More government blather obviously intended to support maintenance of the status quo, Garl. This so-called cost-benefit "analysis" doesn't begin to deal with a truly fundamental issue: do we need more highway capacity at this particular point, and if so, are there alternatives?  The so-called tax gap is typical of the rhetoric from those interests that obviously believe in alchemy.  They would have the rest of us believe that dross can be turned into gold, and because that can be done, we don't need no more stinkin taxes.  Perhaps we should just do nothing and watch the country, including Texas, grind to a halt.  The railroads, don't forget, can build their way out of congestion as long as they have continued access to capital markets, which they will have in any free-market pricing.  If government tampers with rail pricing, then all bets are off.

This article does not make sense.  If the roads are not paid for, who is out the money?  I believe that the point that is not said is that the state motor fuels tax does not cover the cost of the roadway network.  This is not news.  It is not clear if the author was stating that the total fuel revenues, state and federal, covered the costs of some of the highways or not.  But, as everyone already knows, tax moneys from other tax sources, sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes, are used to pave and maintain roadways.  Then there are the exise taxes on other items, motor vehicle specific and not.  There is a tax on the "rubber" in each tire sold, on lubrication oil and on other fluids and materials needed to operate autos and trucks.  And, of course, there are the fees and taxes paid to register the vehicle.  All of this is to say that the system was set-up to susidize the roadway system from all areas of government revenue, not just the fuel taxes.  This hides the true cost from the average driver quite well.

Is there a solution?  Perhaps an honest audit of each level of government that is involved in roads and highways would make the costs more evident and believable.  Such an audit should not try to over-simplify the results.  The IRS's statement on how much it allows as a deduction for business use of a private auto only scrathes the surface.  Few people realize that the first foot travelled in a year probably costs more than the next half of the miles travelled that year, combined.  Consider how much fuel and repair could be purchased by the annual car payment, the registration, and the insurance fees for an auto.  But these are paid "up front", before the vehicle ever reaches the road.

This doesn't address the main purpose of the roadway network.  The street or road in front of each home or business is almost universally that property's access to the world.  Few have direct access to rail or water, and even fewer have direct access to an aircraft out their doorways.  Even in New York City where many can forgo an automobile, the individual must usually walk on a public sidewalk on one end, the other, or both ends of a trip by transit.

My point is not that the situation is hopeless.  Rather, it is that the solutions are not to be found in reports of studies that are written in bureaucrateze.  We need straigt answers and the ability to size each of our modes of transportation to the size of the value it contributes to the overall economy of the country.  Fewer cars and trucks and more economically sound highway construction and maintenance will probably come about.  But to make this work, we all need numbers that really mean something.

I believe that our common law background recognizes the right to use roads adjoining our land, and our obligation to suppor them through taxes (or, in olded days, by working of them).  What is in question is the limited access regional and national roads.  

I do not believe that these roads "pay for themselves" because they are exempt from property tax as contrasted to parallel railroads, which have to recognize the value of their land in the rates they charge in order to pay the taxes.

The Texas DOT study apparently touches on another aspect of whether the current rates of motor fuel tax are appropriate by using a 40-year life for roads.  Much of our Interstate system is at or beyond this age and we hear that the state and Federal governments are "hamstrung" in their ability to fund maintenance because of taxpayer resistance to raising the (20-year old) motor fuel tax rate.  

Toll roads may be the only way politicians can keep their promise to never raise taxes and still find money to perform maintenance to the existing network of roads.

If you believe a toll on a previously "free" highway is not a tax, I've got a bridge in Arizona that I'm sure you will want to buy.  All the demagogue politicians who prattle about never increasing taxes should be condemned to sitting in the worst of rush-hour traffic on the highways that don't get properly maintained or expanded.

The American 'RAIL' -ROADS- paid for themselves...

after they built the worlds finest infrastructure, the grandest railway stations & terminals, the most powerful stream  electric and diesel locomotives, the moast elegant and comfortable passenger coaches, the most efficient railway post office---etc...

Todays 'roads' are petro-puppets of OPEC...

Railstiesballast summarizes this discussion in one phrase.  "I think..."  The problem is that no one actually knows exactly.  And the announcement for the Texas DOT study does not give sufficient details to help anyone know, either.

In my prior post, I did not intend to indicate that there was something wrong with my property taxes going to maintain the cul de sac in front of my home.  I just was trying to indicate that the Texas report (and most other reports that I have seen) does not help in figuring how much of my tax, and which tax I pay, goes to that cul de sac and how much of which goes to I-10.  

