CA: Do Not Ask for Whom the Road Tolls…

by Robert Farago

September 2nd, 2008 10:08 AM

ca do not ask for whom the road tolls 8230

The Newspaper reports that the California state legislature has blessed AB3021, a measure that will expand toll roads throughout the Golden State. The CA trip A ain't too pleased with the provisions contained therein. "We support the use of tolls as one option to pay for new infrastructure; however, because the very broad toll authority proposed in this bill is not limited to new construction and because revenue from the tolls could be used for a wide array of transportation and related efforts (well beyond the roads, streets, and highways used by toll payers), we must oppose the bill. Those goals should not inappropriately be placed on the shoulders of motorists by allowing the widespread tolling of facilities already paid for by existing taxes without clear and direct benefits for the toll payers." In other words, the cash cows will graze freely while providing precious little milk for the motorists paying through the nose for the farmers' livelihoods. Or something like that.

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 23 comments

M1EK on Sep 03, 2008

Richard, actually, the disconnect proves exactly what I said - the FHWA only covers expenditures made on 'highways' - i.e. signed and numbered components of state highway systems (including US and interstate highways) - but NOT including major arterial roadways funded at the local level (or non-major roads, but those cost a lot less money) - because they simply don't have the data collection tools available to go to every single jurisdiction in this country and get those numbers. It turns out that the driving urban drivers do on roads which don't get any gas taxes pays a big chunk of the missing money, and a big remaining chunk comes from sales and property taxes. For instance, using my driving, the FHWA would see all the gax tax collected from me (easy to tabulate) but not see how 90% of my driving miles are paid for - because 90% of my miles are outside the state highway system (I live in just about the oldest most urban part of Austin; the vast majority of even our major arterial lane-miles are locally funded). What the TXDOT study shows quite conclusively is that without this subsidy from urban drivers, the whole system collapses - suburban roadways don't pay for themselves. (Suburban drivers do spend a far larger proportion of their driving on roads which receive gas tax funding, in other words). To say nothing of the property/sales tax funding (my local taxes pay for state highways around here as well as all of those major arterials which aren't getting the gas tax bucks).

Like Reply
Geeber on Sep 03, 2008
M1EK: RichardD, you’re dead wrong. The Congress from New Urbanism is hardly an unbiased source. Reading what the Texas Department of Transportation says is quite illuminating, but it doesn't quite prove their point. For instance, we get this tidbit: State motor fuel tax is collected from all over the state and goes into a single pool of revenue—about one quarter of which goes to fund education, and about three-quarters of which goes to the state’s highway fund, where it is spent on transportation uses and some non-transportation functions of government. (emphasis added) First, it is talking about STATE motor fuels taxes, not federal taxes, which I assume you are talking about when you reference the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Let's stick to one or the other, please. Second, if you are concerned about Texas gas taxes not supported the roads you use, I'd suggest that you visit the nearby state capitol in Austin (I've been there - it's quite nice) and ask why a substantial chunk of these funds are being diverted to education and other uses. Third, we get to this: The significant point here is that historically the fuel tax paid in any locality of the state is unrelated to the road projects in that locality. That's an administrative (i.e. pork barrel) problem - the most powerful legislators get to direct funds for new projects. It's based on power and seniority, not actual need, or the source of the lion's share of the revenues. M1EK: What the TXDOT study shows quite conclusively is that without this subsidy from urban drivers, the whole system collapses - suburban roadways don’t pay for themselves. Based on that statement, I guess similar concerns could be voiced regarding mass transit systems, as every study conclusively shows that they don't pay for themselves, either. The same with bike paths, as they definitely are not supported by user fees. As per federal law, mass transit systems receive money from the federal Highway Trust Fund, which, in turn, receives tax revenues from the sale of motor fuels (gasoline and diesel) and certain vehicular products. When it was created, the Highway Trust Fund focused solely on highways, but later the federal government determined that a portion of the revenues from highway-user taxes dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund should be used to fund transit needs, resulting in a 5 cent increase in the gas tax, of which 1 cent would go towards the Mass Transit Account, which was created on April 1, 1983. If anything, at the federal level, drivers are subsidizing mass transit systems and bike paths (which were added in later versions of the highway spending bills). M1EK: For instance, using my driving, the FHWA would see all the gax tax collected from me (easy to tabulate) but not see how 90% of my driving miles are paid for - because 90% of my miles are outside the state highway system (I live in just about the oldest most urban part of Austin; the vast majority of even our major arterial lane-miles are locally funded). You're a sample of one. Extrapolating your experience to everyone does not necessarily present an accruate picture for the entire system. Please note that the majority of people live in the suburbs or in the country, and they do most of the driving (I thought that living the city meant less need to drive everyhwhere, which means less tax revenue paid and collected). They are paying the lion's share of the federal gasoline taxes. M1EK: (Suburban drivers do spend a far larger proportion of their driving on roads which receive gas tax funding, in other words). And they pay a higher proportion of federal and state fuels taxes, because they do more driving. M1EK: To say nothing of the property/sales tax funding (my local taxes pay for state highways around here as well as all of those major arterials which aren’t getting the gas tax bucks). Every state has a gasoline tax, too. How each state utilizes this revenue stream is up to its respective state government. Here in Pennsylvania, a portion of our sales tax goes to mass transit systems. Since everyone in the state pays the sales tax, but the biggest recipients of sales tax revenue are the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and Pittsburgh Port Authority, it's safe to say that residents in rural Bradford or Franklin counties are subsidizing transit riders in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh metropolitan areas. If you have a problem with how Texas pays for its roads, that is one thing. But to suggest that a Texas problem is a national problem is something else. Each state is expected to shoulder a large part of road and bridge construction and maintenance, and how it pays these expenditures is up to the respective state government. Your ire needs to be directed at Austin, not Washington, D.C.

Like Reply
M1EK on Sep 18, 2008

geeber, no, the FHWA stats include state and federal gas taxes, and the general equation holds (to greater or lesser degrees) in every state at which I've looked, including Pennsylvania (in that a much larger portion of the major arterial network in urban areas is locally-funded and usually not eligible for gas taxes).

Like Reply
M1EK on Sep 18, 2008

geeber, no, the FHWA stats include state and federal gas taxes, and the general equation holds (to greater or lesser degrees) in every state at which I've looked, including Pennsylvania (in that a much larger portion of the major arterial network in urban areas is locally-funded and usually not eligible for gas taxes). Additionally, your logic is critically flawed - my figures about proportionality were per mile driven, meaning, per dollar of gas tax assessed. In other words, for every dollar of gas tax I pay, I get far less benefit than does the suburbanite for every dollar of gas tax he pays. This is a per-dollar equation that holds no matter how much or how less he drives compared to me.

Like Reply