I suppose older cars could have their odometers checked by inspectors, such as when their AIM test is conducted. But that's only once every other year. They would socked by a huge bill with such infrequent inspections/billing.

I'm sure that a system of estimated monthly charges based on previous usage could be worked out.  This isn't rocket science, here.  I'll never install, or allow to remain installed, a GPS unit in my car that isn't under MY control.

 

Even better, we could just raise the gas tax, which is easier and no less politically difficult.  Do you guys really think that it will be easier to get American drivers to allow for constant surveillance, and pay more money than it will be to get them to just pay more money?  I don't get the thinking at all.

I think this occurred in the context of a discussion of a possible shift to a largely electric-car consumer transportation sector, so the gas tax would be avoided entirely.  (Of course, it may be socially desirable to let avoiding the gas tax be a reward for people to switch to electric cars, but the focus of this discussion was revenue for highways, not the prospective benefits of the electric car.)

This might be polically unrealistic, but at the risk of getting off topic, tolling of interstates, peak pricing, and charging by miles driven makes sense. At some point we will be forced to adopt these measures if we want to maintain our highways.

 

As a start we should change the gas tax to a percentage so that it adjusts with inflation, say 9%, rather than a flat $0.17 per gallon.  That shouldn't be as politically difficult.

This is another case where the digitization of things has negative consequences. If mileage based taxation went into effect, devices would quickly appear on the black market to "roll back" digital odometers simply by plugging into the car's computer. Of course, using one is already highly illegal and would become moreso if the mileage-based model went into effect. Yet, most people would never attempt to roll back their analog odometer.

Yet, most people would never attempt to roll back their analog odometer.

 

Oh yes they would. I saw Ferris Bueller try it once.

I suppose they'd try it the Ferris way, but of course it doesn't work.

Vaporizing the Gas Tax Myth

 

The United States must move away from the gas tax to solutions that charge people for the roads they use, including a VMT fee, congestion pricing for peak hours and toll roads, says Jack Finn of HNTB. Such efforts will encourage Americans to be less dependent on oil, reduce congestion, take public transit and properly invest in infrastructure.

 

Americans hate the gasoline tax about as much as they love their cars.

 

At the federal level, money from a gas tax was first placed into the Highway Trust Fund in 1956 as the country embarked on President Dwight Eisenhower’s grand vision of establishing a network of interstate highways to spur commerce and aid in the country's defense.

 

Now, more than 50 years later, Eisenhower’s long-ago realized vision is reaching the end of its useful lifespan, and the gas tax itself is running on empty.

 

This is unwelcome news to the average American driver, already suffering through the current economic downturn and the painful $4 per gallon gas that preceded it.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/42392

Reid Said Committed to 2010 Transport Bill

Ohio senator ties vote for jobs bill to pledge on multi-year surface programs

John D. Boyd | Feb 23, 2010 9:34PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, says he backed a Democratic jobs bill Monday after Majority Leader Harry Reid assured him the Senate will vote later in 2010 on a long-term surface transportation bill.

 

Voinovich was one of five Republicans who backed a jobs bill offered by Reid, D-Nev., which would also extend current federal transportation spending levels through the end of this year.

 

As Senate majority leader, Reid sets the Senate’s calendar to debate and vote on legislation. Voinovich said that before casting his vote to help get the jobs bill past a filibuster, “Leader Reid gave me his commitment that he will bring the reauthorization of a multi-year surface transportation bill to the floor for a vote this year.”

 

Full story at: http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/reid-said-committed-2010-transport-bill

Washington's roads may see tolls if gas tax decline persists

By Michelle Dupler, Herald staff writer

Published: 02/23/10 1:39 am | Updated: 02/23/10 1:39 am

 

OLYMPIA -- Eastern Washington drivers could see tolls on highways and bridges in coming years if state lawmakers can't find a way to pay for roads.

 

While unveiling an $8.6 billion supplemental transportation budget Monday, legislators from the Senate Transportation Committee said declining gas tax income from more fuel-efficient vehicles and drivers conserving gas will short-change transportation projects about $1 billion over 16 years.

 

"We are steadily falling behind in fuel tax revenues," said Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester.

 

Gas tax revenue is down $168 million for the current biennium, which ends June 30, 2011. That means lawmakers must find other ways to raise money for roads.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/02/23/1082352/washingtons-roads-may-see-tolls.html?story_link=email_msg

This is Google's cache of http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/enews/57. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Oct 22, 2009 09:56:37 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

 

Do Roads Pay for Themselves?

 

A major feature in the public debate about toll roads has been the issue of when or whether a road has

been “paid for.” To better understand this discussion, it is helpful to ask two questions:

 

1. What is a traveler paying for when he or she pays state gas tax at

the pump?

