House bill seeks to increase [federal] gas tax by 15 cents per gallon

[NE2]

foolish life decisions

Like moving to West Virginia?

[hbelkins]

This is all part of the ruse.  They pick something you like and TELL you the tax increase is for that.  It is not.

Same tactic was used to sell Kentucky's lottery to voters. We were told it would be used to fund education, but most of the revenues have gone into the General Fund with no earmarks for schools.

Now that casino gambling is back up for discussion in Kentucky, the pitch is that funding will be used to prop up the horse industry, which we're constantly told is Kentucky's signature industry and vital for the survival of the state.

(Not that I was against the lottery -- I wasn't -- and not that I'm against casino gambling. But I would be opposed to casino gambling if funds are used for subsidizing the horse industry, or if horse interests [race tracks] get preference in awarding casino licenses.)

[xcellntbuy]

I am not opposed to a 15-cent tax increase, but it may be preferable to phase it in, with five-cent increments over a three-year period.

[Brandon]

foolish life decisions

Like moving to West Virginia Florida?

FIFY.  WV at least has a nice winter.  FL is too flipping hot and humid.

[corco]

Governments have been subsidizing those who make foolish life decisions for less than 50.

That...the Ancient Greeks did that. Wealth redistribution has been going on for thousands of years. For instance, the Greeks and Romans both had socialized healthcare to an extent  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3021113?uid=3739984&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103084641527

The Roman government imported food and distributed it to ensure their poor were fed under the Annona program (Bread and Circuses) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_supply_to_the_city_of_Rome (other non wikipedia resources can be found through a quick google search)

It's okay I guess to be philosophically opposed to government helping those in need or those who "made foolish life decisions" (though I would disagree with you) and there are ways to argue against it while using actual facts (for instance, if our government's motives for welfare are as sinister as the Bread and Circus program, that's pretty scary), but to say it has only been going on for 50 years is patently incorrect.

[PHLBOS]

I wonder if this passes will states (e.g. MD) with recent state gas tax hikes roll back their gas tax rates since they'll get more from the feds.  I'd guess yes.  So this passing makes little difference to me.  I'm already starting to pay a higher rate and will get this 15 cent rate increase in the future without it passing.

That would be so un-Maryland-like.  The politicos have already taken whatever heat they're going to get from the state gas tax increase, it seems really unlikely they'll give back that money even if new Federal money comes in.  Could happen in some other state with a strong tax-cut lobby -- but not Maryland. 

Similar happened in PA just recently with its gas tax increase and increased motor fees & fines to fund transportation (including transit) projects. 

I don't believe anyone asked whether this would actually replace the current Act 44 statute that keeps draining the PTC toll revenue to fund other roads that are not part of the PTC system along with mass transit.  I could be wrong; but if it were, there would have been more mention of it in the various news reports.

Most assumed that Act 44 (unfortunately) will remain as is; despite the above.  Meaning that annual toll increases for the PA Turnpike will continue.  The current toll cost per mile makes the PA Tunpike one of the highest priced toll roads (as opposed to bridges & tunnels) in the nation.

[vdeane]

The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled.  If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.  Perhaps someone should lobby the FHWA to ban PA from receiving highway money until this is fixed.  If PA complains, they can be told that they're already getting the money from the PTC under Act 44.

[PHLBOS]

The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled.  If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.

If memory serves, no such condition (tolling I-80) was a prerequisite for the diversification of existing Turnpike tolls to non-PTC projects via Act 44.  While it should have (IMHO), it wasn't. 

One needs to keep in mind that the governor of PA at the time, Ed Rendell, who authored Act 44 was also the same individual that allowed DRPA bridge toll revenue to be spend on non-DRPA nor PATCO projects many years earlier.  Had that not been done, maybe the tolls today would only be $3.50-$4 instead of the current $5 one-way bridge toll.

Had Rendell had his way 100%, he'd shred the Interstate Highway Act into little pieces and toll every road he could get his hands on.

[froggie]

Shorter version of PHLBOS's reply:  PTC is legally required to continue the payments, even though tolling I-80 was denied.

[vtk]

http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/120613Blumenauer.aspx

The bill being considered will phase in the 15¢/gallon increase over three years, then track with inflation.  Also proposed is a study of how a nationwide VMT fee might work.

[cpzilliacus]

The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled.  If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.  Perhaps someone should lobby the FHWA to ban PA from receiving highway money until this is fixed.  If PA complains, they can be told that they're already getting the money from the PTC under Act 44.

