I know that I have to put gas in my car but it's a thing I do every so often and I just consider it a cost of living. Some tax is included in the price of the gas, but it isn't generally shown on signs or receipts so it's out of sight and out of mind. But if I am being charged a tax based on how many miles I drive, now I'm going to glare at my odometer every time I get in my car and think "every time that thing ticks up another mile, it's more money out of my pocket". And then feel like the government is constantly, slowly sucking my money away as I drive.
In a future where a gas tax is not a viable means of obtaining funding for highways because everyone has electric cars, it seems to me that the logical thing to do is just tax electricity instead. Then you only have to worry about collecting from utilities, and it preserves the perception of it being out of sight and just an ordinary cost of living.
Fine. Tax the gas. Get rid of the tolls. :D
Quote- it is psychologically much more difficult to ignore. I know that I have to put gas in my car but it's a thing I do every so often and I just consider it a cost of living. Some tax is included in the price of the gas, but it isn't generally shown on signs or receipts so it's out of sight and out of mind. But if I am being charged a tax based on how many miles I drive, now I'm going to glare at my odometer every time I get in my car and think "every time that thing ticks up another mile, it's more money out of my pocket". And then feel like the government is constantly, slowly sucking my money away as I drive.
And that may not be a problem- if we're actually paying the true cost to drive (complete with varying tax rates depending on peak/off-peak driving and vehicle curb weight), we should be aware of how much it actually costs to pay for our share of road infrastructure. When it's like the gas tax, where it's out of sight and out of mind, I think people lose understanding of how expensive it actually is to have and maintain roads. That could change behavior to cause society to function more efficiently (telecommuting, more varied business hours, etc), which should be something we encourage.
Honestly, we as cars subsidize trucks, so if suddenly trucks were paying VMT relative to their weight and the damage they do, while cars do the same, that could also encourage things like more localized production (because if we paid for the actual cost of ground shipping, products would be a lot more expensive) that can help boost and diversify local economies.
That said, I am not interested in a government GPS tracking my every move and taxing me for it, so I have no idea what the solution is. Maybe the solution is something like your car logging your motions between refuels, then when you go to the gas station/charging station, the pump mechanism pulls that data, charges the tax since last refuel, and deletes the data. Obviously that still requires more trust than more people may be comfortable with.
Quote from: Duke87- it is psychologically much more difficult to ignore. I know that I have to put gas in my car but it's a thing I do every so often and I just consider it a cost of living. Some tax is included in the price of the gas, but it isn't generally shown on signs or receipts so it's out of sight and out of mind. But if I am being charged a tax based on how many miles I drive, now I'm going to glare at my odometer every time I get in my car and think "every time that thing ticks up another mile, it's more money out of my pocket". And then feel like the government is constantly, slowly sucking my money away as I drive.
This bullet highlights exactly why the average American driver has A) no clue about the full cost of driving, and B) the actual cost of road infrastructure. (A) because it's a "hidden tax", and (B) in part because the gas tax does not cover the full cost of roads and highways. Not by a longshot.
Quote from: corco on August 23, 2015, 07:43:10 PM
And that may not be a problem- if we're actually paying the true cost to drive (complete with varying tax rates depending on peak/off-peak driving and vehicle curb weight), we should be aware of how much it actually costs to pay for our share of road infrastructure. When it's like the gas tax, where it's out of sight and out of mind, I think people lose understanding of how expensive it actually is to have and maintain roads. That could change behavior to cause society to function more efficiently (telecommuting, more varied business hours, etc), which should be something we encourage.
You have more faith in humanity than I do. If you make the cost of maintaining roads more visible, you might make people change some habits, yes. But you would also inevitably create a lot of pressure from people to keep the tax low - possibly unsustainably low. We're already seeing this with the federal gas tax, it badly needs to be raised but no one dares touch it. Do you really think it wouldn't be worse with a per mile tax? Putting the cost of maintaining roads in people's faces is just going to create sticker shock and accelerate the decay of our infrastructure as people become even less willing to pay for it.
