Highway funding crisis looms

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

(highlights mine)

Jul 15, 5:21 PM EDT

Lawmakers told highway funding crisis looms

By CHET BROKAW
Associated Press Writer

RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) – The United States will have trouble competing in the world economy if it doesn’t spend what’s needed to maintain a first-class highway system, according to a member of a national commission that studied transportation funding.

“We have a crisis coming. The forces are in place. The question is, are we going to do something about it,” Jack Schenendorf said Tuesday during a presentation to legislators from 11 Midwestern states.

Schenendorf was vice chairman of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which recommended earlier this year that the federal motor fuel tax be boosted 5 cents to 8 cents a year for five years and then indexed to inflation to help fix roads and bridges and expand rail service and other transportation.

The increase in the federal gas tax, which has not been raised since 1993, is needed to provide at least another $220 billion a year for highways and other transportation programs, Schenendorf said. “There are no easy answers on how we’re going to pay for this.”

But David B. Horner, deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, said drivers and the agency’s officials oppose a gas tax increase.

Some legislators pointed out that toll roads would be impractical in rural states with light traffic on lots of miles of roads.

Horner said private financing of toll roads in urban areas would free up more money from the existing gas tax for grants to rural states.

He said raising the fuel tax would make no sense because nearly everyone agrees the U.S. should reduce petroleum product usage to improve the economy and cut pollution.

Much of the rest of the world already has used private financing for toll roads, Horner said.

Schenendorf said most of the study commission s

2

There might be a short-term gain for rail traffic-wise. I doubt you’ll see much improvement funding-wise. I think most of the public is happy with the current level of rail spending outside of Amtrak. I hope I’m wrong and traffic explodes and funding follows.

3

There is a solution, but the trucking lobby and the trucking industry won’t like it.

4

Would you care to enlighten us? Curious minds want to know.

5

Like maybe paying their way for the infrastructure they use in road use fees. ASCE has commented that they have started paying more of their fare share, but that still doesn’t pay for the 50 years that the taxpayer subsidized them heavilly. Highway planners habitually underestimated the damage done by heavy trucks (accelerated the decay of the road structure) and the highway lobby has had its way with congress (witness the caving-in to the latest LCV request)

6

What yuppy piece of dung thought up a “miles driven tax”?

That means some clown who buys a monster truck he doesn’t need and burns twice as much fuel as I do, but drives the same miles as I do in mile 30 MPG car will pay the SAME TAX.

A “miles driven tax” DOES NOT PENALIZE people who buy low MPG vehicles.

7

Several insurance companies already offer their coverage based on miles driven.

Such a proposal (undoubtedly thought up by someone who doesn’t have to drive every day) would garner more opposition due to its “big brother” aspects than the taxation angle. It’s perfectly feasible today (using such systems as “OnStar”). Most folks would chafe at the idea that someone was watching where they were going, and how fast. Coast a little fast down a hill? Your ticket is in the mail.

Your registration could provide your taxation rate. Drive a lightweight vehicle? Low rate. Drive a 2 MPG behemoth, second mortgage time…

8

Why should someone be “penalized” if they buy a low MPG vehicle?? While in your example the person in the “monster truck” would pay the same amount of tax, they would pay MORE for fuel. People should not be penalized if they need, or want, a larger suv or sports car. If they can stomach the high fuel bills, then more power to them.

9

Everybody wants more money, now the hiways too. lf it’s not a user pay system they will never catch up. Money gets spent on roads little used and not enough on overly used. A user fee should help straighten things out. Gas tax doesn’t work in case someone uses an alternate fuel vehicle. Weight and distance might work on the freeway system measured by weighing at the entrance and billing at the exit.

10

A lot of attention is being given to changing the road tax from being levied on fuel to being levied on miles driven. This issue is very much on the front burner. The only detail that needs to get worked out is how best to determine miles driven.

The point is that gas tax revenue has been falling as people shift to more fuel-efficient cars. So the whole concern is based on the falling revenue. Apparently states do not feel that shifting to smaller cars will reduce their road maintenance costs, so they cannot do with less revenue.

The most viable approach to keeping track of miles driven is by installing a state mandated GPS unit in our cars. It will keep track of miles driven and where they were driven. Then when you fill up with gas, the unit will communicate your miles to a computer near the gas pump. The computer will then add the mileage tax as a line item on your fill-up bill.

So you will pay the tax by the mile rather than by the gallon of gas, but it will still be collected at the gas station. This turns every road into a toll road and turns every gas station into a tollbooth. In addition to tracking miles driven, the GPS tracker can also track where and when they were driven. So tolls can be varied according to traffic conditions. Traffic can be reduced in congested areas simply by raising the toll there.

It could also be used to save fuel by raising the toll as miles driven increase during a given period. Tree68 has touched upon some of the other ramifications of this tracking system. Think of it as a highway patrolman riding with you in the front seat.

