Comments for The Transport Politic

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by OceanRailroader

OceanRailroader — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:07:03 +0000

This could possibly could use this to help railroads by fixing and replacing old railroad highway overpasses which are in bad shape. There are hunderds of them that most people drive under and wounder if they are going to fall down sooner or later. They could also use some of these new funds to replace grade railroad crossings with railroad highway overpasses which would help high speed rail and other trains. Highway railroad crossings are one of the most hardest parts to work on in a high speed rail system and if they used these funds for it. Tax payers would view the new highway overpasses as a good thing in that they won’t have to wait for trains to cross.

Comment on Y-Shaped British HS2 Program to Connect London and Birmingham by 2026 by John W

John W — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:48:33 +0000

For the routings through Scotland, will that be up to the Scottish Executive to decide? Would it be a separate funding source? I’m just thinking that if it is, they could build the lines in Scotland at the same time as London-Birmingham and get reduced London-Scotland journey times from the get go. What would be the time reduction for just the Scottish portion?

Comment on Y-Shaped British HS2 Program to Connect London and Birmingham by 2026 by Yonah Freemark

Yonah Freemark — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:09:39 +0000

Well, unfortunately it was neither — I was off on both. But now it’s fixed. Thanks for the close examination!

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by JackRussell

JackRussell — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:59:21 +0000

I fear that this is correct. The bulk of the money could easily get sucked out for more road projects, and rail would get a pittance.

In Virginia, they took the view that by getting trucks off the road they could reduce traffic on I-81. Thus VDOT was able to spend money increasing freight rail capacity. To the average motorist, this has an obvious benefit. But when you upgrade lines for more capacity, they can also carry more commuter and passenger rail…

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by mulad

mulad — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:29:16 +0000

The constitution is a hurdle, but it can certainly be amended (and if an amendment passed, it would be harder for it to be undone). Of course, a “surcharge” or “usage fee” might be a way around it since it wouldn’t be a “tax”, but that might be flimsy in court. The amendment process would take a few years (at least, considering how much opposition there would be), but I think a change to allow gas taxes to include both highways and “congestion mitigation” of various types (both transit and intercity/regional rail) would be helpful. I suppose there’d be a question whether the destination of could/should be controlled so strictly or whether airports and other transportation (bikeways, intercity buses, etc.) should be included as well.

Anyway, another problem is that the current gas tax in Minnesota doesn’t even cover highway expenses adequately — it was very messy to just get a 5-cent increase after 18-20 years when we really needed a 10- or 15-cent hike, and it probably needs to go up by a cent every few years.

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:46:09 +0000

Andy, the problem with the feds getting out of transportation is that there are large swaths of the US that wouldn’t even have US highways without federal aid, much less Interstates. Those same areas have enough representation in the Senate to keep those subsidies coming.

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by BLambert

BLambert — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:49:32 +0000

I know that it isn’t the proposal that Yonah is toying with here, but if it goes to filling a hole in highway funding, then the money spared from that could be shuffled over.

Of course, it would be subject to a legal challenge, and potentially found to be against the Minnesota constitution.

At the same time, this is really an intellectual exercise, so it’s best not to lose sight of the forest for the trees :)

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by Cameron Slick

Cameron Slick — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:53:53 +0000

I’m not sure if Minnesota can do this. The state constitution prohibits fuel taxes from being used on anything besides highways. Great idea on confronting the federalist race to the bottom on taxation.

Comment on A Regional Gas Tax Surcharge to Sponsor Infrastructure Investment by OceanRailroader

OceanRailroader — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:51:55 +0000

I’ve been on a lot of the highways in that area between those states and a lot of them are very overloaded with cars and heavy truck traffic. I think most of that 25 billon will most likely go to widen hunderds of miles of over loaded interstates. Interstate 65 after driving on it several times looks like it will be needed to be widened from four to eight and six lanes at least.

Comment on Denver Region Comes Closer to Endorsing Sales Tax Increase for Transit by Allen

Allen — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:50:28 +0000

The drop in sales tax returns isn’t the main problem. The main problem is that RTD were downright amateur with their future tax revenue projections. It’s not that we got hit with a big recession instead of a small one that’s causing the problem. RTD didn’t take account any recessions. More so, they assumed sales tax revenue increases going forward would match the huge increases Denver saw in the 80s and 90s when the area boomed and added a button ton of good, high paying jobs.

In fact, their forecasts were so far off they couldn’t even pay for the project today even if it cost the $4.7 billion they originally claimed it would.

Add that along with John’s spot-on comments above and it’s hard to see how RTD’s going to manage to get a tax increase just to deliver what they already promised they could with the last one.