Nation’s highways remain an issue for an Obama second term

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Nation's highways remain an issue for an Obama second term

The next U.S. transportation secretary – whether it's Ray LaHood or someone else – will confront a highway system starved for cash and financed by a gasoline tax almost no one wants to raise.

How President Obama and his transportation leader respond may set the course for decades. Besides shoring up highways and transit systems vital to the economy, the president's second term may provide another chance for him to push his vision for high-speed passenger rail, which was stalled by Congress' refusal to keep paying for it.

Talks between the White House and Congress to avoid Dec. 31's "fiscal cliff,"  when some tax cuts expire and automatic spending reductions are set to kick in, won't have transportation as a main focus. Yet the last two gasoline-tax increases, in 1990 and 1993, only happened because of deficit- reduction deals, said Mort Downey, a former deputy transportation secretary who's a senior adviser at Parsons Brinckerhoff.

[kphoger]

I get shivers whenever I read Ray LaHood's name.

[Henry]

Besides, the gas tax is bound to go up anyway. And Congress will pay dearly for its not continuing to pay for that high-speed rail project.

[Truvelo]

Raising gas tax to levels we have here in Europe will go a long way to funding a first class transport network. That's if all the tax is spent on transport and not used to finance other government departments.

[Zmapper]

Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization. 

[cpzilliacus]

Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.

I have no particular problem with a pure user-financed highway network, with the tax on motor fuel taxes then being reduced to zero.

But - there would be immense political pressure from unions that represent public-sector transit authority workers; and individuals (and groups such as the Sierra Club) that promote the construction of new and very expensive passenger rail projects to divert most of the revenue to building new rail lines and increasing the wage and benefit packages paid to hourly transit employees - as is currently done with varying (and frequently large) percentages of revenues collected by the N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel crossings; the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267); the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike.

That is a recipe to discredit what might otherwise be a good idea.

[wxfree]

Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.

I would oppose tolling all high-grade roads, since it would have the effect of pushing traffic onto lower grades of roads that are inherently less safe and less well suited for large volumes of traffic.  This would have the effect of increasing the cost of the system while making it less efficient and more dangerous.

My larger disagreement, though, is philosophical.  I disagree with the idea that you don't benefit from a road unless you actually drive on it.  A person who drives only on city streets still benefits from the state highway system if he buys things shipped on the highways.  While I've never driven anywhere on I-80, I'm pretty sure I've bought something that contained corn that was shipped more efficiently (and cheaply) because of a trucker driving on I-80.  If $15 of the fuel taxes I've paid have ended up on I-80, I'd call it a reasonable investment for more cheaply shipped goods.

If we want to move into the 21st Century and ensure equitable user payments, we need to track where every vehicle goes and charge the owners for the exact roads used.  We'd lose all travel privacy, and it's my guess that the proportionate burden of the cost wouldn't change much for most people, but the total cost would get bigger because of the high cost of all the equipment and information processing.  I would be in favor, though, of vehicle mileage taxes based solely on miles, and not roads used, to compensate for variable fuel economy and non-fossil fuel vehicles.

[hbelkins]

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture.

That's not true everywhere.

I wouldn't have any problem with a slight increase in the federal gas tax, between a penny and a nickel.

[cpzilliacus]

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture.

That's not true everywhere.

It is certainly not true in Virginia, where the state secondary highway system includes very nearly every subdivision street (except for those belonging to private homeowners and condominium associations) in heavily developed counties like Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, Stafford, Spotsylvania and Chesterfield.  Even in municipalities and the two Virginia counties that maintain  their own secondary roads, the state provides funding on a per-mile basis.

I wouldn't have any problem with a slight increase in the federal gas tax, between a penny and a nickel.

I would want more significant reform. 

For one, I am in favor of allowing heavier gross weight limits for trucks (but requiring more axles to carry that weight) on most of the national highway system, and to go with that, I want more and more-extensive weight and safety (MCSAP) enforcement.

Second, tolling of existing freeway capacity should be encouraged, as long as the revenue benefits the people and companies paying the tolls (in other words, diverting enormous amounts of the toll revenue to favored (and far-away) transit systems, as Pennsylvania was proposing to do with the toll revenue collected from I-80 users, should not be allowed).

