Since our beloved elected officials in state capital have cut yearly transit funding from $40 million to $16 million (and counting?) and offers only about $30 million for rail development projects (while other states are increasing transit, rail $$$), we need some creative ideas on how to catch up and compete.

 

So please consider posting your ideas here, as I'm aware that local and regional governmental officials view this site. Give them some hope on how we'll be able to move the masses in our state in a post-peak oil world!

I'll start it off. Here's an idea I had for funding a regional rail system for Northeast Ohio (aka NEOrail)....

 

CAPITAL

 

ALL NEO COUNTIES - 3 percent rental car tax

 

Estimated revenue of $70 million per year

 

Allocate $35 million per year to local 20-year bond issue at 5% =

LOCAL: $425 million bond issue

STATE MATCH: $125 million grant

FEDERAL MATCH: $550 million grant

 

TOTAL CAPITAL: $1.1 billion

 

 

OPERATING

 

$35 million excess rental car tax revenues

 

plus

 

Cuyahoga County

$5 vehicle registration fee = $5.8 million

 

Lake County

$5 vehicle registration fee = $1.3 million

 

Lorain County

$5 vehicle registration fee = $1.4 million

 

Portage County

$3 vehicle registration fee = $0.5 million

 

Summit County

$5 vehicle registration fee = $2.6 million

 

TOTAL REGISTRATION FEE REVENUES ... $11.6 million

+

EXCESS RENTAL CAR REVENUES ........... $35 million

 

ANNUAL OPERATING FUNDING EST.  ...... $46.6 million

 

 

That ought to build for us a decent system!

Hi KJP:

 

Great thread!!! I think it would be good also to think statewide, since there will be a new governor, so how about an Ohio equivalent to TEA-21??? My thought is that while the correct thing to do would be to open the state gas tax for non-highway purposes, it is not a realistic idea for obvious reasons. Let the 800 lb. gorilla have his pot of money. Let's focus on other ideas. Here is one:

 

A new state corporate franchise tax on oil companies operating in Ohio. Pennsylvania does this and they

bring in about $300 million/year. Also, by taxing a company, we avoid the consitutional restrictions on the

gas tax. This money could leverage bonds for capital investment and would probably bring in several billion for transit, rail or other projects.

 

Franchise the Ohio turnpike and use the proceeds for additional non-highway uses. This would also be in the billions. Between the two, we could have a capital fund of $10 billion or more, which could be used to leverage other federal funding.

 

Enact a law, similar to what Oregon did, to take that portion of the gas tax that is collected from non-highway (lawn mowers, farm equipment, etc.,.) sources and use it for operating costs.

 

Then there are things like Tax Increment Financing...well you get the idea. A little outside the box thinking could go a long way.

Franchise the Ohio turnpike and use the proceeds for additional non-highway uses. This would also be in the billions. Between the two, we could have a capital fund of $10 billion or more, which could be used to leverage other federal funding.

As much as I dislike some of Blackwell's beliefs, this is the reason I'll be voting for him.  His estimates are in the $4-6 billion range.

^ I think his estimates are low, based on the revenues generated by the Chicago and Indiana toll roads and what those entities got for leasing them. I was surprised at how the revenue-lease ratios were almost identical between the two. So I applied that ratio to the Ohio Turnpike's revenues and came up with a lease estimate of $8 billion (75-year lease) to $8.5 billion (99-year lease).

 

BTW, for more information on this funding idea, visit the discussion string at:

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/Turnpike_Lease_PP-BP.pdf

 

Or, download a copy of the report NEOtrans researched/wrote for All Aboard Ohio:

 

http://members.cox.net/neotrans/Turnpike_Lease_PP-BP.pdf

I think that before any additional money is raised, there should be a state constitutional amendment that prohibits spending money on new highway construction until all current maintenance needs are met.  That might keep the General Assembly from getting too road happy, and perhaps coax them to think about rail.   

