We should devolve transportation funding to the states

[kernals12]

I really don't know if this counts as political and if the mods feel it is, they should lock it:

Now that the interstate highway system is all but finished, I don't think we need the Federal Government involved in building transportation infrastructure anymore. State and local officials treat federal transportation grants as "free money" and undertake questionable projects to get it, which is why everyone and their mother seems to want to build a streetcar these days. It also leads to projects being built not because they offer the greatest cost to benefit ratio but because that state's congressman happens to chair the appropriations committee. A few states that have highly dispersed populations that require more highways per capita might require some federal assistance, but I think we could safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents. What do you guys think?

[hotdogPi]

safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents

Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.

[kernals12]

safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents

Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.

For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.

[hotdogPi]

safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents

Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.

For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.

Compared to the $8,100 for maintenance, depreciation, and already existing fuel costs? (Insurance and excise tax aren't included in the 54¢ above because they cost the same regardless of how much you drive.)

[SectorZ]

safely cut the federal gas tax from 18 cents to say 5, and then have all the states raise their gas taxes by 13 cents

Keep the federal gas tax (or raise it slightly), and raise state gas taxes significantly. As I mentioned before, a 75¢ increase in gas tax is only a 3¢ increase per mile, from 54¢ (I was using old numbers before) to 57¢.

For someone who drives 15000 miles a year, that 3 cents per mile is $500 per year. That's a lot.

Compared to the $8,100 for maintenance, depreciation, and already existing fuel costs? (Insurance and excise tax aren't included in the 54¢ above because the cost the same regardless of how much you drive.)

This is spoken like someone who doesn't own a car.

Everyone benefits from roads and (contrary to kernals12 assertions) public transportation. It shouldn't have, or need, a segregated funding system. Let regular taxes pay for it and have everyone have some skin in the game.

[MCRoads]

There is only 1 small, tiny-tiny issue with this:

It would be a disaster. States like Texas, California, or Florida has plenty of income, and could conceivably to build new roads at a slightly less "you get a freeway, you get a freeway, EVRYONE GETS A FREEWAY!"  pace. But states like Oklahoma, who is completely dependent on petroleum industry taxes to keep the state budget from turning into a clisterfuck, would get screwed. They already have trouble building and maintaining roads as it is, so cutting federal funding would mean that a private company would have to build stuff. More than they already are.

OKC needs a beltway? ODOT is trying to fix the infrastructure they have! They can't build one! But, fear not, the OTA can! All you need to do is pay a small toll to use it! Tulsa wants a streetcar system too? Oh, we don't have the money for that. Here, take these crapy busses from 1997 that are starting to show there age, and break down constantly, making no one want to ride them!

I get your thought process, but it doesn't take into account that some states still need that money besides just for new highways, but just to keep state infrastructure from collapsing. I mean, more than it already is.Cough cough, tetanus bridge.

Just as an example, how would this piece of crap be replaced without federal funding? It was already in service far longer than it should have been, and every 6 months, a new hole would develop on the deck. I had the wonderful experience of driving over this thing, and a pothole in it damaged our tire!

Anyway, don't take this the wrong way, I just wanted to explain the major downside to a policy like this.

[3467]

States would have to raise their gas taxes so it wouldn't save anything . Also the feds can deficit spend and not raise the gas taxes.
Reconciliation 2  this year is supposed to contain some bonus highway spending.

[kernals12]

States would have to raise their gas taxes so it wouldn't save anything . Also the feds can deficit spend and not raise the gas taxes.
Reconciliation 2  this year is supposed to contain some bonus highway spending.

I addressed this in the OP. I think states would be more responsible if they had to pay for their own projects.

[Max Rockatansky]

A lot of states are considering mileage taxes and congestion tolling as supplements to the already existing gas tax.  Considering that there is a State and an major Automaker pushing total electric passenger vehicle sales by 2035 I wouldn't think that bodes well for counting on the gas tax for transportation funding long term. 

[3467]

We have been in the post Interstate era since the 90s. There are no more earmarks. That money was put in special grant programs. I don't see waste as a big problem right now. I don't see any Fitzowls running a DOT.

[3467]

Max is right. GM is going all electric by 2035. I just don't see something like the mileage tax . It might be another Utility tax. Those taxes and fees are more than my actual electricity some months.

[NWI_Irish96]

The Federal gas tax should be raised. States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects, and then should be eligible to receive additional funds for projects that work to move towards carbon-neutrality (mass transit, charging stations, etc). The block transportation funding should be reduced for states that charge VMT, which discourages the move toward carbon-neutrality, in the amount of VMT that they collect.

Individuals should be eligible for tax credits for interest on payments on hybrid/electric vehicles, and should be able to deduct the cost of public transportation.

[kalvado]

States would have to raise their gas taxes so it wouldn't save anything . Also the feds can deficit spend and not raise the gas taxes.
Reconciliation 2  this year is supposed to contain some bonus highway spending.

