Mary Peters, President Bush's Secretary of Transportation, is best known in green circles for blaming bike-riders and pedestrians for the decay of the nation's roads and bridges. But green-transit-hating Peters seems to be singing a different tune, now that the Highway Trust Fund is threatened by a decrease in driving.
Congress yesterday approved an $8 billion relief package for the fund, to compensate for decreased revenues from the federal gas tax. And in a telephone press conference with reporters recently, Peters acknowledged that high gas prices and the threat of climate change will inevitably change the transit habits of Americans. Perhaps, then, it's time for a new method of funding highways, she said:
We need a sustainable, supportable source of funding for our transportation system in our nation. And if we in America move away from the dependence we have on fossil-based fuels, run more efficient vehicles, run more renewable fuels, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we need to find a funding mechanism that will be sustainable, that will be responsive over time. The gas tax is simply not that mechanism ... we need to hear from Congress, from others in the community, and come up with a long-term solution.
Some straight talk from a Bush appointee in the final months of the administration. Now what can the federal government do to help spur the transition away from fossil-based fuels? Not a lot of details on that in the materials Peters's office released last week.
EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Pangolin Posted 10:20 am
12 Sep 2008
Now the DOT says that ain't so. Who you gonna trust anymore.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:06 pm
12 Sep 2008
So what I take home is that the USDOT needs a new way to raise money for maintaining and constructing highways and mass transit, as our infrastructure continues to degrage and fall apart - a bridge falling into the Mississippi was just a first sign.
True, the mass transit fund hasn't been affected all that badly yet, but there is no mechanism to give that a real "shot in the arm" to increase capacity; in fact many cities are curtailing bus and train transit due to rising energy costs. Bad combination!
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:41 pm
12 Sep 2008
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:31 am
13 Sep 2008
The situation in Houston, Galveston, and the greater surroundings is not so clear. Ike seemed to have less winds and surge than NOAA and the media predicted. It will take at least a week to understand the damages, since much of it is underwater or without electricity now.
Impacts on the highway and transit functions aren't known but could be quite severe. For all we joke about Houston being a totally unplanned community with no zoning, it did have a large bus and Metro-Rail program.
Thanks for asking, Jon, and prayers or best wished for those up the coast. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:41 am
13 Sep 2008
Can we just focus on the issue and not sling darts at someone or some political orientation. Jesus Christ already.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:20 am
13 Sep 2008
Remove the gas tax, but create mileage based car insurance, and tax that.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:45 am
13 Sep 2008
(Weight, IIRC, is what destroys roads.)
Don't tax the insurance. Just charge a mileage fee for road usage.
Pay as you go insurance would be great. Those of us who have a few assets have to buy 'uninsured motorist' coverage to protect us from those who don't. And that ain't fair.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:13 am
13 Sep 2008
Those of us who are law abiding citizens also have to buy weapons to protect us against those who are not. The government can not protect us against evil, just provide some limited capacity to make our lives easier.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:45 am
13 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:49 am
13 Sep 2008
They're doing a danged good job protecting us from the bad guys.
We get together as a community and hire them.
I haven't had to shoot a Republi, er, crook in years....
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:07 am
13 Sep 2008
Well I say to tax the insurance, because frankly, the only other way to do it is to put GPS tracking and reporting inside every car.
And frankly I doubt that would be politically possible, since people would scream bloody murder about "Big Brother" implications to that.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:42 am
13 Sep 2008
Plug in for a charge and your mileage gets automatically uploaded.
No need to track where/when.
We could do a very low tech version of that right now. Many places have required annual safety/emission checks. I'm sure mileage is recorded at the time.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:51 am
13 Sep 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:30 am
14 Sep 2008
So raising the tax on gasoline and diesel makes a lot of sense in one way, since it would recover some of the money needed for highways and transit.
However, it is horribly regressive for the poor and lower middle class, as well as the transportation sector (think truckers).
Politically, I think most uber-conservatives could care less about a tax being regressive, such as having to pay more for gasoline and have less food on the table. However, luck is on our side for the meantime largely because of the "no new taxes" mantra.
If we can figure out how to handle the socially regressive aspects of higher state and federal motor fuel taxes, I say jack them up to about 50 or 70 cents a gallon.
Remember, those folks making $14,000 a year can't afford to buy a brand new electric or hybrid car, my friends. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
ConsumeLessofIt Posted 10:41 am
14 Sep 2008
I also don't fully understand why there is a revenue crisis at the Highway Trust Fund. If there are less vehicles on the roads, the fund makes less revenue. But shouldn't less vehicles also mean less wear-and-tear, and less maintenance? Hence, there should be a correlation between number of vehicles and revenue needed.
Cheers!
Stu
www.ConsumeLessofIt.com
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:30 pm
14 Sep 2008
Solutions have to be politically acceptable.
Solutions have to have little to no impact on voters or voters have to be convinced that there is good reason for them to accept the pain.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:34 pm
14 Sep 2008
The second problem, actually mentioned in passing in this thread, was trucks. What's the average car, a half-ton to maybe a ton or two? A heavy-duty Class 8b truck-tractor is rated up to about 40 tons and about 5 to 10% of those trucks are overweight (which is why they have weigh stations on the highway). The ripple effect of all those axle wheels can actually destroy a road in three years if not maintained.
A third problem is simply severe weather. Up north it is frozen ground and frost heaves. Down south when it gets over 100 degrees, the road can so much it buckles. Extreme rain events can cause the base coats of material to delaminate or turn into mush. You'll see that up north, summer is "highway construction season" and down south it is the reverse.
What happens when maintenance stops, is that even your little electrics and hybrids could fall into giant potholes that could shallow an entire vehicle - New York comes to mind, as well as dome other places.
We tend to think of the highway motor fuel tax being used for completely new roads in the wilderness. This is not exactly true ... most are tearing up old highways and building new ones from scratch because they are so dilapidated. Unfortunately, our country does not place a high premium on preventative maintenance, and only does it when funds are available.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 1:13 am
15 Sep 2008
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 1:14 am
15 Sep 2008
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
canibefrank Posted 1:56 am
15 Sep 2008
Permalink