Ray LaHood Seeks Funding for New Transportation Bill
In one of the most important lost opportunities of the Obama Administration, the reauthorization of the Transportation Bill has languished. One of the most important policy priorities of this country – shifting the way we move people and goods away from roads and toward more sustainable methods, enabling California HSR to be completed and fueling 21st century economic growth – has been stalled because nobody in Congress is willing to step up and support the funding to start weaning America off of oil dependence.
Ray LaHood has been frustrated by this, and is willing to examine all options for funding the Transportation Bill – including the $50 billion for high speed rail, funding that would quiet the doubters here in California and smooth the way toward a successful project.
At a meeting in New York City yesterday, LaHood proposed tolls as a source of revenue for the bill:
In a discussion about what locals would like to see in the bill, LaHood became animated as he said “these are all good ideas.” And then he added “The only problem we have in Washington, believe it or not, is finding the $600 billion to pay for it. ” Pressed on sources of funding OTHER than a gas tax, Lahood said: “Another way is -don’t run me out, okay? Tolling. Some places in the country are talking about using tolls. You can raise a lot of money by tolling.” The crowd, (a New York City crowd, after all), applauded.
“Oh good! You like that idea,” LaHood said.
Of course, NYC was the site of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed congestion pricing plan, which was shot down by foolish New York State legislators who, facing a big budget deficit, probably now regret their decision.
LaHood has proposed this before:
In early 2009, LaHood told the Associated Press that one funding mechanism could be taxing people based in the number of miles they drive.
“We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled,” the former Illinois lawmaker told the Associated Press in February 2009. The idea was immediately walked back by White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs. “It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama Administration, ” Gibbs told reporters.
It’s unfortunate that the White House is so unwilling to accept the status quo has failed and embrace change when it comes to funding transit. Sure enough, after LaHood’s remarks yesterday, his spokesman had to clarify matters:
Update: LaHood’s spokeswoman, Jill Zuckman clarifies in an email: “He’s not for tolling for existing roads already paid for by tax dollars. He’s open to tolling to add capacity, like a new lane, or a new road.”
That’s unfortunate, because I believe the time has come to end the freeway by levying tolls on California highways, starting with the intercity routes (such as Interstate 5 between Tracy and Santa Clarita or Interstate 15 between Victorville and the Nevada state line) and with congestion pricing in places already served by decent levels of transit, such as San Francisco and central Los Angeles.
That ought to be combined with an increase in the gas tax, and potentially some form of vehicle miles traveled charge, to help fund the $600 billion cost of the new Transportation Bill.
Such moves are seen as politically untenable, but that’s the judgement of a Congress that hasn’t exactly shown itself to have a good understanding of the public mood. Their vote to bail out the banks, which has cost us well over $1 trillion, has been extremely unpopular. Had that money been spent on a new Transportation Bill, and some other means used to deal with the financial crisis, we might be in a much better economic position.
More importantly, the notion that the public will oppose new gas taxes seems to not be that accurate. In 2005, Washington State legislators approved a 9-cent hike in the gas tax, to be phased in over three years. Angry right-wingers gathered enough signatures to take the tax to voters that November – and voters approved the tax increase, showing that the public is quite willing to pay a higher tax if they believe the money will be used for something valuable. And most voters agree that transit is “something valuable.”
Additionally, gas prices have swung so wildly over the last 5 or 6 years that a 10 or 20 cent increase won’t be noticed, especially if it is phased in over 2 or 3 years. And given the fact that most economists agree gas prices will rise substantially in coming years – with Deutsche Bank predicting $175/bbl by 2016 – it would be best to start with an affordable price increase that helps build the infrastructure that will provide Americans with the alternatives to oil that we saw we needed in 2008, and will very soon see again we need if we are to avoid economic calamity.
Let’s hope that Congress recognizes that a hike in the gas tax – or some form of tolling – is the safer path than having angry constituents flipping out when prices at the pump hit $6/gal. And if Congress won’t accept that reality, then California will have to do it ourselves.
Tolls not only add revenue, congestion priced tolls also delay or eliminate the need to expand freeways, so they save money in two ways. And the revenue can be used to offset mileage and gas taxes.
Mileage taxes need to be based on the weight of the vehicle (proportional to the cube of the weight) to account for road wear disproportionate to the rate of gas usage. This saves people money on gas taxes.
Even with tolls and mileage taxes, fuel taxes are still needed to account for air pollution and other external costs associated with the use of a gallon of fuel. Some of the revenue should go to treat respiratory illnesses caused by air pollution.
So to be equitable to everyone, roads need all three sources of funding. But of course few people will go for it because it breaks the illusion that freeways are free.
Victor Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
No Freeways aren’t free, For as long as I can remember they were paid with gas taxes, I have to drive up and down the I15 between Yermo and Barstow to get food, repairs to the car, etc and sometimes I drive to Victorville to see the relatives during the holidays, Would a Toll work out here? Doubtful. Most Freeways were not built with that in mind, Most would avoid It where possible, Some would avoid It just cause their income is pretty limited, So just how would It add revenue?
Nathanael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 2:10 am
Gas taxes don’t remotely pay for the gigantic, overbuilt freeways which cover California today.
Remove about half of ‘em and gas taxes might pay for the rest. If you’re very lucky.
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:34 am
Yeah I’m aware of that, Freeways usually have a mix of Federal, State & Local funding(As do a lot of things in the US), HSR does need a source of dedicated funding, Maybe like they did recently in Arizona for Sales Tax on their budget deficit, But on a National Level, a 1% tax on fuel for HSR Construction & Acquisition.
