I Can’t Believe I’m Saying This


I actually find myself agreeing with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters.

No, not when she says that bicycle paths aren’t transportation infrastructure.

But in yesterday’s O, she has a letter to the editor pointing out that increasing gas taxes would not help deal with congestion.

She’s right, congestion pricing would be a much better way to go. So are progressives (because it incents desirable policy outcomes) and conservatives (because it’s market-based) going to find middle ground on congestion pricing?

,

16 responses to “I Can’t Believe I’m Saying This”

  1. I think we need to look at WHY commuting is what it is – where people live, where they work, how far they commute, and why they live where they do, why they work where they work, and why they commute how they commute. And not just on aggregate overall data. Let’s get some real people to talk about their real commutes.

    If, for example, someone’s lived in the same neighborhood for 10 years, worked on the other side of town for the last 7, and drives to and from every single day, chances are good that a lot of the reason is “I have to.”

    Is it because they’re emotionally attached to their neighborhood? Is it because where they’re commuting to the only company, job, or position in their field in the area? Is it because the number of “options” to get to and from where they REALLY live and REALLY work (not just the metro area as a whole) look like a USSR ballot? Or is it because many of us are creatures of habit and once we get used to something, we don’t stop to think if there’s a way of doing things better.

    There really are people in Portland that commute by bicycle every day… even in the cold, wet depths of winter (I’m not one of them, but I see them when I wipe some condensation off the bus window as we’re going across the Hawthorne Bridge to gaze at the Downtown Portland skyline).

    Maybe it’s because they examined what they were doing, decided there’s a different way, and use their bicycle for something more than leisurely jaunts through the neighborhood.

  2. The last statement in Mary Peter’s letter read as follows:

    “Now is the time to examine how well we are investing the people’s money and to embrace new financing methods that are more effective and sustainable than the gasoline tax.”

    When speaking of financing and using the word “sustainable” in the same sentence, the effectual implication is financial self-sustainability as it applies to individual modes of travel. The interpretation being motorists and motor freight carriers pay for roads, bicyclists pay for bicycle infrastructure, and transit riders pay for transit systems – as it should be.

  3. I would suggest a combination of gas tax increase and congestion pricing. Keep increasing the incentive to eschew the gas guzzlers with the increasing gas tax and deal with congestion with congestion pricing. And for all you anti-government types… this should be revenue neutral. Shift the tax burden off the backs of workers and the middle class through a massive tax shift on to polluters.

  4. “Now is the time to examine how well we are investing the people’s money and to embrace new financing methods that are more effective and sustainable than the gasoline tax.”

    I know what Mary Peters is trying to suggest, but part of the reason the gas tax hasn’t been very sustainable is because state governments and the federal congress have refused to increase it to any degree close to the rate of inflation.

  5. From the article:

    it simply makes no sense to increase our reliance on gas-tax revenues while at the same time working toward a national goal of reducing our dependence on oil.

    Is there a better way to wean this nation off of fossil fuel than continued, steep gas tax increases? Make the gas tax (at least on fossil fuel) deliberately unsustainable as we try to push people to plug-in biodiesel hybrids. Then use the gas tax revenue as a capital fund for new infrastructure: road, rail and bicycle facilities.

    However, ongoing operations and maintenance should be funded through demand-responsive tolls (for freeways and bridges) and some mechanism like a street maintenance fee for local streets.

  6. Is there a better way to wean this nation off of fossil fuel than continued, steep gas tax increases?

    Yes: a mileage tax (i.e., a true “road user fee”) to replace the gas tax and a variable fee attached to the DEQ emissions test fee (or DMV vehicle registration fees) to charge less to those who drive fuel-efficient vehicles and charge more to those who insist on driving vehicles that get less than 25mpg. I’ll let the economists debate exactly how much, but something akin to existing DEQ/registration fees for hybrids and a progressively higher charge based on the true emissions or fuel consumption rating of a given vehicle. Combine this with “value-pricing” to encourage people to stay off the roads during peak travel periods.

    we need to look at WHY commuting is what it is – where people live, where they work, how far they commute, and why they live where they do, why they work where they work, and why they commute how they commute.

    Quite simply because they can. (And can’t nobody tell them not to! it’s a “free” country! –I’ve actually heard this argument a LOT) And they think it’s the government’s responsibility to facilitate their chosen mode of travel, because the government built all these “freeways” over the last 50 years giving everybody the expectation that that’s what the government is supposed to do, provide “free” travel.

    In the 19th century and before, you lived close to where you worked, you shopped close to where you lived, and you probably didn’t have to cross a river to get anywhere that you absolutely had to go to every day; if you did it was because you were wealthy and could afford the toll. Not that we need to revert to 19th century standards, but it was a far more sustainable time and we can learn a lot from looking back. Nobody had the expectation that the government was going to come in and enable them to travel ten miles or more one-way to get to their job every day.

  7. Can Chris or others explain briefly why congestion pricing is superior to a gas tax? It’s probably been discussed here before, so feel free to just point to that discussion if you prefer.

