Study: Roadways don’t yield sufficient gas tax revenue to cover upkeep costs

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Study: Roadways don't yield sufficient gas tax revenue to cover upkeep costs

Understanding the traffic congestion that smothers Washington and most major cities is a simple numbers game: Since 1960, the U.S. population has grown by 135 million and the number of motor vehicles on roads has increased by 179 million, traveling almost 2.2 trillion miles farther.

Yet the network of roads to handle those burgeoning numbers grew by just 15 percent during those 55 years. Already lagging behind the demand, and with hundreds of thousands of miles in need of repair, the roads will be asked to absorb a population expected to swell by an additional 100 million in the next 50 years.

"Highways are incredibly important, but we have spent decades trying to solve every mobility need with big roads, and it hasn't worked,"  said Kevin DeGood of the Center for American Progress (CAP). "What we need is a system that provides people with real choice."

DeGood co-wrote a report, released Wednesday, that challenges the status quo in transportation thinking and debunks the belief that highways can pay for themselves while public transit cannot.

[Brandon]

DeGood is full of it.  If you raised the tax, then they'd pay for themselves.  Ditto if you raise fares on public transit.  Ditto for toll roads (which is why they raise tolls every so often).

About his group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
Make of it what you will.

[jeffandnicole]

Washington Post: Study: Roadways don’t yield sufficient gas tax revenue to cover upkeep costs

Understanding the traffic congestion that smothers Washington and most major cities is a simple numbers game: Since 1960, the U.S. population has grown by 135 million and the number of motor vehicles on roads has increased by 179 million, traveling almost 2.2 trillion miles farther.

Yet the network of roads to handle those burgeoning numbers grew by just 15 percent during those 55 years. Already lagging behind the demand, and with hundreds of thousands of miles in need of repair, the roads will be asked to absorb a population expected to swell by an additional 100 million in the next 50 years.

“Highways are incredibly important, but we have spent decades trying to solve every mobility need with big roads, and it hasn’t worked,” said Kevin DeGood of the Center for American Progress (CAP). “What we need is a system that provides people with real choice.”

DeGood co-wrote a report, released Wednesday, that challenges the status quo in transportation thinking and debunks the belief that highways can pay for themselves while public transit cannot.

His statement "we have spent decades trying to solve every mobility need with big roads" is incredibly false, because we have spent billions on mass transit over the past several decades.  In almost every city, there are additional bus lines, train lines, light rail lines, subway lines, etc, etc, etc. 

THAT is what hasn't worked: the Billions spent on mass transit. He needs to quit acting as if not a single penny has gone to mass transit. 

[PHLBOS]

About his group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
Make of it what you will.

So that's where former-Senator Tom Daschle went after he lost his 2004 re-election bid.

[cpzilliacus]

His statement "we have spent decades trying to solve every mobility need with big roads" is incredibly false, because we have spent billions on mass transit over the past several decades.  In almost every city, there are additional bus lines, train lines, light rail lines, subway lines, etc, etc, etc. 

THAT is what hasn't worked: the Billions spent on mass transit. He needs to quit acting as if not a single penny has gone to mass transit.

Agreed.  Since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law by Nixon (on 1 January 1970, the same year as the first Earth Day), there has been precious little mileage added to the U.S. freeway network.  The nation has spent billions building (mostly ineffective in terms of highway congestion relief) rail transit systems in a few lucky metropolitan areas including these (San Francisco/Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, Washington (D.C.), Baltimore and New York (City)).

And there are many other laws and regulations that apply when any state wishes to build a new highway, making it difficult to do, and in some cases a hazard to the careers of elected officials that must approve them.

Aside from New York City, I really question what good any of these systems have done, besides creating systems that will require enormous sums of taxpayer dollars to maintain and overhaul as they age.  Money that traditionally has not come from the patrons of these systems.

[froggie]

His statement "we have spent decades trying to solve every mobility need with big roads" is incredibly false, because we have spent billions on mass transit over the past several decades.  In almost every city, there are additional bus lines, train lines, light rail lines, subway lines, etc, etc, etc. 

THAT is what hasn't worked: the Billions spent on mass transit. He needs to quit acting as if not a single penny has gone to mass transit.

I think the more appropriate reason is *all of the above*.

Regarding the roadway portion of funding, Brandon is right...it could be done if the gas tax was raised.  But it would have to be raised by a significant amount if we wanted to make a significant dent...or wean local roads off of local property taxes (back of the envelope number for the latter suggest it would have to go up at least $0.60/gal for such).  As it is, it'd have to go up about a dime just to wean the Federal HTF off of General Treasury transfers.  But increasing the gas tax by any amount has been HUGELY unpopular politically.

[NE2]

About his group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
Make of it what you will.

They're the good guys.

[Brandon]

About his group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
Make of it what you will.

They're the good guys.

Not necessarily.  There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" here.  You define them as "good" or "bad" due to your worldview.

BTW, two can play at that game.