 

State motor fuel tax is collected from all over the state and goes into a single

pool of revenue—about one quarter of which goes to fund education, and about

three-quarters of which goes to the state’s highway fund, where it is spent on

transportation uses and some non-transportation functions of government.

 

Then the state receives federal funds as the state’s share of the federal fuel tax;

about 70 cents of every gas tax dollar Texans send to Washington comes back

for road use.

 

The significant point here is that historically the fuel tax paid in any locality of

the state is unrelated to the road projects in that locality. Every fuel taxpayer in the state paid something

for any given road—which leads to the next issue.

 

2. When is a given road actually “paid for?”

 

Just like your car, it never is. You may have paid the note, but maintenance and fuel costs go on as long

as you own the vehicle. Once a road is built, maintenance and rehabilitation costs last its entire life,

generally about 40 years.

 

The decision to build a road is a permanent commitment to the traveling public. Not only will a road be

built, but it must also be routinely maintained and reconstructed when necessary, meaning no road is ever

truly “paid for.”

 

Until recently, when TxDOT built or expanded a road, no methodology existed to determine the extent to

which this work would be paid off through revenues.

 

The Asset Value Index, was developed to compare the full 40-year life-cycle costs to the revenues

attributable to a given road corridor or section. The shorthand version calculates how much gasoline is

consumed on a roadway and how much gas tax revenue that generates.

 

The Asset Value Index is the ratio of the total expected revenues divided by the total expected costs. If

the ratio is 0.60, the road will produce revenues to meet 60 percent of its costs; it would be “paid for”

only if the ratio were 1.00, when the revenues met 100 percent of costs. Another way of describing this is

to do a “tax gap” analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given

corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs.

 

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in

Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its

lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means

that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would

be $2.22 per gallon.

 

This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of

today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for

considerably less.

 

To conclude, in the SH 99 example, since the traffic volume for that road doesn't generate enough fuel tax

revenue to pay for it, revenues from other parts of the state must be used to build and maintain this

corridor segment. The same is true across the state, meaning that, as revealed by the tax gap analysis,

overall revenues are not sufficient to meet the state’s transportation needs.

 

Published by the Government and Business Enterprises Division

at the Texas Department of Transportation

125 East 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701

512-463-6086, 512-463-9389 Fax

A friend of mine just relayed this story to me about the above piece while we were discussing the GOP and its hatred of 3C rail subsidies .....

 

"Texas DOT fesses up about endless subsidies for highways," appeared in August 2008 in a blog used by Wisconsin activists to denounce the $3 billion the state is spending to add a 4th lane to I-94 on the 27 miles between Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee and the Illinois State Line.  The blog includes a link to a Texas DOT study that revealed the incredible subsidies Texas provides to its highways through income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and other non-user-fee money that goes into the General Fund.

 

But before we get to that, let's talk about the little backstory that accompanies this item.  The revelation of the Texas subsidies came about in an unusual faction.  Four years ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (who currently is running for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison), realized Texas was spending too much money subsidizing its highways and needed to put them on something closer to a paying, or at least break-even, basis.  So he came up with a plan to convert the state's busiest highways to toll roads.  Now, it's no secret that motorists hate toll roads and want to continue believing that highways are "free," so Gov. Perry devised a scheme to justify his toll-road plan to a skeptical and even hostile public.  He asked TxDOT to develop some numbers showing--or at least suggesting--how much the state's highway program really cost and how little of it was being covered by the motor-fuel tax.

 

So TxDOT obliged.  It created a calculation system called the Texas Asset Value Index.  It calculated the initial capital cost of building a given stretch of highway, then projected the maintenance cost over the 40-year service life of the highway (after about 40 years, most highways have to be dug up, trucked away to a landfill and replaced with a totally new road; the period between the two "constructions" requires annual maintenance,whcih is treated as an expense rather than a capital investment).  TxDOT then totalled the two figures to get the total 40-year cost of building and maintaining a highway.

 

And then TxDOT did a very dangerous thing.  It calculated how much of these costs were likely to be covered by the motor-fuel taxes of the vehicles using the highways.  And the truth was out:  On one 15-mile stretch of State Highway 99 in the Houston area, motor fuel taxes were covering only 16 per cent of the total construction and maintenance costs.  Conclusion:  If the highway were to "pay for itself" every driver using it would have to pay a tax of $2.62 cents on every gallon of gas used in traversing the highway.

 

TxDOT drafted an essay on the subject, titled "Texas Asset Value Index," and published  it in its on-line newsletter,"Keep Texas Moving," which is where the Wisconsin blogger found it in late 2008.  He summarized the study for his readers, but he also included a link so they could see the original article. 

