Road Usage Charging Is Focus of Toll Industry Discussion

[cpzilliacus]

TollRoadsNews: Road Usage Charging Is Focus of Toll Industry Discussion

Portland, OR —- The toll road industry wrapped up its Portland conference on financing and road usage charging (RUC) this week and found that charging motorists for the miles they drive could be a useful tool to pay for transportation infrastructure. Even though the pace of road usage charging activity is picking up around the country widespread adoption is a long way off.

The International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA) conference on Transportation Financing and Road Usage Charging was both an education effort and an exercise in alliance building. With state and national gas tax revenue dwindling, and Congress unable to provide a sustainable revenue stream for the Highway Trust Fund, the surface transportation sector is seeking new and stable funding sources for the nation's aging roads, bridges and tunnels.

"As we look to the future, I think clearly RUC can be a viable option as a replacement for the motor fuel tax. However I do believe it's going to be a long term solution,"  said John Lawson, chief financial officer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Ed Regan, senior vice president of CDM Smith, said he's seeing a gradual "warming of the relationship between road user charging and tolling."  He maintains that "road user charging is not a threat to the tolling industry but rather has a lot of potential positive impacts."

[Scott5114]

They can discuss it all they like but it will be politically DOA in most areas, especially red states. Nobody will be OK with the government attaching a GPS to your car, and any other implementation leads to issues like how to handle out of state mileage and odometer tampering. That is, unless the program is federally run, which will never happen, since people seem to think that the federal government is literally Satan.

One excellent way of funding infrastructure is to actually raise the gas tax, but we will never do that because we are weenies who are afraid to pay for things.

[vdeane]

Tell me to wear a tin foil hat all you like, but I wouldn't be surprised if the elite are making it more difficult than it needs to be to raise the gas tax so that the idea of having a GPS tracking every car is more palatable.

[3467]

We have a red gov who hates all taxes except maybe a GPS device. It came up in the so called Listening sessions in Illinois _trust me we are a blue state and when after proposing big cuts to social programs and a 35% cut to the state universities ..if this is his only tax well he will look back fondly on his current 40% ......

[J N Winkler]

I think the key observation (among the snippets C.P. quoted) is that GPS charging is a "long-term" solution, which I have said in the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

It is also rather interesting that the operators of existing toll facilities appear to see GPS charging as a threat.

[3467]

the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon

[Duke87]

They can discuss it all they like but it will be politically DOA in most areas, especially red states. Nobody will be OK with the government attaching a GPS to your car, and any other implementation leads to issues like how to handle out of state mileage and odometer tampering.

What about GPS tampering? Any device connected to a car can be removed. Oh whoops, my bad, I went on a big long road trip but left the GPS in my garage so it looked like my car was parked the whole time. So sorry.

You can program things so the car won't start if the GPS isn't connected, but then people will find a way to spoof it or crack it. You can officially seal it and make it so the intactness of the seal is checked upon regular inspection, but inspectors will routinely pass things that shouldn't because they're doing their buddy a favor, because you slip them a couple of dead presidents, or because they just don't give a fuck.


The benefit of the gas tax is that it is impossible for the end user to dodge it since the end user physically cannot falsify the basis for its collection. A mileage tax would have to be collected from individuals rather than from businesses, which is so much more difficult to enforce and administratively a lot less efficient.

Meanwhile someday in the future when a lot of cars no longer run on gas, there are more straightforward means of collecting revenue. Make registration fees higher. Add a surcharge to the purchase price of a new car. Tax car insurance policies. Put a transportation tax on electricity if that's what everyone's using to power their vehicles. Or, if you really want to go crazy, drop the regressive user fee model and bump corporate income taxes up to compensate.

[froggie]

Meanwhile someday in the future when a lot of cars no longer run on gas, there are more straightforward means of collecting revenue. Make registration fees higher. Add a surcharge to the purchase price of a new car. Tax car insurance policies.

The problem with these is that miles driven (and conversely, traffic created) has zero bearing on them.  While the gas tax isn't perfect either due to a number of factors, there's at least a rough correlation between VMT and gas tax paid.

[Brandon]

the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon

Which is horseshit in Illinois.  We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste.  How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?

[Pete from Boston]

the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon

Which is horseshit in Illinois.  We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste.  How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?

Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work.  If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.

[jeffandnicole]

the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon

Which is horseshit in Illinois.  We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste.  How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?

Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work.  If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.

