What’ll it cost you to help resolve the nation’s transportation dilemma? A latte a week
If Congress follows recommendations unveiled today by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission — including a motor fuels tax hike to the tune of five to eight cents a gallon annually for the next five years — you’ll have to. That averages out to 41 to 66 cents a day for the average American motorist (groan).
But let’s put it into perspective: That’s less than the cost of a candy bar, and a fraction of the cost of your daily café latte, commission members said during the Jan. 15 press conference.
Historically, the public has opposed raising the gas tax, but commission members seem pretty confident the public will be more open to paying a higher fee if they know what it’s paying for. Their recommendation? Create 10 programs that would “focus on projects of national interest.” Those focuses range from bringing the existing infrastructure to a state of good repair, to providing freight capacity, to creating a “world-class” intercity passenger-rail system.
The revamped federal transportation program would appeal more to the public than the current plan, which was designed to create the interstate highway system and “has no sense of purpose or mission anymore” now that the interstate highway system has been built out, said commission Vice Chair Jack Schenendorf.
As much as we may gripe about paying even more to fuel our cars, we’ve been underinvesting in our transportation infrastructure for decades. It’s going to cost $225 billion to $340 billion annually to improve it. Bottom line: If we want to maintain (or regain?) our world-class transportation system, we’re going to have to pay for it.
Posted by: 
Angela Cotey | Date posted: 1/15/2008
Comments
Posted by Dave Smith on 1/15/2008 7:22:35 PM
There is a bit of an east vs. west mentality when it comes to determining the "completeness" of the U.S. Interstate Highway system. Many state leaders from the Intermountain West would argue that the Interstate Highway System is still incomplete since coverage is much less throughout the West compared to the East. The result is that many U.S. and state highways out West are having to fulfill the duties of handling de facto Interstate Highway-type traffic. As for a state-of-the-art U.S. high-speed rail system, it will only work if it is predicated for hauling freight. Passenger services should be secondary. Otherwise we end up having 99% of the populance subsidizing 1% of passenger rail advocates.
Posted by James Swidergal on 1/16/2008 11:29:06 AM
Let's really re-think what it'll cost if we only legalize drugs and the licensing and taxing of same. Regulate it much like alcohol and tobacco and we won't have to raise taxes on anything or start new taxes on compliant beverages. The funds that we save from all the drug deals that have gone bad by enforcement agents alone would fund any transportation dilemma, and possibly support any education initiative also.
Posted by Adron on 1/16/2008 1:47:27 PM
Better bet, just get the Feds out of it and let fees and direct incurment of costs appropriate where things will get built. Infrastructure for once, would get built where it should be. ...and on top of that freight railroads would have a large increase in pricing control since they wouldn't be incurring much larger costs for infrastructure than the competition. The intelligence of rail would pervade decisions to an even higher degree.
Posted by W. D. Green on 1/16/2008 2:30:44 PM
Wait a minute on the thinking of this article about a Latte a week solving our transportation issues. Excuse me, but at the tax rate per gallon of fuel our highways and roads of this nation already should be paved of gold. Why don't we have an accounting of where that fuel tax money is really going now that is being collected for our transportation needs? I am sorry, but I am not buying the premise of the writer in that all we need is a little more money. What we need to do is spend the tax money that is collected for transportation issues on solving those transportation problems and not send that money to the "General Fund".
Posted by Eugene Skoropowski on 1/17/2008 12:48:45 PM
Having worked outside the United States for several years, it was obvious our gas tax is the lowest in the world, its inadequacy was also eroding our ability to maintain our national infrastructure. Our balance-of-trade deficit, which has been reduced recently from more than $800 billion per year to somewhere above $700 billion per year is about 75% for imported oil. That money we ship off shore, much to countries that are likely to find ways to use that money to undermine our way of life. Europe figured this out decades ago. Our willingness to invest in ourselves and in our future is at stake here. I'll give up my daily latte if needed to give my kids and grandkids a future. Have we become so selfish that we are now unwilling to invest even in ourselves?
