The State Highway System Runs a Larger Deficit than the MBTA

[Shepard]

I certainly like VMT and appreciate simplicity in application. However, I could see a simple objection to VMT based on odometer readings: what if x% of my driving is done out of state? (Example being an Attleboro resident commuting to Providence daily).

I drove 500 miles this holiday, of which 400 were in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York. Not too keen in MA taxing those miles, unless there's a good argument in favor of this.

Other complication: How do you tax out of staters for their share of VMT when driving here? What do you do about free-loaders who live here with Florida plates?

Thoughts?

 

[HalcyonEra]

I certainly like VMT and appreciate simplicity in application. However, I could see a simple objection to VMT based on odometer readings: what if x% of my driving is done out of state? (Example being an Attleboro resident commuting to Providence daily).

I drove 500 miles this holiday, of which 400 were in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York. Not too keen in MA taxing those miles, unless there's a good argument in favor of this.

Other complication: How do you tax out of staters for their share of VMT when driving here? What do you do about free-loaders who live here with Florida plates?

Thoughts?

I think the gas tax is already in essence a VMT. I'm not keen on the goverment knowing where everyone travels for the simple reason of extorting more dough out of the travelling public. Moreover, considering that interstate travel is so prevalent, VMT would only work on a national level, and if the Feds are administering it, well, you know where that is going to go and a fair disbursement isn't going to be the result. We should jack up the tax on deisel and reduce the # of heavy trucks on the road down, as it seems to me that they cause the most significant damage to the infrastructure due to their weight.

I live on a shortcut route, which is like living on the autobahn during rush hour, and at least once a week an 18 wheeler cuts down the road even though there is a small bridge (that was replaced just 5 years ago) with pretty low weight limit. Problem is, once those trucks get on the back road, there is nowhere for them to turn around, and they never do. GPS is our own worst enemy at times.

 

[Matthew]

What are the goals? I would say: paying for roads, paying for the externalities of gasoline usage, and allocating scarce space on roads equitably.

The gasoline excise tax should arguably be targeted at (2) there (a carbon tax would also work). That newer more efficient vehicles would use less gasoline is a good outcome.

As for paying for roads, there are a few ways to think about it. One school of thought says that roads are general infrastructure and have wide-ranging economic benefits and therefore should be paid for out of general funds. Restore the sales tax on gasoline, and undo the dedication of gasoline revenues to road construction (it should go to carbon mitigation). Another school of thought says that users of the road should pay for the road (and that will be propagated through prices, etc). So set up widespread, convenient open road tolling.

Finally, the fair allocation of scarce street space in congested areas seems to require tolling of some sort to accomplish fairly, using market-based pricing.

So I'm not entirely sure how VMT-tax fits into all of this. Many proponents of VMT-tax argue for variable rates based exactly upon what road you are driving, in lieu of tolling. So the simple odometer-based method is right out.

Also I would like to point out that by far the biggest damage to the roads comes from heavy vehicles such as 5-axle trucks. They do pay more fees and tolls generally, but not anything near the proportion to which they do damage. Keeping tabs on heavy commercial and industrial truck VMT is much more reasonable: the companies are probably doing it already anyhow. Plus, you want to know what routes they are taking, because those must be reinforced and repaired frequently.

I think a possible solution may be commercial VMT-tax for heavy trucks, and then the legislature must make a choice about how to sustainably fund roads; whether through tolling or general funds.

 

[jass]

+1. But I'm pretty sure that's a non-starter since it's party of the IHS and is not grandfathered in.

Put up a toll and tell Obama if he doesnt like it, to come remove it himself.

 

[novitiate]

Put up a toll and tell Obama if he doesnt like it, to come remove it himself.

I imagine the usual response would be to deny federal highway funding, which would eliminate the benefit from the tolls.

 

[HalcyonEra]

I imagine the usual response would be to deny federal highway funding, which would eliminate the benefit from the tolls.

Right, like they did in 84 to force all the states to raise the drinking age to 21

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I'll say it again - double the state's portion of the gas tax.

Yes, because driving a car with higher MPG means you put less wear and tear on the roads.

How about: no.