Traditional pavement only lasts about 10 years; maybe 15 at the most, before it starts to deteriorate.  Heavier traffic, snow, accidents, etc., all eats away at a road's surface as well.  And you can only go after a company if they're still in business.  Want a 20 year warrantee?  Don't be surprised if you see paving companies close down and restart under a different name every 10 years or so.

[Brandon]

the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon

Which is horseshit in Illinois.  We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste.  How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?

Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work.  If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.

I take it you've never seen one in Illinois.  We have a political culture here that rewards corporate citizens at the expense of the average citizen when it comes to road building.  The idea here is that it is better to keep people employed at the large corporate donor (such as AECOM or Walsh) than to actually build anything that really lasts.  May I present to you Exhibit A: William F. Cellini.  It is not without reason that Illinois is considered the most corrupt state in the Union.

[US 41]

Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.

[hotdogPi]

Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.

What about tolling the left lane only?

[kkt]

Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.

We've been reluctant to do that because it means less wealthy drivers will be pushed onto less safe highways.

[corco]

Honestly the government should just toll all the interstate highways someway or another. I'm not a fan of electronic tolling, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it. People wouldn't drive as much and tear up the roads if there were tolls on the main highways. If you don't want to pay tolls, take the old highway (US or state highway). Out west it's harder to find alternative routes but they are there. I think $0.10 per mile would be an acceptable toll.

You've driven in Mexico enough to understand how well that works. Beautiful, well-built toll facilities paralleled by free highways in horrific condition that are full of truck traffic, while passing through and polluting the towns through which they pass, since the free routes usually don't bypass city centers.

Trucks use them to save money, and they lose less time anyway since they can't go as fast. In the US, with the steady push to given commercial trucks to 62, the same thing workse probably happen here.

Communities bypassed by interstates would get more traffic again, but not the traffic they want.

As noted above, like in Mexico, our parallel free highways would fill with trucks and poor people, which on lesser roads is a dangerous combination.

[US 41]

Hey it works in West Virginia (I-64/77), Oklahoma (I-44 and other toll roads), northern Indiana / Ohio (I-80/90), Pennsylvania (I-76 & 476), New York (I-87 & 90), Massachusetts (I-90), New Jersey (I-95 and other toll roads), Hew Hampshire (I-95), Maine (I-95), Florida (I-75 & the FL turnpike), Illinois (Chicago area) and Kansas (I-35, I-70, and I-335) . I feel as though it can work in other states too. I've avoided several of those toll roads I mentioned and took alternative routes. I have never felt unsafe because of traffic. If anything it seemed like most of the traffic stayed on the toll road.

[Pete from Boston]

the past whenever overheated suggestions have been made here that GPS charging must be used, or will imminently be used, "because the gas tax is not enough."

Actually the head of Idot said something very close to that this afternoon

Which is horseshit in Illinois.  We have a very high fuel tax, and it goes to waste.  How about writing scopes of work and contracts that state that the contractor must guarantee the road for the next twenty years for fix it at his own expense?

Contracts are already guaranteed against negligent work.  If you want to add wear and tear, expect much higher bids.

I take it you've never seen one in Illinois.  We have a political culture here that rewards corporate citizens at the expense of the average citizen when it comes to road building.  The idea here is that it is better to keep people employed at the large corporate donor (such as AECOM or Walsh) than to actually build anything that really lasts.  May I present to you Exhibit A: William F. Cellini.  It is not without reason that Illinois is considered the most corrupt state in the Union.

We've had threads here that demonstrate that many states are the most corrupt, but I won't argue the point. 

It sounds like the problem in Illinois is failure to enforce basic standards.  If work fails prematurely, someone's supposed to hold the negligent party accountable or sue.  If those don't happen, no warranty will ever mean anything.

[corco]

Hey it works in West Virginia (I-64/77), Oklahoma (I-44 and other toll roads), northern Indiana / Ohio (I-80/90), Pennsylvania (I-76 & 476), New York (I-87 & 90), Massachusetts (I-90), New Jersey (I-95 and other toll roads), Hew Hampshire (I-95), Maine (I-95), Florida (I-75 & the FL turnpike), Illinois (Chicago area) and Kansas (I-35, I-70, and I-335) . I feel as though it can work in other states too. I've avoided several of those toll roads I mentioned and took alternative routes. I have never felt unsafe because of traffic. If anything it seemed like most of the traffic stayed on the toll road.

And those facilities genrtally toll at a lot less than $.10/ mi for a 2-axle vehicle, or are in dense enough areas that it makes sense to suck up the cost. The Mexico model is high toll rates with parallel facilities in rural areas, and it is fairly ugly.

