TOLLROADSnews: Fleming-Poole study from Reason says all-electronic tolling costs competitive with fuel taxes, should be "embraced now" as primary highway funding mode (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6292)
Quote
An exhaustive study by toll industry consultant Daryl Fleming and veteran transportation policy analyst and writer Robert Poole says all-electronic toll (AET) collection is already comparable in collection costs to the gasoline tax. The study titled "Dispelling the the Myths: Toll and Fuel Tax Collection Costs in the 21st Century" finds that fuel taxes and AET alike cost in the region of five percent of revenue to collect, but that the other benefits of tolling make it the preferred mode for highway financing.
A summary: "21st-century all electronic tolling is already a viable alternative to motor fuel taxes as a highway user fee. In particular, toll collection costs in the vicinity of 5% of the revenue collected are entirely possible today using proven methods and technology."
This they say is similar to the costs of gasoline/diesel fuel tax collection.
"The results of this research demonstrate that with existing technology and a proper operating framework, the costs of collecting fuel taxes and the costs of collecting tolls for an urban corridor can be very similar. In fact, when all the costs of collection are considered in both cases, the cost of collecting tolls in some toll operations today may actually be less than the total costs of collecting motor fuel taxes"
Tolls have significant additional advantages according to Fleming & Poole: "21st-century tolling offers the opportunity to charge for use of a specific highway, when it is used, and by the type of vehicle being operated. As with paying one's water bill or electric bill, the toll customer pays a user fee for the service provided.
The study concludes that from the highway operator's perspective, AET provides more flexibility to price the entire vehicle mix than do motor fuel taxes.
"When implemented with a value-pricing toll schedule, AET can also be used to manage traffic - offering significant benefits that motor fuel tax programs cannot provide."
This study was conducted by an organization that likes to pretend there's a free market in roads. There isn't. There's a non-toll road and maybe a toll road. You don't have 5 or 6 companies each building roads and competing with each other. Why would anyone build something as expensive as a highway unless it had something of a captive market? Highways are too expensive and take too much room to build multiple competing facilities some of which may go unused.
How would the prices be set? If not by a free market, then how? Until you've priced enough people out of their jobs that the roads run freely? People already pay a form of a toll during rush hour, in the form of lost time. A "value-pricing toll schedule" would impose higher costs when traffic is slow, charging more when the service is of lower quality.
Tolls are also much easier to avoid than taxes, unless all roads are tolled, in which case you may as well simply tax mileage.
I really don't buy the assertion that toll revenue is so cheaply collected. Toll roads require a whole layer of bureaucracy and administration that isn't needed to collect taxes from a few fuel distributors. It's more expensive to collect revenue from everyone individually than to collect it from a few sources. Why does it cost me about 40 cents in taxes to drive 35 miles but costs over $5 in tolls (plus fuel taxes) to drive the same distance the way the toll roads in Texas are priced? We could triple the fuel tax and it still costs less than a quarter of what tolls cost.
I know the math isn't as simple as I'm presenting it, but these are staggering differences.
Study by toll industry consultant... hired by Reason... reported by Tollroadsblog... yep, checks out, must be true.
Yes and no, IMHO. The tolls should only be imposed on controlled-access roads by a state-run authority and not for profit (such as ISTHA, OTC, or OTA). Surface roads should remain with a lowered gasoline and diesel tax.
I flat don't believe that the cost of collecting tolls is as low as collecting gas taxes. RFIDs, sensors, maintaining toll accounts, customer service staff. All that costs money, collecting gas tax is very simple and requires no additional equipment.
I also resist some entity keeping records of where everybody is going all the time.
So, pro higher gas taxes, anti tolls, in general.
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 06:02:00 PM
Study by toll industry consultant... hired by Reason... reported by Tollroadsblog... yep, checks out, must be true.
It's a policy document advocating a certain position.
And yes, Reason has long advocated for "direct" funding of highways by their users by way of tolls.
If you disagree with what was written, why not e-mail Peter Samuel, the owner and editor of TOLLROADSnews and tell him? He does publish well-written dissenting opinions.
Quote from: kkt on November 27, 2012, 09:53:18 PM
So, pro higher gas taxes, anti tolls, in general.
Consider that most elected officials at the federal and state levels of government are absolutely
terrified of increasing the per-gallon tax collected on motor fuels.
Toll collection is
much less expensive if it is all-electronic, though I also agree that collection of taxes on motor fuels is pretty inexpensive.