Moreover, the Texas report announcement only indicated that one highway probably cost many times the amount of taxes collected on the fuel burned by vehicles traversing that highway.  Following that logic, we could only justify a few highways.  Those highways would need to climb up mountains on very steep grades to burn maximum amounts of fuel.  And, of course, no highway lanes could be justified to bring the vehicles back down the mountain, unless there was a toll charged.  Absurd? Yes, but that is what conclusions would logically come from the nearly non-existent information that these press releases for studies provide.  

Try this, RailroaderWhoRemembersThings:  the federal gasoline, diesel and vehicle excise taxes go only to support construction and maintenance of federal-aid highways, those with U.S. and Interstate highway numbers.  State collected taxes are all over the lot; some states divert to non-highway purposes, while others have constitutional provisions that require that the money collected be spent on state highway systems.  Most cul-de-sacs and other local streets are supported by plain old general revenue taxes collected from property owners.  That is one reason some of us can confidently and accurately say that the subsidies for streets, roads, and highways is considerably greater than shown by most budget documents.  With regard to the Interstates, the most reliable studies I have seen show that they are pretty much pay-as-you-go, but that the 18-wheelers don't come anywhere close to paying their proper share and that they are effectively subsidized by overcharges of light truck users, while the private auto pretty much pays it proper share and is neither subsidized nor subsidizes anyone else.  And now you know why the big truck lobby doesn't want to ever have to deal with a ton-mile tax or any other taxing mechanism that just might assess them with their proper share of highway costs.  I'll bet your cul de sac doesn't require repaving every four or five years nor a sign requiring trucks in excess of 30,000 gvw to stay in the right lane.

Larry, I do not disagree with anything that you wrote.  But I understand that the term "subsidy" means, to most taxpayers, that moneys that they paid to government that they expected would be used for one purpose are actually used for another.

My primary problem with the press release is that, in citing only one example in the Houston Area and addressing only the one source of revenue, the Texas state tax on highway fuels, the study does not effectively answer their own question, nor does it truely expand understanding much.

I believe that most of us expect that our general property taxes will support keeping a serviceable road out at the end of our driveways.  We expect that we will pay something in the cost of the lot upon which our home is built to have that road put in place before the house is built.  This meets our expectations and would not be understood by most people as a "subsidy".  Of course the Texas press release does not mention this source of funds.

It is the other sources of funding and the "all over the lot" spending of the moneys generated that really fuel my desire for an audit.  The audit would need to be done state by state and, in most states, locality by locality, for the data to be applicable everywhere.

The real answer, unless there are many government agencies in receivership in Texas, is that the roads are getting paid for.   We do not know from what pocket, we do not know how much is being spent and we do not know if the work is done with appropriate efficiency.  But we do know that it is being paid for or the bankruptcy courts would be finding out for us why the bills are not being paid.

I think the two of us really just need someone to take the other side to argue.  Now, this is just one-upmanship in presenting reasons why the press release was a waste of money.

I cannot speak to Texas, but here in Colorado we have a badly deteriorating infrastructure - both bridges and highways - and a loony bunch of politicians who promise to cut state funding even more than it already has been cut.  I just hope the lot of them are driving n the elevated portion of I-70 through Denver when it collapses.  I cannot apeak for anyone else, but I have no problem understanding what a subsidy is and when something is being subsidized.  I also think most citizens who take the trouble to vote do, too.

RailroaderWhoRemembersThings:  Larry lays awake at night  (alone) devising "one-upmanship" responses to anything anyone writes.   Get used to it.  

Jim, the engineer (he claims) doesn't seem to like my response to RailroaderWhoRemembersThings.  But like so many people who only can complain and never seem able to offer any constructive thoughts, he doesn't spell out what his unhappiness is about.  Jim appears to be doning nothing but trying to start an argument between two other people.  Sorry, Jim, but it won't work.  I have no problem with Railroader... and I don't believe he has any with me.  I guess that leaves you as the problem.   Have a nice day.

Larry - you mean to tell me that section of I-70 east of I-25 HASN'T collapsed yet?  I figured it would have dropped sooner than the I-35 span over the MS River in Mpls.

Nope; still standing.  The state has poured a lot of maintenance money into keeping it up, but is saying now that it's remaining life is almost nil.  Of course, the state hasn't the money to replace it.  Meanwhile, our anti-government ideologues are planning to put a measure on the ballot next year that would roll back vehicle registration fees that were increased just this year to provide an expanded flow of funds for highway and bridge maintenance.