[Duke87]

Meanwhile someday in the future when a lot of cars no longer run on gas, there are more straightforward means of collecting revenue. Make registration fees higher. Add a surcharge to the purchase price of a new car. Tax car insurance policies.

The problem with these is that miles driven (and conversely, traffic created) has zero bearing on them.  While the gas tax isn't perfect either due to a number of factors, there's at least a rough correlation between VMT and gas tax paid.

True for registration fees. Not 100% true for insurance since they will charge you more if you tell them you drive more miles per year than is typical. As for the purchase price of a new car, one can presume that the lifespan of a car is measured in miles and there is *some* consistency between cars as to how long they last. If you base the surcharge on vehicle weight rather than on purchase price, you probably have an assessment of how much wear and tear every vehicle is putting on the road that is decently fair.

All that said, this being an issue hinges on the assumption that charging people based on how many miles they drive is the most purely "fair" way of doing things, which I would argue is a hasty conclusion. Consider that the per mile cost of building and maintaining a road can vary A LOT, the per VMT cost even more so. Depending on your typical travels you may frequent relatively expensive or relatively cheap roads.

When it comes to these sort of things, there are so many variables which are in constant flux. Making it "fair" is an ultimitely Sisyphean pursuit. Therefore, rather than wasting our time trying to figure out what is the most fair, I say the focus should be on figuring out what is the most simple while not causing large numbers of people undue hardship. The more complicated you make the process, the more money you waste on administrative overhead.

I like the method of putting a surcharge on the price of new vehicles because it is efficient (you only have to collect revenue from dealerships), avoids placing a large burden on impoverished people (used vehicles may see a modest bump in price but won't have to pay the surcharge itself), maintains some proportionality to usage (you can divide the surcharge by expected life of the vehicle to get a per mile rate), and is extremely difficult to dodge (car dealers can't just make sales in cash and pretend the transaction never happened).

[US 41]

Hey it works in West Virginia (I-64/77), Oklahoma (I-44 and other toll roads), northern Indiana / Ohio (I-80/90), Pennsylvania (I-76 & 476), New York (I-87 & 90), Massachusetts (I-90), New Jersey (I-95 and other toll roads), Hew Hampshire (I-95), Maine (I-95), Florida (I-75 & the FL turnpike), Illinois (Chicago area) and Kansas (I-35, I-70, and I-335) . I feel as though it can work in other states too. I've avoided several of those toll roads I mentioned and took alternative routes. I have never felt unsafe because of traffic. If anything it seemed like most of the traffic stayed on the toll road.

And those facilities genrtally toll at a lot less than $.10/ mi for a 2-axle vehicle, or are in dense enough areas that it makes sense to suck up the cost. The Mexico model is high toll rates with parallel facilities in rural areas, and it is fairly ugly.

I will agree. Mexico charges way too much to drive on their toll roads. You'd expect the prices to be lower since it is a country with a lot of poverty, but that isn't the case.

[cpzilliacus]

I will agree. Mexico charges way too much to drive on their toll roads. You'd expect the prices to be lower since it is a country with a lot of poverty, but that isn't the case.

France has Autoroutes that are (usually) tolled, and charge about €1 per 10 miles.

The Autoroutes can be shunpiked via arterial routes, but they tend to be a lot slower in terms of speed limits (posted limit on most Autoroutes is 130 km/h, or about 82 MPH.

[Duke87]

France also has a robust intercity rail network and $6 per gallon gas. So if you're trying to save some money on your travels, taking the train is likely a better value proposition than driving via surface roads.

Unless you can replicate both of those things, along with the surface roads being a lot slower (not true in much of the US), the transportation market in the US will not respond the same to tolling all freeways.

[Zmapper]

Split solution: GPS-track commercial vehicles (which should probably be happening regardless due to logbook fraud) with a per-mile charge, but toll general public vehicle use on interstates and other "high-cost" infrastructure. For the general public, if its not easily excludable (ie: local roads), it should be paid out of general government revenue. If its excludable (ie: interstates, bridges, etc), it should be paid out of direct user fees. Commercial vehicles pay a per-mile fee to incentivize them away from populated areas.

[jeffandnicole]

Commercial vehicles pay a per-mile fee to incentivize them away from populated areas.

But don't the most direct routes involve going thru the populated areas?  If I was continuing in the same direction I was already in, generally speaking the shortest route would be directly thru a city, whereas a route away from populated areas would be much longer, and thus more costly.