Quote from: Brandon on November 27, 2012, 07:07:43 PM
Yes and no, IMHO. The tolls should only be imposed on controlled-access roads by a state-run authority and not for profit (such as ISTHA, OTC, or OTA). Surface roads should remain with a lowered gasoline and diesel tax.
Not for profit? I think ISTHA might have to get tossed from that list, given the HOT/toll lane rumors floating around.
You might also want an agency that is a tad more insulated from political interference than ISTHA.
I think it's nearly inevitable, regardless of whatever the Reason foundation is on.
- Gateless tolling makes it relatively cheap to implement
- Gas tax hasn't changed since 1993, is declining in real terms to almost nothing
- Electric vehicles
The current transportation act legalized tolling existing highways, so long as the money goes back to that road. We will likely start seeing tolls appearing in a piece-meal fashion with major rebuilds and upgrades.
My thoughts on this reflect my frustration with the current political climate overall. We have an obvious, efficient, well-proven, and immediate solution to the highway funding problem-higher fuel taxes. An increase would require no new roads, no tag readers, no extra collectors, no ongoing extra cost at all. It wouldn't be a permanent solution, but it would be a good medium-term solution and could start generating steady revenue tomorrow. But, like so many other things that make too much sense, our politicians declare it to be impossible.
It's communist/un-American/blasphemous to pay an extra half-penny per mile in taxes, but it's just dandy to pay 30 times as much and set up whole new departments to keep track of it all and enforce it, as long as well call it something other than a tax (even though that's exactly what it is). Our government loves deception and unnecessary complexity.
I don't oppose toll roads in principle. I do oppose what TxDOT has pressured NTTA into doing, charging higher rates in order to produce extra revenue for unrelated projects. That isn't a user fee; it's a tax at an amplified rate. I also oppose tolling all freeways and pushing traffic onto roads that are less able to handle the traffic. I don't oppose private, for-profit, toll roads as long as there's no government subsidy (no eminent domain, no government loans or loan guarantees).
We built (most of) the Interstates without tolls. What's happening now that we can't do what we figured out how to do 60 years ago?
The issue is, as cars become less and less reliant on gasoline, revenue will drop significantly. Gas mileage is increasing steadily, resulting in lower gas taxes. Drivers of cars like Teslas, the Leaf, and the Volt don't use any gas at all. As that becomes more common, alternative means of funding our transport infrastructure will be needed. Should it be through toll agencies? Per-mileage taxing? Higher yearly registration fees? I don't know, but something will need to be done other than just raising gas taxes.
Quote from: kkt on November 27, 2012, 09:53:18 PM
I also resist some entity keeping records of where everybody is going all the time.
I hope you don't have a cell phone then.
Quote from: realjd on November 28, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
The issue is, as cars become less and less reliant on gasoline, revenue will drop significantly. Gas mileage is increasing steadily, resulting in lower gas taxes. Drivers of cars like Teslas, the Leaf, and the Volt don't use any gas at all. As that becomes more common, alternative means of funding our transport infrastructure will be needed. Should it be through toll agencies? Per-mileage taxing? Higher yearly registration fees? I don't know, but something will need to be done other than just raising gas taxes.
The fuel tax increase will not be a permanent solution, but it is an immediate solution and makes perfect sense. It's more equitable than everyone paying an extra $50 fee, regardless of road use (an idea being floated), and much more equitable than having a few people pay extraordinarily high tolls so that millions of other people can get some new roads at no cost to them (an idea Texas has fallen in love with).
As we develop the governmental structure and administration and cheap ways of tracking mileage, mileage taxes based on vehicle class seem to be the best long-term solution (as long as the rate will increase to keep up with inflation and highway needs). There's no need for it to track where you go, or charge higher fees for certain roads or times. I'd rather see a flat per-mile tax that mimics the fuel tax, which doesn't vary with road type or time of day. It would be less efficient than collecting a tax from a few fuel distributors, but as the somewhat fixed cost pays for collecting all the highway revenue from everyone, and not just from certain trips (as toll roads do) the efficiency could be fairly high. As we figure out how to implement this we should raise fuel taxes as a reasonable medium-term user fee.
Quote from: realjd on November 28, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
The issue is, as cars become less and less reliant on gasoline, revenue will drop significantly. Gas mileage is increasing steadily, resulting in lower gas taxes. Drivers of cars like Teslas, the Leaf, and the Volt don't use any gas at all. As that becomes more common, alternative means of funding our transport infrastructure will be needed. Should it be through toll agencies? Per-mileage taxing? Higher yearly registration fees? I don't know, but something will need to be done other than just raising gas taxes.
