Congress has stepped forward with $8B to plug the holes in the Highway Trust Fund.
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has proposed $1.7B for public transit systems. Think it will happen?
Congress has stepped forward with $8B to plug the holes in the Highway Trust Fund.
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has proposed $1.7B for public transit systems. Think it will happen?
0 responses to “$8B for Roads, How Much for Transit?”
I read the text of Sen. Clinton’s bill (linked from the linked article). I think it’s Fitting that the press conference would be on the anniversary of the ATU’s founding. It looks good; it appears the funds could be used either to mitigate and/or rollback fare increases, or used to expand service.
Only problem is it doesn’t explain how the funds would be covered/paid for. More national debt, I presume.
Other than that, there are too many other ways to spend $1.7 billion.
It should be a tax on transit fares paid for by transit passengers that funds the Clinton proposal – just like fuel and other taxes on motorist road users contribute to the Federal Highway Trust Fund. As for the Morrison Bridge, the DJC article failed to mention that part of the money will be used for a bicycle lane. That portion of the funding ought come from a tax paid only by freeloading bicyclists.
Wow Terry, those are great ideas! How come you haven’t mentioned them before?
Terry: The $8B for highways is coming out of my pocket, it is coming from the general fund, not from gas taxes. If they were going to raise gas taxes to pay for the $8B, that would be different, but given that the money is coming from the general fund, it is only fair (according to YOU) that it be spent based on the mode split of the people that paid for it, and if all the money for the Morrison bridge was spent on cars, then we should call it “social engineering” and “freeloading motorists.”
Two things:
1. Freeways should be self-funded with tolls as much as possible. At least in the past, the Feds (I’m assuming through the HTF) have paid for up to 90% of their costs. It would also encourage states to spend money wisely, and not because they can get it at little cost to them.
2. If fuel and other motorist taxes went first to paying for air pollution, water pollution (like the 40% of the Big Pipe needed due to road runoff), oil defense and other things actually related to the extraction and burning of fuel, there would be little, if any, money left for road projects.
Also, I’d like to note that the article says that the fund is paying for Sellwood Bridge planning, a rural intersection and the MLK Viaduct–things that largely benefit motorists.
Jason McHuff Says:
1. Freeways should be self-funded with tolls as much as possible.
Yeah, but then they wouldn’t be freeways, they’d be thruways or highways or parkways . . . toll roads seem to be very common back east, but out here in the Wild West we don’t have much experience with them. Hence the hysteria when anyone suggests using tolls to fund a bridge.
Yeah, but then they wouldn’t be freeways…
No, they would be. A freeway is a road classification meaning that it’s a free flowing design, aka no traffic lights, driveways, rail crossings, or lift bridges. Which, oddly makes I-5 one of the few Interstates that is not entirely a freeway. A freeway can be tolled, just like any other road, provided you don’t have traffic controls to control the tolling.
Once you add traffic signals (either from cross traffic, ship traffic, or rail traffic) the road is then an expressway. Once you add driveways, it’s a conventional highway. Technically, even NW 23rd (for example) is a conventional highway.
At least, that’s the meanings of the words to most DOT’s.
Dave wrote: A freeway can be tolled
No, a freeway cannot be tolled. The “free” in freeway means that there is no toll.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freeway
If a “freeway” has tollbooths, then it can become an “expressway”, “turnpike”, “highway”, “toll road”…but NOT a “freeway”.
Jason McHuff wrote: 1. Freeways should be self-funded with tolls as much as possible. At least in the past, the Feds (I’m assuming through the HTF) have paid for up to 90% of their costs. It would also encourage states to spend money wisely, and not because they can get it at little cost to them.
Why?
Is there a reason that freeways (and by “freeway” I am assuming any type of controlled access highway, “free” or “tolled”, grade-separated or not) should be 100% cost contained while other roads that provide more of a local mode be tax-subsidized?
Should we not extend this same line of thinking towards mass transit as well? Should non-local transit services, like Amtrak, commuter rail (i.e. WES, Sounder) and light rail (MAX) be fully cost contained, while local routes like busses and (I cringe at the suggestion but it fits my own definition) Streetcar be allowed to provide a subsidized fare?
We apply this standard to airports – most commercial air service facilities, like PDX, are fully cost contained. PDX actually makes a profit which is used to cross-subsidize Troutdale and Mulino airports as well as the Port of Portland’s marine operations (the Marine terminals also receive some tax subsidy). I know that Vancouver’s Pearson Field, and McMinnville’s municipal airport also receive no local taxpayer subsidy but do occassionally receive grants from the federal Airport & Airways Trust Fund (which has a massive surplus of funds within the account).