As for varied business hours and such, I don't know that that's necessarily as lovely a thing as you might think either. Currently major cities have their rush hours but outside of them when not too many people are commuting traffic more or less moves well. A staggering of business hours so they're all over the place will likely in many cities result in traffic congestion being something which is just constant all day rather than largely limited to a couple bands of time in the morning and evening. Which, while it may enable more people to commute on the same roads, is hardly an increase in overall societal efficiency since it results in more time and energy lost to congestion and more pollution created by it.
And, speaking as someone who has been telecommuting on a mostly daily basis for more than a year, let me tell you - it ain't all it's cracked up to be. Without needing to get out the door and be in the office by a certain time, I find myself lacking motivation to get up in the morning. With work and pleasure done in the same location, the line between them becomes blurred and both become less satisfying and less productive. And with spending so much of my time at home, the resulting cabin fever can become downright maddening. Telecommuting may reduce transportation demand and, if people were robots, be a no brainer to make the norm. But people are not robots. People are humans, and it isn't healthy for us psychologically.
I am just going to point out that a VMT tax would royally screw over those of us in rural areas. I have a relatively short commute but the nature of my work takes me out into the field a lot and I put a lot of my miles on my car doing so. If I had a comparable job in Boston, I'd ride the T to where I have to go because the population density is greater but in Maine, I could easily drive 50 miles a day just driving around doing visits.
Honestly, I don't believe that we should pay the "true cost" of driving. For a huge portion of this country, driving is our only way to get around. If we change our habits then we aren't going to work or we aren't going to the store or we aren't doing basic human functions. We have a gas tax, maybe raise it a bit but the whole idea of attaching some high tax to driving just assumes that some of us have other options. We don't.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 23, 2015, 10:54:53 PM
Putting the cost of maintaining roads in people's faces is just going to create sticker shock and accelerate the decay of our infrastructure as people become even less willing to pay for it.
I don't understand how tolling doesn't have the same effect (it's too late to avoid the double negative). The cost of the toll is also put right in your face and the public authorities, when raising tolls, are less accountable to any level of government than government transportation agencies (I remember sitting in a meeting with an official from the NYS Dormitory Authority and he proudly proclaimed that public authorities in NY are, in essence, engineering to be autonomous from government).
We've already gone down the road of tolling everything in the United States -- that's why there are all those old roads that are named turnpikes, at least back east. The inefficiencies of private toll roads led to the first efforts to fund transportation at a federal level through taxes.
Then again, I do like how there were people that would just set up a toll gate without any actual authority to do so on the road running alongside their property.
Anyway, that's what astounds me about the push to go back to tolling: We've tried it already and it sucks, say all you want about modern, electronic tolling systems. Now, we have this uncoordinated mishmash of tolled facilities and tax-funded facilities that just isn't getting the job done comprehensively, at least in recent years.
I suppose one of the other reasons I lean towards taxing rather than tolling is because my perception is that taxes are simply more fair across economic classes. Slapping a toll on a facility while continuing to gather gas taxes slaps poorer classes with an additional economic burden that is a larger percentage of their income than it is for higher classes. Just seems to lead to transportation facilities where only those who can afford to ride on them may do so -- Lexus lanes? Try Lexus bridges, tunnels and turnpikes.
Just hit us all with a tax rate increase. Creating facilities to be used mostly by the middle and upper classes is just crass.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 11:17:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 23, 2015, 10:54:53 PM
Putting the cost of maintaining roads in people's faces is just going to create sticker shock and accelerate the decay of our infrastructure as people become even less willing to pay for it.
I don't understand how tolling doesn't have the same effect (it's too late to avoid the double negative). The cost of the toll is also put right in your face and the public authorities, when raising tolls, are less accountable to any level of government than government transportation agencies (I remember sitting in a meeting with an official from the NYS Dormitory Authority and he proudly proclaimed that public authorities in NY are, in essence, engineering to be autonomous from government).