Ok I’ll make a comment, I get Supplemental Security Income(SSI) as I’m a Disabled person, right now I barely make It on $845 a month(It may become $830 when the CA Legislature decreases the Federally Administered State Supplemental Payment(SSP) from $171 to $156) and since It would impact Me & anyone else like Me, I’d either need a FREE Toll Pass or I’d find a (long) way around It that would just cost Me more gas(If I can do It, So can others and I’m just a local person), Just to go shopping in Barstow CA(I live in Yermo CA) or to see My relatives in Victorville CA, For Me It would be unfair as It would hurt My income such as It is(Part of which comes from the Federal Treasury, Not the SSA Trust Fund as some ignorant people think It does). I don’t think this idea is too well thought out, As clearly people out here may not be able afford Your Toll… So You mark Me and quite a few other people out here as against It, As there are side roads and highways, So the idea won’t work and is a stupid idea too.
Nathanael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 2:12 am
It would make the most sense to toll the URBAN highways where people have alternatives (like public transportation, or at worst local roads). I don’t think tolling the truly RURAL highways (like the one to Barstow) is a good idea, at least not until those cities get passenger train service.
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 11:18 am
Out here all We have is Dial a Ride & that demands real money(Coins), No bills or plastic, Plus It wanders all over the place, So It would not be good for bringing 8-20 bags of perishable groceries home as I do(I shop for food once a month). And yeah this are is a rural desert area, I’d hate to live in Baker CA of course(It’s about halfway between Barstow CA and Las Vegas NV & It’s near Death Valley CA and roughly north of Needles CA).
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Tolls are a user fee. As rural highways do not pay for themselves, they should be tolled. Raising roads’ farebox operating ratio to 1 would free about $75 billion of general fund money nationwide to be used for more useful things, including increasing social security benefits.
When you’re making $845 a month, your problem is not high costs, but low income.
Where differential fees make sense is for pollution. For example, I’ve just seen a study from Toronto that estimates that cars’ air pollution costs the city C$2.2 billion in deaths and hospitalizations. The gas consumption data implicit in the study is that the cost per gallon is C$2.26. (There’s a lot of uncertainty – the 95% confidence interval is $1.1-4.1 billion total.) This makes sense in urban areas, where car density is high, but not in rural areas. In addition, we should expect higher pollution taxes in areas with thermal inversion, such as SoCal, and lower taxes in areas where pollution can disperse more easily. Since it’s hard to have differential gas tax levels in urban and rural areas, it may make sense to directly reimburse rural drivers – either by not tolling their roads, or by dedicating each area’s pollution tax to projects within that area (including income support).
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Nice, But not all of SoCal is like the Los Angeles basin and I’ve lived in a lot of areas in SoCal over My 49 years, Plenty of areas get winds, high windy gusts too, Here I’ve seen gusts as fast as 77mph.
As to the income, It’s given to Me as I’m a totally disabled person(I won’t go into the details), It would be nice If I could get more(I’m told I get the legal maximum), But I can’t as nothing has been done with SSI(Supplemental Security Income) in Years by Congress, Not since about 1989 or so and that attempt failed due to interference. Heck My income is so low that I can’t even finance a replacement used car If I needed one(No credit History within the last 10 years doesn’t hurt either, long story). I was at one time going to get SSDI, But I missed an appointment and My time ran out due to one of My disabilities, I had enough credits as I’d worked for at least 10 years, But one has to use them within a certain amount of time(a sliding 5 year window that goes from the last time one worked over a 10 year period, 1992(for Me)) or one can not ever collect SSDI. The USA has two supposedly separate but equal disability programs(SSDI and SSI), Problem is their not equal in regards to income at all as one is supposed to be a Supplement to the Other, Yet It’s all I could qualify for and It’s what I’m stuck with, I’d have to go back to work for another 10 years to qualify for SSDI and except for the requirement of the recent lack of work experience, I’d qualify, Sounds all screwed up and rigged to make sure that even if one does qualify, One won’t qualify, As If one had worked for 20 years and not worked in the last 10 years, One is then so screwed. But then there are those who are prejudiced against the disabled by way of sheer ignorance. It didn’t hurt that My Dad didn’t like most Doctors and I hadn’t seen one in Years(not since I was 18), So getting real proof was not easy, As most things would be seen by a pediatrician, Problem is I never saw anything but a regular MD, My older brother paid for an eye exam only after I told Him how much It cost then($45), He thought It would be closer to $200 of course. He’s gone as is the rest of My family, He died in 2005(5 years and 9 days ago), So now I’m the last, I couldn’t even get a cosigner now(Just an extended family, they can’t help or won’t as My Sister in Law said and It wasn’t cause of Me personally, She’d done It for Her children and She’d had enough of that), I’ll be lucky If I can get a fixed 30 year mortgage in about a year.
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:41 am
“Tolls are a user fee. As rural highways do not pay for themselves, they should be tolled.”
There is a decent argument that rural highways are the most efficient way to provide mobility to low-density agricultural (including ranching) communities and wilderness areas. This is generally considered a public good. If the density isn’t there, roads suddenly start to be relatively efficient.
This actually doesn’t argue for four-lane expressways; roads with intersections are enough for this purpose.
Derek Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 6:47 am
A congestion toll may be free during off hours, so instead of avoiding the freeways to save money, you could just avoid rush hour. And here in San Diego we pay for freeways with the TransNet sales tax, which people also wouldn’t have to pay if the freeways paid for themselves.
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 11:28 am
Temps can get HOT out here during Non rush hour times(daytime), Could be near Midnight as sometimes the Freeway is packed for hours upon hours(Barstow to NV border is mostly 2 lanes each way w/NO room for expansion currently, Victorville to Barstow is mostly 3 lanes each way w/room for expansion(thanks to the Federal Government and some Elected Officials)), Thankfully I have a front row seat & I can watch everyone as they crawl past. :D
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 12:05 pm
So are you saying that phase 1 of DesertXpress might as well terminate in Barstow, in preparation for a yet-to-be-confirmed phase 2 connector in the SR-58 corridor to a wye with California HSR near Mojave?
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 12:58 pm
No I wasn’t, as I didn’t mention HSR at all. Huh? I’ve been watching the Blog like a hawk, Mojave? Where’d that come from? Last I heard Palmdale was mentioned, But nothing about Mojave or SR-58.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 1:09 pm
DesertXPress has been talking about a possible connector between Victorville and Palmdale, but that would not follow an established transportation corridor. For anyone traveling between Anaheim/LA and Las Vegas, the difference between Palmdale-Victorville-Barstow and Palmdale-Mojave-Barstow would be small. For trains traveling between SF/Sac and LV, the SR-58 corridor would be preferable.