Erik Halstead Says:
Dave wrote: A freeway can be tolled
No, a freeway cannot be tolled. The “free” in freeway means that there is no toll.
That was certainly my understanding, but there appear to be a number of dictionary definitions that agree with Dave, in which “free” means no intersections.
Personally, I think this is nuts, but I am often in conflict with the slackness of modern American language. I’m old enough to remember when the term appeared (at least I think I am) and it definitely related to the lack of tolls.
And, oops, according to Merriam-Webster, the term is much older than I thought (and much older than me). 1930? Seriously?
Now they just need to come up with something to revamp Amtrak, like make it go faster and more frequently between Eugene, Salem and Portland.
Matthew said: “The $8B for highways is coming out of my pocket, it is coming from the general fund, not from gas taxes.”
First, I did not realize Matthew had such deep pockets. However, I seem po remember hearing or reading somewhere that the $8B was actually a reimbursement to the Federal Highway Trust Fund which would mean it is pay back from money taken out for other purposes and therefore came from motorist paid taxes.
Jason McHuff said: “Freeways should be self-funded with tolls as much as possible…”
Then to should transit. That would mean an almost four fold increase in fares just for operations since TriMet farebox revenues cover only 21 percent of operational costs, plus a hefty tax on transit fares since the funding to pay for transit capitol projects and infrastructure come the Federal Highway Trust Fund (approximately 20 percent of the fund) at the federal level, and from various other funding and taxing sources at the local and state levels. Bicycle infrastructure too ought to be self funded with a direct tax on bicyclists. In actuality, motorists pay a greater share of the infrastructure they use (in addition to subsidizing other modes) than any other mode of transport and the roadways they pay for benefit everybody. .
First, I did not realize Matthew had such deep pockets. However, I seem po remember hearing or reading somewhere that the $8B was actually a reimbursement to the Federal Highway Trust Fund which would mean it is pay back from money taken out for other purposes and therefore came from motorist paid taxes.
Where did you read that Terry? I can’t find anything that mentions this. I did find an AP article that says the following:
“The Senate has tried several times this year, and as recently as Monday, to funnel money into the fund, only to be blocked by Republicans who wanted to offer amendments or who objected to transferring $8 billion from the Treasury’s general fund into the trust fund, which is made up of money coming from the federal gasoline tax….
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who previously had opposed moving on the legislation without an opportunity for amendments, said it would not be right for those involved in projects to ‘be blindsided by the fiscal irresponsibility of the Congress.’ But he said he still felt that transferring money from the general Treasury ‘does even more egregious harm to the future of this country by significantly extending the deficit.’”
Which makes it pretty clear that the money was getting transfered out of the general fund into the highway fund. So it does appear that cyclists, pedestrians, and railfans are footing the bill.
Regarding tolling freeways, it would encourage states to consider what’s actually the best solution for moving people in an area, as well as for the area itself, instead of simply building a freeway because they can easily get money for it. If there wasn’t easy money, I don’t think the Mt. Hood Freeway would’ve been considered or equivalent freeways that have bulldozed and polluted neighborhoods been built. In addition, it would discourage overuse of them (congestion) and would provide a money stream for expansion if congestion does happen.
But moreover, I think my main reasoning for self-funding freeways is that the limited access points and ramps make tolling easy to do and without privacy invasion fears, unlike on surface streets. And I in no way mean that non-freeways should be subsidized.
Outside of urban areas, tolls could encourage more use of rail instead of trucking. Steel flanges on steel rails have much less resistance than rubber tires on asphalt and trains can carry much, much more than a single truck.
As for transit (and bicyclists), I’d like to note what I said about how pollution clean-up and oil defense might suck the trust fund (and other sources) dry if they had to be paid for before any road projects were considered. However, if road users did have to pay for much more of the costs of road use, I would not be against higher fares for higher-quality transit (e.g. MAX). In fact, I would support a rational discussion of whether light rail and other expensive projects are the best way to go.
Jason McHuff wrote: But moreover, I think my main reasoning for self-funding freeways is that the limited access points and ramps make tolling easy to do and without privacy invasion fears, unlike on surface streets. And I in no way mean that non-freeways should be subsidized.