We've already gone down the road of tolling everything in the United States -- that's why there are all those old roads that are named turnpikes, at least back east. The inefficiencies of private toll roads led to the first efforts to fund transportation at a federal level through taxes.
Then again, I do like how there were people that would just set up a toll gate without any actual authority to do so on the road running alongside their property.
Anyway, that's what astounds me about the push to go back to tolling: We've tried it already and it sucks, say all you want about modern, electronic tolling systems. Now, we have this uncoordinated mishmash of tolled facilities and tax-funded facilities that just isn't getting the job done comprehensively, at least in recent years.
I suppose one of the other reasons I lean towards taxing rather than tolling is because my perception is that taxes are simply more fair across economic classes. Slapping a toll on a facility while continuing to gather gas taxes slaps poorer classes with an additional economic burden that is a larger percentage of their income than it is for higher classes. Just seems to lead to transportation facilities where only those who can afford to ride on them may do so -- Lexus lanes? Try Lexus bridges, tunnels and turnpikes.
Just hit us all with a tax rate increase. Creating facilities to be used mostly by the middle and upper classes is just crass.
Tolls, at least in New Hampshire and Maine, serve the purpose of capturing money from tourists who are driving into the state and using the roads. I-95 in NH might as well be called the "The Massachusetts-Maine Turnpike" because it's a 15 mile connector between the two states. The Maine Turnpike only exists south of Augusta and if you're going between Augusta and Portland, I-295 is a free bypass of the Turnpike. The more rural parts of the state aren't burdened by tolls because they're designed to be clustered in the southern part of the state so they grab tourists. The more affluent parts of Maine have tolls, the poorest parts don't. It works out. Also, even the Maine Turnpike's positioning in the Lewiston/Auburn area helps grab tourists. If you're somehow coming in from the east from the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, you have to hop on the Maine Turnpike to get to a lot of the northern most areas of the state.
I'm not a huge fan of toll lanes for the reasons that you mentioned though. Virginia has basically created a system were the well-off can pay to bypass most of the Beltway traffic en route to DC. That's just bad policy, in my mind.
I do think though that we do have to subsidize the cost of rural road maintenance. Rural areas cost more in infrastructure because they're more spread out. They also tend to be poorer so hitting them with the "fair cost of driving" would hurt them tremendously.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 07:02:30 PM
Fine. Tax the gas. Get rid of the tolls. :D
For one brief shining moment, Washington had no toll roads or bridges that were entirely within the state...
QuoteI'm not a huge fan of toll lanes for the reasons that you mentioned though. Virginia has basically created a system were the well-off can pay to bypass most of the Beltway traffic en route to DC. That's just bad policy, in my mind.
Evidence from past HO/T lane projects suggests that people of all income levels use the lanes. Are the well-off better able to pay for it? Sure. Are they the only ones using them? No.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2015, 06:00:46 AM
QuoteI'm not a huge fan of toll lanes for the reasons that you mentioned though. Virginia has basically created a system were the well-off can pay to bypass most of the Beltway traffic en route to DC. That's just bad policy, in my mind.
Evidence from past HO/T lane projects suggests that people of all income levels use the lanes. Are the well-off better able to pay for it? Sure. Are they the only ones using them? No.
When I drove through there last time, I took them (just to see what the experience was like), I think it cost like $7 from end to end. I may be off on that number. It doesn't seem like a very good use of money over the long term.
Depends on the situation. If you're in a hurry to get to something that has a monetary value higher than the toll, then the toll would be worth it.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2015, 08:06:49 AM
Depends on the situation. If you're in a hurry to get to something that has a monetary value higher than the toll, then the toll would be worth it.
Oh absolutely
I'm more thinking about the average daily commuter. That would add up after a while.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2015, 06:00:46 AM
QuoteI'm not a huge fan of toll lanes for the reasons that you mentioned though. Virginia has basically created a system were the well-off can pay to bypass most of the Beltway traffic en route to DC. That's just bad policy, in my mind.