The biggest advantage, though, would come in terms of funding: DX could apply whatever it was planning to spend on Barstow-Victorville on Barstow-Mojave instead. More importantly, it would prompt them to select technology that is 100% compatible with that to be used on California HSR to avoid transfers in the High Desert. A limited number of all these DIRECT trains could stop in the Barstow area as long as that doesn’t involve a major detour or reversing direction.
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Mojave is smaller than Barstow about 4,550(Mojave) vs 24,596(Barstow) or so(about 5.4:1), and there is not a lot in between, except raw desert with scattered wildlife and very little water. Palmdale to Victorville(110,318) would be better as the Human population is bigger. Hesperia nearby has a population that is almost as large as Victorville @ 85,883 and their both growing still. So why would HSR come way out here again? Victorville and/or Hesperia have more potential for revenue than way out here.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 4:14 pm
A wye is where three rail lines join up. No-one is suggesting a station in Mojave, there wouldn’t be any between Palmdale, Bakersfield and Las Vegas (perhaps Barstow). Also, DX isn’t planning to terminate in Victorville because of the local population there. It just happens to be as close as they can get to LA and Orange counties without spending a fortune.
California HSR has no plans at all to serve the population in the High Desert anywhere but Palmdale. There simply isn’t enough water to grow the towns there much further. On the contrary, they may have to shrink in coming decades to keep the LA basin habitable.
Victor Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:41 am
A Wye is used mainly to turn locomotives around as they generally take up some space and the legs have to be big enough for the job at hand, So that whatever group of locos is using the Wye has enough space to clear the switches and still not run out of rail.
rafael Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:48 am
Good grief Victor, Victor. We’re not talking about preserving ye olde freight railroad practices here.
MAP
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 8:42 am
Did we have this exchange when I floated the idea at Calitics last summer? Sounds familiar.
You make a good point, and I would be totally willing to give people on a disability income an exemption from these tolls. If the tolls were paid by transponders, then we just hand out pre-paid transponders or give out special transponders that exempt the user from the toll.
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:26 am
You’d also need clear the pass on tolls(transponders) with the SSA, As some things they consider a resource, They have a few rules after all, Most of which haven’t been updated in over a decade.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 6:25 pm
No special transponders needed, it’s a software change in the billing system.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Good idea…its too bad that in 1956 GM/Standard oil ect ect lobbies got that Act thru..the turnpike sytem was well along with states joining sections together to form long sections ..then it all stopped
We may have had a toll road where I-5 is now..It would would be a different America then now.
YesonHSR Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 9:03 pm
We(I) really need post edit capabilites !!..there is none right?
Victor Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 7:42 am
If there is, It would be welcome to Me. :D
This will never work, 1st It would need to be voted in, 2nd It would be a disaster for Southern California and possibly Northern California too…
Robert Cruickshank: You expect Me to pay through the Nose???? Are You are nuts? It’s one thing to want and like trains, But It’s another to Extort money from people who couldn’t afford this crap and It is just that, Crap…
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 8:43 am
My point is that you’re going to pay through the nose if we don’t do anything. People who live in communities like yours are going to be hit very hard by rising gas prices. I’m saying we need to get ahead of that by funding the alternatives.
Victor Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:20 am
Out here in Barstow/Yermo there are Truck stops, 1 in Yermo and at least 3 in Barstow, As theirs a good amount of Semi Truck traffic out on the I15/I40/CA58 fwys out here. We’ve been up to about $4 already back in 2007, Right now the price is between about $2.999 and $3.599 a gallon on 87 Octane(I won’t go into other grades or Diesel of course). But then I drive about 250 miles, per month, sometimes less and very seldom more(I spend $15 to maybe $30 a month on gas).
My car gets about 25mpg and It’s paid for(a FORD Escort zx2 Hot Coupe), So all I really spend on the car is for maintenance & any repairs, Some of which I’m soon going to be doing in July after having already bought parts for My cars A/C repairs(It leaks from the compressor), 2 new tires(bought 2 already), an oil change, etc… Of course there is more to life here than My car(MobileHome repairs[Wind Damage], MobileHome-Maintenance-Upgrades[some delayed, MobileHome for sale, No Mortgage at least & No land of My own under It], New PC upgrades, An Aquarium to finish outfitting, A Cat and some supplies[to replace an old one], Stronger TV Antenna, etc), But I digress.
As to funding alternatives, I’m not totally against the idea, It’s just that My income is already limited enough as I said and I do know whom to thank up north and their mostly Republicans and a certain Lame Duck…
Nathanael Reply:
May 25th, 2010 at 10:43 am
“As theirs a good amount of Semi Truck traffic out on the I15/I40/CA58 fwys out here”
That’s a problem. An environmental problem. If there’s a lot of this traffic out there, I’m guessing it’s long haul — and if so, most of it belongs on trains.
Travis D Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 8:51 am
You really think this is just about liking trains?
Peter Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:17 am
Like Travis D said, trains are just a convenient solution to many of our problems (congestion, global warming, energy independence, oil price shocks) that we can implement NOW with available technology. Of course, HSR won’t SOLVE all of those problems. Instead, it is just one of the tools we have available.
With an increase in the gas tax, at least the US Treasury will get that revenue, unlike the Saudis, Iranians, and other petro-dictators when oil reaches $6/gallon.
Below is a VERY quick analysis (including some erroneous math in the second scenario) I did of the impact on drivers of a higher gas tax. For many people, greater conservation (reduced consumption of $3/gal oil) will overwhelm any increase in the gas tax, resulting in savings for motorists.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=181594
If the gas tax were to increase one dime year for each of the next five years, many people would actually end up saving potentially significant money. The federal gas tax is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, thus the first year of the increase it would be 28.4 cents per gallon until it reached 68.4 cents per gallon at the end of year five. The new revenue from the new gas tax could then be used to provide very generous tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and fund a significant expansion of transit (bus, rail, streetcars, etc…). A gradual increase in the gas tax would give people time to adjust to the increased fuel costs by purchasing a more efficient vehicle, finding carpool partners, or moving to a more transit-accessible neighborhood.
