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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Blocking a GPS signal is too easy for this to work.
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.
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 ...
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 28, 2009, 10:51:58 PM
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.
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
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 (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.
Quote1. 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...
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. :)
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.
QuoteNationwide, 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.
QuoteIt seems to imply that there would be some kind of digital tracking.
Yes, it does. The author hints at that in the article:
QuoteWe 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: jandar on July 29, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
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.
And moving closer to work would be a bad thing? It would help create the urban environmen most on this site seem to support.
Sure, if VMT went down, then there would be less revenue.....but also less need to widen existing roads and/or build new ones.
As for Jeffrey's comment about legislating behavior, nobody is suggesting that as part of a VMT fee (Big Brother issues aside).....this should lvel the playing field.....because, right now, one could argue that governments have subsidized the suburban lifestyle since WWII.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 29, 2009, 10:10:53 AM
Quote from: jandar on July 29, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
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.
And moving closer to work would be a bad thing?
For me, no, it would be a good thing.
For the wife, her commute would go up.
So if I lowered my commute from 24 miles each way to 4 miles, give or take, the wife's commute would increase from 5 miles to almost 20. So it wouldn't be saving anything really.
Unfortunately for a city like Jacksonville, many people work in Jacksonville, while living in the surrounding counties. Their spouses work closer to home. So by getting people to move closer, would in turn cause more commutes for the other half.
Its simple though, I would either shield the GPS unit, or break my speedometer to bypass this.
Same thing happened years ago with emission testing. Many people simply "moved" to Clay, St Johns, or Nassau counties.
Quote from: jandar on July 29, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
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.
Is it unreasonable to believe that if those in the suburbs moved closer to employment areas (Downtown, Brooklyn, Southpoint), then property tax revenue would increase?
Could a portion of tax revenue then be allocated to infrastructure needs?
Some proposals I have seen just require you to report your odometer reading when you renew your auto registration. Of course, this eliminates the ability to do "congestion" pricing, where rush hour miles in a congested area cost more. To prevent (OK, limit) scofflaws like jandar, there would have to be a significant penalty for tampering with the equipment - say 10x what a high-mileage driver would rack up. It is already against the law to tamper with the odometer, but the penalty is negligible.
Quote from: jandar on July 29, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
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.
If those that lived in the burbs moved closer to town, it would solve MANY of the issues discussed on the site. The declining revenue from this tax would be like complaining that the money in my wallet is wrinkled.
Funny, I thought I was on the MetroJacksonville website and not UrbanJacksonville.
Regardless of where you live in the METROJACKSONVILLE area, there needs to be rapid transit. My daily commute of 24 miles each way can be done through OP traffic in 40 minutes each way. (no traffic, its a 30 minute drive, 8 miles Blanding, then all highway)
When I worked downtown, it was a 27 mile drive and 40 minutes off of I-10.
Sure, I could live at the beach, or in St Johns County off of CR210, but they also have their commute issues.
What does more damage to the roads? A car going 24 miles in 40 minutes, or a bus going 10 miles in 30 minutes?
Well, I suppose I could live in NYC, and use the fabulous transit system there and still have a 45 minute commute, just not in my car. (walking to subway, ride, walk to bus, ride, walk to office)
Or perhaps I could live in Mandarin and commute downtown. I could take the JTA Express Bus and still take 30 minutes to go 14.1 miles.
Or I could buy a place downtown or in Riverside, save the commute. Go to work for a company, only to have it lay off 90% of its staff and go look for work again and end up commuting from downtown to the JTB area. Again, causing a commute of 15+ miles.
Too many people here are thinking narrowly that simply moving close to work solves the issue. It doesn't. Many people change jobs. Im happy if you work for the same company for years, but I must have picked the crappiest places, good pay, but get laid off every few years. Sucks to be in IT.
I actually moved to Riverside from Cedar Hills when I worked off of Southpoint Pkwy. Then the company I worked for closed its Jacksonville office and I ended up with a commute of 40 minutes to my next job.
I worked for a company earlier this year that laid off its staff. Worked in the Wachovia bldg. Ended up working for a company out in Mandarin.
So I state again, why move close to work?
Quote from: jandar on July 30, 2009, 09:27:19 AM
What does more damage to the roads? A car going 24 miles in 40 minutes, or a bus going 10 miles in 30 minutes?
that's easy....cars....here's why
A full bus carries 40-50 people....and a full car carries 5-7 people....so basically there would be about 8 cars for every bus.
Now I know the argument will be that the buses are rarely full....but neither are cars....the average auto occupancy rate in the Jax. metro area is around 1.3 persons per car....and for work trips, its barely over 1
QuoteToo many people here are thinking narrowly that simply moving close to work solves the issue. It doesn't. Many people change jobs. Im happy if you work for the same company for years, but I must have picked the crappiest places, good pay, but get laid off every few years. Sucks to be in IT.
I hear you! Although I've only been laid off once, I've had a terrible track record of picking crappy employers. The one great one I had, laid me off. I finally solved that issue. When I left my last job, I only took a hard look at employers downtown, and I scored. I've got civil service at JEA so I know I won't be going anywhere for a long time, possibly for the rest of my career.
Quote from: jandar on July 30, 2009, 09:27:19 AM
Or I could buy a place downtown or in Riverside, save the commute. Go to work for a company, only to have it lay off 90% of its staff and go look for work again and end up commuting from downtown to the JTB area. Again, causing a commute of 15+ miles.
So I state again, why move close to work?
90%? I was part of the 80% St. Joe laid off in 2007. My commute from Riverside was 1.8 miles. Now my commute to Fidelity is 1.4 miles. I'm also in IT like you.
I'm one of the lucky ones, in terms of commuting time and distance.
I'd much prefer subsidies to move outlying offices to the core, especially those with night operations (mission-critical monitoring, even call centers). There's an abundance of office space downtown and rents have been declining.
Quote"Although mass transit is often touted as more energy efficient than cars, this is not always the case," Chester told newscientist.com.
Chester and Horvath went beyond using tailpipe emissions, which are typically used as the yardstick, as the measure of carbon output. By including the full life cycles of 11 modes of transportation along with the tailpipe emissions, they were able to get a clearer picture of how different choices compare with each other.
This required them to figure in the emissions that are discharged when building the infrastructure that supports the different modes and the maintenance of that infrastructure over its lifetime. Variables such as the energy burned to keep lights and escalators running at train stations, the emissions discharged in the manufacture of cars, planes and trains, and fuel and power distribution were also included in their calculations.
The researchers indeed found that energy-intensive infrastructure operations and maintenance increase the carbon footprint of rail commuting more than they do cars and light trucks, which include SUVs. Their work showed "that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation."
With the full life cycle factored in, public transit still lags behind autos in greenhouse gas output. But when the researchers brought passenger occupancy into the equation, though, a different story emerged. They found that cars and SUVs are often "greener" than the environmentalists' preferred (for everyone else) modes of transportation.
"An SUV (which is one of the worst energy performers) with two passengers is equivalent to a bus with eight passengers," write Chester and Horvath. "Similarly, commuter rail at 34% occupancy (147 passengers) is equivalent to a bus with 13 passengers or a sedan with one passenger."
With so much emphasis placed today on CO2, it's easy to miss the fact that, when it comes to a real pollutant â€" such as sulfur dioxide, thought to be responsible for causing and worsening respiratory and cardiovascular ailments â€" rail fares poorly when compared with cars.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330043149991011&kw=bus
Interesting. Thoughts?
Here's the latest from the USDOT Secretary on VMT
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/07/smart-community-planning-more-transportation-options-lead-to-a-reduced-carbon-emissions.html
Quote from: JaxNole on July 30, 2009, 03:34:13 PM
Quote from: jandar on July 30, 2009, 09:27:19 AM
Or I could buy a place downtown or in Riverside, save the commute. Go to work for a company, only to have it lay off 90% of its staff and go look for work again and end up commuting from downtown to the JTB area. Again, causing a commute of 15+ miles.
So I state again, why move close to work?
90%? I was part of the 80% St. Joe laid off in 2007. My commute from Riverside was 1.8 miles. Now my commute to Fidelity is 1.4 miles. I'm also in IT like you.
I'm one of the lucky ones, in terms of commuting time and distance.
I'd much prefer subsidies to move outlying offices to the core, especially those with night operations (mission-critical monitoring, even call centers). There's an abundance of office space downtown and rents have been declining.
Yeah, 90%. It was a fun job, good co-workers, it bled money badly.
Im actually debating talking to companies in need of call centers to look at locating in Clay County. Many of the people here commute to Jax everyday because of no work. Were there jobs (same in St Johns County) we wouldn't have near the congestion and issues we have.
I like the downtown being a business core, same with JTB/Southside/Phillips. But companies really need to start thinking about building where their employees are, not what the real estate agent shows them first.
I've been in a few places where the company decided to move somewhere simply because the owner wanted it close to his house. One place actually moved, causing a good 2/3rds of the staff to have a farther commute.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2009, 04:56:48 PM
Im pretty sure that the idea of taxing car drivers by the mile sounds like a good theory.
But Im a little worried about how they would come up with such a figure?
It seems to imply that there would be some kind of digital tracking.
Which leads to interesting questions.
If someone else is using your car to drive on the highway, does that mean that you will get taxed instead of them?
Is this a good use of GPS tracking services?
Another concern that I have is that it doesn't encourage people to use energy efficient cars. In fact it could be considered a regressive tax if it leads to those driving expensive gas guzzlers paying as much as those traveling in small inexpensive and more efficient economy cars.
Quote from: Deuce on July 29, 2009, 09:49:16 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Right now the Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. That constituted a much lower percentage when we were paying $4 per gallon ( which made us drive less) than when we paid just $1 per gallon back in 1993.
So federal revenues have been declining.
To correct this situation, this is being considered:
QuoteCommission recommends federal gas tax increase
A panel created by Congress calls for increasing the tax by 10 cents a gallon and indexing it to inflation -- and for switching by 2020 to a tax on miles driven. Broad resistance is expected.
By Richard Simon
February 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington â€" As Washington struggles to find ways to fund highway improvements, a congressionally created commission on Thursday called for a 10-cent-a-gallon increase in the federal gas tax, while proposing that the country move to a system of charging motorists for how much they drive.
The idea of a tax increase would probably face strong resistance from lawmakers seeking reelection and consumers already reeling in a tough economy. And the Obama administration last week gave a cold shoulder to any mileage-based tax -- which would require placing tracking devices in taxpayers' vehicles, a concept critics decry as an invasion of privacy.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/27/nation/na-gas-tax27
I think it would be reasonable to gradually increase the gas tax over the next 5-10 years so that it is indexed to inflation. Flat rates have their applications; indexing makes more sense in others.
This is not to penalize those who consume more gas, but rather, correct the methodology of collecting revenue for maintaining our transportation infrastructure.
Electronic Toll Collection might be better than some kind of tax: http://www.transcore.com/I-A/toll-solutions/toll-benefits.html (http://www.transcore.com/I-A/toll-solutions/toll-benefits.html). As time passes, more and more companies may allow employees to telecommute -- that is to work from their homes. Another thing to consider is car or van pooling. In van pooling, you get a new van which is paid for by the riders. I did some research some time ago and found van pooling a very good idea. One of the big problems about car pooling is that you use your own car and have all the problems which go with that. Van pooling is somewhat different. Here is a site which talks about it: http://www.vpsiinc.com/Home/submenu.asp?MMID=1&SMID=10 (http://www.vpsiinc.com/Home/submenu.asp?MMID=1&SMID=10).
Another perspective on VMT (and other measures aimed at curbing demand)
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/28/28greenwire-us-can-cut-half-its-carbon-emissions-from-tran-16812.html
VMT studies are expanding - http://www.roaduserstudy.org/Default.aspx (http://www.roaduserstudy.org/Default.aspx) - lots of good info.
Interesting comments about deciding where to live relative to where you work. The North Florida TPO did a survey last year covering Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns Counties. When asked to rate factors in choosing where they live, people rated the following as "very important"
quality of schools - 63%
amt. of space between houses - 53%
size of yard - 42%
proximity to work - 40%
proximity to shopping - 33%
proximity to mass transit - 13%