Doesn’t the gas tax effectively do this? I don’t believe that establishing tollbooths eliminate privacy invasion fears; it’s quite easy to install cameras (in fact they usually do) to capture toll evaders; the various RFID systems that electronically toll users… A gas tax is collected at a remote location, is not tied to a particular vehicle, can be paid in cash without any connection to a particular user.
Outside of urban areas, tolls could encourage more use of rail instead of trucking. Steel flanges on steel rails have much less resistance than rubber tires on asphalt and trains can carry much, much more than a single truck.
But the majority of freight movement in the Portland area, even within 150 miles of Portland, is not suitable for rail service.
You are not going to see Fred Meyer and Safeway send all of their hundreds of trucks taking the Clackamas exit off of I-205 and putting them onto rail. You are not going to see the hundreds of UPS, FedEx, DHL, and USPS vehicles going to rail. You are not going to see the majority of local delivery services go to rail. And we are seeing more and more shippers go from rail to truck, because the railroads refuse to provide service even when it’s banging on their door – witness Morse Brothers abandoning their gravel train from Hillsboro to St. Helens, Cascade Steel/Schnitzer Steel trucking scrap metal instead of using the existing railroad route over Rex Hill. The shippers are there and the railroads are asleep at the control stand. Raising trucking taxes isn’t suddenly going to change the economics of railroads to start investing in their infrastructure.
And don’t forget, that even Metro, of all people, refused to put garbage on the train – unlike most of the Puget Sound region that uses rail transport to ship their garbage to Arlington and Roosevelt landfills. Portland will continue to put 80+ trucks on I-84 every day through the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area.
Doesn’t the gas tax effectively do this?
Not effectively, because the gas tax is a means of revenue generation, not revenue allocation, even if it were to be limited strictly 100% (state & fed) to road building/maintenance.
That’s because the gas tax doesn’t inherently answer the question of where the highways should go.
(And yes, I realize that federal transit funds allocations don’t inherently answer the question of where transit should go, or by what mode, either.)
I have proposed in the past that rather than involuntary invasive GPS and identifiable transponder-based tolling, the state instead pays a statistically significant number of volunteers to carry GPS devices, and get a clear picture of demand patterns and revenue patterns, and use that to help decide where to allocate gas tax (and/or weight-mile tax in the case of alternative-fuel vehicles) revenues.
The gas tax tells us how much fuel we’re consuming, and where we’re buying it, but it doesn’t tell us where we are going or where we want to go. Most involuntary tolling schemes have privacy concerns. But a statistics-gathering scheme with voluntary (and scientifically validated) participation might just work.
the gas tax is a means of revenue generation, not revenue allocation
And that’s basically why I don’t think the things like the Highway Trust Fund should exist. When all of the taxes are put in/come from a single, big pot that goes past Congress (or state legislators), there’s too much temptation for allocation based on politics and not the highest/best use. You have representatives wanting to send money back to their area, lower governments wanting money that they don’t have to collect, lower governments not wanting the money going elsewhere, etc.
Tolling allows revenue generation from a specific road to be tied directly to spending on that road, hopefully leading to more efficient spending and a road that is best based on what people want.
As for privacy fears, a) governments can put up cameras and capture license plates without toll booths [this has been done, though I forget whether it ended up being legit or not], b) I don’t think a tolling authority would care about people who pay their toll with cash and c) people who are really worried can take a different route.
people who are really worried can take a different route.
They can as long as proposals like ODOT’s GPS tolling scheme never come to pass.
governments can put up cameras and capture license plates without toll booths
Yes, they can, but it will be a long time before this happens at every intersection with integrated real-time logging/monitoring capability. (Not too long, but at least on the order of a decade or too, long enough to hopefully iron out the laws regarding privacy.)
It’s a fine point, but many privacy advocates draw a distinction between as-it-happens look-up/recording/monitoring, and after-the-fact review. (For example, the difference between running background checks on all cars that pass a camera, and running background checks on those which run a red light or break the speed limit or are involved in an accident.)
In my view, it you’re trying to solve a particular problem (in this case, correlating road revenues to road funding), and there is a practical solution which does not erode privacy, that solution should be considered superior to other more invasive solutions.
Just to make it clear (and as I said earlier), I am only talking about tolling freeways, and having cash booths for people who don’t want a transponder. Given that the basic road system is basically a necessity for driving, I’m OK with it being paid for with a general road use tax.