Evidence from past HO/T lane projects suggests that people of all income levels use the lanes. Are the well-off better able to pay for it? Sure. Are they the only ones using them? No.
In theory, yes. But then again, income levels may not equal well-off. Someone with a lot of income could also have drowned themselves in debt...especially if they spent during the good times. Someone in a lower income bracket may have an old car, small house, etc, but no mortgage or car payments, and would have money available.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 24, 2015, 08:29:29 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2015, 08:06:49 AM
Depends on the situation. If you're in a hurry to get to something that has a monetary value higher than the toll, then the toll would be worth it.
Oh absolutely
I'm more thinking about the average daily commuter. That would add up after a while.
Yep - ask anyone that's basically forced to cross a toll bridge or pay a toll on a daily basis. Also those that need to buy a monthly pass for a parking garage or mass transit (especially when they already have a car).
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 11:17:44 PM
that's what astounds me about the push to go back to tolling: We've tried it already and it sucks, say all you want about modern, electronic tolling systems. Now, we have this uncoordinated mishmash of tolled facilities and tax-funded facilities that just isn't getting the job done comprehensively, at least in recent years.
It's all psychological.
Gas prices are, by natural market forces (at this point mostly inflation but people don't think in such terms), higher than they used to be historically. Realistic or not, the perception exists that gas is already too expensive and anything which might increase the price of it further is met with fierce opposition. Especially since people's lifestyles are such that, for the most part, they don't have the option of just buying less gas to compensate for a price increase. It's a cost of living that cannot be changed without changing how one lives. So if the gas tax goes up, you have no choice but to pay more. People don't like not having a choice.
Tolls, meanwhile, offer people a choice. If you don't want to pay the toll, you don't have to use the tolled road. So yes, it creates "Lexus lanes" and such, but at the end of the day that is exactly what people want - to have the road there for them if they want it, but to not have to pay for it if they don't.
Another perception problem is one of the productivity of money. People have a mental disconnect between gas taxes and public roads. As far as the user can directly see, gas tax revenue like all tax revenue is pissed away into the great nebula that is public coffers, and the roads they drive on are paid for with magic money that comes out of the nebula with the input having no relation to the output. When a road is built and funded with tolls, the user directly sees exactly what they are paying for, and feels more like they are actually getting something for their money.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 25, 2015, 11:10:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 11:17:44 PM
that's what astounds me about the push to go back to tolling: We've tried it already and it sucks, say all you want about modern, electronic tolling systems. Now, we have this uncoordinated mishmash of tolled facilities and tax-funded facilities that just isn't getting the job done comprehensively, at least in recent years.
It's all psychological.
Gas prices are, by natural market forces (at this point mostly inflation but people don't think in such terms), higher than they used to be historically. Realistic or not, the perception exists that gas is already too expensive and anything which might increase the price of it further is met with fierce opposition. Especially since people's lifestyles are such that, for the most part, they don't have the option of just buying less gas to compensate for a price increase. It's a cost of living that cannot be changed without changing how one lives. So if the gas tax goes up, you have no choice but to pay more. People don't like not having a choice.
Tolls, meanwhile, offer people a choice. If you don't want to pay the toll, you don't have to use the tolled road. So yes, it creates "Lexus lanes" and such, but at the end of the day that is exactly what people want - to have the road there for them if they want it, but to not have to pay for it if they don't.
Another perception problem is one of the productivity of money. People have a mental disconnect between gas taxes and public roads. As far as the user can directly see, gas tax revenue like all tax revenue is pissed away into the great nebula that is public coffers, and the roads they drive on are paid for with magic money that comes out of the nebula with the input having no relation to the output. When a road is built and funded with tolls, the user directly sees exactly what they are paying for, and feels more like they are actually getting something for their money.
But that's also part of the problem. The cost of making it 'only the user pays' makes it more expensive to keep track. Also, if you based it on weight/mileage, you will have trucks paying an extremely high amount. Which, based on the belief that 'cost is covered by those who use it' will simply see their prices for EVERYTHING go up if it goes up.