Just pay for them from the general fund like everything else?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2012, 08:44:24 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 27, 2012, 09:53:18 PM
I also resist some entity keeping records of where everybody is going all the time.
I hope you don't have a cell phone then.
As a matter of fact, I don't.
If I did, I'd keep the batteries out until I wanted to make a call.
Quote from: realjd on November 28, 2012, 08:18:17 AM
The issue is, as cars become less and less reliant on gasoline, revenue will drop significantly. Gas mileage is increasing steadily, resulting in lower gas taxes. Drivers of cars like Teslas, the Leaf, and the Volt don't use any gas at all. As that becomes more common, alternative means of funding our transport infrastructure will be needed. Should it be through toll agencies? Per-mileage taxing? Higher yearly registration fees? I don't know, but something will need to be done other than just raising gas taxes.
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape. In the long run, some way will need to be found to charge drivers of all-electric cars, but they're still a tiny part of the market and usually owned by fleets or people with a gasoline car in addition. Perhaps they could pay annually or monthly based on the total mileage driven.
Quote from: realjd on November 28, 2012, 08:18:17 AMThe issue is, as cars become less and less reliant on gasoline, revenue will drop significantly. Gas mileage is increasing steadily, resulting in lower gas taxes. Drivers of cars like Teslas, the Leaf, and the Volt don't use any gas at all. As that becomes more common, alternative means of funding our transport infrastructure will be needed. Should it be through toll agencies? Per-mileage taxing? Higher yearly registration fees? I don't know, but something will need to be done other than just raising gas taxes.
The issue here is that the obsolescence of the fuel tax is a long-term development. Yes, all-electric cars and cars using other propulsion technologies
have the potential to make a tax on liquid fuels obsolete, but at present the price premium of such vehicles is many multiples of the added "bite" of a tripling of the fuel tax. At the moment you can expect to pay about $4/gallon for fuel, of which about 50c (depending on state) is tax. If your car gets 30 MPG and you drive 9000 miles annually, you are paying $1200 annually for fuel, of which $150 is tax. The price premium of an all-electric car is nowadays on the order of $10,000, so if you buy one just to avoid fuel taxes, you are paying a premium equal to 60 times what you would save annually in taxes. If fuel taxes triple, the premium is still 20 times what you would save annually in taxes.
Technological progress in propulsion technologies is hard to predict--there is no equivalent of Moore's law in this field. However, it is a very safe bet that more than 90% of the vehicle fleet will be dependent on taxable liquid fuels in 10 years. It is only a fractionally less safe bet that the same will be true in 20 years. In 30 years it
might be time to have a successor to the fuel tax on tap.
Quote from: wxfree on November 27, 2012, 10:40:04 PM
I do oppose what TxDOT has pressured NTTA into doing, charging higher rates in order to produce extra revenue for unrelated projects. That isn't a user fee; it's a tax at an amplified rate. I also oppose tolling all freeways and pushing traffic onto roads that are less able to handle the traffic. I don't oppose private, for-profit, toll roads as long as there's no government subsidy (no eminent domain, no government loans or loan guarantees).
If you think what TxDOT and NTTA are doing is unique, I can assure you it is not.
Ever heard of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission? The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey? The New York MTA? Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey? The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority?
All of these have raised tolls to subsidize other activities (usually money-losing transit operations, sometimes "free" highways having nothing to do with the toll roads and toll crossings).
Quote from: wxfree on November 27, 2012, 10:40:04 PM
We built (most of) the Interstates without tolls. What's happening now that we can't do what we figured out how to do 60 years ago?
I don't dispute that at all.
You all make good points about the electric cars and near-term necessity of a fuel tax. I was approaching it from more of a future-looking perspective.
How much of a highway funding problem do we have in this country? We have a generally excellent road system, often at the expense of other means of transportation. The only thing I specifically would like to see more spending on is upkeep of large infrastructure items like bridges.
The U.S. should seek alternate sources of funding. I don't think toll roads are a good solution, because of their side effects and random nature, some roads charge $ 0.20 per mile while a parallel similar road is free just because it was pre-existing. A toll-free network allows for greated optiziming of traffic flows. People tend to avoid toll roads if reasonably possible. You also cannot toll every single road, unless they come up with some kind of 100% coverage GPS-based mileage toll, which is unlikely at this time.