Third, truckers should not have to pay fuel tax miles on public and private toll roads.

And states that have transportation policies that deliberately cause congestion should be put at risk of having federal funding for transit and highways reduced, though I don't mind congestion taxes being imposed to provide economic feedback to users in congested areas.

[Federal Route Sixty-Nine]

Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.

Say what? Those who drive a lot on Interstate Highways usually are travelling long distances and using the most gasoline, and if anything, they are the ones who are subsidizing the rest of the roads.

Even if local users are subsidizing highways they don't use, who is to say the nation doesn't benefit from a strong network of freeways due to lower costs and more efficient operation for shipping.

[NE2]

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture.

That's not true everywhere.

It is certainly not true in Virginia, where the state secondary highway system includes very nearly every subdivision street (except for those belonging to private homeowners and condominium associations) in heavily developed counties like Fairfax, Prince William, Loudoun, Stafford, Spotsylvania and Chesterfield.  Even in municipalities and the two Virginia counties that maintain  their own secondary roads, the state provides funding on a per-mile basis.

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/faq-2ndaryroads.asp

In addition to rural addition funds, eligible counties may also finance the cost of improving qualifying roads with funds from:

    * The county's general fund
    * A special assessment of the land owners served
    * Revenue derived from the sale of bonds

[Zmapper]

Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.

I have no particular problem with a pure user-financed highway network, with the tax on motor fuel taxes then being reduced to zero.

But - there would be immense political pressure from unions that represent public-sector transit authority workers; and individuals (and groups such as the Sierra Club) that promote the construction of new and very expensive passenger rail projects to divert most of the revenue to building new rail lines and increasing the wage and benefit packages paid to hourly transit employees - as is currently done with varying (and frequently large) percentages of revenues collected by the N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel crossings; the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267); the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike.

That is a recipe to discredit what might otherwise be a good idea.

Unfortunately, the dominance of union-funded East Coast Democrats would almost certainly hold back any effort to untangle the federal funding mess that currently exists. While tolling the Interstates would be ideal, I would be fine with devolving transportation issues back to the states and having a far smaller USDOT than what we have today. Each state would be free to experiment with the best funding mechanism that best meets their individual needs, without a 'one size fits all' approach from DC.

From a transit perspective, having a 'slush fund' from road tolls is an invitation for limited oversight, corruption, and poor management. Slush funds are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44. Pennsylvania contributes half of the total operating costs for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, while Colorado contributes near-zero to RTD. Federal funding is a key reason why RTD, and other agencies, push forward with rail expansions while cutting bus service at the same time.

[NE2]

Steep and twisty streets are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44.

I can pull guesses out of my ass too.

[mjb2002]

And signs. They are also an issue still as far as transportation needs go.

Washington Post: Nation's highways remain an issue for an Obama second term

The next U.S. transportation secretary – whether it's Ray LaHood or someone else – will confront a highway system starved for cash and financed by a gasoline tax almost no one wants to raise.

How President Obama and his transportation leader respond may set the course for decades. Besides shoring up highways and transit systems vital to the economy, the president's second term may provide another chance for him to push his vision for high-speed passenger rail, which was stalled by Congress' refusal to keep paying for it.

Talks between the White House and Congress to avoid Dec. 31's "fiscal cliff,"  when some tax cuts expire and automatic spending reductions are set to kick in, won't have transportation as a main focus. Yet the last two gasoline-tax increases, in 1990 and 1993, only happened because of deficit- reduction deals, said Mort Downey, a former deputy transportation secretary who's a senior adviser at Parsons Brinckerhoff.

[Federal Route Sixty-Nine]

i think the cost of all that oversight is causing the pittsburgh buses to be more $$$.

[cpzilliacus]

Unfortunately, the dominance of union-funded East Coast Democrats would almost certainly hold back any effort to untangle the federal funding mess that currently exists. While tolling the Interstates would be ideal, I would be fine with devolving transportation issues back to the states and having a far smaller USDOT than what we have today. Each state would be free to experiment with the best funding mechanism that best meets their individual needs, without a 'one size fits all' approach from DC.

Actually, according to sources cited by the Antiplanner, some of the worst transit union abuses in the United States can be found at Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met (example here) - rather far from the East Coast.