Gas tax is a simple way to keep track and charge for the tax. It takes it as a user fee, charged regularly, and the money is handled by retail establishments and passed on in volume to the state and thereby to the feds. If you feel there's a 'freeloader problem' with electric or hybrids, simply up the gas tax to compensate. It will do two things: help spur people into going toward more fuel efficient and non-oil based transportation, and to help get some of the least fuel-efficient vehicles to be driven less or given up entirely.
And the idea that we can't raise the price of fuel is bogus. People will still buy it at $5/gallon as they are right now at $2.50/gallon. Will the volume change? Sure. But, doubling the price came nowhere close to halving the consumption. So, it's a win, win.
I remember when gas was just edging past $2 for the first time in my area, the big talk of a $0.50 increase to the federal fuel tax was that people would never buy gas for $2.50 a gallon. Not long after that, it was hitting $3, $4, and $5 a gallon. And still people filled up their cars. Took trips. Traveled. Sure, we changed some of our driving habits (combining multiple trips into town into one).
But people act like that was a bad thing. Conservation of energy and cost SHOULD be something we do. Whether we do it because prices are high or not.
Quote from: froggie on August 23, 2015, 10:50:04 PM
Quote from: Duke87- it is psychologically much more difficult to ignore. I know that I have to put gas in my car but it's a thing I do every so often and I just consider it a cost of living. Some tax is included in the price of the gas, but it isn't generally shown on signs or receipts so it's out of sight and out of mind. But if I am being charged a tax based on how many miles I drive, now I'm going to glare at my odometer every time I get in my car and think "every time that thing ticks up another mile, it's more money out of my pocket". And then feel like the government is constantly, slowly sucking my money away as I drive.
This bullet highlights exactly why the average American driver has A) no clue about the full cost of driving, and B) the actual cost of road infrastructure. (A) because it's a "hidden tax", and (B) in part because the gas tax does not cover the full cost of roads and highways. Not by a longshot.
And then there's the matter of a chunk of those motor fuel taxes getting diverted to mass transit projects (federal capital subsidies for transit come almost entirely from federal motor fuel taxes), and in some states, the amount of fuel tax revenue and toll revenue that gets diverted to transit is quite high as a percentage of all spending on transit.
More than a few justify and rationalize opposition to increases in those federal motor fuel taxes by stating that "it all would go to transit anyway" (never mind that such claims are false).
An honest discussion of transit funding should be part of the conversation, and it usually is not.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2015, 06:00:46 AM
QuoteI'm not a huge fan of toll lanes for the reasons that you mentioned though. Virginia has basically created a system were the well-off can pay to bypass most of the Beltway traffic en route to DC. That's just bad policy, in my mind.
Evidence from past HO/T lane projects suggests that people of all income levels use the lanes. Are the well-off better able to pay for it? Sure.
Correct.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2015, 06:00:46 AM
Are they the only ones using them? No.
Even more correct. And paying that toll may well mean less fuel expended, and maybe less wear and tear on the vehicle too.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 23, 2015, 05:20:08 PM- it's a lot more administratively inefficient to collect than a gas tax since there are a lot more vehicles than gas stations out there. More points of collection = more people you need to collect from = more potential violators = more resources needing to be spent on enforcement. The best type of tax is one with as few points of collection as possible. The worst type of tax is one that individuals have to directly pay.
This point is a good one. The disparity in count of collection points is actually much greater than this because in most states, the fuel tax is collected off the rack or at the terminal.
Quote from: corco on August 23, 2015, 07:43:10 PMAnd that may not be a problem- if we're actually paying the true cost to drive (complete with varying tax rates depending on peak/off-peak driving and vehicle curb weight), we should be aware of how much it actually costs to pay for our share of road infrastructure. When it's like the gas tax, where it's out of sight and out of mind, I think people lose understanding of how expensive it actually is to have and maintain roads. That could change behavior to cause society to function more efficiently (telecommuting, more varied business hours, etc), which should be something we encourage.
