Comments on: Reforming the User Fee Approach for Funding Transportation http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:58:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eric G. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-40512 Eric G. Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:16:48 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-40512 Another thing to explore is shifting the gas tax from a per-gallon tax to a sales-tax type percentage on the price. That tends to be more volatile, but with proper accounting and reserve policies, it would have a few advantages. First, when there is a spike in prices like 2008, more money would be available and could be shifted into transit operations. Secondly, it aligns the transport/environmental/national security/trade balance goals. The current per-gallon mechanism means DOT needs to see increased gasoline sales to get additional revenue, but with a percentage fee, they would be less reliant on sales and would instead have the better incentive to let gas prices rise over time, thereby discouraging demand and incentivizing transit more. It would also be easier to play the political game of lowering the percentage fee when prices get too high and raising it back up when they go lower. That could even be built in to the tax. It would moderate the impact of price fluctuations, although that could obfuscate the market pricing mechanisms role in matching supply and demand. Even with that change, We probably would still need additional sources of revenue if hybrids and pure electric cars really start to account for a larger market share of vehicles. Transit also needs a big incentive to move towards electric, and alternative fuels, so we aren't crippled by fuel price volatility again. The Dept of Defense just issued a report saying they expect petroleum shortages to return by 2015. Given the lifespan of our vehicles, we are already behind schedule to transition. Another thing to explore is shifting the gas tax from a per-gallon tax to a sales-tax type percentage on the price. That tends to be more volatile, but with proper accounting and reserve policies, it would have a few advantages. First, when there is a spike in prices like 2008, more money would be available and could be shifted into transit operations. Secondly, it aligns the transport/environmental/national security/trade balance goals. The current per-gallon mechanism means DOT needs to see increased gasoline sales to get additional revenue, but with a percentage fee, they would be less reliant on sales and would instead have the better incentive to let gas prices rise over time, thereby discouraging demand and incentivizing transit more. It would also be easier to play the political game of lowering the percentage fee when prices get too high and raising it back up when they go lower. That could even be built in to the tax. It would moderate the impact of price fluctuations, although that could obfuscate the market pricing mechanisms role in matching supply and demand. Even with that change, We probably would still need additional sources of revenue if hybrids and pure electric cars really start to account for a larger market share of vehicles.
Transit also needs a big incentive to move towards electric, and alternative fuels, so we aren’t crippled by fuel price volatility again. The Dept of Defense just issued a report saying they expect petroleum shortages to return by 2015. Given the lifespan of our vehicles, we are already behind schedule to transition.

]]> By: Eric G. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-40509 Eric G. Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:40:57 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-40509 The HOT lanes in Miami resulted from conversion of one HOV lane and addition of one new lane by taking some of the shoulder and reducing lane widths on the remaining lanes. There was also a bit of scandal in that they did not include entrance/exits to the HOT lanes in North Miami that were included in the original plans presented to the community. That made the lanes effectively a high-priced funnel for Broward commuters to/from the Miami CBD (except the lanes stop a bit short of actually reaching the CBD). The funding for transit in that plan is miniscule, with most of the revenue siphoned off for other highways via the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority. They also cut off highway access to Golden Glades from the south, which is a major transit hub - unless you're in the HOT lanes. Other urban areas would be wise to study the good and bad lessons from that example. As for funding transport in general - I'd like to see more tolling, especially on any new capacity and where it is used to maintain free-flow conditions that significantly benefit freight. The feds should immediately bump the gas tax up to 20c (from 18.4) to restore trust fund solvency and give MPO's authority to levy an additional 5c so they could decide on local project priorities and fund them quickly without all the federal politics. By keeping this additional funding contained to urban areas, the money would be sure to get spent there and it could reduce rural resistance to using gas taxes for urban transit. MPO's should also be investigating parking fees since the cost of parking at the destination is one of the most significant determinants of transit demand. The HOT lanes in Miami resulted from conversion of one HOV lane and addition of one new lane by taking some of the shoulder and reducing lane widths on the remaining lanes. There was also a bit of scandal in that they did not include entrance/exits to the HOT lanes in North Miami that were included in the original plans presented to the community. That made the lanes effectively a high-priced funnel for Broward commuters to/from the Miami CBD (except the lanes stop a bit short of actually reaching the CBD). The funding for transit in that plan is miniscule, with most of the revenue siphoned off for other highways via the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority. They also cut off highway access to Golden Glades from the south, which is a major transit hub – unless you’re in the HOT lanes. Other urban areas would be wise to study the good and bad lessons from that example.

As for funding transport in general – I’d like to see more tolling, especially on any new capacity and where it is used to maintain free-flow conditions that significantly benefit freight. The feds should immediately bump the gas tax up to 20c (from 18.4) to restore trust fund solvency and give MPO’s authority to levy an additional 5c so they could decide on local project priorities and fund them quickly without all the federal politics. By keeping this additional funding contained to urban areas, the money would be sure to get spent there and it could reduce rural resistance to using gas taxes for urban transit. MPO’s should also be investigating parking fees since the cost of parking at the destination is one of the most significant determinants of transit demand.

]]> By: Adirondacker12800 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39751 Adirondacker12800 Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:47:32 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39751 If I-80 wasn't there the alternatives for traffic crossing Pennsylvania would be the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the New York State Thruway, I would think most people, including truckers, would be glad to pay comparable tolls to avoid the congestion on the PA Turnpike or NY Thuway. If I-80 wasn’t there the alternatives for traffic crossing Pennsylvania would be the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the New York State Thruway, I would think most people, including truckers, would be glad to pay comparable tolls to avoid the congestion on the PA Turnpike or NY Thuway.