I addressed this in the OP. I think states would be more responsible if they had to pay for their own projects.

There are advantages of a large society, including the use of strengths to compensate weaknesses of each other. You want to remove mutal support for one of the biggest things that keep things working smoothly, the road network? Good luck.
Do you think that MA and NY would be those strong financial centers without the rest of the country behind them, for example? Or that MA  would be able to have a decent defense - being one of the bottom 5 states by enlistment %%?

[SP Cook]

Now that the interstate highway system is all but finished, I don't think we need the Federal Government involved in building transportation infrastructure anymore.

Strong disagree.   Good roads and the lifestyle that good roads create are a basic function of government.

State and local officials treat federal transportation grants as "free money" and undertake questionable projects to get it, which is why everyone and their mother seems to want to build a streetcar these days.

Nah.  Most state DOTs have a thoughtful list of transportation projects (at least in terms of roads, I agree that streetcars and other communal transit projects are mostly boondoggles) and attempt to achieve those priorities with revenue from all sources.

It also leads to projects being built not because they offer the greatest cost to benefit ratio but because that state's congressman happens to chair the appropriations committee.

99.9% myth.  Both parties have politicians that are guilty of selling the snake oil that, somehow s/he tricked the government into building infrastructure in their state too, the plan apparently being, but for his/her brilliance they were going to build things just in the other 49. 

Really?
 
[/quote]

Everyone benefits from roads and (contrary to kernals12 assertions) public transportation.

Of course, everyone benefits from roads.  Basic economics.

But, according to Pew Research, only 11% of Americans use communal transportation regularly.  Now, certainly, some, probably most, of that is providing transport for poorer people, and helping poorer people get to and from work, and thus closer to the American Dream of car ownership, is a good thing, and should be viewed as an anti-poverty program, but the rest?  It is people who CHOOSE to live in a handful of mostly east coast cities and in a certain lifestyle situation.  And, more sadly, people that want to create a "gentrified" urban area with lots of streetcars and other such nonsence.  That's fine, and that is their choice.   It does not benefit the vast majority of Americans in any way, and maybe those who CHOOSE that lifestyle should PAY for their CHOICES.

It shouldn't have, or need, a segregated funding system. Let regular taxes pay for it and have everyone have some skin in the game.

You have it backwards.  The Eisenhower lock-box pay-as-you-go system protects the gasoline tax from raids, not the other way around.  If they just funded transportation out of general revenue, and that general revenue includes the gasoline tax, its is very likely (as in Europe and Canada) that vast sums of gasoline tax $$, now automatically directed to roads, would be diverted to other things, leaving less for roads, not more.

Individuals should be eligible for tax credits for interest on payments on hybrid/electric vehicles, and should be able to deduct the cost of public transportation.

The Federal gas tax should be raised. States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects, and then should be eligible to receive additional funds for projects that work to move towards carbon-neutrality (mass transit, charging stations, etc).

Owners of non-traditionally powered cars should be taxed heavily, in order to make up for the gasoline tax they do not pay.  It is none of any level of government's job to use taxes or anything else to force people out of their preferred lifestyle and in mass transit, or to pay for charging stations or any other infrastructure

Non-poor people who use public transportation should, rather than be incentivized, be weaned off the public subsidy, and begin paying the full price (see comments about the poor above).  People should be free to buy whatever car, or anything else, they wish, free of government interference of allowing deductions for (mostly fictional at this point) vehicles that cannot achieve a role in the fleet mix with out it.

--

In sum, the system works fine as it is, although a few tweaks are needed, IMHO.

[NWI_Irish96]

Individuals should be eligible for tax credits for interest on payments on hybrid/electric vehicles, and should be able to deduct the cost of public transportation.

The Federal gas tax should be raised. States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects, and then should be eligible to receive additional funds for projects that work to move towards carbon-neutrality (mass transit, charging stations, etc).

Owners of non-traditionally powered cars should be taxed heavily, in order to make up for the gasoline tax they do not pay.  It is none of any level of government's job to use taxes or anything else to force people out of their preferred lifestyle and in mass transit, or to pay for charging stations or any other infrastructure

Non-poor people who use public transportation should, rather than be incentivized, be weaned off the public subsidy, and begin paying the full price (see comments about the poor above).  People should be free to buy whatever car, or anything else, they wish, free of government interference of allowing deductions for (mostly fictional at this point) vehicles that cannot achieve a role in the fleet mix with out it.

Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.

[3467]

Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.

Amusingly I haven't spent a single day out of the office on a work day since the first California COVID Stay-at-home order was issued...but that ain't the norm.  Long term though I think COVID just accelerated what was inevitable with white collar work; that it was going shift heavily towards being remote capable.  This will definitely have a net long term positive impact on traffic in large cities through the country. 

[kalvado]

Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.