11

Mudchicken

Don’t get me started about how trucks do not pay their fair share. If I have to I’ll tell you how much my one truck opperation is taxed. It is more like the dimwit in Waqshington and our state houses do not spend the money they get on the things it should be spent on. It is easy to blame the truckers and let the dimwits yell “CRISIS”.

12

The State can’t feel the difference to shifting to smaller cars because they have no way of measuring this. Only that bigger cars generaly consume more materials and fuel wich can be taxed. More money for them using crude calculations.

l don’t use GPS for anything and hope l never will. The eye in the sky will always be watching with GPS. l’ll put a GPS on that old abandoned car that’s been sitting out in the feild for 30 years full of bullet holes. Then the government can study it’s travel patterns, hehehe

My idea is not perfect either, scales would be expensive to install at all on ramps and could congest traffic. Traffic might reroute to side roads not intended for threw traffic. But the railways measure thier axle tonnage against wear and tear. l do beleive smaller cars and certain tire types reduce wear on the road. But of course if bridges are built to handle 75ton trucks it won’t matter if you drive a 1 ton or 2 ton car, you still have to help pay for that bridge by taxes.

Any increase in truck fees due to weight or wear and tear on the roads will just be passed on to the consumer, but at least you’ll be in more control of where your money goes then through levies and taxes.

13

Mudchicken you do realize that the highway tax bill for the normal OTR truck is around 30K a year now with Fuel taxes and the Federal Highway tax also. If your proposal went thru you would see prices so high on everything that it would cause the entire economy to COLLASPE. The trucking industry this year allready has had 5% of its capicity SHUT THE DOORS alone. Major companies are tettering on bankrupcy. Here in IL if you are a trucker that takes the 294 around Chicago during peak times it costs close to 40 bucks to do it. You want to go after someone go after the IDIOTS in Congress that have used the Highway Trust Fund as their own PORK BARRELL. Also they are the ones that changed the Standards for the roads and require that the cheapes bid gets the contract. In Europe the highway contractrs are REQUIRED UNDER LAW to give a min 20 year Warrenty on any roads they build. Here as soon as they are done their responsiblity ends. Also in Europe they run trucks that weigh 97K or more yet their roads hold up fine.

I get so tired of everyone saying pull all the trucks off the road and let the RR’s carry it here is MY CHALLENGE TO EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD. NAME ONE PRODUCT YOU USE IN YOUR HOUSE OR WORK THAT A TRUCK DID NOT PLAY A PART IN THE MANUFACTURING OR DELIVERY OF. BTW AIR DOES NOT COUNT.[soapbox]

14

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the golden goose (namely the tax payer) can not afford to give any more regardless of how much he is already giving to a government that sees your money as their money. Why is it we should do with less of our pown money so they can pad their buddies accounts and give away our wealth? I hope every one of the government programs fold. There isn’t one they run well or efficiently. They are cesspools that need to be cleaned up.

15

Tractor trailers /Trains/Lake boats/Airplanes/Pipelines we need them all.

16

One of the solutions would be increasing the use of light rail for longer distances.

There is a fair amount of commuter train lines that run along I-95 in the western part of CT that help reduce the amount of traffic on I-95, but it would help if there was a longer line, as eastbound traffic on I-95 on Fridays gets terribly clogged (as well as westbound on Sundays) because of people from New York and New Jersey driving out to places along the coast, espeially along Cape Cod and around Boston, Mass, usually with only a couple of people in each vehicle and most of them driving like jackasses.

If there was a sensible way to either force them off of the roads and onto commuter rails or heavily tax them, as a great deal of fender benders and wasted fuel comes from people like that. It woukld not be so bad on fuel if they would not drive such large vehicles.

(I will admit, we have a Ford F-150, but we also do a fair amount of construction work, and work with our small tractors, a job that my Ford Focus cannot do.)

I disagree with trying to tax people based on how much they drive, as that would put a strain on those that drive for a living, like my wife has put a lot of miles on my Focus delivering pizza, a job that does not pay a lot, but she is not capable of obtaining a college degree (3 years of full time classes and about $25,000 in the hole for loans and such with only a few credits to her name, but that is a different story).

I would not have a GPS system in any vehicle I drive, like someone else said, that may be used to get you to pay the Doughnut Tax.

Trying to implement higher taxes based on the MPG of the vehicle is also a bad idea. That will inevitably hurt the people that have their own business such as construction and such.

An even better idea would be to do a MPG tax based on how the vehicle fits the person that owns it.

Think “Soccer Mom Tax”.

Some people, especially rural places like where I g

17

Per a good friend of mine that works at the PA Transportation Institute at Penn State, there are various points that need to be addressed before the American taxpayer gets taxed further for rebuilding the highways and bridges of this country:

First, the road builders’ lobby needs to be taken head on by requiring better construction of the roads and bridges in the first place. The Interstates and similar interstate-quality highways need to be built with twice the concrete and related currently required when new or when being rebuilt from scratch, while the bridge constructions need to be similarly upgraded. It is more costly up front and the road builders and their lobbies won’t like it since it means far fewer repair jobs for them down the road in their local areas–but the savings in the long run are huge.

