I think the numbers in the "roads study" Streetsblog cited are a bit high, given what I've read elsewhere. I don't remember the source offhand, but I've seen numbers putting total road spending in the US closer to the $200 billion neighborhood. There have also been university studies elsewhere suggesting that drivers still pay the vast majority of the costs of driving. The one I'm most familiar with was a University of Minnesota study suggesting that Twin Cities drivers pay 84% of the total costs of driving in the Twin Cities metro.

A potentially interesting sidebar for this would be to determine, at least in metropolitan areas (since it really wouldn't apply in rural areas), the percentage of street costs that could be attributed to vehicle use versus bike/pedestrian use and transit use. I bring this up since most urban streets are for use by more than just vehicles, so attributing the total cost of those streets to drivers is a bit off.

by Froggie on Jan 5, 2011 9:39 am • link • report

That report is a hoot. Those Naderites sure have turnips for brains. I guess that is what happen when you use college students as your intellectual slaves.

Froggie, the "cost" of a street is the initial building and ongoing maintenance. I'd hazard a guess that 95% of the damage to streets is done by cars (and trucks) rather than pedestrians and bikes. Interstate trucks probably pay their "fair" share of highway maintenance, but they are not paying anything near the damage they do to urban roads. Buses, however, are probably also doing tremendous damage and aren't paying anything into the system.

Gas tax. Raise it and put it into general revenue. Why is this so complex? Liberals get very confused with people who pretend to understand economics and like the sound of the word "externality".

by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 9:49 am • link • report

Charlie, it's not complex. Everyone seems to be in favor of raising the gas tax except for those holding elected office.

If you can figure out how to convince them (since they're quite crucial to the process), I'd love to hear it.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2011 9:57 am • link • report

re: the Streetsblog link to the Slate/USDA map of food deserts

It's a troubling map, but it understates the problems that exist in urban areas. The percentage of city residents living in food deserts might be low, even if the number of people remains high.

by David R. on Jan 5, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

There is no P in W-M-A-T-A.

by aaa on Jan 5, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

@Alex; no question that raising the gas tax is politically difficult. Just was reading a study yesterday (maybe linked here) that suggested family of 4 was spending more on cars and gas than health care. Numbers are off, but $3 or $5 gasoline really hurts. I don't think there is an easy way to sell it, the telling a family in the suburbs to move to a transit friendly community does not help.

What is easy, however, is coming up with a unified front that says raising the gas tax and putting the money into general revenue is a win. Bizzare ideas like tolls, electronic monitors, and what not are distractions.

by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

More information on tracks used as toilet:

http://washington-dc-metro.com/2011/01/05/train-operators-using-pocket-tracks-as-bathrooms/

I like how the corrective action recommended by the IG is to schedule enough time for people to go, but Metro's stated corrective action is to issue a letter to the operators.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@Charlie

Do buses (and I assume we are talking about transit buses here) pay gas tax or do they get their gas tax exempt?

And I think the problem of using a gas tax as a proxy for distance traveled is that as vehicles become more fuel efficient or use other means of power (bio fuels that can be manufactured at home, plug-in hybrids, etc.) taxing gas becomes less and less viable. It's ok I think in the short term but we have to start thinking about ways to collect that revenue in the medium to long term.

by Steven Yates on Jan 5, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

@charlie

The unified front already exists. Every deficit commission or panel endorses the idea. Just about every policy person from any side of the aisle agrees (even if they disagree on exactly where the revenues should go). Of course it's a policy 'win.' That's not the point.

Saying that it's "politically difficult" is a massive understatement. Again, how do you convince the elected officials to act on it? I'd love to know, I'm stumped myself. Personally, I'd favor a series of small increases that the public would be unlikely to notice over a period of years, then indexing the tax to inflation.

The only method I've heard proposed from politicians starts with a revenue-neutral premise of changing it from a per gallon tax to a percentage tax. I don't like that for many reasons, since the transportation linkage is based on consumption, not the price of gas, but I see why that's the obvious way to get political cover.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2011 10:40 am • link • report

@AlexB; I'd strongly disagree with you on the unified front. Call it as it is: Republicans and their "policy" people are theologically opposed to any tax increase.*

And on the "liberal" side there is far too much talk about tolls, bikes, transit and what not. And a lot of it being pushed by companies like IBM or Xerox who want to run tolling systems.

