Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg While a lot of people would make noise about [a 10-cent gas tax increase], that would last about two days and we'd be back to building highways (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197/984248-147.stm)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/carl_sagan.jpgJon Schmitz - POST-GAZETTE (http://www.post-gazette.com) - July 16, 2009

And you wonder why I'm getting a Prius --Ed.

Saying business owners are willing to pay higher gasoline taxes, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday urged Congress to get moving on new transportation legislation.

Thomas J. Donahue led more than 100 business leaders from 28 states to Capitol Hill to oppose an 18-month delay in enactment of multiyear legislation to authorize road, bridge and transit improvements.

The Obama administration has proposed the delay, with support of some key Senate members, amid disagreement over how to fund the measure.

Mr. Donahue said the nation faces crumbling infrastructure and a looming transportation crisis. The federal Highway Trust Fund, which draws revenue from an 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gas tax that hasn't changed since 1993, is nearly broke, and the current legislation authorizing transportation projects expires Sept. 30.

"While a lot of people would make noise about [a 10-cent gas tax increase], that would last about two days and we'd be back to building highways," he said on a conference call with reporters. "The American business community is saying we don't see this as a tax. This is a user fee."

He was joined by Steve Odland, chairman and CEO of Office Depot, which has 1,100 U.S. stores and makes a half-million deliveries per week. Mr. Odland served on a congressional study commission that last year recommended annual 5- to 8-cent gasoline tax increases, plus indexing to inflation, to replenish the Highway Trust Fund over the short term. The panel endorsed a long-term switch to a fee based on miles traveled... http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09197/984248-147.stm

The States are all broke. Obama "Stimulus" money is the only thing keeping road work going this season. I was told at work that next season, road and bridge work will drop dramatically, as the stimulus money is used up.

If you want roads to drive on, you'll have to pay for them. Gasoline here has dropped from a high of $4.25/gallon last summer to today's $2.80/gallon. Ten cents on top of that is a trivial increase. Besides roads to drive on, the tax will put many people back to work.

Harry

I completely understand the concept that nothing is free. I also don't see a problem with 10 cents per gallon. That's relatively cheap considering what the price of gas was a year ago. But I'm getting a little exasperated with the 'we need more money' thing. Does no one know how to balance a budget?!

How about no -- you can't have any more money until you learn how to manage what I've already given you. And it's not just the federal government asking for more money. Last year, when gas prices were so high, the garbage man sent me a letter explaining a new price hike because of his cost increase in fuel for the garbage trucks. This is understandable. But gas prices have been low for quite a while now and the garbage man doesn't want to lower his price back down. Nor does the grocery man, the post man, the gas/electric man... What's the deal? I gave you extra money because your costs went up, now that the problem is resolved, how about giving me a break.

I wouldn't mind paying more if I believed that prices would come back down once the situation was resolved. But that's the issue; it never gets resolved. There always seems to be another reason to ask working America for more.

How about if we just set the gas tax to its proper, fair value, accounting for externalities: enough to pay for the roads (~$2.22 per gallon (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008264.html)) plus the cost of the carbon emissions ($20 per ton (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/cap-and-trade-intelligent-investing-carbon.html) or 19 cents per gallon) plus the cost to our health of air pollution ($1600 per person annually (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20081112-1347-ca-airpollution-costs.html)) plus all the other subsidies we give to the oil companies?

Paying anything less than the true cost of gasoline distorts the market for transportation, hindering the efficient movement of goods and people.

Hey @ 55mpg, that wont put so much as a dent :) At least on the smoother roads I can coast longer and negate that cost effect. Keeping the money here is where it should begin.

This is something that you will very seldom ever see me do. Support a tax increase. I think they should raise the tax at least .15/gallon, WITH the following restrictions.

1)100% of that increase goes directly to road and bridge building and repair.
Zero goes to building any toll roads. To tax me to build a road that you charge me to use is just wrong.
2)Zero goes to public transit. If it's a user fee, then the benefit should go to the users paying the fee. I am already subsidizing other peoples bus rides, no more $. If they need more money, then make the people who are using the service pay for it.
3)The money is distributed based on need, NOT politics.