  8. Congestion pricing (more recently referred to as “value pricing”) is a variable toll that is meant to deter drivers from using a certain road or from driving into a designated geographic area during heavily congested times (usually “rush hour”). The toll will vary based on the time of day or, in more sophisticated installations, the amount of traffic on the specific roadway.

    It is not “superior” to a gas tax, it is a different beast unto itself. The gas tax collects a fixed amount of revenue per gallon, theoretically causing those who drive more to contribute more to the pool than those who drive less. Value pricing is a tool for reducing congestion by increasing the perceived “cost” of a trip to encourage drivers not to congest a certain road or geographic area.

  9. Congestion pricing, as implemented in a few European cities like London that have really desperate congestion, requires motorists to pay a toll when they enter or leave the city (or rather, the central city). As the wikipedia article explains it, you pay over the web, or by a text message, or in shops with terminals. Enforcement is done by camera-equipped vans, like mobile speed or red-light enforcement. If you’re snapped and didn’t pay, you’re fined.

    This strikes me as unduly complicated and unnecessary in a city the size of Portland (quite small compared to London). Unlike London, there’s not much downtown congestion here; as the radio traffic reports attest, the congestion here is mostly on the freeways.

    On the west side of US 26 — the only freeway I see much at rush hour — one sees a lot of 1-person cars with both Oregon and Washington plates. People live where they can and work where they can, and this often requires a suburb-to-suburb commute. Would a Vancouver-to-Beaverton commuter, who’s just passing through Portland, be charged? Where would you put the camera van? Yet that’s where the heavy traffic is. If you’re interested in congestion pricing, read that wikipedia story — it is very instructive!

    The gas tax is a pretty good way to fund the infrastructure – people who drive heavier guzzlers for longer distances put more of a load on the road, and so should pay more, and they do. But the politicians have to face up to the fact that roadbuilding costs keep going up, so the tax has to keep going up. The money has to come from somewhere, and the gas tax works as a petty decent user fee. Maybe the people understand this issue better than the opliticians do, so let’s keep sending them the message.

    Peters is right in that the gas tax won’t in itself reduce congestion. We need incentives as well as disincentives. In my view, that translates to better alternatives than the car, for those whose circumstances might let them give up the car. Many modes come to mind — bikes obviously, and a much better bus and rail system. In Portland we’re making a lot of progress in both areas, but we need to make some heavy reinvestment in the bus system. Rail is great, but it will never go everywhere, so we need a really good bus network too.

    And we ought to look seriously at the costs and benefits of using the Willamette better. I know, we discussed water taxis on this blog last week, so I won’t belabor it here. But we really ought to look into water taxis and small ferries seriously.

  10. I suspect in the long run we want two different kinds of taxes/fees to replace the gas tax. The gas tax serves as a ‘user fee’ intended to pay for upkeep (and arguably expansion) of the road system. It’s a pretty blunt instrument and makes no distinction about where you drive or what impacts on the environment your choice of vehicle makes (there’s a rough connection to mpg, but not directly to emissions).

    I would suggest that in the future we look to:

    1) Congestion pricing – not the cordon style like London or what’s proposed in New York, we’re not dense enough to need that – but rather pricing freeway lanes, since that is our scare resource here. This could be done on the whole freeway system, or at selected nodes where bottlenecks occur. An HOT (High Occupany Toll) lane approach could be used, or some more general scheme. This is basically a demand-management approach that recognizes that some trips have more economic value than others. And I would agree with those who have suggested that a significant portion of the revenue should go to providing alternatives.

    2) A Carbon Tax that would truly capture the externalized costs of our roadway usage (and probably other things as well).

    I don’t tend to favor the VMT tax approach ODOT is working on. I think it’s two cumbersome and requires too much technology with creating the real policy impacts we need.

  11. I think it is important to distinguish:

    Tolls are a traditional method of paying for new infrastructure like bridges and highways. The money is borrowed to pay for them and the users are charged enough to pay off the loan. The more users there are the lower the toll will be since it is being split more ways.

    Congestion pricing is the opposite. The more potential users, the more it costs. Essentially you set a number of trips a facility can handle and then sell them at the lowest price where the number of users does not exceed that capacity. When the number of potential users is less than the capacity there is no charge.

    Market-based pricing is an entirely different animal again. The market question is how much will someone pay to use the facility and the price is set as high as possible to optimize the total amount collected. A half full freeway at $10 is going to generate more revenue than a $2 charge on a full freeway. This is the question private toll operates ask. And it is likely the question any pricing for revenue generation will eventually ask.

    Given the discussion of privatization, I think it is important to distinguish between revenue generation and facility management tools. Congestion pricing is a way to manage existing capacity and allocate limited available trips based on the value people place on them. Tolls are a way to have users pay the cost of the facility. Market decisions are designed to maximize revenue.

  12. Portland ranks as a number one bicycling city for one reason—climate. If you live where the winters are harsh and summers are unbearably muggy, then it may be true that bike paths are not, at least now, considered a priority. If you live in a rural or suburban area and need to get twenty miles or so at a shot, bicycling is not practical. I wish the whole US had the climate that Portland or the Silicon Valley has—but it just doesn’t.