 

Now, here's the interesting part.  When I first stumbled across this blog six months ago, I clicked the link and found it no longer worked.  The article had been taken down.  But "Keep Texas Moving" has an e-mail contact feature, so I opened it up and sent an e-mail asking if they could show me the original essay.

 

My e-mail was never answered.

 

So I called and left a voice-mail message with the same request.

 

My message was never answered.

 

So effectively, all I had was an e-rumor that Texas had discovered something dreadful about its highway costs.  I had no confirmation, and I seemed to have come to a dead end.

 

So I tried another stratagem.  I sent out a mass e-mail asking everybody in my network whether anybody had bothered to store the original article when it appeared.  And lo and behold, I got a yes from wonderful George Chilson at NARP.  George sent me the original, which you now have above.  And when you read the numbers in it you will quickly realize why the article had to be taken down (and why Gov. Perry had to discontinue his campaign for conversion of the state's highways to toll roads):  The difference between the real cost of highways and the portion paid for by gas taxes is so vast as to be a scandal.  Even if the 16% coverage documented for 15 miles of State Route 99 is at the extreme low end of the spectrum, the only conclusion can be that if multiplied by all of the state's highway mileage, Texas is spending scandalous sums--perhaps tens of billions of dollars a year--subsidizing its highways with non-user fees--and is desperately concealing those numbers from its motorists and taxpayers, who simply don't want to hear about them.  The myth of "free" highways or pay-as-you-go is too cherished, too important, too sacred to be challenged. 

 

The author of the blog over-reached himself when he wrote:

 

the Lone Star state — in its quest to keep its Texas crews moving, building and expanding highways — has been more forward than most states in acknowledging the limits of the gas tax and shifting towards toll roads.

 

Texas may have been "forward" once--and briefly--in disclosing its highway costs and its highway subsidies, but it didn't stay that way long.  The subject is just too hot to handle.

 

Now, what I suggest you guys and your minions do, is to get these two documents out to all the journalists, bloggers, public-policy analysts, professors of transportation and logistics, environmental activists, elected and appointed officials and any other influentials you can think of in the state of Ohio, and accompany the two items with whatever kind of cover letter you think will best induce them to read the two docs and put two and two together so that when Sen. Harris and his friends get up and spill their crocodile tears about how Ohio "just cannot afford to take on the ongoing expense of operating these trains" you can come back and ask them why they've been so willing to take on the much larger and harder-to-justify and indeed scandalous expense of the highway system.  And if they ask how big that expense is you just say, "Why don't you mandate ODOT to undertake an Ohio Asset Value Study so we can ascertain just how much our highways cost each year and how much is being paid for by the users? m Whats amatter--you scared?

 

You guys could have a lot of fun with this.  Tip:  Read the Wisconsin blog item--"Texas DOT fesses up..." first, then proceed to the TxDOT article that provoked it (and then disappeared).  You could have a lot of fun with "The Famous Disappearing Texas Highway Cost Study" and the really important question:  Does ODOT have the guts to conduct--and publish!--its own study of the state's real highway costs?"

 

Have fun!

 

  You're reading too far into it. Everything you can see comes from a mixed budget, especially anything having to do with government. Health care is just as bad or worse.

 

  The GOP doesn't necessarily hate rail. They just don't like change.

 

  You're reading too far into it. Everything you can see comes from a mixed budget, especially anything having to do with government. Health care is just as bad or worse.

 

  The GOP doesn't necessarily hate rail. They just don't like change.

Make it financially sound and popular and there won't be one Republican against it.

I wonder about the Texas study. Does it mean that no road in Texas pays for itself? What other funding sources are tapped to pay for those highways? Or have some highways paid for themselves up to now, but the DOT is now at a tipping point and won't be able to pay the maintenance over the life of the road? Or are some highways in effect subsidizing others?

 

There's no question that, in the long haul, highways don't pay for themselves through gas taxes. But I can't yet quite get my head around the Texas study.

The Texas study included the replacement costs of a highway -- noting the 40-year life cycle of a road -- which didn't need to be calculated until lately because the highway system was new. Now that more and more of the highway system is structurally obsolete and therefore in need of replacement, we don't have the money for it. Hence taxes/fees collected from a road's users over the life cycle of that road don't cover the costs incurred during that same time period.

 

That was their point. They tried to make that point to justify putting tolls on the highways to afford rebuilding them, but they didn't realize the shitstorm it would cause with the highway lobby. The study would be used to shred their myth -- that roads pay for themselves. So they withdrew the toll proposal and haven't come up with a revenue replacement since.

 

This is why I'm willing to put a cash wager down that, within the next 10 years, somewhere in this country, you will see the first section of Interstate highway be permanently closed to traffic due to lack of funds to keep it in safe condition. It may be an urban connector in a city like Scranton or Peoria, or it could a state route freeway like State Route 11 between Youngstown and Ashtabula. But it won't be the last one closed.