Posted by W. D. Green on 1/17/2008 4:52:46 PM
"Our willingness to invest in ourselves and in our future is at stake here. I'll give up my daily latte if needed to give my kids and grandkids a future. Have we become so selfish that we are now unwilling to invest even in ourselves?" Are we selfish as taxpayers that are paying untold millions and billions in fuel taxes for an accounting of where the fuel tax money meant for transportation issues is being spent? How much tax money is enough before we make ourselve non-competitive in the world markets? Taxes are an overhead expense to every United States Citizen. The higher the tax, the more each person has to earn in order to maintain the living they want or need. Do you think that Chinese railroad employee is paying anywhere near the taxes of his counterpart in the United States? Why do we do this to ourselves thinking that government can solve all of our problems with just a little more tax money? It is a silly notion that we can have a better country for our children if it just costs us the equal of a Latte a day. If anything for the sake of our children we should lower government spending and work on lowering the National debt so our children will not be paying for the problems we can solve ourselves, without government.
Posted by Stan on 1/18/2008 10:51:00 AM
One of the problems with this bill is the language. As usual, Congress has left it vague "10 projects of special interest" (like an Alaskan bridge???). Until the bill contains more specific language, it is an opportunity for pork-barrel, fiscally unsound projects that will be used for political payback (what else is new). People would have less of a problem paying increased fuel taxes if the dollars went into the commmon good, and less into the pocket of the hot politiocal project of the minute.
Posted by LHKMAN on 1/18/2008 11:24:07 AM
National transportation policy? We have none. The DOT was created more than 40 years ago to develop a national transportation policy. The first few secretaries tried, but were stopped by the OMB, which feared angering important constituencies, among other things. More recent SecDOTS have not even tried, particularly the current one, Ms. Peters. In her diatribe against the tax proposals she focused only on the GWB "no new taxes" mantra and never commented on the substance of the Commission report. Last time I checked, she was a member of the commission, although it is my understanding she seldom participated in its activities -- easier to be hypercritical, I guess. If this country had a real national transportation policy, perhaps some vehicle traffic crowding highways would be driven to railroads, which being privately owned and financed can build their way out of congestion. Sadly, we won't ever know because Ms. Peters is more interested in selling the Bush "message" than in solving transportation issues.
Posted by Dr. David Morris on 1/22/2008 10:02:08 AM
Rather than more and more taxes, why not have NO TAXES ON CORPORATions nor Corporation provided health care only taxes on INDIVIDUAL earnings and a government sponsored universal health care system. It works well in Scandinavia and they have a vastly higher standard of living and no poverty.
Posted by Richard Hanford on 1/22/2008 1:41:02 PM
Dr. Morris makes a good point. Eliminating corporate taxes would be a stimulus for business but would put a lot of accountants out of work, who's primary objective is to find a way to avoid paying taxes. We are a nation of spoiled children, who do not want to take responsibility for our infrastructure and services, and we don't want to pay for what we do have. How often have you heard "I don't have kids, why should I pay for school taxes?" Or "I don't ride the train, why should I pay for freight?" Until we have leadership in this country that can reverse the mantra that taxes are evil, never mind the principal source of income for the government, we will continue to be mired with a crumbling infrastructure.
Posted by LHKMAN on 1/23/2008 10:32:25 AM
The last time I checked, this was a blog appearing on the Progressive Railroading daily news digest website. Therefore, silly me, I assumed the discussion(s) would be about railroading. I was wrong. Now we get screeds about the morality or immorality of corporate taxation and health care. I'm sure there must be websites and blogs out there for learned discussion of taxation and healthcare. This isn't one of them. Can we get back to the issue of whether people will spend the equivalent of the cost of a latte a week for transportation infrastructure?
Posted by Dr. David Morris on 1/23/2008 12:23:46 PM
LHKMAN's observations on the 17th and 22nd fail to recognized that tax policy makes the modernization of railroading feasible. Railroading was born out of tax policies, stagnated out of neglect and can again reach new levels of achievement through innovative tax policies. I would rather read constructive suggestions on railroading than simplistic diatribes.