    People may eschew alternative means of transportation because they have numerous places they have to get to each day, or need to work in various locations for temporary periods. Bicycling a route you are unfamiliar with can be dangerous and wintertime conditions make that worse.

    Before we talk about new taxes we should scrutinize transportation proposals to see if we are really finding the best and most cost-effective solutions. Many people have reasoning processes that are influenced by vested interests—e.g. like preserving their career. So, I would not trust any politician’s shopping list of projects. These may reflect more what they think is needed to get re-elected than what they may genuinely believe is necessary.

    There was quite a bit of contention over Bill Sizemore’s efforts to limit propoerty tax increases and the potential impact on government budgets. Is anyone, today, significantly riled up about the fact the State of Oregon is not getting the amount of tax revenue it could had that initiative not been approved? I would rather see what transportation projects are truly needed–and realistic cost estimates–before going for new taxes.

  13. There was quite a bit of contention over Bill Sizemore’s efforts to limit propoerty tax increases and the potential impact on government budgets. Is anyone, today, significantly riled up about the fact the State of Oregon is not getting the amount of tax revenue it could had that initiative not been approved?

    No. Because the State of Oregon never got any money from the property tax and still doesn’t.

  14. “part of the reason the gas tax hasn’t been very sustainable is because state governments and the federal congress have refused to increase it to any degree close to the rate of inflation.”

    The reason the gas tax on the Federal level has not been sustainable is because the Federal Highway Trust Fund supported by gas tax revenues is being siphoned off to pay for light rail, streetcars, bus systems, transit infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, property development, nature trails, etc. There is simply too much of a dependence on auto related taxes to support and subsidize other modes of transport. The gas tax was designed to fund roadway projects, not everything else. The problem that exists today is the political social engineers like Congressman Earl Blumenhauer that refuse to adopt tax fairness principals with a user pays method to fund the alternative modes of transport. Such methods would include supporting a national tax on bicycles and bicycle usage to pay for bicycle infrastructure, a national farebox tax or surcharge paid by transit users to fund transit projects and grants, and redirecting Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars so they can ONLY be utilized for roadway construction and maintenance.

    Additionally, at the state and local level the same scenario exists: too much of a dependence on auto related taxes to support and subsidize other modes of transport and too many politically motivated social engineers unwilling to directly tax the alternative modes of transport. Alternative modes of transport need to be financially self-sustainable, paid for by the users, before there is any radical change in the funding method for roads and highways.

  15. Funny this topic. The feds/states eliminated tolling pretty much across the country a good half century ago, now they want to put it back in place under the guise of a different name, and instead of private control it’ll be under Government control. I can see the honest debate now.

    Democrats (I wont’ call them progressive because it is a subversion and loaded use of the term)

    “We want the Government to control it so it will be based on the needs of the people.”

    Republicans (Same with that conservative word, it’s loaded and horribly utilized)

    “We want the Government to control it so it is market based on the will of the people.”

    …and the Libertarians will say,

    “We want the people to control it through trusts, corporations, business entities, or a new legal structure in order to put the maintenance, operation, and control into the hands of the individuals that are actually vested in the use of said systems. We want true market control.”

    Of course the Republicans and Democrats will then laugh at the Libertarians, call them whatever they do these days, and run off to their big dreams of additional control and subjugation over the way society is forced to work. Heaven forbid the Government cede say back to the people of the nation.

    Either way, because of the eb and flow of reality, some type of price will be put into place at some point. The end user will then incur a larger cost, and cover MORE of the actual cost of auto usage. Which I personally think is good, but I digress that this is some new precept, we’re in this place and this condition of decision making solely because of the “planners” and politicians in the first place. If the roads had been left to the responsibility of the people, markets, and business and the Government provided nothing more than loan tools and mechanisms we’d be having “congestion pricing” already.

  16. I would suggest a combination of gas tax increase and congestion pricing. Keep increasing the incentive to eschew the gas guzzlers with the increasing gas tax and deal with congestion with congestion pricing. And for all you anti-government types… this should be revenue neutral. Shift the tax burden off the backs of workers and the middle class through a massive tax shift on to polluters.

    Revenue nuetral?

    Then you state to shift the tax burden off the backs of the workers and middle class through a massive tax shift on to polluters?

    You’ve got your numbers backwards.

    The poor and middle class ARE the big polluters.

    The upper 10% income earners pay over 90% of the tax bracket, thus ALREADY being damned for a MASSIVE SHIFT of taxes onto what are technically NOT the largest pollution creators. In addition to that the other huge tax burden sits on corporations and businesses, which is truthfully not paid by them, but shifted through higher costs to regular people. Thus higher consumers pay higher taxes and cover the larger percentage of that cost for products.

    …thus, the middle class and poor don’t pay squat, and the produce the highest demand and create the largest amount of pollution.

Leave a Reply to Terry Parker Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *