Didn't read the article.  I vote against the bill on the basis that I despise all bills that have deliberately inflated and contrived names in order to make an acronym.

 

If they rename it the Infrastructure Bank Act, I might be on board, though. :-)

You don't support it because of the acronym? Seriously?

Group backs national freight policy proposal   

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 

 

The Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors (CAGTC) Tuesday expressed support for plans by the Obama Administration, in its 2012 Department of Transportation budget recommendations, calling for creating a new national freight plan and policy.

 

CAGTC is a coalition of more than 60 public and private organizations dedicated to increasing federal investment in America’s intermodal freight infrastructure. CAGTC said the administration “recommends that Congress instruct the Secretary to ‘establish a National Freight Transportation Policy and designate a National FreightTransportation System, which would include the designation of multimodalnational freight corridors … and issue a triennial National FreightTransportation Strategic Plan.’”

 

“A truly strategic freight mobility program would serve the economic needsof our country in the near term and for generations to come by investmentdecisions that optimize freight mobility and support economic expansion andcontinually improving standards of living,” stated Mortimer L. Downey, III,CAGTC chairman, senior advisor at Parsons Brinckerhoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

rEAD MORE AT: http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/group-backs-fy12-national-freight-policy-proposal-2962.html

Not much thinking going on here.....

 

April 7, 2011

APTA: House budget proposal would cut jobs, transit options

 

On Wednesday, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) President William Millar urged the House of Representatives to reject reductions on transportation investment, including public transportation and high-speed intercity passenger rail programs, outlined in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI).

 

“The budget plan proposed by Chairman Ryan would place ill-conceived limits on federal investment in transportation,” said Millar. “The House budget plan needlessly restricts investment options by calling for all transportation programs to be cut 30 percent or more. This would halt thousands projects needed in the years ahead to bring our nation’s public transportation infrastructure up to a state of good repair and build the capacity for millions of new riders.

 

“Instead of adopting limits on transportation investment, Congress needs to pass a well-funded, six-year, multimodal surface transportation bill. While transportation programs account for less than 3 percent of the federal budget, they support or create more than 2.5 million jobs annually. Modest changes to the collection of federal motor fuel user fees in a new surface transportation bill could easily eliminate the small amount of deficit spending in these programs.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2011/04/APTA-House-budget-proposal-would-decrease-jobs-transportation-options.aspx?ref=Express-Thursday-20110407

State roads can't handle much heavier truckload

Published: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 5:41 PM    Updated: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 10:29 PM

By Patriot-News Editorial Board The Patriot-News

 

Allowing trucks to carry more weight would be devastating to Pennsylvania roads.

The proposal in Congress to allow heavier trucks on highways sounds innocent at first glance. If trucks could carry more weight, there would be fewer of them on the road, proponents of the change argue.

 

Not so fast.

 

Take a state such as Pennsylvania, which already has some of the worst roads in the country. About a fifth of the roads are listed in “very poor condition,” and more than a quarter of the state’s bridges are in critical shape. Transportation for America dubbed Pennsylvania bridges the lousiest nationwide.

 

If Congress allows even heavier trucks to pound the pavement, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. engineer to figure out the result: more wear and tear. The proposal before it would let trucks increase their weight from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds. That’s akin to allowing five more hippos to ride on a truck.

 

Read more at: http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/04/state_roads_cant_handle_much_h.html

Having traveled in Eastern Bloc countries, I have seen some REALLY bad roads. But this spring, I have seen U.S. roads with pavement conditions that rival those in the Eastern Bloc. And my sports car does not take rough roads well at all! Sometimes I wonder why I have such a car with roads likes these. It is really quite shameful to see our roads in this condition as gas tax revenues continue to flatten out or fall, which could worsen as gas prices rise more in coming year. And gas taxes are a flat amount, 18.4 cents per gallon in federal tax + 28 cents per gallon in state tax -- they are NOT a percentage of the sale price as many people think. Yet we keep adding new capacity to our roadway system as driving keeps falling. We can't afford to maintain our existing roadway system, yet we want to add billions worth of new capacity to it as driving is declining? And now we want to add heavier trucks to it?

 

At this rate, the privately owned rails will win by default because the roads will be so rough no one will want to wreck their car driving on them, assuming they can still afford the gasoline.

What to Call the Gas Tax: Not Just Semantics

Calling the gas tax a 'user fee' is logically and factually wrong.

Alex Marshall | April 2011

 

I went to the grocery store today and bought an apple. While eating it, I complained that proceeds from the sales tax I paid were used for other things than agricultural support programs.

 

This made-up anecdote is similar to how highway advocates, who I’ll call “road firsters,” talk about the gas tax, which they erroneously label a “user fee.” Road firsters criticize the planned high-speed rail lines for needing subsidies while saying that the gas tax is actually a user fee, which means roads are self-sufficient. This is logically and factually wrong.

 

A gas tax might appear to be a user fee at first, because you need gas to drive. But this confuses the meaning of the term.

 

To qualify as a user fee, you must have a choice as to whether or not you pay it. It also must relate directly to a particular service that you can accept or reject, and to the number of times you use that service.

 

Read more at: http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/Not-Just-Semantics.html#

Awesome column. I've already shared it on the Facebook pages for All Aboard Ohio, Linking Ohio and CYP TechBelt Tracks.

I hadn't seen that column before, but it's a good one (by which, of course, I mean that I agreed with the position before I even read it). :-)  Still, it's a legit point--taxes are taxes, and trying to recharacterize them as payments for specific benefits is just logically unsound.  The worst of them all is the payroll tax, which underpins the argument that Social Security benefits have somehow been "paid for" because the income stream is somehow "dedicated" to the program.  (I consider it depressing that people are far more vocal in their opposition to using the gas tax money for other projects, even other infrastructure projects, than they were for raiding the Social Security income stream.)

 

The author does make one terminological error, but it's a harmless one: He says that a user fee is inconsistent with unlimited access: "You don’t pay one toll and then use the Golden Gate Bridge as many times as you like .... once I do pay the gas tax, I can use one stretch of road or a bridge as many times as I like with no additional charge. That’s not a user fee."  That's not inherently true.  The operator of a completely privatized road system would be fully within its rights to sell unlimited-access passes, just like unlimited-access monthly parking passes or Internet service or unlimited-minute cell phone plans.  In fact, it would likely be a very popular model in a hypothetical world of privatized streets.  Urbanists might not want to see such plans because they would be most popular among heavy users and would reduce the incentive to cut back on driving, but notwithstanding that, such plans would probably find their way into the market anyway--and they would still be user fees.

News Release

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2011/Pages/110412_WMstatement_funding.aspx

 

4/12/2011

Contact:

 

Mantill Williams

(202)496-4869

[email protected]

 

Reducing Investment in Public Transportation and High-Speed Rail Will Reduce Jobs and Decrease Transportation Options at a Time When Public Needs Them Most

 

 

Statement by APTA President William Millar

 

“The American Public Transportation Association and its 1,500 members have strong concerns about the reductions in public transportation and high-speed rail investment in the FY 2011 continuing resolution.

 

Singling out the high-speed rail program by eliminating all FY 2011 dollars is simply short-sighted.  This is particularly troublesome when 32 states and the District of Columbia are advancing projects with FY 2010 dollars.  High-speed and intercity passenger rail investments are catalysts to create jobs and provide the foundation for our nation’s growing economy.

 

In addition, the reductions in public transportation investment for new projects could not come at a worse time as Americans deal with the rising cost of gasoline. When gas prices rise, taking public transportation is the quickest way to beat high gas prices. Now is the time we should be expanding our investment in public transportation infrastructure, not reducing it. 

 

Furthermore, a lack of investment will make it difficult for our nation to meet the growing demand for transportation services and bring our infrastructure up to a state of good repair.  We urge Congress to make investing in our nation’s transportation systems a top priority in their upcoming deliberations for current and future funding proposals.”

 

*****

 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a nonprofit international association of 1,500 public and private member organizations, engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne services, and intercity and high-speed passenger rail. This includes: transit systems; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and state departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. More than 90 percent of the people using public transportation in the United States and Canada ride APTA member systems.

Does anyone think this weekend's release of the Atlas Shrugged movie might get any conservatives to rethink their positions?  For those unfamiliar, its based on a Tea Party favorite Ayn Rand novel that glorifies high speed rail.  Unlike the 50s era book, the movie version is set in 2016 during a fuel crisis.

Editorial

How Not to Plan for the Future

Published: April 20, 2011

 

The agreement between Congress and the White House to virtually eliminate money for high-speed rail is harebrained. France, China, Brazil, even Russia, understand that high-speed rail is central to future development. Not Washington.

 

The budget package eliminated about $1 billion that President Obama had wanted to add to the current budget, and it rescinded $400 million of $2.4 billion that was already designated for high-speed rail this year.

 

That money was supposed to go to Florida, but it’s now up for grabs after Gov. Rick Scott mindlessly rejected a plan to build the first high-speed rail corridor between Orlando and Tampa. Despite the vast support of business, Governor Scott claimed it would be too costly for the state government. It turns out that a lot of other governors — including 11 of Mr. Scott’s Republican colleagues — would love that money.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21thu1.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

America's transport infrastructure

Life in the slow lane

Americans are gloomy about their economy’s ability to produce. Are they right to be? We look at two areas of concern, transport infrastructure and innovation

Apr 28th 2011 | from the print edition

 

ON FRIDAY afternoons, residents of Washington, DC, often find a clear route out of the city as elusive as a deal to cut the deficit. Ribbons of red rear-lights stretch off into the distance along the highways that radiate from the city’s centre. Occasionally, adventurous southbound travellers experiment with Amtrak, America’s national rail company. The distance from Washington to Raleigh, North Carolina (a metropolitan area about the size of Brussels) is roughly the same as from London’s St Pancras Station to the Gare du Nord in Paris. But this is no Eurostar journey.

 

Trains creep out of Washington’s Union Station and pause at intervals, inexplicably, as they travel through the northern Virginia suburbs. In the summer, high temperatures threaten to kink the steel tracks, forcing trains to slow down even more. Riders may find themselves inching along behind a lumbering freight train for miles at a time, until the route reaches a side track on which the Amtrak train can pass. The trip takes six hours, well over twice as long as the London-Paris journey, if there are no delays. And there often are.

 

America, despite its wealth and strength, often seems to be falling apart. American cities have suffered a rash of recent infrastructure calamities, from the failure of the New Orleans levees to the collapse of a highway bridge in Minneapolis, to a fatal crash on Washington, DC’s (generally impressive) metro system. But just as striking are the common shortcomings. America’s civil engineers routinely give its transport structures poor marks, rating roads, rails and bridges as deficient or functionally obsolete. And according to a World Economic Forum study America’s infrastructure has got worse, by comparison with other countries, over the past decade. In the WEF 2010 league table America now ranks 23rd for overall infrastructure quality, between Spain and Chile. Its roads, railways, ports and air-transport infrastructure are all judged mediocre against networks in northern Europe.

Read more at: http://www.economist.com/node/18620944?story_id=18620944&fsrc=rss

BNSF's Rose Pushes Market-Based Approach to Infrastructure

Bill Mongelluzzo | May 6, 2011 7:36PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

 

When BNSF Railway decides how to invest its money in infrastructure expansion, it looks to the marketplace for guidance. Federal policymakers should do the same in formulating a national transportation policy, Chairman and CEO Matthew K. Rose said.

 

“The marketplace says, integrate rail and truck and invest on that basis,” Rose told the annual World Trade Week breakfast sponsored by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce on Friday.

 

The U.S. international supply chain is the most efficient in the world, which lowers the cost of transportation as a percentage of gross domestic product, Rose said. But the freight transportation infrastructure could be overwhelmed when trade volumes return to pre-recession levels because investments aren’t made on a total supply chain basis.

 

“The individual parts of the supply chain do not cooperate well,” he said.

Read more at: http://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/bnsfs-rose-pushes-market-based-approach-infrastructure

Pay per mile: A timely tax idea, or a privacy threat?

Obama administration draft proposal for study of mileage fee spurs interest

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

msnbc.com

updated 5/5/2011 5:36:53 PM ET 2011-05-05T21:36:53

 

As transportation officials struggle to raise enough tax dollars to maintain the nation's highway and transit systems, a tentative new proposal could put Americans on the hook for every mile they drive.

 

Department of Transportation officials have drafted legislation that would study a vehicle tax to track how far drivers travel and charge them by the mile. The proposal would create a “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office” to conduct trials of the concept.

 

The draft proposal was first reported this week in Transportation Weekly, a trade publication. A White House spokeswoman told The Hill newspaper that the draft "does not represent the views of the president” and is in no way an administration proposal. Read more at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42919365/ns/politics-more_politics/#

I agree it's a good tax solution and a privacy threat. There should be a way to count miles without GPS tracking.

A yearly inspection at the DMV when you renew your plates - they write down mileage and then check it the next year. The cost of plates would be indexed to your mileage driven.

A yearly inspection at the DMV when you renew your plates - they write down mileage and then check it the next year. The cost of plates would be indexed to your mileage driven.

 

This, though I would establish it at the federal level, not the state level (and it's the states who run DMVs, for the moment).

 

People could make installment payments based on estimates the way many do for utility bills now.  (Indeed, much of how I conceive that I would charge for road use is in large part starting with a utility model and adapting it to the particular characteristics of street infrastructure.)

 

Also, privacy law is somewhat nebulous, often using terms such as "reasonable expectation of privacy."  I'm not a complete expert on the topic where the lines get hard to draw, but I think such things as "this car was made in 2002 and has been driven 88,000 miles" are not exactly things that you have a significant privacy interest in.

I think the problem is that so many of the VMT advocates keep coming back to the idea of a imbedded GPS that would track your car constantly, every place it went.  That's a privacy bazooka to swat a tax fly.

A yearly inspection at the DMV when you renew your plates - they write down mileage and then check it the next year. The cost of plates would be indexed to your mileage driven.

 

That's a big financial hit all at once. A quarterly or monthly bill would be better, IMHO. I also like Gramarye's idea of installment payments.

 

But what about swiping a debit card, or some other payment media or interactive device that comes with your car, at a reader at the gas station whether you buy gas or not? There could mileage cards that you could buy at stores, etc. like phone cards. Gas pumps are already equipped with payment machines and a phone/communications line anyway. So if you are driving an alternative fueled vehicle, you could at least re-fill your miles account at the gas pump (or other places like drug stores, mini-marts, downtown parking garages etc). If you run out of miles, your car doesn't necessarily shut off like it would if you ran out of gas unless you reached a certain limit. But you would start to incur debt that could result in fines, interest or other penalties against you if you didn't pay it back. This doesn't need to incur privacy issues. We deal with these kinds of issues all the time, such as with pre-paid phones, etc.

I think the problem is that so many of the VMT advocates keep coming back to the idea of a imbedded GPS that would track your car constantly, every place it went.  That's a privacy bazooka to swat a tax fly.

 

Yes, exactly.

 

I think the perceived problem with using an odometer is that it's easy to tamper with, and the incentive to do so in this case could be huge. I'm not really knowledgeable, though, about how easy it is to detect tampering. Another issue might be that odometers can be unreliable, or they can simply break (sometimes maybe intentionally!).

 

But the GPS concept is ridiculous to me. EZ-Pass and speed/red light cameras are bad enough.

Using a payment at the pump system (like KJP suggests) might be a good solution. It would do a few things well:

 

1) Provide a decent paper trail where (odometer) fraud can be detected.

 

2) Space out payments to make them manageable (like Gramarye's utility idea)

 

3) Really help people see the connection between costs and miles driven, by making them keep it in mind.

I always figured a vehicle-mile tax would be pretty simple with yearly odometer readings, and as mentioned before a way to pay in installments quarterly or such.  Being caught with a tampered odometer can be a very large fine, which would ensure people get a broken odometer fixed right away.  What is important though is that the tax is based on vehicle weight as well, as that's the major factor in causing road wear.  That said, a tax on gas still makes sense as well since it has its own externalities and such too, whether used in cars and trucks or generators, lawnmowers, or farm and construction equipment.  It does also make sense to have local property and general source taxes fund some portion of the road network as well, since it is used by non-motorists such as pedestrians and cyclists, but also as public open space, a right-of-way for utilities, block parties, access for garbage collection as well as police, fire, and ambulances too.  Then there's parking, which is the elephant in the room of all road pricing discussions.  I guess neighborhood parking stickers or some sort of additional fee should be required for that too. 

