Rising gasoline prices = halt gasoline taxes
Sherman L. Cahal
advocate the removal or temporary halt of the state and/or federal
gasoline taxes to bring some relief at the pump. But does it have
implications?
I posted my reply here --
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=38324&view=findpost&p=771539
--
I'll throw in my two cents here. (And this is not specific to this
state, per se.)
1. Reducing the gasoline tax would harm the highway infrastructure in
the long term. Many state gasoline taxes have not kept up with
inflation and as a result, many highway departments are being
shortchanged. One instance of this is West Virginia, whose gasoline
taxes have not kept pace -- the state has a 300-year backlog on
current highway construction projects that are deemed necessary for
the state to keep up for economic and safety reasons alone.
2. The cost of basic construction materials, such as concrete, have
risen well above inflation rates. Costs have increased dramatically on
many projects. One notable example of this is the Ohio River Bridges
Project in Louisville, Kentucky. The original estimated costs pre-
Katrina were $1.9 billion in 2003. In 2005, this was $2.5 billion.
Now, it is $3.9 billion and is expected to top $4 billion upon the
next estimate.
3. Infrastructure ages. Kentucky has two mega projects on tap: The
Ohio River Bridges Project and the Brent Spence Bridge Project. The
latter involves the massive reconstruction and construction project of
Interstate 71/75 as it crosses the Ohio River in a dense metropolitan
area. This involves a lot of money.
4. Such projects are traditionally funded by gasoline tax revenues
(per #1). But projects like The Ohio River Bridges Project would
consume 13% of the state's highway spending over the next two decades!
5. A federal fund that provides the bulk of the money for highway
projects is expected to go bankrupt by 2009.
My solution?
1. Toll existing interstate routes. This is unlikely to happen
because. per FHWA, you cannot toll interstate highways that were
funded using the federal-state match. (There are exceptions, such as
the West Virginia Turnpike, but that was due to its extreme terrain
and very high costs of upgrading.)
2. New projects should be public-private enterprises. These save money
in the long-run and are for-profit ventures. Obviously, these would be
the most efficient and profitable in urbanized areas.
3. Encourage mass-transit, such as bus-rapid transit in areas where
light-rail is not feasible. Encourage bicycling as an alternative mode
of transit.
4. Increase gasoline taxes. Although this is political suicide, we are
facing an infrastructure that is rapidly aging. For instance,
Kentucky's budget for maintaining its existing interstate highways is
increasing at a rate of 10-15% a year, leaving a smaller pot to
construct new roads, upgrade existing facilities, or invest in other
projects. Other states that have a more urban freeway network, such as
New York, will be facing an ever greater increasing rate of
maintenance costs.
Free Lunch
"Sherman L. Cahal" <sherma...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1179022547.8...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>Here is an interesting thread that was posted on UrbanPlanet. Some
>advocate the removal or temporary halt of the state and/or federal
>gasoline taxes to bring some relief at the pump. But does it have
>implications?
>
>I posted my reply here --
>http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=38324&view=findpost&p=771539
If you aren't paying about $1.50/gallon for gasoline taxes today, you
are paying less than the average person was paying in the US in
equivalent terms in 1960. Gasoline taxes have gone down in real terms in
the US and we are paying for that shortsighted cheapness.
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
I am NOT a fan of taxes, but I do not advocate repealing, even
temporarily, taxes on gasoline. It's a shortsighted political move.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGRoEb2kz4fWh3iuERAh91AJ95e8ZPHVtUGFB78GxbZ+jc5+fjrgCfYydi
qam260pwf8nVEPcZGfnee+w=
=RfLE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Lansford
>My solution?
>1. Toll existing interstate routes. This is unlikely to happen
>because. per FHWA, you cannot toll interstate highways that were
>funded using the federal-state match. (There are exceptions, such as
>the West Virginia Turnpike, but that was due to its extreme terrain
>and very high costs of upgrading.)
Actually, FHWA does not prohibit tolling an existing interstate; they
would just require that all Federal money used to plan, design and
build it be paid back first by the state before allowing the state to
do so. The only exception is the limited-rule law for improvements to
existing interstates that VDOT is using to try and widen I-81 with.