]]> By: Wad http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39515 Wad Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:40:55 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39515 Froggie wrote: <i>Toll the road, use the tolls just for the road, and you’ll get approved.</i> Even that has a pitfall all its own. If tolls can only be used for road uses, that's all the money will get, regardless of whether there's a need for widening a road. Tod Litman of the VTPI had an interesting reference in one of his studies. He points out that highway construction is a diminishing return. Highways' maximum utility is realized when it is first opened. Then, each additional lane-mile results in more costs and decreasingly useful benefits. Froggie wrote:

Toll the road, use the tolls just for the road, and you’ll get approved.

Even that has a pitfall all its own.

If tolls can only be used for road uses, that’s all the money will get, regardless of whether there’s a need for widening a road.

Tod Litman of the VTPI had an interesting reference in one of his studies. He points out that highway construction is a diminishing return.

Highways’ maximum utility is realized when it is first opened. Then, each additional lane-mile results in more costs and decreasingly useful benefits.

]]> By: J http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39283 J Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:11:02 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39283 Good point AK, Miami put in tolls on two lanes of I-95 last year. Good point AK, Miami put in tolls on two lanes of I-95 last year.

]]> By: AK http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39226 AK Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:01:54 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39226 Federal rules still allow tolling when it acts as congestion pricing to reduce pollution in non-attainment areas, though, right? And in those cases, they could use the toll revenue for other forms of transit nearby? I haven't been able to get clarification on that. Thanks. Federal rules still allow tolling when it acts as congestion pricing to reduce pollution in non-attainment areas, though, right? And in those cases, they could use the toll revenue for other forms of transit nearby? I haven’t been able to get clarification on that. Thanks.

]]> By: Tacony Palmyra http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39134 Tacony Palmyra Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:40:12 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39134 The real problem is that there is no logical reason that some Interstates are tolled and others are not -- they're casualties of history. So in the Northeast we have tolled Interstates built as turnpikes before the Interstate system and the associated rules of the toll-free era were established, and newer toll-free Interstates running through less populated areas. Why is the PA Turnpike (I-76 and its associated arms I-276 and 476) tolled yet I-80 is not? There's no good reason for the disparity, and the lack of tolls has encouraged the sprawl of Northern New Jersey into Northeastern Pennsylvania (yes, believe it or not a not-insignificant number of people now commute from the Poconos to North Jersey and even NYC). The real problem is that there is no logical reason that some Interstates are tolled and others are not — they’re casualties of history. So in the Northeast we have tolled Interstates built as turnpikes before the Interstate system and the associated rules of the toll-free era were established, and newer toll-free Interstates running through less populated areas. Why is the PA Turnpike (I-76 and its associated arms I-276 and 476) tolled yet I-80 is not? There’s no good reason for the disparity, and the lack of tolls has encouraged the sprawl of Northern New Jersey into Northeastern Pennsylvania (yes, believe it or not a not-insignificant number of people now commute from the Poconos to North Jersey and even NYC).

]]> By: Woody http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39018 Woody Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:03:18 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39018 It was an almost perfect tax from the politicians' point of view: Most of the users of I-80 are probably from New Jersey, New York, New England, Ohio, and points west. How delicious it would have been for the out-of-state drivers to be subsidizing transit for Pennsylvania citizens. But it is not to be. Now residents of the state's big cities will continue to subsidize out-of-state drivers on I-80. It was an almost perfect tax from the politicians’ point of view: Most of the users of I-80 are probably from New Jersey, New York, New England, Ohio, and points west. How delicious it would have been for the out-of-state drivers to be subsidizing transit for Pennsylvania citizens. But it is not to be.

Now residents of the state’s big cities will continue to subsidize out-of-state drivers on I-80.

]]> By: Ocean Railroader http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39015 Ocean Railroader Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:11:59 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39015 They where talking about using new tolls to pay to widen sections of Interstate 81 in Virginia. I thought that was a good idea in that the toll money collected from the users of the highway that would pay for the muti billion dollar project to widen it. What they could also do to prevent dubet from growing on these tolled highway widening projects is to break up these maga projects into smaller highway widening phases which could be better funded from the highway tolls then trying to spend all their time begging for money from vdot or the highway fund. I think tolls collected on highways though should go back to that same highway or it's general area. A strange idea I thought of to build sidewalks and bike paths and try to attack Obesty in the US would be to place a small $0.01 to $0.05 cent tax on eather fast food places that seem to be poping up like weeds in the suburbs and use the tax money from this fast food junk food fund to start a sidewalk and bike path trust fund to pay for new sidewalks and sidewalk repair and possiby funds for parks and playgrounds. They where talking about using new tolls to pay to widen sections of Interstate 81 in Virginia. I thought that was a good idea in that the toll money collected from the users of the highway that would pay for the muti billion dollar project to widen it. What they could also do to prevent dubet from growing on these tolled highway widening projects is to break up these maga projects into smaller highway widening phases which could be better funded from the highway tolls then trying to spend all their time begging for money from vdot or the highway fund. I think tolls collected on highways though should go back to that same highway or it’s general area.

A strange idea I thought of to build sidewalks and bike paths and try to attack Obesty in the US would be to place a small $0.01 to $0.05 cent tax on eather fast food places that seem to be poping up like weeds in the suburbs and use the tax money from this fast food junk food fund to start a sidewalk and bike path trust fund to pay for new sidewalks and sidewalk repair and possiby funds for parks and playgrounds.

]]> By: J http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/12/reforming-the-user-fee-approach-for-funding-transportation/#comment-39010 J Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:53:38 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6585#comment-39010 Damnm that pictures brings back memories. I used to own a huge amount of those wooden tracks. Damnm that pictures brings back memories. I used to own a huge amount of those wooden tracks.

]]>