True, Blackwell has brought the idea of franchising the Ohio Turnpike up, but he doesn't say how the money will be spent. I suspect most, if not, all would go for another orgy of road construction. This is one reason why those of us who feel otherwise have to get out in front on this issue or get steamrolled by the highway boys.

 

Also, the idea that there should be a state constitutional amendment barring the state from any new construction would be difficult if not impossible to pass. You'd have to put together a huge grassroots, get-out-the-vote campaign on an issue most aren't aware of. In addition, the highway lobby would be out in force on this and they have a $4 million war chest. Wanna lay odds on who would win?

 

It would better to find alternate ways to finance non-highway improvements and package them as economic development schemes. This is what the Ohio Rail development Commission is doing with the Ohio Hub Plan and it is getting serious interest from the roadbuilders, since it will generate 6,000 construction jobs and make billions for them.

 

The same logic could be applied to transit and other alternatives to the highway. How many jobs and how much economic activity would the construction of light rail, regional or commuter rail lines, plus supporting roadways and parking lots generate? The answer is obvious: Thousands of jobs (good paying, non-exportable jobs) and billions in new economic activity the contractors would benefit from.

 

The key is to make the pie bigger and make allies out of the contractors by doing something big enough for them to support.

I think the bankruptcy of the Federal Highways Trust Fund in only a couple of years may be sufficient enough to put a lid on adding significant new road capacity. Problem is, the bankruptcy may also negatively affect maintenance needs as well.

I think that before any additional money is raised, there should be a state constitutional amendment that prohibits spending money on new highway construction until all current maintenance needs are met.  That might keep the General Assembly from getting too road happy, and perhaps coax them to think about rail.   

 

Used to be that people passed a thing called "laws" to implement their ideas.  Why always jump straight to constitutional amendments?  I do agree with the idea, however.

How would the creation of new forms of taxation be affected by the proposed TEL amendment?

 

For those of you (like me) who are unfamiliar with the issue, the following report should shed some light:

http://urban.csuohio.edu/publicmanagement/publications/tel31806.pdf

^ Public investments in rail, transit, highways, education, jobs and just about everything else would be emasculated by the TEL amendment. If this amendment passes, the game is over for Ohio and I will leave the state. I've been way too tolerant of the brain-dead God squad in our state government.

I think all revenue from consumer gas taxes should be collected/maintained at a high level, and a significant amount of this reveune from the tax be funded towards alternative modes and forms of public transit. Does anyone know if this revenue is intentionally and presently directed towards public transit projects?

 

I also consider parking rates and supply a direct correlation to the use of public transit. If the supply of parking in central business districts was decreased or the parking rates of lots increased, than ridership of public transit would also go up. In my opinion the supply of parking in downtown Cleveland is a huge impediement of successful public transit projects. Even with gas prices being high, I can find very cheap all-day parking downtown that really makes it more economical/efficient to drive downtown than to take public transit. I don't like the present situation, but that is the reality in my opinion.

I also consider parking rates and supply a direct correlation to the use of public transit. If the supply of parking in central business districts was decreased or the parking rates of lots increased, than ridership of public transit would also go up.

 

I've probably gone through this routine before on this forum; it's sort of my theme song. It bears repeating, though, and that's fortunate because I'm given to repeating myself. :-D

 

< :speech: >In most communities, property tax assessments are based heavily on "improvements" (mainly buildings), and only lightly on land. The result of this is that investors and investor groups buy under-utilized and undervalued properties, raze the buildings to reduce the taxes to almost nothing, and turn the land into parking lots. Then, they just sit on the land and milk it for cash flow while they wait for somebody else to do something to raise land values so they can cash out.

 

That practice impairs tax revenues for maintaining infrastructure while simultaneously attracting more car traffic that increases the cost of infrastructure maintenance and construction.