Note to Railwayist:  I've been doing a pretty good job of ignoring you lately and you have helped by posting fewer comments than usual.  For that, I thank you.  You really should study your economic history, though, because the reality of railroad construction is somewhat different from the idealized version you present.

Railwayist: The American 'RAIL' -ROADS- paid for themselves...

Yes and no.  In the East, most railroads were franchised and their construction subsidized by coastal cities that wanted to ensure their role as centers of commerce for imports and exports.  In the West, many lines were built with the help of land grants that encouraged their construction.  Some grants were repaid, others were not.  Railroads paid for themselves?  It all depends on how you measure and how you use words.

Railwayist:  after they built the worlds finest infrastructure, the grandest railway stations & terminals, the most powerful stream  electric and diesel locomotives, the moast elegant and comfortable passenger coaches, the most efficient railway post office---etc...

And your point is?

Railwayist: Todays 'roads' are petro-puppets of OPEC...

So you say, but I see no evidence to support these outrageous statements in your posts.  A little economic history - hell a little knowledge of economics - might serve you well, Railwayist.  The issues being discussed at this blog site are important enough without a continuous litany of shameless sloganeering.

Garl:  I agree with you - hell, I've been haranguing the last several SecDots on the subject - that the U.S. needs a national transportation policy.  You have expanded the call to includ energy and environment, and you're probably right about that.  

I agree with your position that roads don't pay for themselves.  But neither does transit, or really any other form of transportation that relies on public investment for right of way and operations.  As has been said before, figures don't lie, but liars can figure.  The comparison of under-recovery of highways vs. transit requires an understanding of rates of taxation dedicated to each, total actual costs of each.  As used to be said in Washington, "I've never seen a Greyhound snowplow out on the highway during a storm."  Do we include in highway costs the cost of snow removal, the cost of state and local police, both for traffic control and enforcement and for cleaning up the mess of colliding trucks and other motorists?  All of these factors and more have to known and considered before any comparison of costs and benefits can be valid.

There you go again, Garl, letting the facts get in the way of perfectly good preconceived notions.  Actually, these numbers are a politician's dream.  It's a reminder of the old saw: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  No mention or recognition that the vast majority of highway miles in this country are not supported at all by the federal gasoline or excise taxes.  Those are the several million lane-miles of municipal streets, county roads, and many state highways.  All taxpayers pay for their construction and maintenance, usually through property taxes.  One does not have to be statistics guru to reach the conclusion that roads do not pay for themselves.  Most of the blather we see here on this subject ultimately comes down to the anti-tax mantra of the libertarians among us.

I was fortunate to be among those who were able to partake in the grand opening of the new -'SPHINX'- Gazzoline station in Warren, Michigan. The 'SPHINX' sign is mounted upon a pole within the frame of the 'Greatest Pyramid of the known universe-filled to capacity with creamy black crude oil---the elixir of the PHAROILS.

With all due respects, Garl, I don't think it is necessary to equate motor vehicle fatalities with combat casualties.  Those who die in service to the country deserve all the respect we can give them and do not need to have their deaths trivialized.  I know you didn't mean to trivialize, but a curmudgeon like me just might read it that way.  

I also have a major problem with the inclusion of many rail-highway grade crossing fatalities as "railroad" fatalities.  They are and should be logged as motor vehicle fatalities.  Fully one in seven involves a motorist, usually drunk, driving his vehicle into a train that already occupies the crossing.  Most of the rest result from a motorist making the fatal decision that he can beat the train.  When I have had people tell me that one of "my" trains killed so-and-sop, I ask how far the train chased him, pointing out that they put flanges on the wheels to prevent irresponsible engineers from taking off cross country to chase down innocent motorists.

As I have futiley tried to reason with RAILWAYIST, this is not a highway-railroad either-or issue.  Our nation needs a certain amount of transportation capacity if it is to move freight and passengers efficiently and safely.  Each mode has its own unique characteristics and we don't need to denigrate one to support the other.  Perhaps if this country ever got the national transportation policy it has been waiting for the last 44 years, we could allocate public resources more efficiently and wisely.  We sure don't do that now.

Great!  Now see if you can drive the logic of your comment into the skull of RAILWAYIST, who still is on his paranoid rant about oil, as I'm sure you've seen.  I'm choosing to ignore him, but will cheer on others who choose to engage.

And for the record and in the category of some people never learn, the governor of Florida has signed legislation allowing truckers to operate bigger/heavier trucks on Florida highways.  The legislation did not increase the taxes and fees that truck operators pay for the use of the public's highways.  I'm sure the governor of Florida will be among the first to whine and throw a tantrum when the handful of railroads still serving his state determine that more lines must be abandoned as non-viable.  I'd wager that the Florida Motor Truck Association , or whatever it is called, has contributed amply to the governor's campaign fund for his run for the Senate.  Cynical of me?  You bet.