 

[Kahta]

Eliminate prevailing wage
Index the gas tax to inflation
Use tolled express lanes to fund highway expansions-- similar to the beltway in DC.

 

[omaja]

What are the goals? I would say: paying for roads, paying for the externalities of gasoline usage, and allocating scarce space on roads equitably.

The gasoline excise tax should arguably be targeted at (2) there (a carbon tax would also work). That newer more efficient vehicles would use less gasoline is a good outcome.

As for paying for roads, there are a few ways to think about it. One school of thought says that roads are general infrastructure and have wide-ranging economic benefits and therefore should be paid for out of general funds. Restore the sales tax on gasoline, and undo the dedication of gasoline revenues to road construction (it should go to carbon mitigation). Another school of thought says that users of the road should pay for the road (and that will be propagated through prices, etc). So set up widespread, convenient open road tolling.

Finally, the fair allocation of scarce street space in congested areas seems to require tolling of some sort to accomplish fairly, using market-based pricing.

So I'm not entirely sure how VMT-tax fits into all of this. Many proponents of VMT-tax argue for variable rates based exactly upon what road you are driving, in lieu of tolling. So the simple odometer-based method is right out.

Also I would like to point out that by far the biggest damage to the roads comes from heavy vehicles such as 5-axle trucks. They do pay more fees and tolls generally, but not anything near the proportion to which they do damage. Keeping tabs on heavy commercial and industrial truck VMT is much more reasonable: the companies are probably doing it already anyhow. Plus, you want to know what routes they are taking, because those must be reinforced and repaired frequently.

I think a possible solution may be commercial VMT-tax for heavy trucks, and then the legislature must make a choice about how to sustainably fund roads; whether through tolling or general funds.

We could have the general fund route in place as of yesterday with zero technology (i.e. transponders, extra meter reading, etc.) required. So easy it'll never happen! VMT for truck traffic is also an excellent idea - it's been far too long that trucking companies have received a heavily discounted pass to use roads.

 

[massmotorist]

Yes, because driving a car with higher MPG means you put less wear and tear on the roads.

How about: no.

No, but I think higher gas prices (and thus taxes) are a far more equitable and economically efficient way to bring down gasoline usage than the alternatives. Gas tax is outrageously easy to collect and generates sufficient revenue for road users to pay for the road. It also incentivizes fuel-efficient cars in far less arbitrary manner than things like hybrid/electric car tax credits, and in a far less inefficient way than CAFE standards (which may eliminate my car from production, for example, even though I'd be happy to pay a lot more for it).

Especially as electric and LNG commercial vehicles increase in popularity. The VMT is the appropriate way to go. There have been many privacy concerns related to photographic open road tolling and various transmitters. I think the answer is straightforward: Increase the gas tax and add a VMT based on odometer readings when you get your sticker. It doesn't need to be especially high but correlating tax to road use is an important approach to sensible taxation.

Assuming odometer fraud could be combated, not a bad idea.

Also I would like to point out that by far the biggest damage to the roads comes from heavy vehicles such as 5-axle trucks. They do pay more fees and tolls generally, but not anything near the proportion to which they do damage. Keeping tabs on heavy commercial and industrial truck VMT is much more reasonable: the companies are probably doing it already anyhow. Plus, you want to know what routes they are taking, because those must be reinforced and repaired frequently.

Yes. While I'm not so sure about GPS-type tracking (especially for owner-operators, who would fight it till the death), they ought to be forced to internalize the costs of road damage far more than they do, somehow.

 

[Semass]

What are the goals? I would say: paying for roads, paying for the externalities of gasoline usage, and allocating scarce space on roads equitably.

The gasoline excise tax should arguably be targeted at (2) there (a carbon tax would also work). That newer more efficient vehicles would use less gasoline is a good outcome.

As for paying for roads, there are a few ways to think about it. One school of thought says that roads are general infrastructure and have wide-ranging economic benefits and therefore should be paid for out of general funds. Restore the sales tax on gasoline, and undo the dedication of gasoline revenues to road construction (it should go to carbon mitigation). Another school of thought says that users of the road should pay for the road (and that will be propagated through prices, etc). So set up widespread, convenient open road tolling.

Finally, the fair allocation of scarce street space in congested areas seems to require tolling of some sort to accomplish fairly, using market-based pricing.