Thanks.

It's official -- the Highway Trust Fund will shut down Sunday night........

 

More limbo for the SAFETEA-LU Reauthorization  since the Senate  has adjourned without passing at least a temporary Continuing Resolution.  This essentially shuts down the DOT on Monday morning. 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Transportation Weekly [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 11:41 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Update: It's Official - Highway Trust Fund Shuts Down Sunday Night

 

The U.S. Senate adjourned for the week at 11:40 a.m. today without taking action on legislation to provide 30-day extensions of programs set to expire at midnight on February 28.  Accordingly, expenditure authority for the Highway Trust Fund will shut down at that time.

 

Contrary to what we reported earlier today, expenditure authority out of the HTF for administrative expenses expires 24 hours after the rest of the expenditure authority from the Trust Fund, so furloughs at FHWA, FMCSA and NHTSA would not take place until Tuesday morning.  But there will be no payments to states or transit agencies out of the Trust Fund beginning on Monday morning.

 

Once FHWA employees are furloughed, they will no longer be present at work to approve projects funded from the general fund, either, including new projects under the ARRA stimulus law.  FHWA is required by law to redistribute unobligated ARRA highway formula funding on Tuesday, March 2, but it is unclear if this will take place if all FHWA employees are out on furlough.

 

The Senate will be back in session on Monday afternoon at 2 p.m. (though there will be no recorded votes until 12:15 p.m. Tuesday afternoon), but unless Senator Bunning changes his mind, the rules of the Senate will allow him to drag out action on any bill to extend the Trust Fund or other programs until the end of next week (the earliest a cloture petition on H.R. 4961 could be filed is Tuesday, which would mean a cloture vote Thursday and bill passage on Friday).  The only other option would be for the House to pass the Reid “jobs bill” (H.R. 2847) as is, which is unlikely.  Any House amendment to H.R. 2847 would require a new cloture process in the Senate which could take until the end of next week.

 

Published Feb 18 2010 by NASA, Archived Feb 26 2010

Road transportation emerges as key driver of warming: NASA analysis

by Adam Voiland

 

In a paper published online on Feb. 3 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Unger and colleagues described how they used a climate model to estimate the impact of 13 sectors of the economy from 2000 to 2100. They based their calculations on real-world inventories of emissions collected by scientists around the world, and they assumed that those emissions would stay relatively constant in the future.

 

In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it.

 

The researchers found that the burning of household biofuels -- primarily wood and animal dung for home heating and cooking -- contribute the second most warming. And raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle, contribute the third most.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, the industrial sector releases such a high proportion of sulfates and other cooling aerosols that it actually contributes a significant amount of cooling to the system. And biomass burning -- which occurs mainly as a result of tropical forest fires, deforestation, savannah and shrub fires -- emits large amounts of organic carbon particles that block solar radiation.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/road-transportation.html

A press release........

 

UPDATE – USDOT TO FURLOUGH NEARLY 2,000 EMPLOYEES TODAY

 

MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010 – 7:30 A.M.

 

The U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced early this morning that his Department will be forced to furlough nearly 2,000 employees starting today.  A shutdown of the federal Highway Trust Fund, caused by the filibuster by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) of a 30-day extension bill, has resulted in funding from the fund for salaries of DOT employees paid out of the Fund to be shut off as of midnight last night.

 

Secretary Ray LaHood said this morning that “This means DOT must temporarily shut down highway reimbursements to states worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This means we must temporarily shut down national anti-drunk driving efforts. And this means we must shut down construction projects across the country--maybe in your state or your county--because federal inspectors won't be able to do their jobs.  And when those projects shut down, and the states don't get their highway reimbursements, what will happen then? Layoffs of construction workers in a country that can ill afford such losses.”

 

The decisions as to which employees get furloughed and which are allowed to work hinges on two things – whether or not the salary of the employee is paid out of the Highway Trust Fund, and whether or not the employee can be deemed “essential personnel” under a ruling by the U.S. Attorney General’s office and are thus allowed to work in the absence of actual budget authority without violating the Antideficiency Act.

 

As far as whose salaries are paid out of the Trust Fund, that includes almost everyone at FHWA and FMCSA, about 150 personnel at NHTSA, and a few folks at RITA doing surface transportation research.

 

The “essential personnel” question is more difficult and was still being refined by DOT lawyers last night and this morning.  The AG ruling lists several government functions that must be carried on in the absence of budget authority, and the one that is most relevant to DOT is the protection of life and property.  In past shutdowns of the general fund, for example, FAA air traffic control operations and aircraft safety inspections went on without much disruption.