Given how fast VDOT is backpedalling away from making significant
improvements to I-81 even with this law backing them up, I see little
chance any widespread tolling of existing routes (via this law or by
another provision) is going to take place in the forseeable future.
>2. New projects should be public-private enterprises. These save money
>in the long-run and are for-profit ventures. Obviously, these would be
>the most efficient and profitable in urbanized areas.
Perhaps they would "save money in the long-run", but could also cost
the state more money in the short term in both design shortcuts and
construction mistakes. Both have taken place in the few PPTA projects
let in NCDOT, but the program continues to have advocates with
politicians because it does get projects completed faster. The old
saying "you can have it cheaper, faster or done well, but you can only
pick two" still applies.
>3. Encourage mass-transit, such as bus-rapid transit in areas where
>light-rail is not feasible. Encourage bicycling as an alternative mode
>of transit.
MT is even more expensive to construct than highways, though,
especially if it doesn't exist in an area, and in order to carry
equivalent volumes in as an efficient a manner has to be more than
just a bare-bones design.
>4. Increase gasoline taxes. Although this is political suicide, we are
>facing an infrastructure that is rapidly aging. For instance,
>Kentucky's budget for maintaining its existing interstate highways is
>increasing at a rate of 10-15% a year, leaving a smaller pot to
>construct new roads, upgrade existing facilities, or invest in other
>projects. Other states that have a more urban freeway network, such as
>New York, will be facing an ever greater increasing rate of
>maintenance costs.
Changing the equity formula, where more states are "donors" and get
back less of the funds they turn in to the FHWA for dispersing
throughout the 50 states, would help as well. However, until
politicians realize they cannot have something for nothing, the gas
tax is going to continue to lag behind the need for highway
improvements.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
Richard Carlson, N9JIG
"Sherman L. Cahal" <sherma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is an interesting thread that was posted on UrbanPlanet. Some
> advocate the removal or temporary halt of the state and/or federal
> gasoline taxes to bring some relief at the pump. But does it have
> implications?
>
> I posted my reply here --
> http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=38324&view=findpost&p
> =771539
>
> --
>
> I'll throw in my two cents here. (And this is not specific to this
> state, per se.)
>
Illinois and some other states reduced gasoline taxes a couple years ago
during another run-up of gas prices. All this does is subsidize oil
companies, if they reduce gas taxes 10 cents a gallon what is to stop
the oil companies from reducing the pump price by 4 cents, and keeping
the extra 6?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Actually, FHWA does not prohibit tolling an existing interstate; they
> would just require that all Federal money used to plan, design and
> build it be paid back first by the state before allowing the state to
> do so. The only exception is the limited-rule law for improvements to
> existing interstates that VDOT is using to try and widen I-81 with.
> Given how fast VDOT is backpedalling away from making significant
> improvements to I-81 even with this law backing them up, I see little
> chance any widespread tolling of existing routes (via this law or by
> another provision) is going to take place in the forseeable future.
There is no "backpedalling", as while the VA I-81 Corridor Tier 1 FEIS
has been approved by FHWA, the Record of Decision has not yet been
issued by FHWA; and Tier 2 FEIS will be required on 8 segments of the
highway, with each segment Tier 2 FEIS to be approved independently
before construction can begin on that segment. Tolls are still being
considered for financing part or all of the highway widening.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
John Lansford
A few years ago NC's governor suspended the state gasoline tax when
prices were rising as a result of Katrina, with the intention that the
stations would reduce prices. They didn't, and shortly after they
were suspended the taxes were restarted. The price then went up a few
cents...
SP Cook
wrote:
>
> I'll throw in my two cents here. (And this is not specific to this
> state, per se.)
>
> 1. Reducing the gasoline tax would harm the highway infrastructure in
> the long term. Many state gasoline taxes have not kept up with
> inflation and as a result, many highway departments are being
> shortchanged. One instance of this is West Virginia, whose gasoline
> taxes have not kept pace -- the state has a 300-year backlog on
> current highway construction projects that are deemed necessary for
> the state to keep up for economic and safety reasons alone.
The "WV is 300 years behind" is just phony statistics, but WV gasoline
taxes AUTOMATICALLY increase with the price every November. Since the
price of fuel has outpaced inflation for five years, it has more than
kept up with inflation. In 2006, the governor waied the inflation
pegged increase to help motorists. A good thing to do.