And while the transit unions do have some clout in New York City and Philadelphia, I am not sure how much of that power extends to Albany and Harrisburg, respectively.  One of Philadelphia transit labor's best friends in Harrisburg, former state Sen. Vincent Fumo (one of the architects of the scheme to toll I-80 in Pennsylvania for the benefit of unionized transit workers) is now serving a multi-year sentence in federal prison after being convicted of corruption charges.

From a transit perspective, having a 'slush fund' from road tolls is an invitation for limited oversight, corruption, and poor management. Slush funds are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44. Pennsylvania contributes half of the total operating costs for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, while Colorado contributes near-zero to RTD. Federal funding is a key reason why RTD, and other agencies, push forward with rail expansions while cutting bus service at the same time.

Slush funds are what some call "dedicated funding for transit" (it can also be called public funding of transit with no oversight).

One of the keys to getting transit operating expenses under control is (in my opinion) contracting with the private sector to deliver service.  That allows there to be an economic incentive to provide good service to customers, and it removes elected officials from participating in wage and benefit negotiations with unions that represent transit workers.  It is my understanding that Denver's RTD has privatized a large part of its operations, while Portland's Tri-Met, Washington's [D.C.] WMATA, Philadelphia's SEPTA, Pittsburgh's Port Authority of Allegheny County, Boston's MBTA and N.Y. MTA have privatized little or nothing of their operations.

WMATA has had what I call "privatization by divestiture," where its local government members have terminated bus service run by WMATA and turned the lines over to county or city-operated services usually run by private-sector contractors at lower cost.

[Riverside Frwy]

I would like to see more money spent on maintenance than expansion. In places like LA, adding more lanes is useless. It would already take twice as many lanes for freeways to able to the handle traffic now let alone 10 years from now without congestion. As much I want to see new freeways and highways built, I don't see why we should be building more infrastructure we don't have the money to maintain what we have now.

Also, we need to stop sprawl and build more rail. The car is great and all but LA is another prime example of just how inefficient the car is. It takes a 10 lane concrete behemoth that scars the landscape to move the same amount of people a single rail line can do. Even if we didn't factor in pollution the car is just completely inefficient.

Converting existing general lanes to 2+ or even 3+ HOV would also be a way of increasing capacity on existing infrastructure.

[rantanamo]

Fuel taxes have the major problem of subsidizing those who mainly use Interstate Highways at the expense of those who drive near-exclusively on local streets. As those with the means to commute long distances on the Interstate Highway network tend to be wealthier than those who drive within a few miles of their home, fuel taxes tend to be a regressive tax on the poor.

Local streets are funded out of property taxes, so gas taxes only make up a small percentage of their funding picture. For routes in the National Highway System, I would favor erecting electronic toll booths like those found along MD 200 in Maryland or E-470 in Colorado. It makes no sense in the 21st century to settle for a somewhat 'user pays' system when you can have the user pay their full costs, with no inappropriate cross-subsidization.

I have no particular problem with a pure user-financed highway network, with the tax on motor fuel taxes then being reduced to zero.

But - there would be immense political pressure from unions that represent public-sector transit authority workers; and individuals (and groups such as the Sierra Club) that promote the construction of new and very expensive passenger rail projects to divert most of the revenue to building new rail lines and increasing the wage and benefit packages paid to hourly transit employees - as is currently done with varying (and frequently large) percentages of revenues collected by the N.Y. MTA Bridge and Tunnel crossings; the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267); the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike.

That is a recipe to discredit what might otherwise be a good idea.

Unfortunately, the dominance of union-funded East Coast Democrats would almost certainly hold back any effort to untangle the federal funding mess that currently exists. While tolling the Interstates would be ideal, I would be fine with devolving transportation issues back to the states and having a far smaller USDOT than what we have today. Each state would be free to experiment with the best funding mechanism that best meets their individual needs, without a 'one size fits all' approach from DC.

Then you'd end up with all of the tolled highways like you're starting to see in Texas.  Just bite the bullet and raise the gas tax the few cents it needs to be.  Why are we so cheap, yet want everything?