 

So even though all FMCSA employees are paid from the Trust Fund, the many who are directly involved in truck safety inspection will be allowed to continue work as their jobs are deemed essential to public safety.  At FHWA, most personnel would be furloughed, but some at headquarters in the agency offices who are high up in the management hierarchy would be allowed to stay on as essential under previous rulings.  At NHTSA, most of the safety people are funded out of the general fund, which is unaffected by the shutdown, while the 150 or so people whose salaries are paid from the Trust Fund and who oversee the safety grants to states will be furloughed.

 

At FHWA, reimbursement to states for ongoing highway projects will stop, as will approvals of new projects funded out of the Trust Fund.  If reimbursements are suspended long enough, cash flow problems will shut down projects in many states, but the only projects to be shut down immediately are projects carried out directly by USDOT on federal lands (a list of which was provided in the DOT press release).

 

Also, a number of FHWA employees will be allowed to stay on using the general fund appropriations provided by the ARRA stimulus law.  ARRA gave FHWA the authority to set aside up to $40 million of the $27.5 billion in ARRA funding for highways and bridges and use it for salaries for administrative expenses.  It is not known how much of that $40 million has been used already and how much will be used this week.

 

DOT decided not to pursue reprogramming of previously appropriated funds to support salaries for a variety of financial and legal reasons.

 

The furloughs will last until the President signs a bill extending Trust Fund expenditure authority and contract authority.  In the absence of unanimous consent in the Senate (which means “unless Bunning changes his mind”), the earliest that the Senate could vote on the House-passed 30-day extenders bill is Thursday afternoon (if Majority Leader Reid were to file for cloture today, a cloture vote would occur Wednesday morning and a vote on final passage would occur 30 hours later).  But if Reid does that, it would disrupt the schedule and delay consideration of the tax extenders bill by another week.

 

Or the House could pass the Senate-passed version of Reid’s “jobs bill” which extends the Trust Fund to December 31.  But the Speaker has not yet announced how she will handle the bill or when the vote will be, and the earliest that the House could vote to pass the bill by a simple majority would be Wednesday.  The House could use an expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds vote tomorrow, but the leadership is not yet sure where the votes are, as both the left and right wings of the Democratic Caucus have expressed opposition to the bill and there may not be any Republican support.

 

In the interim, a list of currently scheduled transportation-related committee hearings on Capitol Hill this week follows.

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010

 

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – full committee hearing on the Toyota recall – 10:00 a.m., SR-253 Russell.

 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010

 

House Transportation and Infrastructure – full committee markup of pending calendar business – 10:00 a.m., 2167 Rayburn.

 

Senate Environment and Public Works – full committee hearing on transportation investment and the national economy – 10:00 a.m., SD-406 Dirksen.

 

House Transportation and Infrastructure – Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment – subcommittee hearing on the implementation of the 2007 WRDA law – 11:00 a.m., 2167 Rayburn.

 

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010

 

Senate Appropriations – Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing – subcommittee hearing on the FY 2011 USDOT budget request – 9:30 a.m., SD-124 Dirksen.

 

House Transportation and Infrastructure – Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment –subcommittee hearing on agency budget requests for FY 2011 – 10:00 a.m., 2167 Rayburn.

 

House Appropriations – Subcommittee on Homeland Security – subcommittee hearing on the FY 2011 TSA budget request – 2:00 p.m., B-318 Rayburn.

 

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – full committee hearing on the FY 2011 USDOT budget request – 2:30 p.m., SR-253 Russell.

 

**********************************************************************

 

An interesting stat forwarded to me.....

 

Percent of GDP spent on transportation in car-based cities:  12-15%

Percent of GDP spent on transportation in mass transit-based cities:  5-8%

 

Source:  Sustainability and Cities:  Overcoming Auto Dependence, Island Press, 1999

 

It was referenced in the current issue of Yes! Magazine.

Obama 'Principles’ Coming in 90 Days

Boxer Pushing Transportation Bill

 

Thursday, March 4, 2010

By Audrey Dutton

The Bond Buyer

 

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will unveil its principles for a new multi-year transportation bill within the next 90 days, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters yesterday at a conference here sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

 

The Senate also will get cracking on its own multi-year bill, building on existing House legislation, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said during a hearing yesterday.

 

The administration’s principles for reauthorization of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU, which expired Sept. 30, would precede actual White House ­legislation, which is expected next year.

 

Full story at: http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/119_291/transportation_bill-1009093-1.html

U.S. bonds could help fund infrastructure bank-LaHood

Thu, Mar 4 2010

By John Crawley

 

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. government could issue debt to help underpin infrastructure bank financing for priority highway, transit and other big-ticket projects, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said on Thursday.

 

LaHood again ruled out a gas tax hike to boost construction upgrades, saying the Obama administration and Congress must shift away from traditional funding mechanisms.