However, due to gas tax revenues dwindling, toll roads and express toll lanes are currently the only viable option to pay for large scale road projects, i.e. freeway projects.
What do you guys think of abolishing the federal gas tax all together and let the individual states raise their state gas taxes as they see fit? Too much money of the federal gas tax flows to non-highway destinations (I believe it's as much as 40%). The era of "interstate" construction is over anyway and states have proven to be able to fund projects without federal funding (like Phoenix).
Quote from: realjd on November 29, 2012, 02:22:33 PMHow much of a highway funding problem do we have in this country? We have a generally excellent road system, often at the expense of other means of transportation. The only thing I specifically would like to see more spending on is upkeep of large infrastructure items like bridges.
At the moment expert consensus backs a tripling of the fuel tax to meet "all" highway-related funding needs, which implies that the funding deficit is about double the current fuel tax. It is divided between reconstruction of life-expired pavements and bridges and new capital expansion. We do have a very good road system in general, but we have a large and growing number of freight bottlenecks (a logical target for capital expansion), and most of the activity in terms of reconstructing obsolete pavement and bridges has occurred in states where the infrastructure is both newer (constructed during the high period of primary Interstate construction, i.e. 1960 to 1975) and less heavily used (Midwestern states, variously defined--basically the Old Northwest west to the Great Plains).
Quote from: Chris on November 29, 2012, 02:29:54 PMWhat do you guys think of abolishing the federal gas tax altogether and letting the individual states raise their state gas taxes as they see fit?
The main problem with this approach is that the federal gas tax has a weakly redistributive effect. States with moderately large populations would not suffer noticeably from a straightforward substitution, but large and thinly populated states like Montana and Alaska would suffer. Since the US otherwise does not have much of a regional policy, unlike most European countries, it is partly for this reason that I am not keen on abolishing the federal tax.
QuoteToo much money of the federal gas tax flows to non-highway destinations (I believe it's as much as 40%).
That isn't true. The 40% figure applies to the "uncovered" portion of total highway expenditure in the US (i.e., the percentage of total highway spending at all levels of government that is in excess of highway-related revenues). Per FHWA Highway Statistics table FE-21B (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/fe21b.cfm), the only diversions that apply to the federal fuel taxes, which are otherwise deposited in the Highway Trust Fund neat of collection expenses, are to the Mass Transit Account (2.86c/gallon out of total tax of 18.4c/gallon for gasoline and 24.4c/gallon for diesel) and the LUST Trust Fund (0.1c/gallon).
Diversions are actually more of a problem at the state level. The federal government has honored a commitment to spend revenues collected for highway purposes only on highways, with the lone exception of the small diversions for mass transit and LUSTs (never more than 16% of revenues depending on the mix of diesel and gasoline in vehicle fleet fuel consumption). Many states, however, do not have a rule of dedicating all their highway revenues to highway purposes, while others dedicate their highway revenues to general
transportation purposes (meaning mass-transit projects can compete for highway revenues). What this means is that abolition of the federal fuel tax could actually result in a decrease of revenue available for highways since some states would opt not to replace the federal fuel tax while others would retain the same marginal tax but apply much larger diversion percentages.
Accepting that these diversions would be in the public interest requires believing that society is better off if more is spent on transit, or even on non-transportation-related purposes, at the expense of highways. Is this what you want?
QuoteThe era of "interstate" construction is over anyway and states have proven to be able to fund projects without federal funding (like Phoenix).
I don't think Phoenix's model is all that portable. Phoenix has experienced rapid population growth, and has a long tradition of protecting potential freeway corridors from development. This means the vast majority of its new centerline freeway mileage has been in greenfield corridors where costs are very low and construction can be tightly scheduled. Highway needs exist in other areas where corridors are already highly developed and costs per mile are quite high. Wichita, which has had its own sales tax increment for freeways since the mid-1980's, is arguably a more representative example of what would happen if the Phoenix model were rolled out nationally--20 years to upgrade a 13-mile crosstown expressway/divided surface arterial corridor to six-lane full freeway versus three years to build a 10-mile four-lane freeway (the K-96 Northeast Freeway) on greenfield.
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 06:02:00 PM
reported by Tollroadsblog... yep, checks out, must be true.
You could buy it and make the changes you deem appropriate, since its owner is advertising it for sale (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6295).