Posted by James Swidergal on 1/23/2008 2:18:52 PM
Everything stated I agree with. Can we add that when and if this occurs,that we actually re-build our infrastructure,we can get guarantees from those doing the actual re-building that we will get structures,and bridges,and roadbeds,and highways,and etc. that will perhaps outlast a generation or two,and if it doesn't that builder will replace it free of charge to the taxpayer,please!
Posted by LHKMAN on 1/24/2008 12:50:41 PM
I apologize in advance for continuing this threat of back-and-forth commentary. Dr. Morris, I do not need instruction from you about public policy, taxation, or transportation infrastructure issues, having spent most of my professional life dealing with these. If the federal and state governments had treated the various modes equitably, many of the problems that now are crises would not have existed in the first place. Railroads, as private owners and operators of their infrastructure, are quite capable of building their way out of congestion. So far, all the railroads have asked from the government is an investment tax credit, which might give them some parity with motor carriers and water carriers that continue to underpay their aloquot share of the national infrastructure with which they have been provided. As for the fundamental change in taxation that you seem to be seeking, in the vernacular, the response is: fugedaboudit. Our federal government, legislative and executive, is so dysfunctional that nothing of the sort you recommend is going to happen, whether what you recommend might be good policy or not.
Posted by Dave Smith on 1/24/2008 7:31:11 PM
LHKMAN states "If the federal and state governments had treated the various modes equitably, many of the problems that now are crises would not have existed in the first place." Herein lies the problem - railroads want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be treated "equitably" along with other modes, but they won't adopt the open access philosophy of the other modes in order to facilitate that equitable treatment. They can't have it both ways - either keep the closed access philosophy and lose their logical share of public funding, or adopt open access and allow the flood gates of public funding to be opened all the way.
Posted by LHKMAN on 1/25/2008 1:15:15 PM
Mr. Smith - and others: The argument that railroads should open their networkd to competitors if they want equitable treatment just doesn't work. Let's start with the fact that motor carriers use a public right of way, so they really should play nicely and share. When they build their own rights of way, they can restrict use of their private property -- just as other busineses and railroads do. Would you allow a competing chemical company to come into your plant and use your facilities to produce a product that competes with yours? That's not all. The competitor would pay only the direct cost of using your facilities, but none of the overhead, mortgage or other system fixed costs. That just might give your competitor a cost advantage over you. I bet you wouldn't like that, but it's exactly what you seek for railroads when you advocate competitive access. Bah, humbug.
Posted by LHKMAN on 1/25/2008 1:19:43 PM
By the way, Mr. Smith, railroads do not seek public funding in any way, shape or form. They do want investment tax credits that would work as a stimulus for more capital spending to grow capacity to handle the anticipated volume of traffic that a growing economy will generate. Your beloved trucks do not pay their aloquot share of the PUBLIC's right of way that they use. So equitable treatment of modes has nothing to do with government funding for railroads or their infrastructure. As I said in a previous post, when the truckers pay for their infrastructure on the same basis as the railroads, then we can shift the debate.
Posted by JASwidergal on 1/25/2008 2:42:51 PM
All good points everyone. But what is the dilemma of our nation's transportation. All has been said is about trucks and trains,what about that big ol' sponge the airlines? Those aiborne suck holes get everything for free from Uncle Sam, new airports,new control systems,bailouts,etc. Why can't we spread some of that cashola around and satisfy all the transportation woes?
Posted by LHKMAN on 1/25/2008 4:04:19 PM
JASwidergal: It's not as simple as you posit. Major city airports bring in enough from airline landing fees, concourse concessions and parking to support themselves with little or no taxpayer support. Smaller communities do not, but they also don't have big "suck holes" of airports, as you call them. We could discuss aviation and its contributions or lack thereof, but this still is a Progressive Railroading website and the blog still deals with rail issues.