 

"There are big projects around that country that people don't have the money for," LaHood told a Senate appropriations subcommittee. "We need to think outside the box."

 

Full story at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0415940920100304?type=marketsNews

From the American Public Transportation Association....

 

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1107472/1860488346/name/NationalReleaseforTSR-March2010.doc

 

For Immediate Release

Contact: Mantill Williams

March 4, 2010                          (202) 496-4869

[email protected]

     

RIDING PUBLIC TRANSIT SAVES INDIVIDUALS $9,215 ANNUALLY

Transit riders now save $715 more per year compared to last year at this time

as the cost of gas has increased $0.77 per gallon

 

Washington, DC – Individuals who ride public transportation can save on average $9,215 annually based on the March 3, 2010 national average gas price and the national unreserved monthly parking rate.  Compared to last year at this time, the average cost per gallon of gas was $1.933 which is $0.77 less than the current price of gas at $2.703 per gallon.  The total savings as compared to last year at this time equates to an increase of an additional $715 in savings per year for transit commuters.

 

“The Transit Savings Report” released monthly by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) calculates the average annual and monthly savings for public transit users.  The report examines how an individual in a two-person household can save money by taking public transportation and living with one less car.

 

Transit riders can save on average $768 per month.  The savings amount is based on the cost of the national averages for parking and driving, as well as the March 3 national average gas price of $2.703 per gallon for self-serve regular gasoline as reported by AAA.

 

Taking public transportation provides a safe and affordable way for individuals and families to cut costs, according to APTA.  In addition, local public transit offers a travel option that has an immediate positive impact in reducing an individual’s overall carbon footprint while helping reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

 

The national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district is $154.23, according to the 2009 Colliers International Parking Rate Study.  Over the course of a year, parking costs for a vehicle can amount to an average of $1,850.

 

The top 20 cities with the highest transit ridership are ranked in order of their transit savings based on the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factoring in local gas prices for March 3, 2010 and the local monthly unreserved parking rate.*

 

Top Twenty Cities – Transit Savings Report

       

  City  Monthly Savings  Annual Savings

1  New York      $1,145  $13,740

2  Boston      $1,028  $12,333

3  San Francisco  $1,011  $12,134

4  Chicago      $942  $11,298

5  Seattle      $933  $11,197

6  Philadelphia  $925  $11,095

7  Honolulu      $891  $10,689

8  Los Angeles  $835  $10,023

9  San Diego  $822  $9,859

10  Minneapolis  $821  $9,856

11  Portland  $799  $9,590

12  Denver  $798  $9,571

13  Cleveland  $795  $9,537

14  Baltimore  $779  $9,349

15  Miami      $751  $9,007

16  Washington, DC  $750  $9,004

17  Dallas      $729  $8,746

18  Atlanta  $720  $8,642

19  Las Vegas  $712  $8,545

20  Pittsburgh  $678  $8,139

           

*Based on gasoline prices as reported by AAA on 3/3/10.

 

Methodology

 

APTA calculates the average cost of taking public transit by determining the average monthly transit pass of local public transit agencies across the country.  This information is based on the annual APTA fare collection survey and is weighted based on ridership (unlinked passenger trips).  The assumption is that a person making a switch to public transportation would likely purchase an unlimited pass on the local transit agency, typically available on a monthly basis.

 

APTA then compares the average monthly transit fare to the average cost of driving.  The cost of driving is calculated using the 2009 AAA average cost of driving formula.  AAA cost of driving formula is based on variable costs and fixed costs.  The variable costs include the cost of gas, maintenance and tires.  The fixed costs include insurance, license registration, depreciation and finance charges.  The comparison also uses the average mileage of a mid-size auto at 23.4 miles per gallon and the price for self-serve regular unleaded gasoline as recorded by AAA on March 3 at $2.703 per gallon.  The analysis also assumes that a person will drive an average of 15,000 miles per year.  The savings assume a person in a two-person household lives with one less car.

 

In determining the cost of parking, APTA uses the data from the 2009 Colliers International Parking Rate Study for monthly unreserved parking rates for the United States.

 

To calculate your individual savings with or without car ownership, go to www.publictransportation.org. 

 

# # #

I go to the office today, sit at my desk, and guess what's sitting right in front of me? A copy of Randal O'Toole's new book, entitled "Gridlock" along with the press release! I can't wait to read this book! Has anyone else read it yet?

No, but I need more toilet paper. Send a copy over....

Hehe.