 

All this sounds like a huge increase in various taxes and fees, but the goal of course is to more properly distribute the burden of payment onto those who are actually using the roads.  As it is, say the money spent on roads now comes from about 75% local sources and 25% from the gas tax.  That could be wildly off, but the local contribution is guaranteed to be much higher than 50%.  Anyway, taking that existing 75/25 split, it should probably be something more like 30% from gas taxes, 20% from local sources, 30% from vehicle mile taxes, and 20% from parking fees.  If you were to take out parking as being too complicated, I'd still say something like 30% should come from gas taxes, 50% from vehicle mile taxes, and 20% from local sources.  It's not right that so much of the cost of roads is not born by the users.  That local cost should be quite low because it doesn't require super wide pavement that's meticulously maintained, elaborate drainage systems, snow plows, traffic cops, etc., to provide most of the services required by non-motorists. 

^ Tolling on limited access highways, with a different rate for vehicle weight and for different sections of highway, would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't it? Also, if operators of limited access highways had to pay property tax like everybody else, they may not take so much valuable land.

 

    Two of the biggest "what if" questions of American History are what if the interstates had been tolled, and what if the interstates hadn't been built at all.

Yes but the interstates (or limited access highways in general) are a very very small part of the total road network. 

^ But a high proportion of total miles travelled.

 

  In a typical city, the majority of miles are on local streets that carry hardly any traffic. County roads and urban arterials have a moderate number of miles of pavement and moderate traffic. Interstates and regional highways have a fairly small number of miles of pavement but a majority of miles driven.

 

 

I also have a feeling the operational costs of tolling everywhere would be greater. That's just my gut instinct, though. I mean, it requires new infrastructure and likely a large payroll.

Yes, and the interstates are the most expensive of those roads per mile, but at the same time those urban streets are so overbuilt that even if they're cheaper, they still represent a very large cost to society to maintain.  They can't just be left out of the equation, but they're not practical to toll.

 

  The reason why local streets and roads are impractical to toll is because people will detour around the toll collection places, or use the facility between toll places without paying. Tolled turnpikes were popular in the pioner days - many of our major routes started as toll roads - and it was remarked that there were invariably trails through the woods made by people going around the toll places.

 

  Routes without alternatives, such as bridges and tunnels, make excellent tolling places. Commercial airlines, ferries, and railroads that stop at only designated locations make good toll routes, but we use the word "fare" instead of toll.

 

Limited access highways, with access only at ramps, are excellent candidates for toll routes. I am amazed at how well the New York Thruway system works, where the toll is based on which ramps one gets on and off.

 

Some imagine the interstate highway system as a web of high speed roads linking the major cities and providing fast, regional transportation. However, the reality is that most traffic on the interstates is between two points in the same metropolitan area, and a good deal of it is suburban commuters. I suspect that if the interstates had been tolled appropriately from the beginning, much of the local use would be discouraged by the toll. I know people who use the interstate to get from home to the grocery store, which is ridiculous. An appropriate toll would also result in keeping traffic moving most of the time.

 

I realize that the legislation for the interstates prohibits tolling on all but a few segments of the system. I would hope that we as a society can get beyond that.

 

As an example of what could be done, I believe that removing the Covington ramps and improving the connections to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge, and constructing a toll plaza in the vicinity of Kyles Lane in Kentucky that charged appropriate tolls adjusted for time of day and traffic, would solve all of the congestion problems on the Brent Spence Bridge and make a replacement bridge unnecessary.

 

But yes, attempting to toll all roads is futile because of the cost of collecting countless tolls of small value.

5/25/2011 10:00:00 AM    Public Policy

 

New coalition aims to raise nation's awareness of transportation 'crisis'

 

A newly formed American Crisis in Transportation Coalition (ACT) seeks to expand the national understanding of a “serious deterioration of America’s transportation system,” and to educate the public and political leaders on the system’s funding needs, ACT officials said in a prepared statement.

 

ACT’s founders are former Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation Frank Busalacchi and John Boffa, owner of marketing and research firms in Washington, D.C. Busalacchi has served as a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, and formerly chaired the States for Passenger Coalition.

 

Read more at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=26701

May 27, 2011

Lack of transportation is hurting our health

By  Nicole Schlosser

 

This week saw the release of three different reports providing concrete evidence that transportation conditions in the U.S. are wanting.