Amusingly I haven't spent a single day out of the office on a work day since the first California COVID Stay-at-home order was issued...but that ain't the norm.  Long term though I think COVID just accelerated what was inevitable with white collar work; that it was going shift heavily towards being remote capable.  This will definitely have a net long term positive impact on traffic in large cities through the country.

But not on long haul delivery and distribution, so interstate network is still needed. Especially for remote inland locations...

[3467]

I set up a regional thread on the long term effects of Remote work. We may need a national one.
I think Max is right. We need to see how it plays out.

[CoreySamson]

I actually agree with kernals here for once. Some of the objections are valid concerns, but I think we can work around them...

1. Kernals did not say he would completely remove federal gas taxes if he were in charge, only that he would raise state gas taxes to make the overall tax rate about how it was before. The benefit of this is it allows states to work on the projects they want to work on. The states such as the previously mentioned Oklahoma would still get fed money to help complete their projects, but if that's not enough, then here's point 2...

2. It's possible that wealthier states might help fund their poorer neighboring states to the benefit of both. For example, Louisiana has a ton on its plate right now, including the I-10 bridge in Lake Charles. It will take a lot of money to replace that bridge, which would prevent LA from building some other projects such as I-69. But Texas gets a lot of trade from I-10 into LA which could be hampered if the I-10 bridge was so dilapidated that it was unusable, so it would make sense for Texas to help Louisiana with funding the I-10 bridge, as both states would benefit. Louisiana gets a sorely needed piece of infrastructure, and Texas gets a more efficient trade and evacuation route.

3. As kernals said, I think if state gas taxes were raised and the federal ones lowered, that would make states more responsible for their actions and road projects. It might force them to listen to their citizens more than they did before.

[Max Rockatansky]

Usable Planet. Yep.
Also we need to see how the pandemic affects commuting long term .
I would not want to own office property. Now that we know about the California variant it looks like a long war and remote work goes better with that.

Amusingly I haven't spent a single day out of the office on a work day since the first California COVID Stay-at-home order was issued...but that ain't the norm.  Long term though I think COVID just accelerated what was inevitable with white collar work; that it was going shift heavily towards being remote capable.  This will definitely have a net long term positive impact on traffic in large cities through the country.

But not on long haul delivery and distribution, so interstate network is still needed. Especially for remote inland locations...

If anything freight is going through something of a boom due to some of the affects of COVID, at least locally around Fresno.  Amazon sure played their cards right with their new distribution center essentially becoming a major hub of retail commerce for Central California.  Stuff like that needs people on site, even the administration functions. 

To that end, I would be an example of an administrative function at my own place of employment that needs to on site.  I have an office but I'm only in it maybe 25% of my typical day. 

[SP Cook]

It is not appropriate to make public policy based on pseudo-science ramblings that contradict what the same pseudo-scientists said just a few years ago.  Texas are reaping the fruit of such backward thinking this week.

As to tele-work, it is no question that it will be a major change.  The "national" question is if a particular job can be done just as well from a home office in the suburbs, can the same job be done just as well from a cabin the Ozarks, or from a beach in Costa Rica?

[NWI_Irish96]

It is not appropriate to make public policy based on pseudo-science ramblings that contradict what the same pseudo-scientists said just a few years ago.  Texas are reaping the fruit of such backward thinking this week.

As to tele-work, it is no question that it will be a major change.  The "national" question is if a particular job can be done just as well from a home office in the suburbs, can the same job be done just as well from a cabin the Ozarks, or from a beach in Costa Rica?

Texas' situation has nothing to do with their attention or inattention to science, it has everything to do with avoiding federal regulations by having their own grid that doesn't cross state lines.

And your view on science is exactly why the Federal government needs to take more control and not leave things to the states.

[kphoger]

States should receive block transportation funding that does not require usage on specific projects...

Agree.  Some should be "block", some should be specific.

Most state DOTs have a thoughtful list of transportation projects ... and attempt to achieve those priorities with revenue from all sources.

Agree.  The projects that aren't really needed usually make their way to the bottom of the list when it's time for the State to actually plan what to do next.

Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.

That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it.  However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.

But not on long haul delivery and distribution, so interstate network is still needed. Especially for remote inland locations...

Yep.  If we were to reduce federal input in favor of increased state input, I think a lot of people might be surprised how negatively that would affect supply chains.  There are a lot of near-broke rural States with large highway mileages out there serving as "the crossroads of America"–i.e., the way the stuff you want and need gets from here to there.

[NWI_Irish96]

quote author=cabiness42 link=topic=28610.msg2575670#msg2575670 date=1614097848]
Above all else, it's the government's job to make sure that we still have a usable planet in 100 years, and whatever leverage it has should be used as such.

That's a political opinion, and it should be obvious why not everyone agrees with it.  However, I'm curious to know in what specific ways the government subsidizes charging stations compared to the ways the government subsidizes gas stations.

[/quote]

Not having a usable planet in 100 years is a very strange political position, but it seems to be a common one.