[empirestate]

I would oppose tolling all high-grade roads, since it would have the effect of pushing traffic onto lower grades of roads that are inherently less safe and less well suited for large volumes of traffic.  This would have the effect of increasing the cost of the system while making it less efficient and more dangerous.

Boy, did I see the effect of that first hand in China! I took a taxi from the port of Tonggu to Tianjin station; since the taxi was catering to tourist traffic, he remarked in point of fact that we would be taking the expressway (all of which are tolled in China). It took about 45 minutes.

On the return trip, I had to get a taxi at the station with the general populace. There was nothing to indicate that the driver had any intention of taking a toll road, and he spoke no English, nor I any Chinese, so that we could ask him to. We slogged 2 1/2 hours on the surface roads, amongst all manner of conveyances in various states of disrepair, choking on exhaust fumes the whole way while the freeway zoomed overhead with its color-changing LED chase lighting. Clearly, up there was a different world that the common citizen had no place in.

(We saw the same effect on the bullet train to Beijing, compared with standard rail travel.)

Granted, the socio-economic structure of the Chinese population tends to amplify the effect. I don't think it would be quite so pronounced here, as a toll highway isn't as far beyond the means of the average U.S. citizen as it is a Chinese one.

[Zmapper]

Steep and twisty streets are why it costs Pittsburgh $173.88 to run a bus for one hour but Denver only $105.44.

I can pull guesses out of my ass too.

Those numbers came from the National Transit Database files for 2011, the most recent year available.

Then you'd end up with all of the tolled highways like you're starting to see in Texas.  Just bite the bullet and raise the gas tax the few cents it needs to be.  Why are we so cheap, yet want everything?

As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.

[deathtopumpkins]

As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.

Erm, no. Just no. Mass transit is aimed at the poor and people who can't afford to have a car. In cities at least, cars are essentially toys for the rich people who are too good to use transit.

And sure, tolls are voluntary so long as you have a free alternative, but they become mandatory when you start suggesting tolling most or all roads, or even where there is currently a toll on, say, an important river crossing. A toll is "mandatory" to leave Staten Island. A toll is "mandatory" to cross from the Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland or Virginia. A toll is "mandatory" to get to the DFW airport.

[StogieGuy7]

That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become

I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow.   Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.   

Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.

[Zmapper]

As I stated before, gas tax increases are a regressive tax on the poor. Texas choosing to expand their network with toll roads is a way to expand capacity while not burdening those who do not use the road with another tax. Put another way, taxes are mandatory, tolls are voluntary.

Erm, no. Just no. Mass transit is aimed at the poor and people who can't afford to have a car. In cities at least, cars are essentially toys for the rich people who are too good to use transit.

And sure, tolls are voluntary so long as you have a free alternative, but they become mandatory when you start suggesting tolling most or all roads, or even where there is currently a toll on, say, an important river crossing. A toll is "mandatory" to leave Staten Island. A toll is "mandatory" to cross from the Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland or Virginia. A toll is "mandatory" to get to the DFW airport.

Unfortunately, transit isn't available for many trips, especially outside of dense east coast city centers. What is someone supposed to do if their job starts at Midnight yet transit stops running at 9?

[Federal Route Sixty-Nine]

That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become

I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow.   Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.   

Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.

Nah. The PRC is a government corporatocracy with hyper-subsidies for business investment and an export-at-any-social-cost economic model. Look at the safety net in China compared to what it was in the 1990s...Job for life? Hardly. Medical care? Good luck. It's overdrive capitalism and lots of ordinary Chinese people are being left behind.

[TXtoNJ]

That's actually really fascinating. I hope marginalization of republicans continue so we can pivot from the two-tiered society we started to become

I hate to break this to you, but the People's Republic of China is the embodiment of the "big government" model that many of today's democrats aspire to follow.   Venezuela has been tracking that way as well in that the middle class is slumping downward into the massive lower class and the rich either get in bed with the gov't or they flee the country.   

Transportation systems follow suit in catering to those realities.

Nah. The PRC is a government corporatocracy with hyper-subsidies for business investment and an export-at-any-social-cost economic model. Look at the safety net in China compared to what it was in the 1990s...Job for life? Hardly. Medical care? Good luck. It's overdrive capitalism and lots of ordinary Chinese people are being left behind.

Was just about to point this out.