Quote from: Chris on November 29, 2012, 02:29:54 PM
What do you guys think of abolishing the federal gas tax all together and let the individual states raise their state gas taxes as they see fit? Too much money of the federal gas tax flows to non-highway destinations (I believe it's as much as 40%). The era of "interstate" construction is over anyway and states have proven to be able to fund projects without federal funding (like Phoenix).
I don't think letting the states do it all is a good plan. The Feds now have a major obligation toward road maintenance. That has to be funded somehow, and it isn't going to be from the general fund.
We have a national interest in a good road system. Leaving it up to the states would leave it open for a state that's in trouble to put off maintenance and charge unreasonably high tolls on routes that mostly serve cross-country travelers.
There are few new interstates being constructed, but there are many that need to be expanded and many more for which there is a maintenance backlog. For that matter, there's several proposed interstates that can't be done at state's expense. I'd like to see the toll roads we have converted, with their maintenance paid for by gas taxes, but alas we are going in the opposite direction.
The gas tax should be a percentage of the sale price, not a fixed charge per gallon. Most every other tax is a percentage of the sale price, not per amount. That way it wouldn't have to be adjusted for inflation (or else dwindle down to not enough to fund maintenance).
Let's just check everyone's odometer annually! Give x% revenue to localities, y% to states, z% to fed. :bigass:
Quote from: johndoe on November 29, 2012, 06:11:01 PM
Let's just check everyone's odometer annually! Give x% revenue to localities, y% to states, z% to fed. :bigass:
How do you apportion those percentages?
For example, I drive (a lot) in Maryland and Virginia, as well as lesser amounts in the District of Columbia, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2012, 06:14:57 PM
How do you apportion those percentages?
For example, I drive (a lot) in Maryland and Virginia, as well as lesser amounts in the District of Columbia, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina.
That's an important question. I travel long distances across Texas, but only occasionally out of state. My usual trip to Oklahoma has me buying about 7 gallons of fuel there and paying $3 in tolls, so I do contribute there. But where states are smaller, it's easy to drive across a whole state and not buy fuel (sometimes intentionally if prices, or taxes, are higher there). In this way, the current system has some degree of inequity.
A straight tax per mile would be even more inequitable, since you'd never pay taxes in another state, regardless of travel. Without tracking, this is a difficult problem. One approach would be to have the entire system administered at the federal level. I don't think that would be a popular idea. The current fuel tax is partly federal, which helps to balance the effect of traveling in states in which one buys no fuel and pays no tolls. This is a matter that needs to be studied and discussed. I hope the solution we come up with isn't more toll roads, or tracking everyone all the time.
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
What would happen if we just funded highways from the general budget rather than having a specific money source?
Quote from: DaBigE on November 29, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
I thought the primary drivers of SUVs were soccer moms.
Quote from: deanej on November 29, 2012, 11:19:37 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 29, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
I thought the primary drivers of SUVs were soccer moms.
When he says "older, heavier, less fuel-efficient", I think he's referring to people still driving clunkers from the 80s because they can't afford anything better. New SUVs are not the only inefficient vehicles on the road.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on November 29, 2012, 11:28:55 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 29, 2012, 11:19:37 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 29, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
I thought the primary drivers of SUVs were soccer moms.
When he says "older, heavier, less fuel-efficient", I think he's referring to people still driving clunkers from the 80s because they can't afford anything better. New SUVs are not the only inefficient vehicles on the road.
Exactly what I was referring to, (the original post I was responding to did not say SUVs, although they could have been referring to cars as a generic term for anything on four wheels, I suppose). Some may be stuck with an older SUV as well. There's not exactly a huge market for late-model Suburbans and Expeditions. Those driving around new SUVs don't have any excuses.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 29, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
True, but it creates an incentive to cut gas consumption in other ways. Less pleasure trips, move closer to work. It also reduces the value of old clunkers that get 12 MPG, so they are more likely to be scrapped.
Quote from: deanej on November 29, 2012, 11:19:37 PM
What would happen if we just funded highways from the general budget rather than having a specific money source?
Then the highways budget would be cut drastically, just like all domestic spending that doesn't have a dedicated funding source.