How about if we just set the gas tax to its proper, fair value, accounting for externalities: enough to pay for the roads (~$2.22 per gallon (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008264.html)) plus the cost of the carbon emissions ($20 per ton (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/cap-and-trade-intelligent-investing-carbon.html) or 19 cents per gallon) plus the cost to our health of air pollution ($1600 per person annually (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20081112-1347-ca-airpollution-costs.html)) plus all the other subsidies we give to the oil companies?

Paying anything less than the true cost of gasoline distorts the market for transportation, hindering the efficient movement of goods and people.

I took a look at the $2.22 per gallon tax, and my guess is the advocacy group took the Texas study completely out of context to make such an absurd claim.

I didn't even have to look further than the comment section to see that Texas actually pays for essentially all it's roads through State and Federal fuel tax and registration fees. Only 5% is listed as other revenues which is "Revenues are generated from many other sources including vehicle certificates, special vehicle registrations, commercial transportation fees, and the sale of publications." Additionally 25% of the collected state fuel tax is diverted to public schools, seems the tax could be lowered if schools didn't get their cut.

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/c865/assets/c865.overview.pdf

As for massive subsidies to the oil companies, only if you consider all private profit is the governments first and any profit not confiscated as a subsidy can this be oil company subsidies.

A very low regarded study that concluded that gas should really cost $14 only concluded that "oil subsidies' worst case account for a whopping 7 cents, and possibly as low as 3.5 cents per gallon. Knowing the intent of the study 3.5 cents is probably the most accurate.

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

On to the $1600 per person from air pollution, another advocacy group struggling to show that it pays huge dividends in lives saved by reducing pollution. This is the worst pollution in the US, and based on the idea that ALL respitory illness is caused by car pollution. Completely eliminate car pollution and the San Jauquin valley will still have lots of respitory illness.

The sponsors of the study, "The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation makes grants to address the most serious social and environmental problems facing society....." They want to make news, and only worst case makes news.

Too many wild assumptions need to be made, like missed school days becomes $112 Million in caregiver costs? If we increase the gas tax how does it pay for this imaginary caregiver cost? Externalities are hard to pay for simply by raising taxes.

Texas actually pays for essentially all it's roads through State and Federal fuel tax and registration fees.

No, only the state highway fund is funded by state and federal fuel taxes and registration fees, which for example only pays for 36% of the transportation system in the Houston Galveston region (http://www.westhouston.org/state_highway_funding.htm).

the $1600 per person from air pollution [is] based on the idea that ALL respitory illness is caused by car pollution.

Where did you read that? Did you make that up?

Blackbelt,

I like the way you think. Except for public transport....I'm borderline on some of the money going thre.

That aside, I can understand why businesses would wasnt to support it. I'd hate to think how much money delivery companies loose due to bad roads and under-developed roads. Between the extra wear and tear on the vehicles and the time paid to equipment and driver, the $0.10 tax would be cheap. And its not just for them, its cheap for all of us. Getting us there faster, safer, and cheaper....value for money.

Blackbelt,

I like the way you think. Except for public transport....I'm borderline on some of the money going thre.

That aside, I can understand why businesses would wasnt to support it. I'd hate to think how much money delivery companies loose due to bad roads and under-developed roads. Between the extra wear and tear on the vehicles and the time paid to equipment and driver, the $0.10 tax would be cheap. And its not just for them, its cheap for all of us. Getting us there faster, safer, and cheaper....value for money.

Shiba,
WHere i live, there is no public transit. It isn't a matter of it being available to me and me choosing not to use it,, i do not have the option. I will admit my viewpoint on transit is regional. SEPTA(philly), and PAT(pittsburgh) are black holes for money. They are hugely wasteful, inefficient, and rife with political cronyism. Many drivers make 6 figure incomes, and pay an average of $40/month for health coverage. The unions and the politicians are in bed together, to the detriment of the taxpayer{to get an idea of what things are like in pittsburgh, read the info on this link, especially the dealings with the firefighters union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Murphy_(mayor) }
When they clean up their act, then they can come to me for more money. Until then, if they need $$, then they need to charge the people who actually ride the bus more. Perhaps if THEY have to pay more, then the howls of protest might be listened to.
I think the people of this country are tired of seeing all the waste. It isn't that people are cheap, they just want their dollars spent as carefully as they themselves would spend it. Like i said, i have no issue with a gas tax, IF it actually went to the purpose intended.