Valerie, I think there may come a time when the municipal bond market may do the PTC a favor and cut their bond rating so low (and drive the interest rate so high) that they will have to stop with shoveling money out the door to PennDOT, SEPTA and the rest of them.

Shorter version of PHLBOS's reply:  PTC is legally required to continue the payments, even though tolling I-80 was denied.

Agreed.  But at some point, the Act 44 payments are going to drive the PTC into bankruptcy court or receivership.  I know that states cannot themselves declare bankruptcy, but I perhaps "independent" units can.  Or maybe the the trustee for the PTC's bondholders may have step in and seal-off the money draining out, especially if PTC misses a bond payment because of Act 44?

[nexus73]

Cut back on procedural costs and time to get the project ready to go first.  Then come back and sell us on a 15 cent increase Uncle Sam after you get the bureaucracy reined in!

Rick

[vdeane]

The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled.  If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.

If memory serves, no such condition (tolling I-80) was a prerequisite for the diversification of existing Turnpike tolls to non-PTC projects via Act 44.  While it should have (IMHO), it wasn't. 

While it wasn't codified into the law, that IS how the law was intended.  Or am I hoping for too much common sense from the legal system?

Agreed.  But at some point, the Act 44 payments are going to drive the PTC into bankruptcy court or receivership.  I know that states cannot themselves declare bankruptcy, but I perhaps "independent" units can.  Or maybe the the trustee for the PTC's bondholders may have step in and seal-off the money draining out, especially if PTC misses a bond payment because of Act 44?

I suspect the PTC would sooner raise the toll to $50/mile for passenger cars.

[PHLBOS]

Or am I hoping for too much common sense from the legal system?

You are.

I suspect the PTC would sooner raise the toll to $50/mile for passenger cars.

This just in, massive rioting in Harrisburg caused by motorists and truckers.  Film at 11. 

[wxfree]

The PTC should have just stopped payments after it became clear that I-80 wouldn't be tolled.  If PennDOT sued, they could have just said "the payments were contingent on getting federal permission to toll I-80" and left it at that.

If memory serves, no such condition (tolling I-80) was a prerequisite for the diversification of existing Turnpike tolls to non-PTC projects via Act 44.  While it should have (IMHO), it wasn't. 

While it wasn't codified into the law, that IS how the law was intended.  Or am I hoping for too much common sense from the legal system?

According to this article, the payments were originally intended to be larger, but were reduced when I-80 tolling was cancelled.
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5773

Act 44 schemed up by the since-convicted and jailed racketeer state senator Vincent Fumo (Dem, Philadelphia) forced the Turnpike to issue new debt to cover payments to the state of $750m in 2008, $850m in 2009, and $964m in 2010 front-loaded for political salability, and based on highly optimistic traffic and revenue forecasts for both the Turnpike proper and I-80.

When tolling I-80  proved impossible legally and politically the act provided for annual payouts of $450m, but already $2564m of Fumo payouts had been made based on new debt.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post editorial: New gas tax can help pay for roads and transportation

A MAJOR FEDERAL program is on desperate financial footing. It's too important and popular to cut drastically. But a combination of changing social patterns, technological innovation and bad policy design has thrown its accounts far out of balance, and it has begun to eat into general spending that should go to other national priorities.

The program is the federal Highway Trust Fund, which pays about half the yearly tab to build and maintain the nation's roads, bridges and rails. At the moment, the loudest advocate for fixing it responsibly is a liberal Democrat, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.). This month Mr. Blumenauer proposed two bills meant to refill the fund based on the simple, unassailable principle that those who use the roads should pay for them. The measures are backed by a broad coalition of business and labor groups, and they are sensible. That and $3.69 will buy you a gallon of gasoline.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky's gas tax is actually going down for next year.

http://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/PressReleasePage.aspx?&FilterField1=ID&FilterValue1=56

[cpzilliacus]

Kentucky's gas tax is actually going down for next year.

http://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/PressReleasePage.aspx?&FilterField1=ID&FilterValue1=56

I've only been in Kentucky once, and only in a certain part of the state, but IMO, that is ill-advised, though I see that it is an "automatic" decrease because of the way that such tax rates are computed (which is itself vastly better than static per-gallon rates used by most states).

I make the assertion that it is ill-advised because I presume that Kentucky, like most states, has a significant backlog of bridges needing repair or replacement, along with other boring maintenance items like repaving and the like. 

Though at least in Pike County, I did get the overall impression that the roads were decently maintained.