I calculated the potential savings (or costs) of the higher gas tax for two alternatives. First, I assumed that I would purchase a new car that gets 10 miles per gallon better fuel mileage in year one of the program. My current vehicle gets approximately 25 mpg and I assumed 35 mpg per gallon for the new vehicle. I also assumed a one percent annual decrease in my annual vehicle miles traveled for years one through four, followed by a ten percent decrease in year five. This is probably a realistic assumption since quadrupling the federal gas tax would provide significant revenue to accelerate the development of transit options. This is based on currently driving 7,000 miles per year.
Under this assumption, with the current US average price of gas at $2.898 per gallon (I subtracted out the federal gas tax, so the price per gallon is $2.714), I would use 448 fewer gallons of gas and save a net of over $1,000 for the five year period.
The second scenario assumes I continue to drive my car that gets 25 miles per gallon until year five of the higher gas tax. Like the previous example, I continued to assume that I would drive one percent fewer annual vehicle miles traveled from years one through four, followed by a ten percent decline. During year five, I would purchase a vehicle that gets 35 miles per gallon.
Under this second scenario, I would consume over 100 gallons less gas for the five year period but pay a combined $53 through the five years for higher gas taxes. I would consider this a pretty fair bargain for the expanded transit that I would have helped finance (with all of the construction jobs that would be created) and less oil money going to Middle East countries hellbent on getting nuclear weapons and petrodictators.
This is just a very quick estimate of my own monetary savings. It assumes current transit technology (not high speed rail crisscrossing the nation) and cars that are available today (regardless of how much I would like to see everyone drive an electric vehicle). I did not include social benefits nor did I include the reduced annual vehicle maintenance expenses from driving less, which would have saved me even more money. Nor does it include travel time savings that I would benefit from with people driving less each year.
Here we go again. . .
I expressed before, in another post, that motor fuel and the cost of access to the highway system is badly underpriced. According to Highway Statistics (USDOT website and publications), combined motor fuel taxes and tolls at all levels only account for 51% of highway expenditures in 2008; the rest came from sales taxes, general taxes, and so on, in other words, a subsidy of 49%!
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/balchrt.cfm
In 2008, this country consumed 174.5 billion gallons of gasoline (it’s been going down a bit in recent years, as noted in the chart below):
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/mf21.cfm
If you divide this 174.5 billion figure into the 49% subsidy level of $88 billion (I’m rounding off numbers here), you come up with a subsidy cost per gallon of over 44 cents per gallon. I find it interesting that in all the statistics shown in these charts and numbers from the USDOT, this is not among them; you have to work it out from the two tables yourself.
I’ll also mention again that this is only a cash-flow analysis; it doesn’t include the costs of deferred maintenance, compromises in design and construction due to inadequate capital, and external costs such as air pollution and an oil war or two. My seat-of-the-pants estimate of the real cost of gasoline is about $7 per gallon, and I’m conservative compared to these folks:
http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
Some other reports on the subject:
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_2000_152.pdf
Make no mistake, we are paying this outlandish figure for our gas, hidden in our income taxes, our sales taxes, our car insurance, and so on.
Now, the car crowd won’t like hearing this at all. They’ll think you want to tax gas to $10 per gallon or something. They’ll revolt for real–and if this is all you do, it would be understandable. What we need to do is place the tax where the cost is (oil addiction), and remove it from the productive goose that lays gold eggs (income taxes, property taxes, etc.) That will make it possible for private enterprise to run transit services again. It can’t do so now because the game is rigged. We need to unrig the game.
Now, we are still going to need roads, but we also need to come up with a new way to pay for them. Ironically, I wouldn’t use gas taxes for this! Why? Ask yourself what would happen to the road revenue we do have if suddenly everybody gets even a few million Chevy Volts and Tesla roadsters on the road–vehicles that use little gasoline, or even none at all. Gas taxes made sense when everyone drove Stovebolt Chevys and Flathead Fords, and still made sense in the days of small blocks, Y-blocks, and wedge-heads (V8s from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, respectively), but it makes little sense now with everything from Hummers to hybrids and a war against terrorists who are at least partially financed with our oil imports. Basically, we need to divorce road revenue from fuel consumption. I would suggest tolls for limited access roads and fixed yearly taxes for the rest, like the license fee; others have suggested a mileage fee based on information from a transponder in your car (but many, including myself, have privacy issues with that approach).
And I again emphasise, if you do take this approach, cut those other taxes! The idea is that we take a cost-accounting approach to this. With proper pursuation, you might even get some of the tea-party bunch on board!
The main problem we face in this regard is that about all polititians are some of the biggest cowards I’ve seen. We need to give them the confidence to do the right thing.
Germany requires all commercial vehicles traveling on its freeways – regardless of the country they are registered in – to have an electronic gizmo that combines a GPS receiver with a data cell phone. The thingamagick costs about EUR 300 and takes half a day to install. A government agency uses it to track these vehicles and charge their operators an amount based on the distance driven. The invoice for the total is sent at the end of each month. For a small additional fee, the agency will forward the information on where each vehicle is at any given moment to the owner. One consequence has been a significant increase in commercial traffic on rural roads, forcing the government to charge these electronic tolls on those as well.
The system is quite complex, it took the agency and the manufacturers a full year to work out the teething troubles. No other country in Europe has adopted the technology. Italy and Austria use a much simpler and highly reliable system based on a cheap passive RFID box and beacons installed on the side of the road. Every time a commercial vehicle passes a beacon, the RFID box responds with its unique serial number. The resulting estimate of distance traveled isn’t quite as precise as that returned by the German system, but it works well enough.
