The Perils of Cutting Back

Technocrat

The Perils of Cutting Back

Charles E Hill

Fri Sep 05 11:35:00 -0700 2008

Politics.

manage

The U.S. Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, primarily to ensure a dependable source of financing for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and also as the source of funding for the remainder of the Federal-aid Highway Program.

An unprecedented decline in driving will deplete the federal Highway Trust Fund by the end of September prompting the government to ask Congress for an $8 billion emergency infusion Friday.

The Act authorized that revenues from certain highway-user taxes, could be credited to the HTF to finance a greatly expanded highway program enacted in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Originally, the HTF focused solely on highways, but later Congress determined that a portion of the revenues from highway-user taxes dedicated to the HTF should be used to fund transit needs, resulting in a 5 cent increase in the gas tax (to 9 cents), of which 1 cent would go towards transit, to help fund the new account.

Prior to the creation of the HTF, federal financial assistance to support highway programs came from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. While federal motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes did exist before the creation of the HTF, the receipts were directed to the General Fund, and there was no relationship between the receipts from these taxes and federal funding for highways. In the original Highway Revenue Act of 1956, the crediting of user taxes to the HTF was set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1972, but since then, legislation has been passed to extend the imposition of the taxes and their transfer to the HTF through September 30, 2005.

The Perils of Cutting Back

guest

Fri Sep 05 12:40:08 -0700 2008
manage

"the HTF was set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1972, but since then, legislation has been passed to extend the imposition of the taxes and their transfer to the HTF through September 30, 2005."

What have we been doing with the tax money since 2005? I didn't notice the tax go away back then, but maybe it did. Or maybe the date is wrong?

There also exists, as usual, some possibility I've misunderstood something there.

The Perils of Cutting Back

zogger

Fri Sep 05 12:41:43 -0700 2008
manage

They will use stuff like this as a huge club to force full time real time tracking and a new tax based on miles driven, no matter what vehicle you are driving. With that said, horses, mules and oxen are looking better and better to me lately. I already grow the bio fuel. They'd probably eventually tax that as well though....

The Perils of Cutting Back

Uncle Entity

Fri Sep 05 14:08:11 -0700 2008
manage

One would think that there would be a direct correlation between miles driven and highway maintenance. The less miles driven the less wear and tear with the added bonus of less demand for new construction and widening projects.

I can attest to the sorry state of the US highways though. I was driving my scientifically designed road quality machine yesterday (as opposed to the work truck) between Arizona and the SF Bay Area, my lowered pickup with air suspension. Not enough air in the airbags and it bottoms out on the big bumps while too much air is a really harsh ride with the big bumps trying to launch the front end. But in the middle is a really smooth ride...of course I haven't put in the computer control system yet so it's all a matter of trial and error to find the sweet spot and since there is a slow leak in one of the front bags a constant process.

Arizona roads are pretty good, 75 mph (~20 mpg) blast across the desert between Phoenix and the California border but once inside Ca it's a whole different story.

Between the Az border and the LA area is a 70 mph (22.59mpg) run with halfway decent roads but once you get to around Riverside they just turn to complete crap until over the Grapevine and into the Central Valley where they become almost bearable again (and where I lost track of my gas mileage). Then over into the Bay Area where they turn to bad again.

It does amaze me that the richest state in the union has the worst roads in the country (with the notable exception of the West Virginia toll road which is complete and utter crap—last time I was tempted to ask for a refund) but this hasn't always been the case.

Back when I left Soviet California for good in '99 the roads were well maintained and arguably the best in the nation, I started driving truck at the end of '98 so had a good base of comparison for this claim. Today it's the total opposite with the States that had horrible roads replacing Ca in the race for the best and Ca falling way below even the worst of the states back then like Arkansas.

I do have a theory on this that has a lot to do with the reason Arnie is now in office and the state managing to rack up a big pile of debt in the wake of pseudo-deregulation of the energy sector under Pete Wilson. Gotta pay the interest on that debt somehow...

The Perils of Cutting Back

mrjk

Fri Sep 05 15:20:53 -0700 2008
manage

There isn't a very direct correlation between CAR miles driven and highway damage. Semi-Trailers loaded do so much more damage (orders of magnitude) that they are the driver for a lot of issues. Usage by large heavy trucks in general determines the life of a road from the vehicle side.

As an aside, construction also matters but I always laugh at folks from Germany especially that talk about how much longer the autobahn lasts than roads in the northeast US or Canada. They generally are constructed better, but for the same reason that sugar maple's don't produce much sap in Germany even in the same climate zones, the weather is nicer. There are much less harsh freeze crossing days in Europe than in the U.S. Maple syrup production is almost the perfect gauge on this, because quick harsh transition from say, 28 to 40 F are just what is needed by Maples. And just what is needed to crete wonderful potholes ...

The Perils of Cutting Back

phred14

Fri Sep 05 16:31:23 -0700 2008
manage

There isn't a very direct correlation between CAR miles driven and highway damage. Semi-Trailers loaded do so much more damage (orders of magnitude) that they are the driver for a lot of issues. Usage by large heavy trucks in general determines the life of a road from the vehicle side.

