Alarming Transit Statistics and Proposals from the AFL CIO. Auto Tax by mile?

[stephendare]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-wytkind/surface-transportation-th_b_244662.html

An Essay by Edward Wytkind
President of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

With too many Americans out of work and a transportation infrastructure that is crumbling beneath us, we can't wait until 2011 for a new federal surface transportation bill.

Transit systems nationwide are hemorrhaging. From Boston to St. Louis, Cleveland to Portland, Atlanta to Miami, and statewide in California, service and jobs cuts are mounting. Despite record ridership, mass transit systems across America are in crisis. When the cost of gas spiked last summer, ridership soared and high volumes have continued ever since. But the weak economy is causing huge shortfalls in state and local revenues. Transit agencies are facing the budget ax just when their services are in highest demand.

It is no better in transportation construction. Nationwide, the jobless rate is approaching 20 percent, even worse in some states.

History shows that transportation bills are engines of job creation. The economic recovery bill, which dedicated $48 billion dollars to transportation infrastructure, was a great first step, but it is only a down payment on job creation and the massive investment needs for America's transportation systems.

Here's a snapshot of our transportation infrastructure today:

    * The average commuter rail passenger coach is 24 years old. 62 percent are being used beyond their replacement age.
    * 59 percent of transit busses need to be replaced within six years.
    * More than 20 percent of city roads do not pass the basic test for pavement and ride quality.
    * 26 percent of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient.

Poor roadway conditions are the number one contributing cause of motor vehicle crash severity, which cost our government and the American taxpayer $12 billion dollars annually. If we kick this can down the road any more it's going to land in a pothole.

The Highway Trust Fund, which supports highways and transit projects across the country, faces an imminent shortfall. The administration has suggested shoring up the trust fund with money from the general treasury so that state transportation projects don't come to a grinding halt.

Also due for an update this year -- and set to expire in September -- is the multi-year surface transportation bill. Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) has proposed a comprehensive, $500 billion bill that invests in and reforms how we invest in America's transportation infrastructure.

Some are trying to use the crisis in the Highway Trust Fund as the reason to delay a multi-year surface transportation bill. The fact is we must do both.

We must patch the Highway Trust Fund before the August recess. And we must complete the authorization bill this Congress -- the nation cannot wait for action on either of these priorities.

We know that these are serious times, with several critical issues demanding leadership. Wednesday night we heard the president make the case for health care reform. Achieving energy independence is a critical issue and of course the deep recession weighs on the minds of American workers. These are issues our members care about, understand and face every day. But the transportation investment gap is also a critical issue -- if we don't make a significant commitment to transportation now, we will cause irreparable harm to our economy for years to come.

We're never going to live in a Washington that doesn't have a full plate. If we don't act now, then when is it a good time to address our dire transportation needs? We must pay for America's massive transportation infrastructure needs with dollars, not fairy dust or more hyperbole about the need to invest in America.

There are two choices: raise revenues or fail to meet this country's real surface transportation needs. If we fail, we also miss the opportunity to put people back to work while the economy continues to bleed jobs.

There are a variety of funding mechanisms that were discussed last week in a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the challenge of funding our transportation needs.

A new Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee would be a user fee for those who utilize the roads. Some believe it could replace the gas tax as the primary funding source for the Highway Trust Fund. By most accounts, a VMT would take years to implement. We have concerns about ensuring privacy for drivers. But clearly the VMT discussion is moving forward and we look forward to that debate.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has proposed taxing oil securities. This is an exciting proposal worthy of serious consideration. It does two things: it goes after unsavory oil speculation and goes a long way to fill the gap in our ailing surface transportation investment program.

We support an increase in the gas user fee and believe it should be indexed for inflation. During the 16 years in which this tax hasn't been increased, the costs of construction, freight shipments and passenger traffic have skyrocketed. It will be difficult -- if not impossible -- to pass a serious authorization bill unless the fuel user fee is increased.

I can only hope that as this debate over a user fee increase unfolds, that it does not degenerate into political gamesmanship. This decision should be made based on our national interests, not short-term political calculations.

The surface transportation bill offers an important opportunity to create economic growth in the near-term and break the cycle of underinvestment in America's transportation network. This is our opportunity, quite literally, to build bridges to a better economic future.

Make no mistake -- the costs of delaying a robust surface transportation bill are higher than the costs of passing it.

[jandar]

Bigger questions:
This will unfairly target those that live in the suburbs. By living farther away from work (and buy a cheaper house usually) those of us living in the burbs would pay a higher tax amount than those who would benefit first from rapid transit.

If they implement this tax to serve the rapid transit, do you really think that those in the suburbs would see rapid transit before those in the inner city?

As it is now, Im forced to use my car. I will not live in Duval and have my wife Commute to Clay County for her teaching job just so I could commute closer. There are no jobs for me in my line of work in Clay County, so I am commuting to Duval.

This would either cause massive suburbs downfall, or massive lack of employees for companies in the city proper as those in the burbs would change jobs to something closer to home.

Too many issues would prevent this type of tax from working.

[KenFSU]

Was at a meeting last August when the FDOT Transportation Secretary was talking about this. Sounds creepy and Orwellian. GPS systems would track and record where you drive, what time you drive, and what route you take to get there. The tax you would pay (most likely read and charged at the pump), would factor in not only miles driven, but also whether you were driving during peak hours and on high-volume roads. As a diehard advocate of privacy, this sounds insane to me compared to a simple by-the-gallon fee. If it's optional, people can knock themselves out. No way you're going to be able to force the entire population to comply with this though. The startup costs alone would be astronomical.

[urbanlibertarian]

if you drive a car, I'll tax the street;
if you try to sit, I'll tax your seat;
if you get too cold, I'll tax the heat;
if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Taxman.

[tufsu1]

Here's the deal on a VMT fee...

1. The Federal gas tax is a flat rate (not a % like sales tax)....the last time it was raised was 1993
2. When gas prices rose last year, people stopped driving....and gas tax revenues went down
3. Similarly when people switch to more fuel efficient cars, the same thing happens.

So, the idea of charging a fee that is based on the # of miles driven is a more equitable, sustainable user fee. 

Sure it might target people in the suburbs more, but so what....they make up the majority of people using all the roads we've built in this country over the last 30+ years....the fact is they used to say "drive till you qualify," and very few people considered their housing AND transportation costs....a VMT fee might change that.

For those of you that are opposed to a VMT fee, what ideas do you have to increase revenues to fund our transportation needs?

[Lunican]

Blocking a GPS signal is too easy for this to work.

[JeffreyS]

Support the Fair Tax please.  The government shouldn't try to make us behave with taxes. If something needs to be legislated do so.  If something needs to be funded budget it in.

[Charles Hunter]

I heard a presentation on the Fair Tax not long ago.  In response to a direct question, the FT would do nothing about state and local taxes - like gas, sales, and property taxes - it is just for Federal taxes.  If I remember correctly the state+local gas tax is higher than the Federal gas tax.  So let's not drag that argument in here.

tufsu is right, the gas tax is a declining revenue source as the costs of providing and maintaining transportation - both transit and highways - is increasing.  Something needs to be done.  I read a report (but can't find it right now) about a study done out west - Washington or Oregon, I forget which - on the Miles Traveled tax.  If I remember correctly, they couldn't tell specifically where you went, just if you were in or out of certain zones.  Of course, if you told your significant other you went to the gym on the westside, and really drove down Philips Hwy .....

I've also read on certain websites that some think Teh Gubmint can track you 24/7 via the "chip" already in your car ...

[KenFSU]

I read a report (but can't find it right now) about a study done out west - Washington or Oregon, I forget which - on the Miles Traveled tax.

It was Portland.

[Ocklawaha]

The whole stupid excercise could be cured here in Florida by opening toll booths at I-95, I-75 and I-10 at the state line. $5.00 per 4 wheels and make the toll lanes bi-directional. Do the math, get the annual traffic from these 3 highways x  $5.00. Locally we could always go back and tax the bridge crossings. You use it, you pay for it.

Downtown we scrap the parking meters and transfer their income as a per space fee on every commercial parking lot or garage. All parking becomes reguloated on the curbside by the hour, 2 hours etc. The garages must charge whatever the current fee is, + the pff set from the former meters + plus 15% that goes exclusively for mass transit. 

OCKLAWAHA

[JaxNole]

I remember reading several reports of Oregon's pilot program.  A Google search of "oregon gas tax gps" netted numerous hits.  This one from the Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/04/nation/na-gas-tax4 addresses a number of issues raised here.

It's generous in providing the same tax rate assuming a vehicle averages 20 miles per gallon.

Another issue was raised by rural drivers being unfairly penalized by usage.  My question: Were those rural drivers forced to live so far away from where they want to be?  Probably not.  It may just spur ideas and innovation while funding infrastructure needs that the current structure simply fails to support.

[BridgeTroll]

1. The Federal gas tax is a flat rate (not a % like sales tax)....the last time it was raised was 1993
2. When gas prices rose last year, people stopped driving....and gas tax revenues went down
3. Similarly when people switch to more fuel efficient cars, the same thing happens.

So, the idea of charging a fee that is based on the # of miles driven is a more equitable, sustainable user fee. 

Are you replacing the gas tax with miles driven tax or simply adding a miles driven tax.  If you are adding a miles driven tax would that not create the same condition you note in # 2?  Why add another tax when simply raising the existing gas tax will do the job?  Taxing gas purchased seems to be the same as taxing miles driven...

[Charles Hunter]

The Oregon (thanks JaxNole for the state reminder) program replaced the cents-per-gallon tax with the Per Mile tax.  A short term improvement to the gas tax would be to make it a percentage tax, instead of cents-per-gallon - make it like the sales tax.  That way, when gas prices go up, tax revenues would go up, perhaps balancing the inevitable decrease in gas sales due to people not driving as much.  But any transportation tax based on gas sales will be a declining source.  Cars are getting more fuel efficient, so we are driving farther (using the roads more) on each gallon of gas.  With hybrids, the trend is accelerating.  As plug-in cars come along, people will be using the roads, and not paying anything for their upkeep.

There are apparently lots of hurdles - including privacy - to overcome, but some sort of new funding stream is needed - especially if we want to fund Ock's rail systems. 

[jandar]

Im all for funding the idea of rapid transit, as it will benefit the burbs the most. However, if the tax burden is placed by mileage driven, many in the burbs would move closer to work, killing revenue, and then tanking the funding for rapid transit.

Catch22. The ones in most need of rapid transit will be taxed the most and would probably respond by finding ways to lower their tax burden.

[Deuce]

Nationwide, the jobless rate is approaching 20 percent, even worse in some states

What an egregious piece of misinformation. It made me doubt all the other numbers in this article.

It seems to imply that there would be some kind of digital tracking.

Yes, it does. The author hints at that in the article:

We have concerns about ensuring privacy for drivers

It seems a forgone conclusion that they would need to do some sort of digital tracking, the alternative might be something like toll booths all over, but that's a large investment and could slow the movement of traffic.

The Federal gas tax is a flat rate (not a % like sales tax)....the last time it was raised was 1993

If that's the case, then raise that sucker for starters. 16 years without an increase is a long time.

Good ideas Ock, but exempt Florida residents or give them a lower rate to cross the line. Touristas are still going to come regardless of what's charged.

No matter what they do to fund the crumbling infrastructure, they are really screwed. People will adjust to lower their costs. I myself bike to work now so I save a ton of money. Businesses might centralize or people will move closer to work. Others may start to walk, bike, or carpool. Cars are only going to get more fuel efficient and more people will telecommute. Just imagine how much usage of the roads there would be if half our workforce telecommuted once a week.