Gas Tax not covering the cost of roads. Not even close.

[Lunican]

The way America's roads are funded is changing. Revenues that predominantly come from users of roads (“user fees”), including fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls, pay for a decreasing share of road costs. Taxes and fees not directly related to highway use (“non-user fees”) and bonds are making up the difference.

Using Federal Highway Administration statistics, Subsidyscope has calculated that in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user feesâ€"down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/

[urbanlibertarian]

IMO roads should be 100% supported by user fees (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls).  Mass transit as well (fares).

[fieldafm]

IMO roads should be 100% supported by user fees (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls).  Mass transit as well (fares).

So then, you would be in favor of significant increases in fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, tolls on every expressway/highway, and $6 bus fares?

[urbanlibertarian]

IMO roads should be 100% supported by user fees (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls).  Mass transit as well (fares).

So then, you would be in favor of significant increases in fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, tolls on every expressway/highway, and $6 bus fares?

If you mean increases that cover the subtraction of sales, property and income tax revenues from roads, then yes.

[urbanlibertarian]

IMO roads should be 100% supported by user fees (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls).  Mass transit as well (fares).

why on earth would you say that urban libertarian?

Modern Warfare has kind of proven that when the capacity isnt there for proper transportation, everyone pays with a price worse than taxes.

Are you certain that if roads were supported by user fees that it would result in less capacity?  If so, isn't that something you support because you believe it would reduce sprawl?

[buckethead]

I do believe user fees on roads would reduce sprawl, and minimize new road building.

(Based purely on gut instinct and realizing that I don't like paying tolls or high gas prices.)

It brings to mind another issue: War as a means of stabilizing the price of oil. If we disregard oil prices when they rise, demand for alternative fuels, associated technologies, as well as technological advancements would necessarily rise.

Take half of what we spent in Iraq and develop other renewable energy sources, and voilá!... So perhaps we still subsidize energy, but without the need to kill people to do it.

Off topic? sorry.

[buckethead]

I was considering a gas tax as a user fee on roads.

Perhaps incorrectly?

[JeffreyS]

IMO roads should be 100% supported by user fees (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls).  Mass transit as well (fares).

This is where the logic of libertarianism breaks down imo.  The community is one of those things that can be greater than the sum of it's parts.  The idea with something like transit and transportation is that you may not use a particular road or train in your community however you benefit from the fact that people in your community can get to work and provide goods and services.
The balancing act for me comes down to community bang for the buck.  Are the community benefits greater than the subsidies provided.  

[CS Foltz]

I agree..........road taxes of any sort do not pay for much of anything! But hay..........those major interchange upgrades on I-95 are doing a world of good for the City ain't they?

[urbanlibertarian]

The market is the community.  When activities are organized as a market it is controlled from the bottom up by individual consumer decisions.  If consumers are paying the full real cost of something they will choose the most efficient and convenient option.  Subsidies skew that decision making process and end up promoting inefficiency.  Top down decision making leads to transportation projects like the skyway.

[Jumpinjack]

The Florida Transportation Commission passed a resolution in December noting that the revenue from fuel sales has declined as a result of fuel efficient vehicles and reduction in vehicle miles traveled due to the economic recession. They also note that FDOT contracts have dropped to a low of $1.2 billion from a record high of $3.2 billion due to a loss in state revenue and decrease in doc stamp revenue.
They conclude by calling on the Governor and Legislator to review and revise the transportation revenue policies.

I don't think this governor nor legislature have the ability or will to conduct such a review and revise state funding policies but eventually it will happen. 

[fieldafm]

You must have failed to read the entire article... the most important parts

However, even if those funds were fully devoted to highways, total user fee revenue accounted for only 65 percent of all funds set aside for highways in 2007, according to Subsidyscope calculations. This is down from 84 percent in 1997 and 77 percent in 1967. Subsidyscope provides a complete data set of user fee revenues and allocations for download.