 

Apparently, in many places, traffic and our commutes are killing us prematurely, we can’t walk anywhere safely and even huge gas price increases will not get us out of our cars; they will just put us into more fuel-efficient ones.

 

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) at the School of Public Health’s study, "The Public Health Costs of Traffic Congestion: A Health Risk Assessment," says that the fine particulate matter that comes from traffic congestion led to more than 2,200 premature deaths in the U.S. last year.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/Blog/Transit-Dispatches/Story/2011/05/Reports-show-lack-of-transportation-hurting-health.aspx?ref=TransitDispatches-20110527&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Enewsletter

I realize that the legislation for the interstates prohibits tolling on all but a few segments of the system. I would hope that we as a society can get beyond that.

 

I thought this was changed several years ago when Congress was GOP-controlled.  They started out with talk of privatizing the interstates, then backed off to allowing states to turn any segment(s) the wish into toll roads.  or am I mis-remembering?

 

  The reason why local streets and roads are impractical to toll is because people will detour around the toll collection places, or use the facility between toll places without paying. Tolled turnpikes were popular in the pioner days - many of our major routes started as toll roads - and it was remarked that there were invariably trails through the woods made by people going around the toll places.

 

  Routes without alternatives, such as bridges and tunnels, make excellent tolling places. Commercial airlines, ferries, and railroads that stop at only designated locations make good toll routes, but we use the word "fare" instead of toll.

 

Limited access highways, with access only at ramps, are excellent candidates for toll routes. I am amazed at how well the New York Thruway system works, where the toll is based on which ramps one gets on and off.

 

Some imagine the interstate highway system as a web of high speed roads linking the major cities and providing fast, regional transportation. However, the reality is that most traffic on the interstates is between two points in the same metropolitan area, and a good deal of it is suburban commuters. I suspect that if the interstates had been tolled appropriately from the beginning, much of the local use would be discouraged by the toll. I know people who use the interstate to get from home to the grocery store, which is ridiculous. An appropriate toll would also result in keeping traffic moving most of the time.

 

I realize that the legislation for the interstates prohibits tolling on all but a few segments of the system. I would hope that we as a society can get beyond that.

 

As an example of what could be done, I believe that removing the Covington ramps and improving the connections to the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge, and constructing a toll plaza in the vicinity of Kyles Lane in Kentucky that charged appropriate tolls adjusted for time of day and traffic, would solve all of the congestion problems on the Brent Spence Bridge and make a replacement bridge unnecessary.

 

But yes, attempting to toll all roads is futile because of the cost of collecting countless tolls of small value.

 

You could impose a mileage fee, which would be easy to collect, being as simple as reading your odometer and paying a set, per mile fee. The more you drive, the more you pay. The fee could be split according to formula among local streets, state highways and so on. All Interstates should be tolled in addition. Tho this would not address the issue of peak demand pricing, it would be the fairest method and would avoid privacy issues that might be raised with scanning a magnetic strip or chip. Many areas already have tailpipe emission inspections, so this might not be too intrusive.

^ The gasolline tax as it exists today places the burden of collection on fuel distribution companies, with some regulation by the government. Basicly, if you refuse to pay the tax, the fuel distribution company will refuse to sell you the gasoline, so enforcement costs are minimal.

 

  A mileage tax would presumably be collected by the state in which the vehicle is registered, at infrequent intervals. Suppose you owe some large sum - say $500 - all at once. The incentive to cheat the system is high. Besides the obvious odometer tampering problems, one would expect to incur more problems with unregistered vehicles on the road.

 

  Another difficulty would be dealing with the shift in political power. The gasoline tax tends to be collected in states where it is consumed. If you drive mostly in your own state, you will purchase most of your gasoline in your home state. If you take a cross-country trip, you will purchase gasoline in states that you pass through. The mileage tax will tend to shift political power to states with a lot of vehicles registered. For example, New Jersey may carry a lot of traffic from vehicles registered in New York or Pennsylvania, but comparatively few from New Jersey. "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson.

 

    Finally, do you really think that a vehicle mileage tax will actually replace the per gallon tax, or just supplement it? It is rare to repeal taxes, because the beneficiaries of the tax revenue will fight to preserve their revenue stream.