Standard economic theory says the price signal by itself should be all that price-takers need in order to limit overconsumption of scarce resources. We have been a lot slower to adopt roadspace-saving strategies than seems to be indicated by the degree of congestion in our major cities and I suspect that results from institutional factors that never make it into back-of-the-envelope policy analysis.
As an example, adoption of telecommuting in the last fifteen years has been more of a slow roll than a rocket launch, and I think the ulterior reason for this is that many managers entered the workforce during a time of low congestion, low property prices, etc. and still rely on "face time" to identify trustworthy subordinates/good promotion prospects. In a given organizational unit where this is the case, telecommuting takes off when the manager is replaced by somebody who has figured out how to get the work done without structuring his or her supervisory approach around superficial metrics like time spent in the office.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 11:17:44 PMAnyway, that's what astounds me about the push to go back to tolling: We've tried it already and it sucks, say all you want about modern, electronic tolling systems. Now, we have this uncoordinated mishmash of tolled facilities and tax-funded facilities that just isn't getting the job done comprehensively, at least in recent years.
In my view, the current emphasis on tolling will have the effect of establishing that,
even with novel technologies, tolling is still not a sustainable approach to financing highway capacity on a systemwide level. Right now we have too many toll operators chasing too few toll-viable projects and this is already becoming more and more evident as marginal projects fail and require bailouts from the public purse. This is not a simple retread of the 1950's, however, because the highway policy debate in recent years has been dominated by tolling advocates who believe that modern technology negates all the disadvantages inherent in that revenue collection method.
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon aside, proving these people wrong is not a trivial job, and it cannot be done by accepting the 1950's experience as read.
I think, and for our sakes hope, that we are moving in the general direction of a "Son of Interstate" grand compromise where the main basis of support is taxes fairly closely related to use, there is a renewed commitment to upkeep with some capacity expansion, and tolling--including the new variations such as managed lanes--is confined to special cases at the margin.
Quote from: Rothman on August 23, 2015, 11:17:44 PMI suppose one of the other reasons I lean towards taxing rather than tolling is because my perception is that taxes are simply more fair across economic classes. Slapping a toll on a facility while continuing to gather gas taxes slaps poorer classes with an additional economic burden that is a larger percentage of their income than it is for higher classes. Just seems to lead to transportation facilities where only those who can afford to ride on them may do so -- Lexus lanes? Try Lexus bridges, tunnels and turnpikes.
Fuel taxes are regressive, too. The main advantage they have over tolls in this regard is that they do not require the poor to pay exorbitant collection costs on top of the use charge wrapped in the toll plus the tax on the fuel consumed on the tolled facility. Since there is no good way to differentiate trips taken by the poor, probably the easiest way of dealing with the problem is to make a tax credit or partial refund available to low-income filers in respect of fuel taxes and tolls paid. A similar mechanism is used in some states where groceries are subject to full retail sales tax.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 23, 2015, 11:07:56 PM
I am just going to point out that a VMT tax would royally screw over those of us in rural areas. I have a relatively short commute but the nature of my work takes me out into the field a lot and I put a lot of my miles on my car doing so. If I had a comparable job in Boston, I'd ride the T to where I have to go because the population density is greater but in Maine, I could easily drive 50 miles a day just driving around doing visits.
I've heard this argument, and I call BS on it. If a VMT tax would royally screw you over, the gas tax already does because you have to buy a lot more gas and therefore pay more gas tax by virtue of being in a rural area. If anything, I think a VMT would likely be kinder to rural areas than the gas tax. Why? I think people in rural areas have (and need), on average, less fuel-efficient vehicles than those in urban areas. Right now, your rural pick-up truck pays way more gas tax relative to vehicle weight and miles traveled than your urban Prius driver or electric car driver. VMT would have a tendency to even this out when all is said and done (I'm exaggerating the differences, obviously). Now this assumes level revenue, but the amount of revenue collected for roads from whatever means is a completely different issue than the instruments used to raise that revenue, and my contention is that a VMT tax is a more favorable instrument on average for rural-dwellers than the gas tax.