Other countries either don’t collect motorway tolls or else they use traditional manned booths at regular intervals or flat-fee vignettes (decals) valid for a certain period of time, typically a full year. These low-tech approaches are also used for passengers cars.
All of this is on top of the regular annual license fees and high, partially harmonized taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel throughout Europe. Alternatives like LPG and CNG are also taxed, but at lower rates per BTU. However, the license fees are usually higher.
—
Conclusions:
a) Europeans are prioritizing their personal mobility and that of the goods they consume over many other forms of expenditure. However, note that annual vehicle miles traveled average only 60% of those in the US. Is that because Europe’s population density was higher to begin with or, does the high cost of mobility actively discourage sprawl? Probably both.
b) it is politically and technologically feasible to apply different tolling strategies to commercial and passenger vehicles
c) high fuel taxes create a market for fuel-efficient vehicles (especially diesel engines) but merely slow the growth of aggregate vehicle miles traveled
d) tolls and parking fees generate revenue regardless of propulsion technology (incl. all-electric)
e) consumption-based revenue, whether it is based on fuel volume, distance traveled or parking space used, is inherently regressive (i.e. rich and poor pay the same amount).
—
Lessons learned for the US:
f) don’t be afraid to increase the price tag on the mobility of individuals and goods. Just be sure to implement changes slowly, predictably and de facto irreversibly. For example, voters could (indirectly) decide to hike the gas tax by an additional $0.015 each and every month. At the end of ten years of this, that would amount to $1.80 per gallon over and above current levels. Scrutinize tax breaks for private railroads that stand to win a lot of additional business as a result because their technology is inherently more fuel-efficient.
g) stop subsidizing the commercial vehicles that generate a disproportionate share of the wear and tear on the nation’s freeways. Keep in mind that they currently consume virtually all of the on-road diesel in the US and are also responsible for the bulk of NOx and PM emissions from road traffic (though new EPA and CARB rules will sharply reduce them as the fleet churns over the next few years).
h) stick with simple, reliable technology for electronic toll collection for freeway sections other than choke points (i.e. bridges and tunnels). The incremental value of the German system over the Italian/Austrian approach probably doesn’t weigh up against the incremental cost.
i) if – big IF – odometers can be made sufficiently tamper-proof, consider basing vehicle license fees based on actual vehicle miles traveled in the second and subsequent years of operation. This would be an alternative to measuring the actual aggregate distance traveled on selected roads only and avoid significant loss of revenue if and when electric drive based on stored grid electricity becomes an affordable reality for average consumers. Transitioning to distance-based license fees would be long process that could be accelerated by gradually raising the flat fees levied on vehicles still equipped with traditional odometers.
j) regardless of how the additional revenue is raised, a significant chunk would need to be used to lessen the regressive net impact on the disposable incomes of low-income individuals and families. One way to do that would be to reduce general sales taxes. Unfortunately, those are levied at the state and county level, so the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction. However, without any counterveiling measures, any proposal to increase taxes and fees on motorists will be met with howls of protest.
k) stop waging hot wars you can no longer afford to win, never mind lose. The amounts we’re talking about for public investment in e.g. high speed rail are dwarfed by direct military expenditures plus indirect costs such as long-term medical care for veterans.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:11 am
UPDATE: Pres. Obama has just signed an Executive Order mandating, for the first time, fleet average fuel economy for new vehicle sales of medium and heavy duty trucks in 2014-2018. It also calls on Congress to extend the existing CAFE program to improve the fuel economy of light duty vehicles beyond 2016.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/energy-environment/21fuel.html
Much of the technology needed to make this happen already exists, but it adds to the up-front cost of vehicles. Manufacturers have only applied it voluntarily where high fuel taxes have created a market for it.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
It’s not the density that makes Europeans drive less. French people don’t drive more than Germans, even though they live at densities barely higher than Californians and lower than Northeasterners. Meanwhile, suburban Northeasterners drive about as much as other Americans, even though their region’s density is almost as high as Germany’s.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I can’t find an reference right now. The drivingest state in the Union is New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the Union. So the density doesn’t always mean less driving. Not that New Jersey is uniformly dense either.
Alon Levy Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:01 pm
On the contrary, non-uniform density makes people drive less. The reason is that it means that the average person sees a much higher density than the average acre of land. Compare NY and NJ: NJ is about three times denser, but in NY two thirds of the population is concentrated downstate at much higher densities than in NJ, so NY behaves as if it’s denser when it comes to per-capita statistics for emissions, driving, gas consumption, etc.
dejv Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 3:25 am
A big disadvantage of Austrian system is big incremental cost for every stretch of road tolled. For example Czech Rep. uses exactly the same system as Austria but it evaluates using German-like system for under-maintained lesser roads, decimated by heavy trucks.
German-like system allow, counter-intuitively, better privacy protection. It can be done with smart OBUs that connects to network only once a while to download up-to-date map of tolls, calculates toll to be billed based on this map and track log, sends it, and goes to offline track-logging mode again. Such system is arguably more suitable for private vehicles where privacy is concern.
Scrutinize tax breaks for private railroads that stand to win a lot of additional business as a result because their technology is inherently more fuel-efficient.
Railroads maintain their own roadbed and since it’s private property not public property they pay property taxes on it in most places. When the government starts maintaining their ROW like they do for road and water transport maybe it would be time to start examining their tax breaks, assuming they get special tax breaks that other businesses can’t take advantage of.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 9:54 am
I didn’t say repeal the tax breaks, e.g. the zero rate on the diesel fuel used by locomotives. I said scrutinize them, i.e. decide if they’re still fair in the context of higher taxes and/or fees for on-road traffic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 6:18 pm
The taxes levied on motor fuels in theory pays for the roads motor fuels are used on. It’s perfectly reasonable to not levy taxes on diesel fuel used by railroads just like it isn’t taxed when it’s used by farm equipment or construction equipment or used for home, commercial and industrial heating. That’s why they dye it red. So the highway inspectors can check to see if the truck driver has been using untaxed fuel. Just like aviation fuels don’t have road taxes levied on them.
rafael Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 5:16 am
“The taxes levied on motor fuels in theory pays for the roads motor fuels are used on.”