NewGeography.com: Higher Gas Tax Unlikely to Gain Support in Congress (http://www.newgeography.com/content/003270-higher-gas-tax-unlikely-gain-support-congress)
QuoteAlthough some infrastructure advocates are hoping to use the current budget negotiations to win support for an increase in the federal gasoline tax, the idea is unlikely to gain support in Congress or the Administration. While the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission proposed raising the federal gas tax by 15 cents/gallon as part of a broad deficit-reduction plan, neither House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have endorsed the idea. Nor is an increase in the federal gasoline tax popular among the rank-and-file. Most lawmakers see the pressure to raise it as coming only from a narow coalition of liberal advocacy groups and transportation stakeholders that stand to benefit from increased federal transportation spending.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 02:08:40 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 29, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
True, but it creates an incentive to cut gas consumption in other ways. Less pleasure trips, move closer to work.
Except if they're consuming less gas, they're only inflating the revenue stream problem. Those least able to afford better vehicles are usually the ones not going on random road trips and are not easily able to move. In my case, I physically cannot move any close to work. The only residential housing near my office has an income limit regulation (aka, I make too much to live there).
Quote
It also reduces the value of old clunkers that get 12 MPG, so they are more likely to be scrapped.
Which is less incentive for those that can barely afford a car to get rid of it.
IMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes. How about a tax on goods not produced on American soil? It could act as an incentive to bring jobs back here and fund our infrastructure,.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 09:17:43 AMIMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes. How about a tax on goods not produced on American soil? It could act as an incentive to bring jobs back here and fund our infrastructure.
Ever heard of Smoot-Hawley?
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 09:17:43 AM
IMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes.
Never-ending? Where do you live?
The federal motor fuel tax per-gallon rate has not been increased since the earliest years of the Clinton Administration (and then-Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) claimed that the increase was going to wreck the U.S. economy - no word if Gramm (who now works for Swiss bankers) has ever retracted that comment).
Yep, tolls do not replace the gas tax, but supplement them to fund projects that would have otherwise been unfunded.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2012, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 09:17:43 AM
IMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes.
Never-ending? Where do you live?
The federal motor fuel tax per-gallon rate has not been increased since the earliest years of the Clinton Administration (and then-Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) claimed that the increase was going to wreck the U.S. economy - no word if Gramm (who now works for Swiss bankers) has ever retracted that comment).
I wasn't necessarily refering to just federal gas taxes. Up until a couple years ago, Wisconsin automatically adjusted their state gas tax. That law was repealed under a change in administration/party control in the state capitol. Until then, the state gas tax would automatically go up by a set amount each year. I also made that statement based on how if policticians raise the tax once, they've opened the door to do it again--similar to [at least Wisconsin's] cigarette tax increases over the years.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 09:17:43 AMIMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes. How about a tax on goods not produced on American soil? It could act as an incentive to bring jobs back here and fund our infrastructure.
Ever heard of Smoot-Hawley?
At one point I probably did, but it's been a while since my last US History class.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 09:17:43 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 02:08:40 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 29, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The gas tax hits drivers of inefficient and heavy cars more than efficient and light cars, and as you say it doesn't hit drivers of all-electric cars at all. I think it's actually a good thing that it hits drivers of inefficient cars harder. It's incentive to buy more efficient cars and keep the cars you have in good shape.
Except one of the other problems is that many of those who drive the older, heavier, less fuel-efficient vehicles are less able to buy anything more efficient. Hitting them harder at the pump makes them even less able to afford anything better.
True, but it creates an incentive to cut gas consumption in other ways. Less pleasure trips, move closer to work.
Except if they're consuming less gas, they're only inflating the revenue stream problem. Those least able to afford better vehicles are usually the ones not going on random road trips and are not easily able to move. In my case, I physically cannot move any close to work. The only residential housing near my office has an income limit regulation (aka, I make too much to live there).
There's lots of choices. Around here there seem to be lots of inexpensive older Hondas and Toyotas that may be less desirable because of age but still get decent mileage. Other people may chose to eat the increased taxes rather than change what they drive or how much they drive. I realize wanting something for nothing is practically the American Way, but somebody has to pay for the roads.
Quote
Quote
It also reduces the value of old clunkers that get 12 MPG, so they are more likely to be scrapped.
Which is less incentive for those that can barely afford a car to get rid of it.
IMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes. How about a tax on goods not produced on American soil? It could act as an incentive to bring jobs back here and fund our infrastructure,.
We have mutual treaties with many countries about not taxing imports... we don't tax what we import from them, they don't tax things they import from us. The last time we decided to start taxing each other's imports, it made the great depression much, much worse in countries all over the world.