Quote from: tmthyvs on September 12, 2015, 12:44:21 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 23, 2015, 11:07:56 PM
I am just going to point out that a VMT tax would royally screw over those of us in rural areas. I have a relatively short commute but the nature of my work takes me out into the field a lot and I put a lot of my miles on my car doing so. If I had a comparable job in Boston, I'd ride the T to where I have to go because the population density is greater but in Maine, I could easily drive 50 miles a day just driving around doing visits.
I've heard this argument, and I call BS on it. If a VMT tax would royally screw you over, the gas tax already does because you have to buy a lot more gas and therefore pay more gas tax by virtue of being in a rural area. If anything, I think a VMT would likely be kinder to rural areas than the gas tax. Why? I think people in rural areas have (and need), on average, less fuel-efficient vehicles than those in urban areas. Right now, your rural pick-up truck pays way more gas tax relative to vehicle weight and miles traveled than your urban Prius driver or electric car driver. VMT would have a tendency to even this out when all is said and done (I'm exaggerating the differences, obviously). Now this assumes level revenue, but the amount of revenue collected for roads from whatever means is a completely different issue than the instruments used to raise that revenue, and my contention is that a VMT tax is a more favorable instrument on average for rural-dwellers than the gas tax.
A lot of people in rural New England have fuel efficient cars. Toyotas and Subarus are pretty common up here and those generally get good gas mileage. I don't own a pickup truck, never have and never will because I made the conscious decision to avoid a gas guzzler because of the nature of my work (and the fact that I don't have a practical reason to own a pickup truck).
But as some in this thread have proposed, a VMT should exist as a deterrent to driving and be a way to pass on the "cost of the road" to the driver. I disagree with this assertion because as you agree, rural drivers drive more. It would hurt us. I don't think anyone is arguing that we have a VMT that basically just equals the current gas tax. If you want a VMT that discourages driving, you're screwing over who have no other means of getting around.
Quote from: tmthyvs on September 12, 2015, 12:44:21 AM
If anything, I think a VMT would likely be kinder to rural areas than the gas tax.
I would figure the opposite since city driving is less efficient than highway driving.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2015, 07:16:54 AMIf you want a VMT that discourages driving, you're screwing over who have no other means of getting around.
Consider that it's more than an individual trip choice, it's also a lifestyle choice. If driving were made expensive it would give people financial incentive to move to places where there are alternatives or where fewer miles are required to get where one has to go.
Indeed, this is exactly what is seen in countries where driving is expensive - more high density living. It's easy to live in an outer suburb and drive 40 miles each way on the highway to work five days a week when gas is $2.50 a gallon. When gas is $7.50 a gallon people will say "screw this, I'm moving closer to the city" in order to save on commuting costs.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2015, 11:30:18 PM
Quote from: tmthyvs on September 12, 2015, 12:44:21 AM
If anything, I think a VMT would likely be kinder to rural areas than the gas tax.
I would figure the opposite since city driving is less efficient than highway driving.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2015, 07:16:54 AMIf you want a VMT that discourages driving, you're screwing over who have no other means of getting around.
Consider that it's more than an individual trip choice, it's also a lifestyle choice. If driving were made expensive it would give people financial incentive to move to places where there are alternatives or where fewer miles are required to get where one has to go.
Indeed, this is exactly what is seen in countries where driving is expensive - more high density living. It's easy to live in an outer suburb and drive 40 miles each way on the highway to work five days a week when gas is $2.50 a gallon. When gas is $7.50 a gallon people will say "screw this, I'm moving closer to the city" in order to save on commuting costs.
...except they can't afford to do so given how property prices work in the United States.
...which has more to do with developers preferences (for high-dollar luxury condos and the like) and local NIMBYism (it'll bring traffic and crime!) than anything else, as both are preventing much housing development in core and close-in areas.