In practice, they don’t. To cover the shortfall, states have to dip into their general fund. Time to get a new theory.
The appropriate response would be to abandon the notion of dedicating any tax to a particular form of spending. Revenue from fuel taxes ought to go into the general fund at both the federal and the state levels. This is what happens in most other developed countries and it works better.
Ben, you make all kinds of sense, and it’s an argument that I’ve used many times. Why do people absorb a 25-cent per gallon increase in fuel prices without blinking an eye? They may complain, but they pay it. But most of that increase goes overseas to make the Saudis even richer. A gas tax stays right here to help AMERICANS. What’s so complex about that?
Here’s another problem. The fuel tax is charged PER GALLON, not PER DOLLAR. Thus, a price increase means nothing. The state/feds get nothing extra. Meanwhile, the typical vehicle is squeezing out more miles per gallon. Whereas you could drive ten miles on a gallon back in the Fifties and Sixties, you now can drive upwards of three times that today. That means the tax effectively has DECREASED on a per-mile basis.
At the same time, those cars that paid for each ten miles of highway use (i.e., taxes paid per gallon measured against miles per gallon) are now paying the same amount for each 30 miles of highway use. Just the wear and tear alone is putting our highway agencies in a hole when they try to maintain those roadways.
Was it short-sighted to tax per gallon rather than per dollar? Perhaps. But even with a tax per dollar, the fluctuating fuel prices would make the revenue unpredictable.
People hate taxes, but they want perfect highways, no congestion, no potholes, good signage, better bridges, etc etc etc. If you want it, you must pay for it.
As for the gentleman living on a small, fixed income, these are problems the government is aware of. In fact, they have a name for that — it’s called a “regressive tax.” That is, it charges a greater percentage of a poor person’s income than a richer person’s income. There could be provisions for people below a certain income level. For instance, they could receive a rebate based on their miles traveled. On the down side, it would set up another bureaucracy… but that’s another discussion.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:37 am
Taxing fuel volume is actually not a bad idea, as it insulates revenue from the gyrations of the oil market. After all, in the short term at least, consumers and business have no choice but to keep driving using the same vehicles – i.e. volume demand is insensitive to prices at the pump. At sufficiently high levels, e.g. those common in Europe, a volumetric tax actually dampens the aforementioned gyrations such that consumers can more accurately budget for future fuel expenses.
In plain English: when prospective homeowners know that gasoline is going to be somewhere between very and nose-bleed expensive for the foreseeable future, they simply don’t buy overpriced McMansions out in the boonies where there is no public transportation.
Ergo, the problem isn’t that the fuel tax is based on volume. Rather, it is that the tax amount on each gallon of gasoline and diesel is very low compared to Japan and Europe. The federal on-road fuel tax rates have remained unchanged since January of 1997. They have not been indexed to general inflation, never mind rising disposable incomes or (potential) improvements in vehicle fuel economy. Only $0.0286 per gallon currently goes toward the Mass Transit Account of the federal Highway Trust Fund.
California and many other states levy additional fuel taxes on top of the federal ones, but even then gas is still much cheaper there than in most of the rest of the developed world.
orulz Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am
Yes.
Ideally, the amount of money charged should be a function of:
(1) the weight of the vehicle
(2) the distance traveled
(3) the speed at which that distance was traveled (higher speed = higher impact to roads)
(4) the impact to the environment (emissions)
(5) the impact to congestion
Honestly, in an economy where all automobiles move by diesel or gasoline, nothing better encapsulates all the above factors than charging a tax per volume of fuel purchased.
1: Heavier vehicles burn more gas
2: Longer distance means more roads impacted
3: Once you’re in top gear, traveling faster burns more fuel per mile
4: This one doesn’t capture the fact that older cars emit more harmful hydrocarbons in their exhaust, but it does capture the fact that heavier cars produce more CO2
5: Driving in congestion means stop-and-go which means more fuel burned.
However, things start to go awry when you throw in plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
As Germany discovered to its cost, trying to measure all these factors accurately all of the time is difficult and expensive. Hiking the fuel tax is less precise but there would be zero additional red tape to make it happen. Unfortunately, consumers (=voters) are somewhat irrational when it comes to prices at the pump.
Example: you drive 12,000 miles a year in California using a car that gets 24 MPG on average. That means you’re consuming 500 gallons of gasoline per year. Your federal tax on that is $92. Even if Congress were to double that overnight, it wouldn’t kill you since you can obviously afford to pay on the order of $1500 for fuel, in addition to insurance, maintenance, tolls, parking fees and above all, asset depreciation. The latter is the biggest line item if your vehicle is less than 4 years old, but a surprising number of car owners don’t include resale value in their calculations.
Btw, for a given vehicle speed, fuel economy actually goes up if you switch to a higher gear (i.e. you force the engine to run at higher load and lower RPM). The downside is that you have a smaller torque reserve, i.e. the transmission needs to kick down before the engine can deliver any significant acceleration. For long freeway trips, acceleration isn’t required, so you want to activate both the overdrive gear and set your cruise control to the effective speed limit. Or, you hop on a train and sleep or read a book.
O/T: The SJ Merc reports that Bay Area transit agencies have been slow to apply for their shares of prop 1A(2008) funds, unlike their counterparts in SoCal. The main sticking point appears to be the requirement to secure non-state matching funds, which in practice means county and city funds. Still, which part of recovery do BART, SF Muni, VTA, Caltrain and ACE not fully understand?
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_15131437
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I am beginning to seriously question the Bay Area’s commitment to passenger rail. Southern California is moving ahead full speed, whereas the Bay Area is mired in rampant NIMBYism. A region that once led the state, even the nation in developing modern rail systems is now in danger of letting it all die, just because some older homeowners aren’t willing to support it.
Who would have thought it would be NorCal that would refuse to give up the car and SoCal that would forge ahead with rail?