Larry Kaufman wrote:  "[T]his is not a highway-railroad either-or issue."

My response:

Insofar as mass transit -- as opposed to freight hauling -- is concerned, I must (very respectfully, of course) disagree with you.  The following assumes (I know, I know; when one ASSUMES, one makes an ass out of you and me.) that you were also referencing mass transit in addition to freight hauling -- the later of which I know relatively little.

When it comes to modal choices of transportation, I am firmly of the mindset that the choice is an either/or proposition.  I believe this because "the Suburban Sprawl Lobby" -- a term of my own making -- has consciously sought to create a car-centric culture.  For a definitive in-depth discussion of what I am going to -- very briefly -- discuss, please read, then re-read, and then READ AGAIN, followed by yet ANOTHER re-reading of Robert Caro's classic _The_Power_Broker:__Robert_Moses_&_the_Fall_of_New_York_.  Every time that I have read this work from cover to cover, I have come away from it with something new.  It is that kind of book.  

It is possible that the physical -- along with its corresponding community -- destruction of the urban areas of the various metropolis's in the U.S. was, perhaps, inevitable.  With the advent of the automobile -- particularly after the innovation of the internal combustion engine -- the railroads (both passenger and freight) went into a steady decline that culminated in the federal government forming both AMTRAK and CONRAIL.  I realize that I am regurgitating information that you already know; but unless you have gone through multiple readings of Caro's work, it is quite possible (indeed, highly probable) that you are unaware of all of Robert -- he would hardly ever tolerate a stranger to call him "Bob" -- Moses machinations that created the car-centric culture that we are burdened with today.

Moses was a genius -- the genuine article; and for reasons that are not germane to this discussion he wanted to -- among other things -- build roads.  In New York City, however, he was confronted by the Tammany Hall political machine.  At that time -- this was the 1920s -- Tammany Hall operated like virtually all of the other political machines in the country operated:  They had their base located throughout the local neighborhoods that were -- largely -- organized along ethnic lines and cultural ties.  It -- of course -- goes without saying that Tammany Hall was (for the most part, anyway) hopelessly corrupt.  How a young man named Al Smith rose from the ranks to become New York State's premier advocate for progressive reform (and New York State politics in Albany were as hopelessly corrupted as they were in New York City and Tammany Hall) is a story for another day that can only be told by someone more knowledgeable than myself on the topic; but this much has to be said:  It was around this time -- and it was PARTLY through his acquaintance with Smith -- that Moses learned how to be a political operator.  Learned, in fact, how Tammany Hall operated; and he would put that knowledge to use (but not, it should be noted, to GOOD use) when he set about the neutralization of Tammany Hall -- an organization that ultimately changed and evolved just as much as Robert Moses did.

The U.S. is not a democracy; it is a republic.  One of the characteristics of a republic is that voters are not DIRECTLY represented; they are, instead, INdirectly represented.  Moses used this fact -- and its corresponding corollaries -- to develop a strategy that would neutralize Tammany Hall and allow him to build the roads that he wanted to build; and, in the process, he would literally revolutionize the political system in the U.S.  It must be told by someone else with a far better grasp of the facts than myself exactly how Tammany Hall came to be heeled (for a time, anyway) by the actions of both Fiorello  La Guardia and F.D.R.  This much, however, I can say for certain:  By the end of La Guardia's administration, Moses had both created and demonstrated the efficacy of a new political model:  A model based upon money.  Lots and lots of money.  Tammany Hall's ward style of politics depended upon a quid pro quo with the communities with which it organized:  In return for their vote, voters would get a limited social safety net to help them in times of need.  Moses figured out how to nullify this social contract.  He had road builders donate money -- and lots of it -- to political candidates.  It was now the age of Madison Avenue, after all, and Madison Avenue prided itself on its ability to sell ANYTHING.  Including politicians.  With the necessary money in hand that was necessary to purchase the services of Madison Avenue public relations agencies (and their attendant manipulation of public opinion), there were all of a sudden a slew of elected politicians that were in debt to Moses for having arranged the donations of the necessary monies to their political campaigns.  