I'll second this. I was once reading an article on the fairness of road taxes, etc. The article mentioned that many trucks carry a sign to the extent that, "This truck pays $xx,xxx per year in road use taxes," with the implication that they're paying more than their fair share.* According to the article, even with those very high highway use taxes, compared the the wear and tear on the road that they cause, they're underpaying. I do remember seeing those signs, though not recently, and they did have values between $10,000 and $20,000.

*Perhaps they're also asking for more courtesy and respect, and I have no problem with that, at all.

Geeee, Vermont is well known for maple syrup - and our potholes.

The Perils of Cutting Back

Uncle Entity

Fri Sep 05 17:12:01 -0700 2008
manage

It don't matter, the costs get passed on to their customers and eventually the consumers.

People think they can increase road use taxes on big trucks without having to pay those taxes themselves when they go to the grocery store for some reason. Kind of odd when you think about it.

Perhaps without subsidized roads more freight would be hauled by rail but that just shows the unintended conquenses of government policies and the real reason we consume something like 25% of the world's fossil fuels.

The Perils of Cutting Back

phred14

Fri Sep 05 19:11:58 -0700 2008
manage

The costs will get passed on, but I'll argue that that's good. The other meaning here, and the way the free market works, (Hah! Had to use that one on you :-) But I think you'll agree, here.) is that "excessively transported" goods will see their prices raised, both by fuel cost and by this added road use tax cost. Locally produced goods will become more competitive.

Obviously this isn't universal. For some things it will still make sense to transport long distances to markets. (But then the transport isn't "excessive.") Other things will make more sense to locally produce. "Local is the new organic," has gotten quite a bit of play, lately. Again, it's just the marketplace at work.

I'd rather it work this way, and have the costs follow the causes, than have lightweight, high mileage cars subsidizing heavy trucks on a per-mile taxation basis. Plus without cars subsidizing trucks, and as mentioned on an earlier post, they are today, more traffice just might move onto rails. I like the idea of loading semi-trailers onto rail for the long haul, and using trucks for the more local runs where rail doesn't go.

InterModal

wowbagger

Fri Sep 05 16:59:54 -0700 2008
manage

Thankfully, the amount of semi traffic on the major interstates has really gone down over the past few years, with MUCH more traffic going by intermodal (seatainer to train to truck for the last few miles).

It used to be that driving on the interstates was a major pain: you'd get "grinders" composed of several MILES of trucks, all snout-to-tail (except for the one asshole who has decided he must pass all of his brother truckers at 0.001MPH relative speed). You'd finally manage to pass one, start to get a little way ahead, and then suddenly it would be a steel-cage match between your bladder (WE STOP NOW, OR I PEE!) and your brain (but if I stop, then that grinder will get ahead of me, and I'll have to pass it all over again!).

The past several years I've made long interstate trips, I've not seen ANY grinders at all, just a couple of trucks (still with the asshole passing at 0.001MPH, but now only passing 2 trucks, not 3 miles of trucks). I have also seen some truly heroicly long trains loaded with intermodal containers.

The good thing is that will GREATLY reduce the damage to the roadway, and so reduce the cost to maintain.

However, this is a fine example of "you can't win"- reduce the amount of traffic, so they raise the taxes to keep the revenue up. Increase the amount of traffic, and they will increase the taxes to pay for all the new work needed.

InterModal

Uncle Entity

Fri Sep 05 17:23:36 -0700 2008
manage

They're obviously just trying to get you to drive at a socially acceptable speed so you don't use more than your fair share of the carbon footprint. You can't be trusted to do it on your own, it's part of the Highway Watch program looking out for eco-terrorists.

Cars are designed for efficient fuel mileage at 65, how fast are the trucks going that slow you down? 65.001 you say? Heh, imagine that.

InterModal

Matt Fulkerson

Fri Sep 05 17:47:21 -0700 2008
manage

The best way to win is to play a different game. Find a truck going 55 mph, follow at a safe 3 seconds, turn on talk radio or your tunes, and enjoy the ride.

The Perils of Cutting Back

Champs

Fri Sep 05 16:24:05 -0700 2008
manage

I can sum it up in two words: Big Dig. Combine NIMBY with the unpopularity of (re-)construction and you can't do maintenance or route around it (mutter something about white megafauna).

The Perils of Cutting Back

Charles E Hill

Fri Sep 05 19:12:57 -0700 2008
manage

It does amaze me that the richest state in the union has the worst roads in the country (with the notable exception of the West Virginia toll road which is complete and utter crap—last time I was tempted to ask for a refund) but this hasn't always been the case.

That amazes me. Senator Robert Byrd, one of the longest serving and highest ranking Senators ever, is from West Virginia. He is, and has been, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for like ever. I remember seeing a news report that West Virginia got more Federal road money than any other State. More than most others COMBINED, in fact.

Now North Dakota, that is a State with bad roads. I drove I-94 thru that State once, East to West, and there were potholes big enough I though there was a military bombing range nearby.

There was a rest area in the middle of the State and it had a nice diorama about how they were improving the Interstate. Very detailed. Then I read the project was supposed to be finished in like 2012 (this was in 2004) and I swore I'd never be back.