Spokker Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
When are they going to cut Caltrain service anyway? I’d like to visit the Bay Area before then.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Unless there’s new money, there will be some cuts this summer, but the worst probably won’t hit until 2011.
rafael Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
IMHO, the problem is that there are too many counties and groups of counties, each with their own transportation bureaucrats preoccupied with defending their fiefdoms against one another. I bet each of these agencies could come up with capital projects and the requisite non-state matching funds if the state legislature spelled out a deadline for actually appropriating the funds. Unfortunately, they’re anything but eager to get the money spent early because of the permanent budget crisis at the state level.
Considering the whole point of the $950m reserved for legacy services in prop 1A was to deliver HSR feeder traffic, I wonder if some of the funds that aren’t being requested could be put toward an underground pedestrian passage between the new Transbay Terminal and the nearest BART/SF Muni subway station, complete with moving sidewalks and surface exits on both sides of Market Street. Technically, such a request might have to come from BART and/or Caltrain rather than TJPA or CHSRA.
A less expensive opportunity for spending “HSR feeder” funds would be to develop and install suitable, highly available high-resolution video feeds in the driver cabs of a couple of special BART consists. These would then be used to revive the SFO-Millbrae shuttle, staffed by just a single driver who would stay put in his cab. There would need to be at least half a dozen, perhaps more, round trips between breaks in his/her work schedule to make this affordable in commercial operation. The shuttle was previously canceled because the drivers’ union wanted BART to designate SFO to Millbrae a separate line subject to the same rules as all the others (i.e. a long break every time a train reaches an end point).
Ideally, BART and Caltrain would then use the revived shuttle as a testbed for integrated electronic ticketing based on automatically generated unique 2D bar codes and optical scanners, as a supplement to the legacy systems. Customers would purchase these combo tickets over the web and print them out at home or at work. Alternatively, SMS messages to cell phones could be used, this is already in commercial operation in many European countries (e.g. Sweden). The software on the back end would then transparently divide the fare paid between the operators. If successful, the software could easily be modified to include HSR and other services.
here in the uk we have similar problems. at least all three main parties are comitted to high speed rail and it is even in the coalition governments manifesto along with the cancellation of the third runway at heathrow.
It does face opposition from some in the media and mike rutherford who writes in autoexpress and several papers has been very critical of high speed rail. Like many hsr deniers here and in california he does not use facts to support his claims. I do not expect everyone to agree with hsr or me but at least I try to present the facts of hsr and would appreciate it if the same was done by opponents of hsr.
As far as taxes are concerned motoring organisations felt that the previous labour government had declared war onthe motorist. The current government has said that the war is over but I think they mean that the motorist has lost the war as the govt is expected to put taxes up.
The government collects billions from the motorist and much of it goes elsewhere and our roads are in a poor state.
So people say we want gas taxes to only be used for the roads and nothing else. I guess they dont use things like hospitals and schools or want to be policed or have an army then !
The problem is that the money has to come from somewhere so you might pay less gas taxes but other taxes would have to go up.
I wonder how the teabaggers would react to a large increase in US gas taxes ? Afer all they dont believe in subsidy do they ? Coorect me if I am wrong but I understand that there is a rule or at least an understanding that us highway taxes or gas taxes can only be used on roads. I believe that this is being used to try to block light rapid transit from one of the bridges in Seattle.
I also understand that the currect 18.5 cents gas tax is inadequate to even cover repairs of the existing highways let alone fund any new ones so I guess we can rule out transit funding !
President Obama has signed a bill I believe to authorise $40 billion in the infrastructure works creation bill to repair the interstate and other highways network . Why not take this money and use it on high speed rail and increase the gas tax (with diesel the same as gas) and make road users pay the full cost of the road network ?
Many critics dont realise that road and air users will benefit greatly from high speed rail as it offers them not only another mode of transport which you can actually work or relax in but means that there will be less congestion for those choosing to use these alternative methods
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 21st, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Your comments about taking pressure off the road system reminds me of the opening of Camden Yards (Baltimore, Md., baseball park). This ball field, in a former industrial area, was built very close to an equally new light rail line, in fact the two were designed to work together.
There were some initial criticisms of the stadium, one of which was that there wasn’t as much parking as would normally be required, and that a ball game letting out in the middle of a large city would cause severe traffic problems.
Partially because of this, the first game was deliberately undersold (I seem to recall the stadium holds something like 40,000, but only 30,000 tickets were distributed); concerns still mounted as this initial game was scheduled to end between 4:00 and 5:00 in the afternoon, in the middle of rush hour. Some got especially worried as it became apparent that only about a third of the game fans were coming by train and trolley, thus causing even worse traffic than normal.
As it turned out, traffic actually moved better than it normally did. Part of it was undoubtedly that some Baltimore downtown workers arranged for time off to see an historic game, thus not adding to the traffic from other baseball fans, part of it was due to planning by the police department and its efforts at traffic control, but a big part wasw that the one-third or so who took trains or trolleys to the game took pressure off the road system. Note that the trolley system didn’t have to get every single rider, but enough to take pressure off the road system.
It mot only helped itself, but it also helped other drivers!
If Martin Engel’s voice is heard, all discussions about HSR will be pointless because the CHSR board could be brought to trial for high treason. Quote: “It’s an issue for the US State Department” and “There’s already enough information that the FBI should do some investigating”.
(Martin Engel’s comment on Palo Alto Online
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:22 am
Now he’s fully moved into conspiracy theory territory. What’s next, claims that the CHSRA has a fleet of black helicopters?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
…fleet of black cabooses….
Well, I don’t know if it got onto Palo Alto’s web page, but I sent in a variation of the comments I’ve been making here to there:
Wow, such vitriol against modern rail service. What a waste.
Here are some things the anti-rail crowd should consider.
The United States produces about twice as much oil per capita as the average in the world, but we use five times as much per capita as the average in the world, largely for motor transport. In fact, the 65% of our oil consumption that we import is roughly matched by the 65% we use in transportation. About 48% of total oil consumption is for gasoline alone, the bulk of which is for cars; Diesel trucks add another 6% or so. That means that 54% of total oil consumption in this country (and 73% of the oil used in transportation) is for motor fuel. Recall that our oil consumption, by driving up the cost of oil, helps finance terrorists. Our highway system is our Achilles heel!