Lack of equity never seem to get in the way of the perverse logic from the Reason Foundation's Robert Poole who is ranting (see commentary at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/01/federal-dollars-for-federal-roads/) about the practice of diverting money from the highway trust fund to more worthy endeavors such as transit and sidewalks. Of course, highway money is highway money, the same way that sales taxes levied on the purchase of cars should also be used only for building roads or subsidizing cars…

 

It was Winston Churchill who best justified diverting highway money to more pressing needs with this bitingly sarcastic remark, "Whoever said that, whatever the yield of these taxes, and whatever the poverty of the country, we were to build roads, and nothing but roads, from this yield? We might have to cripple our Trade by increased taxation of income, we might even be unable to pay for the upkeep of our Fleet. But never mind, whatever happens, the whole yield of the taxes on motors must be spent on roads!"

^Great quote!!

the Reason Foundation's Robert Poole

 

Never trust the Smart People's Guild or the Decency Union or any group who tries to co-opt something so abstract.  A name like this means they have a direct purpose but they don't think we need to know what it is. 

Another one from Churchill, from 1926 when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he explained his use of the gas tax as general revenue:

 

"Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed . . . and the yield devoted to general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads? Obviously this is all nonsense . . . such conditions are absurd, and constitute an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and on common sense."

the Reason Foundation's Robert Poole

 

Never trust the Smart People's Guild or the Decency Union or any group who tries to co-opt something so abstract. A name like this means they have a direct purpose but they don't think we need to know what it is.

 

"Reason" has become a codeword in many circles for secular libertarianism (or, perhaps more accurately, atheistic libertarianism), particularly since Ayn Rand.

 

That doesn't detract from your point, however.

Actually, that WAS my point. 

 

"Reason" already has an accepted meaning.  It's highly debatable whether that accepted meaning equates to Randian atheistic libertarianism... so the trick is to circumvent that debate by stating one's opening premise in a conclusory fashion.  And nothing is more conclusory than adopting said premise as nomenclature.

Another one from Churchill, from 1926 when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he explained his use of the gas tax as general revenue:

 

"Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed . . . and the yield devoted to general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads? Obviously this is all nonsense . . . such conditions are absurd, and constitute an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and on common sense."

 

Awesome. Quotes from Churchill might be the best way to show how stupid the GOP is and why we must get rid of the Constitutional prohibitions by giving power back to the people through its elected representatives to decide how money collected should be spent…

Another one from Churchill, from 1926 when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he explained his use of the gas tax as general revenue:

 

"Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed . . . and the yield devoted to general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads? Obviously this is all nonsense . . . such conditions are absurd, and constitute an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and on common sense."

 

Awesome. Quotes from Churchill might be the best way to show how stupid the GOP is and why we must get rid of the Constitutional prohibitions by giving power back to the people through its elected representatives to decide how money collected should be spent…

 

Um ... be careful what you wish for ...

OK, I'll bite. What goofy consequences do you see? (This should be good)

He's probably referencing the "ridding of Constitutional prohibitions" phrase.

And also the "giving power back to the people through its elected representatives to decide how money collected should be spent" ... has Congress really done so great a job with that with respect to the money they *already* have basically unlimited discretion over?

And the alternative to an elected representative republic form of government is?

California: Ballots loaded with initiatives often in conflict with each other, requiring new spending, limiting tax dollars, etc. How's that working out?

And the alternative to an elected representative republic form of government is?

 

A republican government restrained by the Constitution (and the courts that uphold it) from certain decisions, including certain taxing and spending decisions, that are inimical to essential liberty.  No one said anything about making government non-elected.  Limiting the discretion of the political branches, however, is absolutely a part of American constitutional tradition--much as some political parties and ideologues like to deny it.

LaHood to Airlines: Get Onboard the High-Speed Train

 

 

The airline industry was left fuming last year when some $8 billion on federal stimulus money was appropriated for high-speed rail while air-traffic control modernization got no new funds.

 

Airlines see high-speed trains as competition that could further erode their customer bases, and they were left befuddled how rail projects decades away could be “shovel ready’’ when the next-generation air-traffic control system that airlines say will reduce delays and boost air-travel capacity didn’t get any action from the Obama Administration.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2010/03/09/lahood-to-airlines-get-onboard-the-high-speed-train/

Rep. Mica told the airlines the same thing two years ago:  get on high-speed trains or get marginalized.

Juiciest three paragraphs:

 

“Let me give you a little bit of political advice: Don’t be against high-speed rail,’’ Sec. LaHood said. “It’s coming to America. This is the president’s vision, this is the vice president’s vision, this is America’s vision…. We’re going to get into the high-speed rail business.’’

 

In two or three decades, Mr. LaHood said, U.S. cities will be connected by high-speed rail – whether airlines like it or not.

 

“People want alternatives,’’ he said pointedly. “People are still going to fly, but we need alternatives. So get with the program.’’