So: not a unified front at all.

The case you bring up -- the percentage tax -- is a great example, because last time I checked it was transit lobbyists and smartgrowthers who were complaining about it. That naderite report is another part of the same problem. A chance for them to get their anti-car fantasies out in public.

*Crazy-ass tea party types who want flat taxes or VAT are on to something.

by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 10:54 am • link • report

Tom Downs is a great choice for the Mayor's Metro Board voting seat. He brings a wealth of experience in transit and DC politics. He will be independent of DC Council pressure. With a much changed Board, Mr. Downs experience will be real asset.

by Interested on Jan 5, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

@charlie. But republicans are not necessarily opposed to user fees. They'll call it a tax when they're opposed to it, and they'll call it a user fee when they're in favor of it.

But I think the whole revenue-raising discussion point is moot: Congress is going to grab gas tax money, dump it the general fund (so as to make the GOP look like successful deficit hawks), and leave it to the states to pick up the slack in spending.

by Mark P on Jan 5, 2011 11:18 am • link • report

@Froggie. One needs to distinguish the cost of roads from the cost of driving. In Maryland, drivers pay about 2 cents per mile and the general funds pay about 2 cents per mile. But driving costs maybe 30 cents per mile. So drivers probably pay 90% of the cost of driving, but only half the cost of the road.

by JimT on Jan 5, 2011 11:18 am • link • report

@Froggie, charlie, Steven Yates--

Engineering tests done by AASHTO in the late 1950s established that damage to roads scales as the fourth power of axle weight, meaning that if you double the axle weight, you do 16 times the damage. Since a car is about 10 times heavier than a bicycle+rider, it will do 10^4=10000 times as much damage.

However, nearly all of the damage to roads comes from trucks and buses. I think buses are actually worse. The rear axle of a fully-loaded transit bus is typically 24000 pounds, and compared with the 2000 pound axle weight of a 2-ton (large) car, the bus does 20000 = (24000/2000)^4 times as much damage. The general limit for axle weight for trucks is 20000 pounds, so a bus does (24000/20000)^4=twice as much damage as a truck.

Slightly offtopic, I think this is one of the infrequently mentioned disadvantages of BRT, especially when one tries to claim that BRT is "like rail": if you're running a lot of the most damaging vehicles, which is what frequent bus service would be, and you want to get rail-like ride quality, you're either going to need to build a much stronger road base than an ordinary road, or you're going to need a much more frequent resurfacing. Cheaper versions of BRT pretend that buses don't do much damage to the road and so the costs of road resurfacing can just be part of the general road upkeep and not attributed to the BRT.

by thm on Jan 5, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

@thm; thanks.

I might be very wrong on this, but I'd suspect there are far more buses than heavily loaded trucks on urban streets. You certainly don't see many semis and most of the trucks are probably 5 or 10 tonners.

Another reason to find ways to use smaller vehicles for delivery.

Excellent point on BRT. To me, the two best things about streetcars are noise and ride quality.

I've always though you could quantify the damage of trucks by looking at maintenance costs of 66 inside the beltway vs. other highways.

by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report

@charlie

Most urban streets, however, are funded by local property taxes and not transportation user fees.

There's also a lot more than just weight that factors into roadway damage. Climate is a huge factor - maintenance costs are much lower in Florida where they don't have to deal with the freeze-thaw cycle than they are in northern climates.

by Alex B. on Jan 5, 2011 12:13 pm • link • report

Oh no... Tom Downs, another Barry era retread who has failed our of every high level job he has ever had including Amtrak, and has not had a fresh idea since the late eighties. Just what Metro needs now more than ever.

by WMATA Mgr on Jan 5, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report

@Alex B.: What is the source for your claim "Everyone seems to be in favor of raising the gas tax except for those holding elected office. "?

The most recent poll on the issue I could find is a Washington Post-ABC News poll from 12/12/2010 which found an overwhelming majority of respondents opposing a $0.15/gal gas tax increase.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_12132010.html:

23a. increasing the federal tax on gasoline by 15 cents a gallon
Support 21% (9% strongly, 12% somewhat)
Oppose 78% (63% strongly, 15% somewhat)
No Opinion 1%

by Jacob on Jan 5, 2011 1:56 pm • link • report

@Steven Yates; I know several states exempt transit operators from state gasoline taxes. No idea on natural gas. Also not sure on federal. I know marine diesel is taxed differently.