Quote from: froggie on September 16, 2015, 08:34:50 AM
...which has more to do with developers preferences (for high-dollar luxury condos and the like) and local NIMBYism (it'll bring traffic and crime!) than anything else, as both are preventing much housing development in core and close-in areas.
So, we're screwed.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2015, 11:30:18 PM
Indeed, this is exactly what is seen in countries where driving is expensive - more high density living. It's easy to live in an outer suburb and drive 40 miles each way on the highway to work five days a week when gas is $2.50 a gallon. When gas is $7.50 a gallon people will say "screw this, I'm moving closer to the city" in order to save on commuting costs.
Absent of other factors this likely wouldn't make financial sense as the cost of moving into the city is way higher than the commuting costs from staying in the far suburbs. Gas could go to $10 a gallon and my 124 mile round trip commute is still much cheaper than finding a residence close in.
If I average 30 mpg and worked a 5-day work week that would be about 20 gal/wk which at $2.50 a gal is $50/wk and at $10 a gal is $200/wk. The difference is $600/month. Housing costs alone (not to mention property taxes, generally higher costs of things, etc) would be way, way higher than $600 a month extra. And this was true even before I paid off my mortgage.
Mike
Quote from: froggie on September 16, 2015, 08:34:50 AM
...which has more to do with developers preferences (for high-dollar luxury condos and the like) and local NIMBYism (it'll bring traffic and crime!) than anything else, as both are preventing much housing development in core and close-in areas.
I dare you to try to build something nice like that in Chicago's west or south sides. Especially Lawndale or Englewood. I sincerely doubt it's NIMBYism or developers' preferences there.
However, most city areas are not like Chicago's south side. As with most things, "your mileage may vary"...
Yeah, let's just say that developers don't like developing things just to have them rented out to people who will pay even a cent less than top dollar. That's why most new housing these days is luxury housing.
Quote from: vdeane on September 16, 2015, 12:49:37 PM
Yeah, let's just say that developers don't like developing things just to have them rented out to people who will pay even a cent less than top dollar. That's why most new housing these days is luxury housing.
Agreed, but they wouldn't rent them out at that price if people weren't willing to pay it.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 16, 2015, 09:41:03 AM
Absent of other factors this likely wouldn't make financial sense as the cost of moving into the city is way higher than the commuting costs from staying in the far suburbs. Gas could go to $10 a gallon and my 124 mile round trip commute is still much cheaper than finding a residence close in.
This assumes the closer residence is equivalent to the one further out. What would likely actually happen is you would pay the same amount for a home closer to your job, but it would be smaller.
Indeed, this is essentially what I've noticed in the NYC area - the typical price of a house or apartment varies only with the quality of the neighborhood. If you hold neighborhood quality constant, the prices stay the same whether you're in Manhattan or off in a suburb. What changes is that as you get closer, the houses and apartments get smaller and have fewer amenities.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2015, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 16, 2015, 12:49:37 PM
Yeah, let's just say that developers don't like developing things just to have them rented out to people who will pay even a cent less than top dollar. That's why most new housing these days is luxury housing.
Agreed, but they wouldn't rent them out at that price if people weren't willing to pay it.
Many luxury units are actually sold, not rented. Which is key to part of why developers can build so many - there is a phenomenon of luxury units being sold to people who have zero intention of ever living them. For example, the penthouse of 432 Park Ave sold to a Saudi Arabian billionaire for $95 million. (http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/05/28/saudi-billionaire-said-to-be-buyer-of-95m-penthouse-at-432-park/) Naturally he is not going to take up residence there, although he may stay there when he visits New York.
Why do this? Well, you have a fair supply of people who have made a lot of money but are from countries where long term stability is uncertain and where in a crisis any assets they have there may end up getting destroyed or snatched away from them. So, a ridiculously expensive NYC apartment can be both a place to flee to if the shit hits the fan at home, or simply a means of storing $95 million dollars in a place where no one in their home country can get to it.