Dick Cheney, in commenting about the war against terrorists, is quoted as saying “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” I find it interesting he did not define his idea of the American way of life. However, if by that phrase one means we should have a “happy motoring utopia” out of the 1950s, then that American way of life will have to be negotiable; in my book, that makes the American way of life a national security risk!
On top of this, the highway system as a whole is badly under priced. According to Highway Statistics (USDOT website and publications), combined motor fuel taxes and tolls at all levels only account for 51% of highway expenditures in 2008; the rest came from sales taxes, general taxes, and so on, in other words, a subsidy of 49%
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/balchrt.cfm
In 2008, this country consumed 174.5 billion gallons of gasoline (it’s been going down a bit in recent years, as noted in the chart below):
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/mf21.cfm
If you divide this 174.5 billion figure into the 49% subsidy level of $88 billion (I’m rounding off numbers here), you come up with a subsidy cost per gallon of over 50 cents per gallon. I find it interesting that in all the statistics shown in these charts and numbers from the USDOT, this is not among them; you have to work it out from the two tables yourself.
I’ll also mention that this is only a cash-flow analysis; it doesn’t include the costs of deferred maintenance, compromises in design and construction due to inadequate capital, and external costs such as air pollution and an oil war or two. My seat-of-the-pants estimate of the real cost of gasoline is about $7 per gallon, and I’m conservative compared to these folks:
http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
Some other reports on the subject:
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_2000_152.pdf
Make no mistake, we are paying this outlandish figure for our gas, hidden in our income taxes, our sales taxes, our car insurance, and so on.
Now, my mother taught me that if you are going to be critical of something, you must also offer an alternative. What we need to do is place our taxes where the costs are (in oil addiction), and remove them from the productive goose that lays gold eggs (income taxes, property taxes, etc.) That might make it possible for private enterprise to run transit services again, although I have to admit I don‘t see private enterprise willing to take the risk without some sort of government guarantee of profitability. It can’t do so now because the game is rigged. We need to unrig the game.
Now, we are still going to need roads, but we also need to come up with a new way to pay for them. Ironically, I wouldn’t use gas taxes for this. Why? Ask yourself what would happen to the road revenue we do have if suddenly everybody gets even a few million Chevy Volts and Tesla roadsters on the road–vehicles that use little gasoline, or even none at all. Gas taxes made sense when everyone drove Stovebolt Chevys and Flathead Fords, and still made sense in the days of small blocks, Y-blocks, and wedge-heads (V8s from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, respectively), but it makes little sense now with everything from Hummers to hybrids and a war against terrorists who are at least partially financed with our oil imports. Basically, we need to divorce road revenue from fuel consumption. I would suggest tolls for limited access roads and fixed yearly taxes for the rest, like the license fee; others have suggested a mileage fee based on information from a transponder in your car (but many, including myself, have privacy issues with that approach).
And I again emphasize, if you do take this approach, cut those other taxes! The idea is that we take a cost-accounting approach to this–even if it mean gas approaching $10 per gallon.
Now, I know the car crowd doesn’t like this one bit, but I don’t see any other alternatives that really work well. I know it means a big change in the American way of life. Some would see it as going back a hundred years.
On the other hand, what was so bad about travel by train and trolley back in 1910?
nick Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I agree with your comments.
In the Uk we have many different forms of car taxation but even at £6 per us gallon there are still those who will drive wasteful cars.
For example there is a very complex system of tax bands with cars producing more co2 paying more tax. whilst this is negligible at the moment for car taxes (you can save £135 with a car below 100 grams/km) they do have a large effect on company cars as users are charged on a percentage of the cost of the car when new every year. Electric cars will also be allowed full write down allowance in the first year.
The problem with all these taxes as evidenced by the planned 2016 cafe regulations is that they are horrendously complicated and a lot of the money collected is probably required for administration. However gas taxes and income taxes can be adjusted on a computer and presumably do not need much administration cost to implement.
I think that a better method than cafe would be to increase the gas tax each year incrementally and at the same time lower the income tax rate for those on lower incomes. Then the public might be demanding more fuel efficient cars rather than having the manufacturers having to force their customers to buy cars some of them will not really want or need ( nothing new there then, who knew they needed a minivan or a crossover until they appeared one day !)
It seems ridiculous that in all the arguments against rail and public transport because subsidy may be required that the government is too scared of the electorate to admit that roads are subsidized ! especially if you include the costs and effects of pollution on health and the massive cost of car accidents. why is it okay politically to countenance the slaughter of 35000 Americans EVERY YEAR in car accidents. here in the UK we are finally below 3000 a year and even that figure is obscene.
Dan S. Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Agree. Increase the cost of fuel and Americans will quickly change their behaviors. We saw it when gas prices rocketed up a couple years ago. Priuses went off the shelves and Prop 1A passed like gangbusters. Caltrain was unbelievably packed.
CAFE standards are incredibly important, but they are only so important because all our other policies regarding the cost of driving make it way too inexpensive to drive.
But just the insanity of not even indexing the gas tax to inflation, and not touching it at all since 1993 is asinine.
If you are a politician and vow to increase the gas tax, I will vote for you. But most of all, our political class needs to *lead* on this issue and explain to the people why the gas tax should be higher. Oil spill in the Gulf is a good excuse. Don’t just take a survey if people will like you if you raise their taxes. When they answer that question over the phone during dinner, they won’t. When you can deliver them services with that tax revenue, they will.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Glad you see this, too! I just wish I knew how to convice the politicians. Most of the ones I’ve seen are good enough fellows, but they are also so cowardly they make me look like Audie Murphy! I get responses like “You’re right, Dave, but we can’t do that.” Very disappointing.
You guys have some things going, how did you do it?
Interesting that LaHood is way ahead of Obama.