Second, the various Federal, State, and local governmental “Prevailing Wage” laws need to be repealed. Its ridiculous that the workers hired to pave your driveway get their pay significantly increased for doing the same job when they work on these highway projects [doubled in my area].

Third, there needs to be a national weight standard for trucks that is adhered to for all but very special (and very rare occassions) from here on out. Beyond the normal vehicle wear and tear and the increased volume of traffic, the increased weights of trucks on roads built many years ago is a major problem in the national deterioration.

Fourth, the various governmental units (mainly state but also local) either have to get more productivity from their highway personnel or start privitizing their operations (but that will only work if the prevailing wage laws are removed). NOTE: Any resident of Pennsylvania who’s observed PENDOT at “work” over the years understands&nbs

18

Here is an article on changing to charging road tax by the miles driven instead of by the gallons of fuel consumed:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/607113-p2.html

Here is an excerpt from the link:

Exploring a shift

The Iowa study will test the hardware, the billing system and the popular support that would be needed for a shift to mileage fees. Forkenbrock wants to experiment with rates that would generate about the same revenue now produced from the gas tax. Congress and state legislatures would decide whether to set fees higher or lower.

The tests will use technology similar to the navigational aids that have become popular automobile options. The on-board computer will know which state the car is traveling in, and it will calculate the mileage fees payable to each state at the end of the month.

Local government jurisdictions will be included as well. That would give legislators the option to share mileage fees with cities or counties, to pay for local roads.

The study will also test options to vary the fee per mile for different vehicles and different times of day. Some possibilities:

  • Higher fees for heavy trucks to reflect their share of pavement wear and tear.

  • A rush-hour premium to cover the cost of freeway congestion.

  • Lower fees to encourage more alternative-fuel and low-emission cars.

Forkenbrock says no records will be made on specific travel routes, so it won’t be possible to find out where anyone has driven.

“The only number that is identified with your vehicle is how much you owe the city or the state,” he said. “So the user’s privacy is absolutely protected, even if the government subpoenas the on-board computer.”

If you think about it, you can see how much control this could impose on our driving habits over and abov

19

[quote user=“Bucyrus”]

Here is an article on changing to charging road tax by the miles driven instead of by the gallons of fuel consumed:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/607113-p2.html

Here is an excerpt from the link:

Exploring a shift

The Iowa study will test the hardware, the billing system and the popular support that would be needed for a shift to mileage fees. Forkenbrock wants to experiment with rates that would generate about the same revenue now produced from the gas tax. Congress and state legislatures would decide whether to set fees higher or lower.

The tests will use technology similar to the navigational aids that have become popular automobile options. The on-board computer will know which state the car is traveling in, and it will calculate the mileage fees payable to each state at the end of the month.

Local government jurisdictions will be included as well. That would give legislators the option to share mileage fees with cities or counties, to pay for local roads.

The study will also test options to vary the fee per mile for different vehicles and different times of day. Some possibilities:

  • Higher fees for heavy trucks to reflect their share of pavement wear and tear.

  • A rush-hour premium to cover the cost of freeway congestion.

  • Lower fees to encourage more alternative-fuel and low-emission cars.

Forkenbrock says no records will be made on specific travel routes, so it won’t be possible to find out where anyone has driven.

“The only number that is identified with your vehicle is how much you owe the city or the state,” he said. “So the user’s privacy is absolutely protected, even if the government subpoenas the on-board computer.”

If you think about it, you can see how much control this could impose on our drivin

20

[quote user=“jeaton”]

[quote user=“Bucyrus”]

Here is an article on changing to charging road tax by the miles driven instead of by the gallons of fuel consumed:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/607113-p2.html

Here is an excerpt from the link:

Exploring a shift

The Iowa study will test the hardware, the billing system and the popular support that would be needed for a shift to mileage fees. Forkenbrock wants to experiment with rates that would generate about the same revenue now produced from the gas tax. Congress and state legislatures would decide whether to set fees higher or lower.

The tests will use technology similar to the navigational aids that have become popular automobile options. The on-board computer will know which state the car is traveling in, and it will calculate the mileage fees payable to each state at the end of the month.

Local government jurisdictions will be included as well. That would give legislators the option to share mileage fees with cities or counties, to pay for local roads.

The study will also test options to vary the fee per mile for different vehicles and different times of day. Some possibilities:

  • Higher fees for heavy trucks to reflect their share of pavement wear and tear.

  • A rush-hour premium to cover the cost of freeway congestion.

  • Lower fees to encourage more alternative-fuel and low-emission cars.

Forkenbrock says no records will be made on specific travel routes, so it won’t be possible to find out where anyone has driven.

“The only number that is identified with your vehicle is how much you owe the city or the state,” he said. “So the user’s privacy is absolutely protected, even if the government subpoenas the on-board computer.”

If you think about it, you can see how much control this coul