There's no Magic Road Fairy that's going to pay for maintaining and expanding our roads. We need to pay for what we use.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 12:30:37 PM
There's no Magic Road Fairy that's going to pay for maintaining and expanding our roads.
Which is why I favor infrastructure being a line-item in the overall budget and not as a tax or toll, as many municipalities already do. Even if you don't own a car, your existence depends on our infrastructure (fire, ems, police, parcel delivery...).
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 12:30:37 PM
We need to pay for what we use.
That's a topic for a whole new thread...the ole "I don't use it so why should I have to pay for it" slippery-slope.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 11:54:52 AMI wasn't necessarily refering to just federal gas taxes. Up until a couple years ago, Wisconsin automatically adjusted their state gas tax. That law was repealed under a change in administration/party control in the state capitol. Until then, the state gas tax would automatically go up by a set amount each year. I also made that statement based on how if policticians raise the tax once, they've opened the door to do it again--similar to [at least Wisconsin's] cigarette tax increases over the years.
Wisconsin made a mistake when it abandoned indexation (under, rather unbelievably, a Democratic governor). Kansas is considering adopting it.
A tax escalator on cigarettes has a public-policy justification since the primary purpose of tobacco taxes is to discourage consumption, not to raise revenue.
QuoteQuote from: J N Winkler on November 30, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 09:17:43 AMIMO, there has to be a different way of funding our roads...not thru tolling nor thru never-ending fuel tax hikes. How about a tax on goods not produced on American soil? It could act as an incentive to bring jobs back here and fund our infrastructure.
Ever heard of Smoot-Hawley?
At one point I probably did, but it's been a while since my last US History class.
What the example of Smoot-Hawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley) should tell you is that if you are going to propose tariffs to fund infrastructure, you have to account for the possibility of other countries applying retaliatory tariffs to our exports. We would not be able to head off such retaliation by arguing that the revenue collected is for infrastructure, because the other countries would then ask us why we were abandoning our long-standing and economically rational adherence to the user-pays principle, and we would not be able to supply a good answer to that question. Unless care is taken to confine tariffs to sectors where retaliation is unlikely, they can easily have the effect, opposite of what is intended, of
increasing domestic unemployment.
Trade policy is complex and politically loaded enough without introducing the extraneous objective of ensuring that the tariffs collected are sufficient to fund highways.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 12:50:54 PMQuote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 12:30:37 PMThere's no Magic Road Fairy that's going to pay for maintaining and expanding our roads.
Which is why I favor infrastructure being a line-item in the overall budget and not as a tax or toll, as many municipalities already do. Even if you don't own a car, your existence depends on our infrastructure (fire, EMS, police, parcel delivery...).
But those are access-related uses, not through-traffic-related uses. It is appropriate to have a small copayment from property taxes in respect of the access function that the highway infrastructure serves. It does not follow that the property tax (or any of the revenue sources which municipalities can access under their taxing powers) is appropriate as the revenue mainstay for the highway system as a whole.
QuoteQuote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 12:30:37 PM
We need to pay for what we use.
That's a topic for a whole new thread...the ole "I don't use it so why should I have to pay for it" slippery-slope.
This is beside the point. The highway system is at present supported primarily by direct user fees. If you don't travel on the highways, you are not charged. If you travel on the highways, you are charged (at least as long as you do it in a vehicle which consumes taxable fuels). If you don't travel on the highways but buy goods or services which entail an element of highway transport, the providers of those goods or services pay for their use of the highways out of the money they collect from you.
It is not like schools, which property owners support through taxes on land even when they are well past childbearing age.
Quote from: DaBigE on November 30, 2012, 12:50:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 12:30:37 PM
There's no Magic Road Fairy that's going to pay for maintaining and expanding our roads.
Which is why I favor infrastructure being a line-item in the overall budget and not as a tax or toll, as many municipalities already do. Even if you don't own a car, your existence depends on our infrastructure (fire, ems, police, parcel delivery...).
In most places in the U.S., property taxes pay for local roads. The gas taxes are used for state routes, maybe regional routes.
The point of having a (mostly) free market is that the prices of things reflect the cost to provide them. Subsidizing some modes distorts that market. If the highways are subsidized by property tax, income tax, or import taxes, that will penalize other means of transportation or possible alternatives to moving people or things around as much. For instance, railroads for freight come much closer to paying their own way than intercity trucks because they're a fundamentally more efficient in labor, land required for right of way, and fuel.