Just to point it out, there are cameras all over downtown already:
http://www.portlandonline.com/keepportlandmoving/index.cfm?c=45701
And of course, those are just the ones that are owned by PDOT. ODOT has another set:
http://www.tripcheck.com/Pages/RCMap.asp?curRegion=16&mainNav=RoadConditions
Neither of those have tape connected to them, nor are they high enough resolution to get plates from, (or at least, the images that are available online aren’t,) but I highly doubt it would take a change to the law or anything to change those two things…
So while I totally support the civil liberties arguments for toll booths, realize that it you aren’t trying to “prevent” a police state, but actually “remove” the police state that we already have/are very close to having.
Matthew –
The phrase I’m looking for is “defer” or “slow the growth of”…
– Bob
The problem with people volunteering to carry a GPS is that the data is very unlikely to be “complete”… And while that is fine if you have no or bad traffic data estimates in the first place, if you do have good traffic estimates and are trying to use the GPS to improve them too much, it might not work, and instead you’ll just end up with some weird results.
For instance, the national data for bicycle traffic estimates is based on a study of something like 250 trips, clearly, not a good model in the first place. And so researcher at Portland state took GPS data from something like 1000 people for a week and is in the act of making the model a lot better. Great idea, (I tried to sign up myself, but they already had enough people in my category.)
But the model will never be perfect, and they know it. For instance: Portland is the strip club capital of the world, so obviously some people in town go to them. I imagine some people ride bicycles there too, in fact, I may or may not have done that myself in the past, and I may or may not do it in the future. (During pedalpalooza there was actually a ride that went on a tour of strip clubs, although I will say that I didn’t go on it.) But if I was carrying a GPS that week, the chance that I’d go to a strip club would be zero. And I’m not married and strip clubs aren’t illegal and I don’t get extra services in the back room or anything, so it isn’t like I’d get in trouble for going, but really, do I want to share that sort of information with a researcher at PSU? No. Now, what if the person you turned the data into, wasn’t at PSU, but at the DMV? Really, no.
Just to make it clear (and as I said earlier), I am only talking about tolling freeways, and having cash booths for people who don’t want a transponder.
While I’d happy pay tolls on our local freeways, it seems prohibitively expensive to modify every ramp within the state. I’d wager replacing every ramp would cost more than the revenue we could get out of them. And I have a hard time imagining how bad the traffic on non-freeways would become, like on Interstate Ave, MLK or Marine Dr.
Jason McHuff wrote: And that’s basically why I don’t think the things like the Highway Trust Fund should exist. When all of the taxes are put in/come from a single, big pot that goes past Congress (or state legislators), there’s too much temptation for allocation based on politics and not the highest/best use. You have representatives wanting to send money back to their area, lower governments wanting money that they don’t have to collect, lower governments not wanting the money going elsewhere, etc.
That’s fine – except that is exactly how MAX was built – by political earmarked appropriations.
Eliminating the HTF essentially means shutting down MAX as TriMet won’t be able to build new MAX lines and won’t have federal dollars for vehicle replacement or other capital costs.
For most transit agencies this would be the death of the agency because most agencies use the same funding mechanism for bus replacements. But since TriMet refuses to do so (note their demands for a vote for bonding authority for new busses), the only growth for TriMet would be new busses. That’s fine by me.
Since most, if not all, future Streetcar projects are demanding federal funds, we’d kiss the Streetcar goodbye too.
Jason McHuff wrote: As for privacy fears, a) governments can put up cameras and capture license plates without toll booths [this has been done, though I forget whether it ended up being legit or not], b) I don’t think a tolling authority would care about people who pay their toll with cash and c) people who are really worried can take a different route.
See here:
Transport for London Congestion Charging: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/default.aspx
How it Works: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6718.aspx
How to Pay: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6744.aspx
except that is exactly how MAX was built – by political earmarked appropriations
I understand that transit projects, like highways, can be funded at least partly based on politics and not just need. As I said earlier, “I would support a rational discussion” of what transit is best for a corridor, if urban highway projects were better vetted and if road users had to pay for much more of the cost of road use.
People would be attracted to transit in the first place then, and it wouldn’t have to be based on what people are more willing to ride. It would be decided that either cheaper transit will work OK or that the higher ridership is enough itself to justify the project.
Eliminating the HTF essentially means shutting down…vehicle replacement or other capital costs.
I would expect at least some of the Federal taxes/funding to be replaced at the state level. (Its hoped that states are better money handlers than Congress, which is less connected to citizens, can deficit spend, etc). In addition, higher transit use (and also hopefully people living closer in & taking shorter trips) would also mean more revenues generated internally.
we’d kiss the Streetcar goodbye too.