Various factors account for the shift in funding away from users fees. Fuel taxes lose their buying power unless adjusted to keep pace with rising highway construction and maintenance costs. The amount of federal fuel tax allocated to highway purposes has not increased since 1997 and states have had trouble increasing fuel taxes to keep up with inflation. Further, changes in driving patterns and fuel consumption can lead to unexpected dips and peaks in user revenues. For instance, increases in fuel prices at the pump can cause vehicle owners to cut back on driving, reducing revenues. Similarly, changes in vehicle efficiency can reduce revenues available from fuel taxes while vehicle usage remains constant.
Another major funding source for roads is borrowing through bond measures, which made up almost 13 percent of highway funds available in 2007. This number has fluctuated over the years. Moreover, the use of bonds to fund roads varies widely from state to state. Subsidyscope considers bonds separately from user fees and other revenue because it is not clear which sources of revenues will be used to repay the bonds.

In addition to a decline in user fee revenue, federal dollars have gradually declined as a share of total highway funding. As a result, state and local governments have taken on a higher share of road costs and are increasingly reliant on alternative sources of revenue.

Couple of things, b/c voters and politicians have CONSISTENTLY been voting against increases in taxes, bonding capacities have consistently been increased to fill the funding gaps.  

Also, as I posted a couple of weeks ago(which apparently no one decided to comment on)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,11413.0.html

Not all user fees collected are made available for highway purposes. Of the 18.4 cent per gallon federal tax on gasoline, 2.86 cents are allocated specifically for mass transit projects. Another 0.1 cent per gallon is used to pay for environmental cleanup resulting from leaking fuel storage tanks.

Busses use roads and fixed transit frees up capacity on such roads, of whose constant expansion is fiscally unsustainable... so is transit not to share in the same benefits from this revenue source while transit is designed to be in and of itself a more sustainable conduit of commerce(in this case labor and consumers) that frees up capacity on said roads?

Furthermore, should we not encourage more fuel efficient vehicles in order to ween ourselves from the reliance of constantly building, building and building more unjustifiably expensive roads?  

[JeffreyS]

The market is the community.  When activities are organized as a market it is controlled from the bottom up by individual consumer decisions.  If consumers are paying the full real cost of something they will choose the most efficient and convenient option.  Subsidies skew that decision making process and end up promoting inefficiency.  Top down decision making leads to transportation projects like the skyway.

Well government is not the only ones looking to skew the market.  I could see your logic causing someone to build a small streetcar line and expanding with it's use.  One day they are so successful they start to cut into the sales of bus makers, tire makers and oil profits.  So those industries get together buy the streetcars and ROW and mothball them even though the market place wants them.  Now in our local story the local government sold us out on this but it does illustrate how on large capital projects things other than demand manipulate the market. I do believe there is a lot to be said for the "rational self interest of the market" but it is not a perfect cure all.  Our founding fathers created a mixed market economy with the general welfare in mind.

[fieldafm]

Well government is not the only ones looking to skew the market.  I could see your logic causing someone to build a small streetcar line and expanding with it's use.  One day they are so successful they start to cut into the sales of bus makers, tire makers and oil profits.  So those industries get together buy the streetcars and ROW and mothball them even though the market place wants them.  Now in our local story the local government sold us out on this but it does illustrate how on large capital projects things other than demand manipulate the market. I do believe there is a lot to be said for the "rational self interest of the market" but it is not a perfect cure all.  Our founding fathers created a mixed market economy with the general welfare in mind.

Case in point... the Skinner's and Davis' land would have never been sold and developed into residential and commercial projects had it not been the government who put JTB right down the middle of said land and the Town Center would have never existed.

[Jumpinjack]

JTB was in place as the vision for SJ Town Center came into being. 9-A was originally designed to follow the Southside Blvd. corridor. As Southside Blvd. developed FDOT changed their plans. To adjust for the creation of the Town Center concept, FDOT planned a realignment of 9-A which would bisect that property and moved it eastward toward UNF impacting  Sawmill Slough swamp at UNF, an important migratory bird habitat. The design for 9-A also included an interchange in the middle of another important wetland, habitat for black bear, south of JTB to facilitate growth south of JTB.

Florida Sierra Club opposed the realignment of 9-A through significant wetlands, and opposed the permit from the SJR Water Management District. Their argument was that the wetlands permit ignored the eventual development of this area with strip shopping, commercial and other destruction of habitat and wetlands. The creation of the secondary and cumulative impacts analysis now required by state law was the end result. FDOT, city government and regulatory agencies all coordinated their planning and permitting to provide this benefit for private development.