I am an advocate of consumption taxes. I would raise the federal gasoline tax significantly more than 10 cents. In fact I would make it a percentage of the retail sales price.

I would also make the highway fund a separate entity that recieved all the revenue and funded individual projects on a specific set of requirements through private contractors with proven track records with time penalties and large bond amounts to preclude bankruptcy esacpes from funded obligations.

regards
gary

No, only the state highway fund is funded by state and federal fuel taxes and registration fees, which for example only pays for 36% of the transportation system in the Houston Galveston region (http://www.westhouston.org/state_highway_funding.htm).



Where did you read that? Did you make that up?


Not sure what point you are trying to make, your site says ""In fiscal year 2003, state levied fees and taxes on transportation related activities generated $6.4 billion. Of that amount only 46% or $2.9 billion found its way to the State Highway Fund for use by TxDOT."

It's worse than I thought, 54% of highway funds go to something other than highways?

And it appears that Houston has toll roads and a transit sales tax of 1%, so it is paying without using more from TxDOT. Isn't that better than the rest of the state paying for Houston?

The point is taxes are already being raised to pay for the roads, your site pretends that Texas is falling short by $2.22 a gallon, and that is not the case.


Yes you are right, on close read I may have assumed all deaths, my bad. But your article's headline is Dirty air kills more in Calif. than car crashes and then says, "To illustrate its point, the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution. " Where did that number come from?, particulate pollution isn't the cause of death on any death certificate. I'm guessing again since I don't have the actual study, but i'd bet that the deaths attributed are strictly projections based on weak correlations between ozone and many many different illnesses, some positive and some negative. Show me strong evidence that premature deaths are caused by dirty air at levels found in San Joaquin, not interpolated from studies with much higher levels.

Certainly there is evidence that ozone isn't good for you, but then to translate many assumptions to a specific dollar figure. You are advocating a gas tax which will indeed increase revenue that we don't know how to spend on the problem.

Maybe you do, how do we spend taxes on fuel to reduce illness from transportation pollution? If the goal is simply to tax to the point of mass reduction in consumption that could do more damage than dirty air.

Don't get me started on Pittsburgh,
$900 million plus in debt, City pension fund funded at 35% or less, population dropping between 3000-5000 each year. Police, Fire and Paramedic took a pay freeze with the last contract to help out the city. Next year that three year contract is up and they are going to want pay increases.

1960 640K people lived in the city by 2010 census we are expecting to be under or close to 300K.

These idiots want to build a high speed rail line between the city and the Airport 20 miles out of town with Federal Stimulus money. $2.1 billion estimated cost, probably coming in closer to $3 billion. Sounds like a great idea right? Well Greater Pittsburgh International Airport arrivals and departures are running 35% of what they were just 10 years ago.

You should see the hole the PAT Mass Transportation dug under the Allegheny River. They had to beg the state for more funding when they ran out of money with it 60% done.

Tom Murphy was a real sweetheart. This guy had a shill house three miles from his office in Pittsburgh and lived 45-50 miles north of the city in Cranberry Pa. A city Police officer would drive a city owned Crown Victoria to Toms house in Cranberry and bring him to work in Pittsburgh. In the evening a police officer would drive Tom back home and return to the city.
That Crown Victoria had 120K miles on it after two years. 2,400 plus tax payer paid gallons of gas a year to Chauffeur him around, plus the police officers time and wages.

$2.22 sounds about right. Yes the idea is to tax enough to limit consumption. There is no easy way for that money to get where it should - ie paying for caregivers for the increased missed school days. It is pretty easy to help fund Medicaid with it - and that is where the real dollars are spent.

But that is not even the real point. The idea is to make something (gasoline in this case) cost what it should based on its cost to society - Internalizing the externalities.

So yes the idea is to tax gasoliine to "mass reduction". I particularly like the 8 cent a year increase. That is painless in the short term but everyone knows where it is going long term.