Just offering a thought, and no, I don't think such a fee would replace the gas tax. What would you do???

Five Media Myths That Perpetuate Car Culture

 

by Anne Lutz Fernandez and Catherine Lutz on May 23, 2011

 

Another day, another news story, another media outlet wielding an old saw like this one: high gas prices are a political problem for the president because Americans “love their cars.” American car culture, fed by everything from our sprawled out landscape to a daily bombardment of car ads, is kept alive by journalists’ use of a set of hackneyed narratives. Beyond clichés, these story lines represent a collection of myths that shore up an unhealthy, unequal, and ultimately unsustainable car system.

 

read more at: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/23/five-media-myths-that-perpetuate-car-culture/

Just offering a thought, and no, I don't think such a fee would replace the gas tax. What would you do???

 

I actually like the idea of a mileage tax.  Especially if it's not only based on mileage, but also vehicle weight.  This would encourage people to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars. 

 

It wouldn't replace the gas tax, but it would be structured such that it accounts for the average increase in vehicle gas mileage (subsequent decrease in gas tax revenue) and charges the appropriate rate to maintain a healthy highway fund.  This could all be claimed on your tax return and verified during title transfers.  You could also set up a system where car repair facilities input the VIN and mileage of every car they work on into a national database.  This would track mileage over time and discourage odometer cheating.

The key to get a system like that to have any support outside of the most urban core is how will you deal with the residents of poor rural areas who can least afford such a system. It makes a lot of sense for wealthy suburbanites, but if it is too regressive a tax it won't accomplish the stated purpose.

Crain's Chicago Business has learned that large corporations are becoming disenchanted with

the giant corporate campuses they started building in the suburbs in the

1970s and are beginning to relocate major parts of their operations, and

sometimes the H.Q. itself, back into a traditional urban central business

district. 

 

The message "Corporate America" is beginning to understand: bright young people don't want to live in suburbs

anymore and don't want to waste a lot of time on car commuting, which keeps

them out of touch because they can't use their personal electronics while

driving.

 

Crain's Special Report: Corporate campuses in twilight

By: Eddie Baeb May 30, 2011

 

Like the disco ball, the regional shopping mall and the McMansion, the suburban corporate headquarters campus is losing its charm.

 

Remote, sprawling and splendidly isolated, such headquarters epitomized corporate America in the last quarter of the 20th century. Fleeing urban decay, companies like Motorola Inc., Allstate Corp. and Sears Roebuck & Co. built fortress-like complexes on the fringes of metropolitan Chicago. Jobs and residential development followed, fueling sprawl and congestion across the region.

 

Today, Sears Holdings Corp. and AT&T Inc. are looking to escape their compounds in northwest suburban Hoffman Estates. A shrunken Motorola has space to let in Schaumburg. Sara Lee Corp. eyes downtown office space after less than a decade in Downers Grove. Companies from Groupon Inc. to GE Capital hire thousands in Chicago while their suburban counterparts shed workers.

 

Read more at: http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20110528/ISSUE01/305289984

Tell that to Eaton, American Greetings and some smaller companies in Cleveland that moved farther out to sprawlville. At least American Greetings moved to a lifestyle center (ie: faux urbanism), but Westlake is still "out there" in car-crazy sprawlburbia.

^  It apears they are bucking a trend...and potentially at their own peril.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9 Comments

Study: Building Roads to Cure Congestion Is an Exercise in Futility

by Tanya Snyder on May 31, 2011

 

We hear it all the time: The road lobby insists that the only way to reduce mind-numbing traffic congestion on the roads they built is to build new roads. Federal funding gives huge blank checks to state DOTs, which tend to prioritize road building over transit, bridge maintenance or anything else. But mounting evidence suggests that building new roads won’t do anything to alleviate congestion.

 

In a paper to be published soon in the American Economic Review, two University of Toronto professors have added to the body of evidence showing that highway and road expansion increases traffic by increasing demand. On the flip side, they show that transit expansion doesn’t help cure congestion either.

 

We’ll spare you the calculus in the report. Here’s the upshot: “Roads cause traffic.”

