Comments on: What’s the Status of the Transportation Bill?

By: YesonHSR

YesonHSR — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:26:09 +0000

Robert….are you a Palo Alto online sissy?

By: HSRforCali

HSRforCali — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:02:43 +0000

I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with you on that one. It really is a shame that this country can spend so much on war, yet can’t afford to take care of it’s own people.

By: Brandi

Brandi — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:47:32 +0000

I’m going to be pessimistic here but I really dont’ see any climate bill or transportation bill getting past. The only thing that the senate is going to get excited about is a job bill. Hopefully this can include some more money for transit than normal and some for high speed rail. It was a huge bummer last year to see the house pass all these great bills and the senate accomplish absolutely nothing. I sadly do not see that improving.

By: lyqwyd

lyqwyd — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:52:52 +0000

It will take a long time (decades, if not half a century) before increased fuel efficiency will be significant enough to counteract increased miles traveled.

Sure, if everybody drove electric cars, the gas tax would be irrelevent, but that won’t happen any time soon.

The gas tax has plenty of life left in it, and has the advantage of higher penalty on heavier vehicles.

By: jimsf

jimsf — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:20:29 +0000

acela upgrades puts some people to work. plus good revenue numbers. more jobs via fleet replacement hundreds of coaches and locomotives to be ordered.

By: Joey

Joey — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:28:07 +0000

I don’t have a link right now, but I know it’s somewhere in the business plan.

By: dejv

dejv — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:42:04 +0000

In addition, VMT tax systems are costly to build and operate, requiring taxpayers to pay more money for the same net tax revenue.

By: HSRComingSoon

HSRComingSoon — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:41:08 +0000

The VMT tax seems interesting, although there are significant barriers to entry. First, a high start-up cost, mainly the GPS transmitters, which also raise a thorny privacy issue. Second, the very nature of the tax can lead to its defeat in car-happy states like CA because many people have to drive good distances to work or for work-related necessities, like having to pick up supplies for job sites. Reconciling the need to drive for work-related purposes and being taxed for it will be difficult for voters to accept. Would such a tax be only for certain areas? Also, what rate would be charged for miles traveled, how about $.0075 per mile?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:58:17 +0000

The main alternative proposed is a VMT tax. It’s harder to collect than a gas tax, and doesn’t discourage pollution (not that an 18-cent gas tax does), but it doesn’t directly assault the mythology of free oil, so it’s easier to implement.

By: HSRComingSoon

HSRComingSoon — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:06:47 +0000

The Transportation Bill won’t happen till at least after the November elections. The reason for this is clear: election year politics. With $700 billion to be spent on Afghanistan/Iraq along with all the other spending in the proposed $3.5 trillion Federal Budget, adding probably $500 billion (granted it is over 6 years) in spending will not sit well with many congressional districts and their constituents. Even though infrastructure adds more jobs and puts money back into the economy, the threat of being labeled a “tax and spend liberal” will scare away many of the blue-dog moderates, Democrats in unsafe seats and even many moderate Republicans. Furthermore, the mere talk of increasing the gas tax does not sit well with most of the country either, not to mention that it could dampen prospects of economic recovery. I would imagine that if any transportation bill is voted on and hopefully passed, it will happen before the next Congress is sworn-in in January 2011 since this will be the time that retiring/defeated members can cast a vote without repercussions before leaving office.

As for high speed rail, it might be wise for TARP profits to be channeled in the DOT, if possible, with specific designations for projects like high speed rail. In this case, the Treasury invested in Wall Street, putting money into large infrastructure can be considered a wise investment in Main Street.

One last comment on the gas tax. With hybrid cars, future electric cars, increased car gas mileage and fewer commuters due to lost jobs, we get less revenue from the gas tax as less gas is being consumed. This trend, sans unemployment issues (hopefully) will also continue into the future. Other methods of taxation like congestion pricing will face immense difficulties being instituted, which makes funding transportation all the more difficult into the future unless other funding methods are produced. Any ideas on how to fix this problem?