No serious study has ever concluded that the current rate of gas taxation pays for road construction and repair. There are ways to look at one small part and conclude that it does but in the aggregate it does not. Is Texas somehow different?, I doubt it.

The death rate from asthma has roughly doubled in 20 years. Is car and truck pollution a big part of that? - it is hard to conclude otherwise. So 2,000 excess deaths per year is not an unreasonable assumption - try paying for that.

The death rate from asthma has roughly doubled in 20 years. Is car and truck pollution a big part of that? - it is hard to conclude otherwise. So 2,000 excess deaths per year is not an unreasonable assumption - try paying for that.

Air pollution has gone down dramatically in the last 40 years, how can you conclude that less pollution causes doubling of asthma deaths, I conclude it must be something else. Show me evidence that air pollution has increased in the last 20 years.

This is something that you will very seldom ever see me do. Support a tax increase. I think they should raise the tax at least .15/gallon, WITH the following restrictions.

1)100% of that increase goes directly to road and bridge building and repair.
Zero goes to building any toll roads. To tax me to build a road that you charge me to use is just wrong.
2)Zero goes to public transit. If it's a user fee, then the benefit should go to the users paying the fee. I am already subsidizing other peoples bus rides, no more $. If they need more money, then make the people who are using the service pay for it.
3)The money is distributed based on need, NOT politics.

I agree with all of the above with a minor change - I would like to see the taxation increase on a regular basis ($0.10 every 2 months for the next two years if our economy was good. Since it is not, every 6 months for the next 5+ years). I would also advocate 1 other SIGNIFICANT change:
The construction companies doing the work on the highways and roads should be responsible for their section of the roadway for the next 20 years. If there are repairs required in that time, they will need to make them at no cost to the state or federal government. In order to guarantee this performance, they will need to place a bond with an independent agency.

Switzerland administers their roads with a contractual system like this. Although the average terrain and weather is significantly more challenging, they pay significantly less per road mile traveled and have a much better road system than the United States!!

I agree with all of the above with a minor change - I would like to see the taxation increase on a regular basis ($0.10 every 2 months for the next two years if our economy was good. Since it is not, every 6 months for the next 5+ years). I would also advocate 1 other SIGNIFICANT change:
The construction companies doing the work on the highways and roads should be responsible for their section of the roadway for the next 20 years. If there are repairs required in that time, they will need to make them at no cost to the state or federal government. In order to guarantee this performance, they will need to place a bond with an independent agency.

Switzerland administers their roads with a contractual system like this. Although the average terrain and weather is significantly more challenging, they pay significantly less per road mile traveled and have a much better road system than the United States!!

Craig i think increasing the gas tax $1.20 might be a bit much. Perhaps .03-.05/2 months might be a bit more realistic considering the political climate.
I LOVE the other part of your idea. That should be written into every contract! It may have to have some flexibility, depending on climate, but would still be a great way to ensure we taxpayers are getting our moneys worth. I wonder if anyone in government has ever tried doing this.
Time to start writing some letters. Thanks for the inspiration!

Craig i think increasing the gas tax $1.20 might be a bit much. Perhaps .03-.05/2 months might be a bit more realistic considering the political climate.
I LOVE the other part of your idea. That should be written into every contract! It may have to have some flexibility, depending on climate, but would still be a great way to ensure we taxpayers are getting our moneys worth. I wonder if anyone in government has ever tried doing this.
Time to start writing some letters. Thanks for the inspiration!

Glad I could get somebody else fired up about this!!

When I did the study about 20 years ago, 95% of their roads were considered "acceptable". Using the same standard, only :eek:10%:eek: of our roads were considered acceptable!! When you consider that our terrain includes places like Texas and Nevada that are very thermally stable and do not have significant freeze/thaw cycles or extensive mountains like Switzerland's, that is truly remarkable.

Not sure what point you are trying to make,...

....

I think his point is that most roads are not state highways and gas taxes currently do little to fund them (though I believe that many states have a grant process to let local road authorities tap part of the gas tax revenue--perhaps this is part of the Tx shortfall you were concerned about?). Complicating analysis of the funding situation is that state highway departments sometimes cede some maintenance responsibilities to local authorities for some stretches of road within the local authority's jurisdiction.