As much as I found LaHood's comments entertaining, I didn't care for his adversarial tone. That's for bullies. I would have preferred to hear him offer partnerships, incentives, etc. to the airlines to invest in high-speed rail and to fulfill a vision: use short- to medium-distance rail as connecting "flights." Not just to "get with the program," but to be a significant player in the program.

 

This is a well-researched piece by a friend who is an internationally respected transportation consultant with 40 years experience in the field (he's also a Republican)......

________________

 

 

Misinformed critics of rail passenger service, which includes most of the GOP including Ohio State Senators Bill Harris and Tom Patton, are trying to kill the 3C Quick Start passenger rail service before it gets started.  They continue to make statements like:

 

Amtrak has a debt of more than $3.5 billion. Amtrak has never made a profit in its more than 35 years of operation. We cannot subsidize the 3C Corridor operation to the tune of $17 million each year…

 

These statements continually cast a pall over investment in rail passenger service improvements by characterizing rail passenger service as a perennial money loser.  We "invest" in highways and air travel but "subsidize" rail travel.  We have discussed the subsidies to highways on these pages before.  So, let’s be fair.  Let’s look at air travel.

 

According to a variety of published sources, airline debt in the United States has risen significantly, with some estimates placing it as high as $100 billion.  Just last year, the US airline industry issued $6 billion in new debt.  Bill Warlick, airline debt analyst at Fitch Ratings, warned investors in a report in September 2009 that "higher borrowing costs, persistently high leverage and chronically weak cash flow" make U.S. carriers' capital structures "unsustainable."

 

From 2001 through 2005, the U.S. airline industry reported total net losses of approximately $42.3 billion for the five-year period.  In response to the industry’s financial condition right after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress provided or made available several forms of financial relief to the airlines amounting to well over $20 billion. Otherwise, the losses for this period would have exceeded $62 billion. The profitability of airlines between 2006 and 2009 were no better.  The worldwide airline industry lost $11 billion in 2009. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) had expected losses to drop to $3.8 billion in 2010.  IATA recently revised that figure higher to $5.6 billion, and that may not be the worst of it, as oil prices rise while carriers compete for passengers with lower fares.

 

There are other annual federal, state and local subsidies to the airline industry for operation and maintenance of the air traffic control system, airport security, airline terminals, airport runways and facilities and access roads and public transportation to airports.  Total subsidies from federal, state and local sources are estimated to be in excess of $6 billion annually just for domestic US carriers. 

 

Despite all the money invested in airlines and related infrastructure, the net profit of the airline industry in its 80-year history is less than zero.  It is worse when the government’s research and development of aircraft and avionics technology and when you consider the military training of pilots is taken into consideration.  With its jet fuel prices continuing to climb, airlines are once again hovering near bankruptcy.

 

High-speed rail will save the airline industry from itself by diverting high-cost, low yield short flights to rail allowing the airlines to fly larger planes on long distance flights where the economics of air travel work to an airlines advantage.  LaHood was being blunt and not adversarial.  The airlines need to understand where their bread is really buttered.  He was providing them a fair warning not to be an adversary of high-speed rail.  Many of you forget why Texas does not have a high-speed rail system connecting Dallas, Houston and San Antonio today.  It's because Southwest Airlines fought it tooth and nail.  Politics works both ways...

(Quote) "Despite all the money invested in airlines and related infrastructure, the net profit of the airline industry in its 80-year history is less than zero."

 

And that's why Warren Buffet bought the BNSF Railroad and not an airline.  He has been quoted in the past as saying he won't invest in airlines at all because they have never turned a profit.

 

Good post KJP. :clap:

 

Seconded.  That is an excellent piece.

In the 1970's I remember being on a trip in eastern Cananda, probably outside Toronto or Monteral on a highway.  My dad was driving so we were going in excess of 80 mph.  A Canadian passenger train passed us doing at least 90 mph with what was probably 1960's era equipment (rolling stock, tracks, signalling, etc.).  I still remember seeing a man in the passenger car reading a newspaper.  It looked like the "conestoga wagon" type engine and stainless steel single level cars.  Why is it now so expensive to obtain these passenger rail speeds that were commonplace 50 years ago?

In America, trains cannot travel above 79 mph without an interactive traffic control system present -- a system which automatically slows or stops trains when a caution or stop signal is displayed for the section of track the train occupies. Adding this system is VERY expensive, although newer satellite-based systems can cut the cost to as little as $1 million per mile. But 79 mph has been a federal law since the 1950s. I've read some article which cited the highway lobby influenced federal regulators to issue the limit. Regardless, the law exists.

 

But in Canada, trains can travel at up to 95 mph without such a signal system is in place, provided that the trains and tracks are in a condition that safely allows such speeds.

 

In Great Britain and much of Europe, trains can travel at up to 125 mph without the interactive traffic control system in place.