I'm not opposed to local roads being paid for by property tax, but I certainly don't think we should extend the use of non user taxes to pay for highways. (And if you think the roads we get even as much maintenance as they do now if they were competing with everything else from the general fund, well, I think you're very much mistaken.)
Quote
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 12:30:37 PM
We need to pay for what we use.
That's a topic for a whole new thread...the ole "I don't use it so why should I have to pay for it" slippery-slope.
I use roads and I'm not trying to weasel out of paying for them. But I'm not trying to make people pay for my share who live carless.
Quote from: kkt on November 29, 2012, 06:01:14 PM
The gas tax should be a percentage of the sale price, not a fixed charge per gallon. Most every other tax is a percentage of the sale price, not per amount. That way it wouldn't have to be adjusted for inflation (or else dwindle down to not enough to fund maintenance).
I'm gonna have to completely disagree with this.
I do think the gas tax should be a flat rate, indexed with inflation.... But certainly not directly tied to the price of gasoline.
It's something that's just way to volatile. From a gov't budgeting perspective, I think it could be too unpredictable, and for the consumer, when the price spikes, it will be compounded by the nature of a tax on the price/gal.
Some crisis in the Middle East, or natural disaster (a la Katrina) disrupting oil supplies, or incidents that shut down major refineries that raise prices would result in windfalls, and price slumps (which don't happen often enough for my tastes...) would have the opposite effect.
With more and more cars using less gas / diesel, at some point a mileage-based funding solution will probably have to happen anyway.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 30, 2012, 03:04:50 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 29, 2012, 06:01:14 PM
The gas tax should be a percentage of the sale price, not a fixed charge per gallon. Most every other tax is a percentage of the sale price, not per amount. That way it wouldn't have to be adjusted for inflation (or else dwindle down to not enough to fund maintenance).
I'm gonna have to completely disagree with this.
I do think the gas tax should be a flat rate, indexed with inflation.... But certainly not directly tied to the price of gasoline.
It's something that's just way to volatile. From a gov't budgeting perspective, I think it could be too unpredictable, and for the consumer, when the price spikes, it will be compounded by the nature of a tax on the price/gal.
Some crisis in the Middle East, or natural disaster (a la Katrina) disrupting oil supplies, or incidents that shut down major refineries that raise prices would result in windfalls, and price slumps (which don't happen often enough for my tastes...) would have the opposite effect.
With more and more cars using less gas / diesel, at some point a mileage-based funding solution will probably have to happen anyway.
I see your point. The only thing is that if the tax is indexed to inflation, once a year or so some official or commission is going to have to make a press release announcing how much the new tax is. Rationally, that should be okay, but politically every time that happens it would be a lightning rod from people who think they're overtaxed. It becomes a cheap political short-term fix to end the annual adjustment, and then we're right back where we are now.
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2012, 04:27:52 PMI see your point. The only thing is that if the tax is indexed to inflation, once a year or so some official or commission is going to have to make a press release announcing how much the new tax is. Rationally, that should be okay, but politically every time that happens it would be a lightning rod from people who think they're overtaxed. It becomes a cheap political short-term fix to end the annual adjustment, and then we're right back where we are now.
Another reason to keep the fuel tax as a volume-based excise tax rather than an
ad valorem tax is that it preserves the principle of charging proportionately to use.
Wisconsin had annual adjustment of the fuel tax to account for inflation for more than 20 years before it was abolished, so I don't think we should shy from indexation simply because a fit of short-termist thinking in the future would lead to it being abolished. It is in any case a fundamental principle that one session of the legislature cannot bind future sessions of the same legislature, which is one reason the rule of dedicating fuel taxes to highways (or to transportation in general) has had to be elevated to a constitutional amendment in many of the states that have it.
[
Seems appropriate to bump this old thread]
Washington Post: 5 things to know about highway tolling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/5-things-to-know-about-highway-tolling/2014/04/30/97987b6a-d075-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html)
Quote1. What does current federal law say?
QuoteIt prohibits states or the federal government from establishing tolls on existing interstate highways. When states expand the system – think of the HOT lanes that opened last year in Virginia, and Maryland's Intercounty Connector – they may receive permission to apply tolls on new lanes.
Quote2. What is the White House proposing?
QuoteThe administration wants to leave it to states to decide whether they want to toll their interstates. Money from new tolling would have to be used for repair and reconstruction of roadway systems, and the U.S. secretary of transportation would have to approve any new tolling plans for interstates.