 

Read more at: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/31/study-building-roads-to-cure-congestion-is-an-exercise-in-futility/

I like that they didn't hide from the flip side fact, either: mass transit also doesn't cure congestion after you take into account the second-order effects, either.  Cities with well-functioning transit networks also tend to have packed highways.  The increased density invited by a strong transit network still puts many, many cars on the roads, because the trains don't go everywhere and few people will give up driving entirely, even in places like New York and D.C.  And, of course, at rush hour, the trains in most of those metro areas are mobbed, too.

Just offering a thought, and no, I don't think such a fee would replace the gas tax. What would you do???

 

First, realize that the current system is unsustainable. We as a nation cannot afford to maintain the roads and highways that we have, much less any new ones.

 

I would be very selective about new highway projects. A turn lane here or there, or signal timing improvements, may alleviate some trouble spots, but the end of massive new highway construction and widening projects is over.

 

Then, I would focus on selectively maintaining what we have, and try to get the longest life out of current infrastructure.

 

I doubt that the current funding situation will change significantly regarding the gas tax.

I like that they didn't hide from the flip side fact, either: mass transit also doesn't cure congestion after you take into account the second-order effects, either.  Cities with well-functioning transit networks also tend to have packed highways.  The increased density invited by a strong transit network still puts many, many cars on the roads, because the trains don't go everywhere and few people will give up driving entirely, even in places like New York and D.C.  And, of course, at rush hour, the trains in most of those metro areas are mobbed, too.

 

It's because people want to be in cities with rail transit becuase they are happening places, even if they don't utilize it. If cities with decent rail weren't in such short supply, then the cities that do have it wouldn't be so mobbed. Same goes for real estate. It's overly expensive where density is combined with high quality of life becuase there is an undersupply of that, while many sprawl areas continue to remain relatively cheap (and are rapidly becoming cheaper) due to an oversupply of sprawl.

Building More Roads Only Causes More Traffic

BY Ariel SchwartzThu Jun 2, 2011

 

A quick drive on one of Los Angeles's many freeways illustrates the fact that having more roads doesn't necessarily prevent traffic. Now a study from the University of Toronto confirms it: Expanding highways and roads increases congestion by creating more demand. And building out public transportation systems doesn't help either; there will always be more drivers to fill up any new road we build.

 

The disheartening study used data from hundreds of metro areas in the U.S. to reach the conclusion that there is a "fundamental law of highway congestion," which essentially says that people drive more when there are more roads to drive on--no matter how much traffic there is. As a result, increased building of "interstate highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads."

 

Not even building more trains, buses, and light rail can help with the traffic problem. In an interview with Streetsblog, study coauthor Matthew Turner explains that his fundamental law means that people are always waiting for extra space on the roads, and a person taking the bus simply opens up space for a new car:

 

Read more at: http://www.fastcompany.com/1756746/building-more-roads-causes-traffic-study

I think the concluding point about congestion pricing there is well-taken.  Unfortunately, what might be economically and environmentally sound is politically unpalatable.  Congestion pricing is likely to face stiff political headwinds at the federal, state, and local levels in America for a long time yet.

I think the concluding point about congestion pricing there is well-taken.  Unfortunately, what might be economically and environmentally sound is politically unpalatable.  Congestion pricing is likely to face stiff political headwinds at the federal, state, and local levels in America for a long time yet.

 

Agree with that. The only way that is going to change is thru ever higher gas prices, inducing enough pain to cause changes over the long term.

Unfortunately, what might be economically and environmentally sound is politically unpalatable.

 

The only way that is going to change is thru ever higher gas prices, inducing enough pain to cause changes over the long term.

 

I think the following might be more likely to be politically possible.

 

At current gas prices, the $0.17 tax per gallon is only $0.17/4.00 - 4.25%.  So set the gas tax at 4% (which would be an immediate cut).  Set it to automatically increase at .1% per year or .02% per year or some other small amount.  The increase will be small enough that we can all adjust and we (or our grandchildren) will be able to plan for a future when the gas tax is much higher.

 

Similarly, start assessing a congestion charge in our city centers of $0.10 per day, with automatic annual increases of $0.10.  The change will be gradual, but we will adjust our habits to account for it.  I suggest using the generated funds to to pursue construction on open lot parking lots in the downtown zone and a parking garage or two at the boundary.

Why not make it a percentage of the purchase price rather than a fixed amount?