In the long, long term, yes, alternative fuels will make the gasoline tax impossible to administer. But that future is a long way away, baby. There are any number of easy mechanisms (tax tires, vehicle tax, tax electricity) that are easy to use at stop-gap funding.

What is more true is right now the interests of urbanists and smartgrowthers are the same as people who want to import less crude oil and promote our national security. That will NOT be true in 25 years.

by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 2:08 pm • link • report

@Charlie
I thought that might be the case (re: taxes).

I guess I just disagree that the future is "a long way away." There are lots of conventional hybrids on the roads right now, and plug-in hybrids will be available nationwide this summer. Obviously they won't make up a huge segment of the miles traveled but as time goes on their share will most likely increase.

The examples you give each have problems when it comes to contributing to the highway fund. Taxing electricity will also capture lots of not automobile use (much more than non-automobile use of gasoline). A one time sales tax on a vehicle doesn't really capture how much it is used. Tires is probably the best route, but you would be unfairly taxing those who get flats while also encouraging people to drive longer on unsafe tires.

by Steven Yates on Jan 5, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report

@Steven Yates

You are way overestimating the impact of plug-in hybrids and electrics. And I was suggesting a yearly tax, like in Virginia or the UK. Say $500 for each electric vehicle. Problem solved.

Yes, it may be hard to find equilibrium. Higher gas prices means less demand, which means less gasoline tax, which means you have to hike the tax, which means less demand...etc.

But driving really is so essential that people are willing to pay a lot for it. Look at the UK. $7 gasoline (mostly tax), heavy yearly taxes on cars, and people still drive. Last time I remember looking it was about 9K miles a year, as opposed to the 13-18K you see in the US.

So there is a lot of ceiling in the gas tax before it becomes implausible. I've done the numbers and I could survive $12-14 gasoline. The problem with higher gasoline prices is more indirect: other goods and services become more expensive. Goodbye ebay and amazon....

by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report

One of the most compelling proposals I've seen regarding an increase in the gas tax came from ultra conservative Charles Krauthammer. He proposed a revenue neutral gas tax increase. he would raise the gas tax by $1 per gallon, and offset that with a $14 per week payroll tax decrease. I'd quibble with the numbers, and make the gas tax much higher and the payroll tax decrease larger, but it seems like a politically palatable way to get an increase done.

by jcm on Jan 5, 2011 2:50 pm • link • report

If a gas tax increase could not get through Congress in the last session - it certainly is not going to happen now.

by Fred on Jan 5, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report

thm, you complain that BRT means "you're either going to need to build a much stronger road base than an ordinary road, or you're going to need a much more frequent resurfacing".

Take a look at the buses that many BRT systems are actually using... they tend to have more axles than american buses.

Average american bus:
40 feet long, 2 doors, 4 tires.

Average south american bus:
40 feet long, 3 doors, 6 or even 10 tires. (2 in front, 8 in the back).

Once again, don't confuse the technology with the implementation. Buses arent limited to 4 tires and 2 doors just because american transit agencies like to pretend that they are.

by JJJJJ on Jan 5, 2011 11:09 pm • link • report

I think the large opposition to a gas tax increase (as noted by the poll Jacob cited) is in part due to two things: people don't want to pay more to drive...even though we do every time the oil companies drive up the price of oil. And the second reason is because they're clueless as to what the gas tax is and where it goes. I noted this a few years ago in my home state (Minnesota), which at the time was considering raising the state gas tax to pay for a bridge program (this being in the first Legislative regular session after the I-35W bridge collapse). A lot of the arguments against came from those who oppose tax increases on principle, regardless of the type of tax. But a lot of the arguments against the gas tax bordered on the hysterical...people really didn't have a clue where the gas tax went. Which is disappointing since Minnesota's state gas tax has been CONSTITUTIONALLY dedicated to highways for 55 years. Their fears of it being redirected elsewhere were completely unfounded.

Granted, with what the House did with their rules yesterday, we don't have that same luxury anymore at the Federal level...

Captcha: Education Witorie

by Froggie on Jan 6, 2011 9:59 am • link • report