So I'm not entirely sure how VMT-tax fits into all of this. Many proponents of VMT-tax argue for variable rates based exactly upon what road you are driving, in lieu of tolling. So the simple odometer-based method is right out.

Also I would like to point out that by far the biggest damage to the roads comes from heavy vehicles such as 5-axle trucks. They do pay more fees and tolls generally, but not anything near the proportion to which they do damage. Keeping tabs on heavy commercial and industrial truck VMT is much more reasonable: the companies are probably doing it already anyhow. Plus, you want to know what routes they are taking, because those must be reinforced and repaired frequently.

I think a possible solution may be commercial VMT-tax for heavy trucks, and then the legislature must make a choice about how to sustainably fund roads; whether through tolling or general funds.

(Science major tries to remember economics 101. Hurts brain.) The concept of equitably allocating a scarce resource is a helpful paradigm. In this state we have basically said that we are not building any more highways. We have a finite resource (space) that needs to be conserved. Perhaps with a VMT concept, we should look to management of another resource that is managed - drinking water. In many towns, water is billed in such a way that everybody pays a baseline amount. This essentially pays for the pipes and the pumps. You then pay a variable amount based on your usage. Many towns have a low usage rate that applies to a typical household and a high usage rate that applies after a certain threshold of gallons to people who use a lot of water. Therefore, the people who use the most pay a higher rate per gallon as incentive to conserve.
We do not have a way to make people who use the most gas - and roads - pay more per gallon. Applied to VMT, consider the gas tax as the base and then add a VMT for miles over a given threshold. Say, if you drive over 20,000 (which is a lot) of miles per year, you would pay extra. If you drive less than the threshold, you pay no VMT. This would direct the revenue stream to the heaviest users.

 

[massmotorist]

This would direct the revenue stream to the heaviest users.

But therein lies the problem. Allocation of a scarce resource should be based on scarcity, not on total usage. Otherwise it's essentially a form of rationing. And roads aren't always scarce; most of the time they aren't. They are scarce on certain roads in certain directions at certain times. There's no justification for making the heaviest drivers pay a higher rate when they drive more miles. They're already paying more by virtue of driving more miles.

To be clear, there's two totally different ways of looking at VMT. It can be a pricing mechanism, or it can be a revenue source. In this case we're talking about a pricing mechanism. The danger of this is that it'd be easy for bureaucrats to confuse the two and just maximize revenue - and then you aren't alleviating scarcity, you're just reducing total VMT.

If it's solely a pricing mechanism, most of the time you would want roads to be free. Because most of the time there's no congestion and roads are free-flowing. But during peak hours, you want them to be extremely expensive - much higher than current tolled roads. Also, the only way to get there would be through a form of tolling or GPS tracking, which would raise civil liberties concerns and probably conflict with federal law, at least as far as federal-aid highways go.

 

[JonFrum]

Now that we're spending too much money, we have to raise taxes?


The state highway system didn't get into the maintenance mess it's in overnight. Why wasn't the money spent when it was needed, maintaining roads and bridges? That would be because politicians don't get elected for maintaining existing infrastructure - they get elected by giving away new goodies. This is always true everywhere - there's nothing to argue about.

If I'm in a budget crunch at home and I'm running out of money, the first thing I do is not to get a second job driving a cab. The first thing I do is look at where the money has been going, and cut all non-vital spending. How many new spending programs do you think the Legislature has enacted in the last 25 years? Every one of those took away money that could have been put into roads, bridges, dams, etc. But now, all of that spending has created new constituencies that have to be bowed down to.

The truth is that maintenance of infrastructure should always be at the top of the budget, and it should be untouchable. Instead, they push it off in order to buy votes - and feel good about themselves - and borrow (!) to pay for what can't be avoided. This is criminal. And every single person involved knows its criminal. They just hope they can get on their pensions before the whole thing collapses.

The first thing a new governor should do is to announce that no borrowing to pay operational costs will be allowed. That would flush the rats out of their holes. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with a gas tax. A gas tax could be part of a restructuring of the state's budget, but only a very small part. A gas tax won't prevent the necessity to borrow operational costs - it's just a band-aid.