 

Also, federal tax codes allow businesses to deduct the cost of employer-subsidized employee parking, including the full cost of parking lots, as compensation and benefits expense. As a side note, they can also deduct the cost of subsidized transit passes, but there's a strict cap on the amount. I don't know what the current dollar figure is, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than many employers spend on employee parking.

 

A few cities have inverted the property tax structure so that most of the assessed value is in the land, with only a small amount resting on the buildings. That means the land becomes too valuable to park cars on, and owners have to double or triple the parking fees to cover taxes. The result is density, development, and transit useage. It's called split-rate taxing. I think Pittsburgh is one of the cities that has done that, and I've thought that there's a lot less downtown street-level parking there, and higher transit useage, compared with other similar-sized cities.</ :speech: >

Vulpster.... Currently no Ohio gas tax revenues can be directed at anything other than highway purposes (roadways, bridges, etc).  However, there is flexibility when it comes to the federal gas tax revenues.

 

Unfortunately, those federal dollars must (by law) flow through ODOT, which doles them out with an ever-smaller eye dropper for transit and other non-highway projects.

 

That forces many transit authorities and other transportation entities to seek federal earmarks, which are dedicated to that particular project.  Nuch-maligned by some politicians and media as earmarks have become, they are often the only way a project can get major funding.  ODOT Director Gordon Proctor has publically testified in Washington against earmarks, largely because he has no control over where those dollars go.

 

There is no doubt we need a better federal funding plan for rail.  Transit at least has some funding through the Federal Transit Administration. But the dollars available to rail (both freight and passenger) are scattered and very limited at best. There is no dedicated funding program for rail infrastructure or passenger projects. Amtrak, meanwhile, is pitifully funded and prohibited from developing any new rail services.

 

Hence, this thread of ideas.  Most of these would be interesting to try at the state level.  But what we need at the federal level is a strong, well-funded rail funding program that allows states to pursue and build projects like the Ohio Hub.

Vulpster and Rob1412,

 

There is some excellent research done by Donald Shoup on the correlation between free vs. paid parking, density, transit use, etc. He wrote a book called the "High Cost of Free Parking" which I highly recommend for anyone who cares about cities and transit.

 

Check out:

http://www.planning.org/bookservice/highcost.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4622062

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/

 

As for gas taxes being spent only on roads, there is a way around it. Oregon has a similar constitutional prohibition on the use of gas taxes, but spends $7 million per year in gas taxes on intercity rail operating support.

 

The source?

 

Lawnmowers, landscaping equipment, farming equipment and so on requires gasoline and diesel fuel, on which taxes are paid at the pump. Those tax revenues in Oregon went to pay for roads, even though highway users didn't provide those funds. So that was how Oregon was able to use them for off-road purposes: ie, rail.

 

On a per-capita basis, I estimate that Ohio's share of non-highway generated gas taxes amount to between $25 million and $30 million per year. When Ohio is ready to start the first phase of the Ohio Hub System, this could be a way to provide operating support for the trains.

 

How much service could this support in Ohio? In Illinois, the state just approved $24.3 million for one-year operating support for five daily round trips between Chicago and St. Louis, two daily round trips between Chicago and Quincy, and two daily round trips between Chicago, Champaign-Urbana and Carbondale. A similar level of service should be possible here in Ohio if we dedicated the "Lawnmower Tax" to purchasing passenger rail service.

I had a thought about the current CM/AQ (congestion mitigation/air quality) funding that is widely used for transit and other "good" things thru the current TEA-21 federal funding program. Here are a couple of thoughts:

 

1. Why not include energy intensiveness as a qualification for this fund, steering the money toward projects which are most efficient, such as rail, transit or bike/ped faciilties? this might elimintae such silliness as CM/Aq being used for parking garages. :?

 

2. Why not add to CM/AQ by issuing bonds to create a much larger pie? While the feds have historically not done this, I don't see why it could not. CM/AQ has been shrinking over the past few years anyway.