And if greenfield and low-density development had to pay for the true costs of what they use/cause, just like road users, the streetcar would not be needed to attract development/density. This would also take away an argument for MAX.
A thought… let’s put unnecessary disagreement on hold for a few minutes and mention a much more pressing issue…
Will the $500 billion U.S. Government takeover of bad loans that was announced today (Friday) force the country to put everything else on hold either indefinitely or for several decades?
As some pundits have put it regarding the bailouts, “we’re all socialists now.”
So I was at the big look task force meeting last night, and there were a couple people that had made INVESTMENTS in rural property that hadn’t returned as much money as they had hoped, (I didn’t hear any of them say that their land had actually lost value, just that they had hoped to sell for millions and now it turned out that they couldn’t,) and they thought that the government should help them out by making all of our lives a little worse. And if it hadn’t been the same month that the Fed bailed out an insurance company, rich homeowners, and bond holders of two companies, I might have thought that they were just silly. But no, suddenly their requests seem perfectly reasonable, everyone else got a handout, why shouldn’t they?
Sigh…
If we are going to be socialists, can’t we at least subsidize something besides rich people that made bad investment decisions? How about food? I’m middle class, and I spend 12% of my salary on food, I don’t know what the poor do. Or healthcare: My employer pays it, but I used to pay for it myself and it took 20%, and I’m healthy.
, the chance that I’d go to a strip club would be zero. And I’m not married and strip clubs aren’t illegal and I don’t get extra services in the back room or anything,
I think we should get a topic going on
*Strip clubs and transit, how are they linked?*
If we are going to be socialists, can’t we at least subsidize something besides rich people that made bad investment decisions?
HEY PAL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS, SWEDEN?
No this is AMERIKA, and the only people that can get loans, bailouts and credit cards are the RICH!
See in Amerika, (freedom and democracy)if your poor that means your lazy, a slacker and deserve to die.
But if your rich, then that means you are industrious,hard working and the government must make sure that you continue to be rich.
I thought everybody understood that?
*Strip clubs and transit, how are they linked?*
WAIT A MINUTE, I GOT IT!
Take TRIMET to the stip joints!
Your guide to taking transit and visiting what Portland is famous for:
STRIP CLUBS!
Let’s publish the first users guide to taking public transit to all the area strip/gentlemens/dance clubs!
See the seamier side of Portland on a $4 DAY PASS!
Who needs taxi’s when;
HOW YOU GET THERE MATTERS!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003336880_portlandclubs02m.html
Try the decaf, Al. :)
Al M. wrote: WAIT A MINUTE, I GOT IT!
Take TRIMET to the stip joints!
Well, Al, did you know that TriMet’s vast investment in improving the quality of bus service has resulted in ONE new bus shelter on the 12-Barbur route?
And guess where it’s located?
Why, adjacent to Fantasy Adult Video, near the Portland/Tigard city line.
There’s also a pretty busy 12-B stop next to the “Big Bang” bar (with nude dancers) and Private Pleasures, an “adult erotic entertainment” lingerie and modeling location at 53rd Avenue; the Castle Superstore at Barbur & Capitol (better access on the 43 and 44 lines, the inbound 12/64/94 stop is convenient – and has a shelter – but it’s a little bit of a way from the outbound stop), and the G Spot is up next to the Multnomah Boulevard crossing. (There used to be a…ahem…toy…store across the street but it closed; it’s now a liquor store. And there’s a bus shelter in its parking lot.)
For the history seeker, there is the 12 stop at Hooker Street – named for the General who was known for “purchasing” R&R for his soldiers. (It too has a pretty nice bus stop shelter, even with a lighted advertising sign.)
And don’t forget the OTHER half of the 12 line, well known for its history of prostitution and Portland’s red light district – including the seedy Sandy & 82nd stop.
And it was the 12 line where two teenaged lesbians were kicked off the bus after engaging in some…um…well they weren’t just holding hands.
(I’m thinking that you and I need to do a video of this! Or maybe a new version of TriMet TV’s 72 bus…since after all the new nightlife on 82nd is making front page news in the big O.)
Yea y’all think I am RIDICULOUS!
Just wait till I publish my:
“TAKE TRIMET TO THE STRIP BAR’S”
With Bar descriptions, bus stop ID’s, and secret behind the “green” door special services, and a complete itinerary!
And I will never give up the caffeine!
:-9
As you can see;
ERIK IS WITH THE PROGRAM!
As always!
:->