>
> 2. The cost of basic construction materials, such as concrete, have
> risen well above inflation rates. Costs have increased dramatically on
> many projects. One notable example of this is the Ohio River Bridges
> Project in Louisville, Kentucky. The original estimated costs pre-
> Katrina were $1.9 billion in 2003. In 2005, this was $2.5 billion.
> Now, it is $3.9 billion and is expected to top $4 billion upon the
> next estimate.
A good argument for eliminating Davis-Bacon.
>
> 3. Infrastructure ages. Kentucky has two mega projects on tap: The
> Ohio River Bridges Project and the Brent Spence Bridge Project. The
> latter involves the massive reconstruction and construction project of
> Interstate 71/75 as it crosses the Ohio River in a dense metropolitan
> area. This involves a lot of money.
As did building the interstate system in the first place. Is this
generation up to the task that the greatest generation was?
>
> 4. Such projects are traditionally funded by gasoline tax revenues
> (per #1). But projects like The Ohio River Bridges Project would
> consume 13% of the state's highway spending over the next two decades!
It was a mistate to take tolls off bridges. IMHO, toll bridges and
toll roads are two different things. Most major crossings of major
rivers and bays can be tolled effectively.
>
> 5. A federal fund that provides the bulk of the money for highway
> projects is expected to go bankrupt by 2009.
And SS will go "broke" in 2020 and so on. Government funds do not go
"bankrupt". The current Road Bill just expires in 2009, and another
will be passed.
>
> My solution?
> 1. Toll existing interstate routes. This is unlikely to happen
> because. per FHWA, you cannot toll interstate highways that were
> funded using the federal-state match. (There are exceptions, such as
> the West Virginia Turnpike, but that was due to its extreme terrain
> and very high costs of upgrading.)
The corruption exposed at the WVTP (and the PATP and NJTP) recently
show that government WILL NOT spend toll money on roads, but will
waste it. They cannot be trusted.
>
> 2. New projects should be public-private enterprises. These save money
> in the long-run and are for-profit ventures. Obviously, these would be
> the most efficient and profitable in urbanized areas.
No argument, but most roads are not viable. WV did a study (not that
I agree with all of it) and found that of all its projects, only US 35
would make money as a toll road.
>
> 3. Encourage mass-transit, such as bus-rapid transit in areas where
> light-rail is not feasible. Encourage bicycling as an alternative mode
> of transit.
Not realistic for 99% of people who live outside of "bike range" of
work. The best thing to do would be to make mass transit and
Scamtrak stand on their own and use the money spent on these for
roads.
>
> 4. Increase gasoline taxes. Although this is political suicide, we are
> facing an infrastructure that is rapidly aging. For instance,
> Kentucky's budget for maintaining its existing interstate highways is
> increasing at a rate of 10-15% a year, leaving a smaller pot to
> construct new roads, upgrade existing facilities, or invest in other
> projects. Other states that have a more urban freeway network, such as
> New York, will be facing an ever greater increasing rate of
> maintenance costs.
At some point, and we are there, the big cross country projects are
done, mostly. So there will be less new big projects over virgin
land, and more repairs. This has been coming since the 1950s.
Reality. As long as government will spend 100% of taxes on roads,
then a small increase will be OK. If, like WV, it spends some on
welfare make-work projects and to give the police a raise, then no.
Really when the oil boom turns to bust again, that is the time to
raise taxes, keeping fuel prices higher. Say 1 cent in taxes for
every 3 cents of price decline. Then in the next boom, take the taxes
off in the same proportion, to save the economy from shocks.
Rich Piehl
It also takes away funding from needed projects that are paid for by the
gas tax.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Et in terra pax
Michael G. Koerner
Didn't Illinois just suspend the state's *sales* tax on fuel that time? IIRC,
the IDOT tax stayed in force. Wisconsin could not do that because Wisconsin
does not *sales* tax fuel - it all goes to WisDOT (or at least did, until Gov.
Doyle raided the transport fund to fill a general fund budget hole).