 

3. Another thought might be to roll back federal tax breaks for Big Oil and maybe add a federal corporate franchise tax...or do that on the state level. Pennsylvania does this and it bring sin over 4300 million/yr.

 

4. Finally, allow intercity rail to be eligible for these funds. It's stupid to not do this.

 

And hey Congress, let's stop pandering with these idiot ideas like gas tax rebates and start offering up some real solutions to get out of the mess we are in??? :x

I believe that congestion mitigation and air quality are factors in deciding which projects are awarded funding. Problem is, not enough projects that truly warrant CM/AQ funding are being submitted to receive it. Thus, projects like new parking garages get approved because they do reduce traffic congestion and enhance air quality because motorists don't have to circle around an area looking for a parking space. Yeah, I know that's bunk compared to funding better land use and public transportation. But, like I said, better uses for CM/AQ funding aren't being submitted by local governments, transit agencies, ODOT, etc. etc. to Ohio's MPOs.

 

And intercity rail is a permitted use of CM/AQ, although not explicitly. Boston-Portland Amtrak operating funds are paid for by CM/AQ, as have numerous trackwork projects (the new third main track in Cincy's Mill Creek Valley), new/expanded/renovated stations, and so on.

 

The CM/AQ money is there. The funding authority is there. The local and state projects aren't (at least in Ohio).

I end up circling around parking garages a lot trying to find a space. Many people are too cheap to park in a garage and end up circling anyway. You may be right in knowing how they think but that sounds like a dumb reason to build parking garages and I think the bottom line is that government officials and citizens alike are just not big enough supporters of rail transit and if people wanted it bad enough they would find a way to make it happen. The vast majority of people utilizing public transportation do so because they have to--they can't afford the luxury of having a car and paying for gas or their license is suspended. There are some professionals that work downtown and ride the bus to avoid a parking nightmare and I love them but unfortunately they are not the majority of riders.

^ Isn't funny how we in Ohio are smarter than all other populous states in determining that we shouldn't fund rail and transit? Actually, it's not funny at all. It's sad, and our cities suffer for it. Show me a great city and I'll show you a great transit system that's tied to a transit-oriented land use plan. We in Ohio don't have any of those -- great transit systems, great land use plans nor do we have great cities.

 

But boy we sure do have lots of potential -- potential we've had for oh so many decades. Potential we will continue to have for so many more until we have leaders (governmental and business) who understand the inextricable relationship between each mode of transportation and the divergent land use patterns they foster and rely upon.

 

Sometimes we are like fish who don't even notice the water they're living in. Yet we just take it for granted that there's no other way.

I know the guy that invented the ozone badge; they just blew the EPA away, it was just EPA certified and the EPA is even using it internally. I know for a fact the EPA is serious about air quality and reducing ozone and with cities being under strict regulations from the EPA, I think we have a good chance of seeing more light rail in the future. These emissions have got to stop.  For about 4 months up until last month I've been coughing nonstop and I thought it was bronchitis but i'm starting to wonder if I'm sensitive to ozone. Like you said, we really are not aware of what we breathe in.

Like you said, we really are not aware of what we breathe in.

 

Actually I was referring to our transportation-land use patterns, but the fish-water analogy works for ozone too I suppose.

Well transportation and land use has a direct correlation to fossil fuel consumption so that's what I was getting at. I thought Columbus and Cincinnati had problems until I went to Atlanta and saw a bazillion square lots near downtown with nothing built on them. I stayed at a hotel over 30 miles from downtown, it took over 2 hours to get there because of constant rush hour traffic all the way out in the country. This is the same highway that has lightrail running parallel to the road.

KJP posted this to me a while back:

 

http://www.casavaria.com/sentido/environment/epi/eng/2006/06-0511-gastax.htm

 

LET'S RAISE GAS TAXES & LOWER INCOME TAXES

11 May 2006 :: Lester R. Brown

 

Now that the $100 tax rebate proposed by the Senate Republican leadership as a response to rising gasoline prices has been discarded, it is time to get serious. Any effective response to climbing gas prices must recognize a geological reality, namely that the earth's oil reserves are shrinking.