That said, (and I have mentioned this recently before) while I have often
advocated converting to percentage-based fuel taxes, I am wondering more and
more if the various states should consider just converting transportation into
a regular general-fund budget item. A _very strong_ case can be made for that
- EVERYONE in the state benefits from good roads and other transport. Then
change the fuel tax into a straight sales tax.
The reliance on fuel taxes for roads has failed because of a basic,
fundamental error when they was first enacted - they should have been
percentage of the price-based and not volume-based - and because of that it
was politically impossible to keep them inflation-neutral.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Larry Gross
Here's a wild suggestion:
1. - Make gasoline $5 a gallon for ANYONE who does not have an EZ-Pass
transponder but for all others $2 a gallon ( or a dollar less than
wholesale).
2. - Put TOLLs on most limited-access roads and let the folks with
those EZ-Pass transponders decide how much of the gasoline rebate they
want to give back.
3. - Once a month - hold an EZ-Pass transponder Lottery - and the
winner gets a years worth of gasoline and tolls for free.
:-)
RJ
> Encourage bicycling as an alternative mode
> of transit.
Yeah. That will happen. In Rochester NY in January, sure.
And in Phoenix in August. Good plan.
Allen Seth Dunn
> "Richard Carlson, N9JIG" <use...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sherman L. Cahal" <shermanca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Here is an interesting thread that was posted on UrbanPlanet. Some
> >> advocate the removal or temporary halt of the state and/or federal
> >> gasoline taxes to bring some relief at the pump. But does it have
> >> implications?
>
> >> I posted my reply here --
> >> =771539
>
> >> --
>
> >> I'll throw in my two cents here. (And this is not specific to this
> >> state, per se.)
>
> >Illinois and some other states reduced gasoline taxes a couple years ago
> >during another run-up of gas prices. All this does is subsidize oil
> >companies, if they reduce gas taxes 10 cents a gallon what is to stop
> >the oil companies from reducing the pump price by 4 cents, and keeping
> >the extra 6?
>
> A few years ago NC's governor suspended the state gasoline tax when
> prices were rising as a result of Katrina, with the intention that the
> stations would reduce prices. They didn't, and shortly after they
> were suspended the taxes were restarted. The price then went up a few
> cents...
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
And that's why people who talk about suspending gasoline taxes really
are clueless. That event is just proof that if suspending the gas tax
is done elsewhere, prices will just stay the same with the companies
involved in selling gasoline somewhere along the line (either the oil
company itself or the local gas station) pocketing the difference and
making an extra profit. The only way suspending a gasoline tax could
possibly work is if it was written into state law and provided with
deep, deep penalties for not adjusting prices equivalently. Even then,
there's always a good chance that the law could be circumvented
somewhere along the supply chain.
Arif Khokar
One doesn't have to ride every day. If one is able to cut their driving
by a third or more, that means they use less fuel.
If I drove 100% of the time I needed to go somewhere, then I'd use up a
tank of fuel in about a week and a half. Given the amount of riding I
do, I can extend the amount of time that tank of fuel lasts from a week
and a half to about 4 to 5 weeks.
If a substantial number of people are able to cut their demand like I
did, then what do you think would happen to prices?
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
I bicycle to work in Austin, Texas in the summer. I leave early before
it gets too hot and I work until it starts to cool.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGR9Ex2kz4fWh3iuERAop+AJ9w0pxH9yJ+t+iRgJ2lgFMFf/2ROgCfckjJ
QdsZtN1mrtV0cvCHYLNd7F0=
=oc6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> ... However, until
> politicians realize they cannot have something for nothing, the gas
> tax is going to continue to lag behind the need for highway
> improvements.
Basically true.
However, it's not the politicians. It's the public. The public gets
all indignant at tax increases, but constantly demands ever more
public services. For example, criminal justice is very expensive, but
the public demands much more of it.
John Mayson
Hash: SHA1
I think if we had a TRUE democracy, a government where the citizens
voted on everything the people would vote themselves zero taxes and lots
of government benefits.
Something that irks me about some big time war supporters I'm friends
with is they aren't willing to pay the financial cost.
- --
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGSJ5u2kz4fWh3iuERAlIJAJ9zCk3mzk3E9EFhOW6LSCk2Y1OpAgCffaJ3
fsWt05KfRPdmLvEFmQpwPwo=
=AfwA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I think if we had a TRUE democracy, a government where the citizens
> voted on everything the people would vote themselves zero taxes and lots
> of government benefits.
Which was a main reason why the Founding Fathers were against straight
citizen participation. Remember, originally Senators were elected by
the states and there is the electoral college. Also originally there
were numerous qualifications to be voters and office holders (such as
the need to own land).
> Something that irks me about some big time war supporters I'm friends
> with is they aren't willing to pay the financial cost.
Activists from both sides of the political aisle drive me crazy. The
Repubs claim to be against "big govt" but in reality only against
programs they don't like; if they like a program that doesn't count.
The Dems never bother to calculate the cost of anything.
I noticed a theme in this newsgroup where most writers seem to be
"anti govt" except do demand the govt provide them roads and cheap
fuel. One poster claimed it as a right.
John Mayson
> On May 14, 1:37 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
>
>> I think if we had a TRUE democracy, a government where the citizens
>> voted on everything the people would vote themselves zero taxes and lots
>> of government benefits.
>
> Which was a main reason why the Founding Fathers were against straight
> citizen participation. Remember, originally Senators were elected by
> the states and there is the electoral college. Also originally there
> were numerous qualifications to be voters and office holders (such as
> the need to own land).
Tell people we live in a republic and not a democracy and watch smoke
come from their ears. :-)
>> Something that irks me about some big time war supporters I'm friends
>> with is they aren't willing to pay the financial cost.
>
> Activists from both sides of the political aisle drive me crazy. The
> Repubs claim to be against "big govt" but in reality only against
> programs they don't like; if they like a program that doesn't count.
> The Dems never bother to calculate the cost of anything.
Exactly!! Which is why I don't like either major party. I could rant
for days on this topic, but then everyone here would hate me (or hate me
more than they already do). :-P
>
> I noticed a theme in this newsgroup where most writers seem to be
> "anti govt" except do demand the govt provide them roads and cheap
> fuel. One poster claimed it as a right.
Yup. I've picked up on that too. And it's not just this newsgroup.
That's why I like c.d.t. It's still sane. :-)
k_f...@lycos.com
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On May 14, 1:37 pm, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> >
> >> I think if we had a TRUE democracy, a government where the citizens
> >> voted on everything the people would vote themselves zero taxes and lots
> >> of government benefits.
> >
> > Which was a main reason why the Founding Fathers were against straight
> > citizen participation. Remember, originally Senators were elected by
> > the states and there is the electoral college. Also originally there
> > were numerous qualifications to be voters and office holders (such as
> > the need to own land).
>
> Tell people we live in a republic and not a democracy and watch smoke
> come from their ears. :-)
No smoke, but patiently re-explaining this:
A constitutional republic is necessarily a form of democracy. They are
not mutualy exclusive. You can have another form of democracy that is
*not* a republic, but you cannot have a republic that is not a form of
democracy.
So to say "we live in a republic and not a democracy" is actually an
oxymoron. We live in both.
k_f...@lycos.com
Right. Suspending gas taxes doesn't address the root cause of the
increase in the price. It's like if the price of steak went up, you
would address the increased cost of feeding your family by not cooking
it but eating it raw.
Rich Piehl
Agreed. Suspending taxes masks the problem, makes the politicians look
like they're doing something, but accomplishes nothing. It's smoke and
mirrors.
JG
>
> > Here is an interesting thread that was posted on UrbanPlanet. Some
> > advocate the removal or temporary halt of the state and/or federal
> > gasoline taxes to bring some relief at the pump. But does it have
> > implications?
>
> > I posted my reply here --
> > =771539
>
> > --
>
> > I'll throw in my two cents here. (And this is not specific to this
> > state, per se.)
>
> Illinois and some other states reduced gasoline taxes a couple years ago
> during another run-up of gas prices. All this does is subsidize oil
> companies, if they reduce gas taxes 10 cents a gallon what is to stop
> the oil companies from reducing the pump price by 4 cents, and keeping
> the extra 6?
Thus the root of zone priceing, jack up prices to the max. Loved that
24 cent jump
from last Saturday at 3.25 to Monday at 3.49. Of course the drunkya
crowd is
squeezing Frisco the most.... JG