 

The amount of oil pumped has exceeded new discoveries since 1980. And the gap is widening. In 2004, for example, the world pumped nearly 31 billion barrels of oil while discovering fewer than 8 billion barrels of new oil.

 

Instead of encouraging gasoline use with tax rebates or gas tax holidays, we need a way to reduce gasoline use, one that is practical and politically acceptable. We need a higher gas tax, but the only way to get a gas tax rise large enough to wean us from imported oil is to offset the rise with a

reduction in the tax on income.

 

The gas tax boost should be substantial-a rise that will send a strong, clear signal to consumers-and it should be gradually phased in. A gasoline tax hike of 30¢ a gallon per year for the next 10 years would send the right

signal. This eventual increase of $3 per gallon would be offset at every step of the way with a reduction in income taxes.

 

A $3 per gallon tax on gasoline in addition to the existing federal tax of 18¢ sounds like a lot. And it is, but our economic future is at stake. Such taxes are not unheard of. Motorists in Germany pay a tax of $3.76 per

gallon, French drivers pay $3.46, and in the United Kingdom the figure is $4 per gallon. Prices at the pump in these countries typically range between $5 and $6 a gallon.

 

A number of countries in Europe have been shifting taxes in recent years-lowering the tax on income and raising those on energy. Sweden, now the leader, is in the middle of a 10-year shift of $1,100 per household from income taxes to energy taxes. This is an integral part of Sweden's plan to be oil-free by 2020.

 

A planned long-term rise in the price of gasoline would enable automobile owners and manufacturers to plan intelligently for an oil-short future. It would encourage motorists trading in older cars to look for more

fuel-efficient vehicles, including the highly efficient gas-electric hybrids. And it sends the right signals to manufacturers, enabling them to shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles over time.

 

The shift to gas-electric hybrid cars offers another option. If we add a second storage battery and a plug-in capacity to hybrids it will enable us to do our short-distance driving, such as the daily commute or grocery

shopping, almost entirely with electricity. Cars could be recharged at night when the demand for electricity is low.

 

If we build not merely hundreds of wind farms but thousands of them to feed cheap electricity into the grid, then we can do our short-distance driving with wind energy. The wind electricity equivalent of a gallon of gasoline costs roughly 50¢. Wind energy is inexpensive, inexhaustible, and it is ours.

 

Rising gas prices will also encourage investment in public transportation, enabling us to reach the levels of convenience and reliability of systems in Western Europe and Japan. They will also facilitate creation of the

increasingly popular bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly transport networks. And higher gas prices are already mobilizing billions of dollars of investment in the production of alternative fuels, such as corn-based ethanol.

 

There is also the pressing question of who gets the revenue from oil price increases. It is in the interest of oil-exporting countries to raise the price of oil as high as possible without causing a global economic recession

or depression. If we let the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) keep raising the price of oil, and hence of gasoline, the increases will end up in OPEC treasuries.

 

If, however, we shift taxes, more of the additional money spent on gasoline will end up in our treasury, and individuals will benefit from lower income taxes. Higher U.S. gas taxes will also reduce the global demand for oil,

making it more difficult to raise the price.

 

A world where oil use is climbing is totally unprepared for the peaking and subsequent decline of world oil production. Whether peak oil comes this year, next year, or ten years from now, we need to be ready for it. The adoption of a 10-year tax shift as outlined above would accelerate the shift to alternative energy sources, and help reestablish U.S. leadership in building a sustainable energy future.

 

Originally Published online: 11 May 2006

(http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2006/Update54.htm)

Reproduced here by Permission of Earth Policy Institute

 

There ARE workable, practical solutions out there. The will just has to be there to make them happen. We aren't there yet.