Moses had become the Power Broker; by arranging the political alliances between ambitious politicians and road builders (and then developers), Moses accrued political capital.  Lots of political capital.  Previously, in the ward-style politics practiced by Tammany Hall and other political machines throughout the country, there would be a semi-direct connection between the voter in an organized community and an elected politician.  No longer.  Instead, a new phrase entered the zeitgeist:  You can't fight city hall.  There no longer was any meaningful connection between a politician -- elected or otherwise -- and the average voter.  Instead, what would become important would be access to money from the evolving lobbies that had a direct stake in the business and regulatory affairs of the major arms of government.  Moses was directly responsible for that transformation.  

Moses, of course,  used his political capital to get his desired roads built.  Moses, however, has one final innovation.  He created a coalition of seemingly disparate industries.  Developers, road builders, car dealerships, gas stations, auto repair shops, automotive manufacturers, and the labor unions in the automotive manufacturing, truck transportation, and construction industries were all brought to the same table by him.  Together, they would lobby the various branches of government to create a culture whereby people would live separately from their work AND their retail shopping.  We take this separation for granted now, but at the time it was positively revolutionary.  Politically, the business parts of the coalition would lobby the Republicans while the unions would lobby the Democrats.  The individual industries also agreed to look after each others interests; so this coalition achieved that most sought-after goal in the realm of business:  Synergy.  The whole literally was greater than the sum of the individual parts.  

And this coalition was organized nationwide and viciously destroyed whole cities and neighborhoods in the pursuit of profits.  That is my reasoning for disagreeing with the sentiment that  "this is not a highway-railroad either-or issue."  it IS an either/or issue in a zero-sum game because the business model upon which the Suburban Sprawl Lobby is predicated upon is fundamentally at odds with a human-scaled, walkable neighborhood.  It is adamantly opposed to dense and mixed-use development because that would mean that fewer cars would be sold (never mind that dense and mixed developments are -- for a variety of reasons -- less profitable for developers).  Yet the more foot traffic there is, the more retail business is generated; so developers compromised by creating the enclosed mall.  And since people would still have to drive to the mall, there would still be the resulting wear-and-tear on the automobile; thus, still generating business for the various automotive industries as well as the United Auto Workers union.

IF -- and ONLY if -- you are interested in creating a human-scaled, multi-purpose neighborhood that has the density required to support mass transit, then you have to be willing to take on the Suburban Sprawl Lobby.  And because of its attendant synergy, it will successfully defeat any attacks on its individual industries.  Therefore, the weakest and ONLY the weakest link in the coalition must be attacked first:  The relationship between the Republicans, the Democrats, and the rest of the coalition.  

I submit that this relationship can be successfully terminated IF and ONLY IF the republican -- note the small "r" -- form of government in use in virtually all of the U.S. is replaced with a democratic -- note the small "d" -- form of government.  How would a democracy -- as opposed to a republic -- work?  Through the use of two different tools:  Proportional representation (P.R.) and instant runoff voting (I.R.V.).  See http://www.fairvote.org for details.

I.R.V. involves ranking candidates from 1 to X; X being the number of candidates on the ballot.  I.R.V. conducts instant runoffs until the desired number of candidates are left.  Voters would be given a two-part ballot.  The first part would be an either/or question:  Would the voter like for I.R.V. to stop until:

(A.) All candidates with fewer than 1% of the vote are eliminated (this eliminates statistically insignificantly candidates while at the same time maintaining a good chance that one of the candidates that the voter gave a high rank for is still on the ballot; or

(B.)One candidate gets a majority of the vote.  This would eliminate the need for a coalition government.

The pro of the "A" option is that the vast majority of voters would have one of their high-ranking candidates elected.  The con of the "A" option (as some might see it, anyway) is that a coalition government would be the likely result.  The pro of the "B" option would be (as some might see it, anyway) is that there would be one person with a majority of the votes.  The con of the "B" option is that many voters would have a greater chance of seeing ALL of their high-ranked candidates eliminated from the ballot.

P.R.:  Proportional Representation

After the runoffs have been conducted, each -- now elected -- official will be permitted to cast Y votes, Y being the number of votes said official/candidate had when the runoff ended.  The ballots will be kept so that in the event that an elected official is unable to continue serving, his/her ballots will be redistributed.  I.R.V./P.R. eliminates gerrymandering issues because there are no single-member districts.  It discourages negative campaigning.  It encourages voters to educate themselves as much as possible about each candidate.

I realize that I have presented a lot of information, but I am trying to figure out exactly how to present the information here ( www.slate.com/.../hiveList ).  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

With I.R.V./P.R. enacted, it will then be possible to attack the 2nd-most weakest link.

More there than I choose to deal with; sorry, nbahn.  I will lecture you just a bit on history.  At the end of World War II, this nation had gone about 15 years with little or no new housing, thanks to the Depression and the war.  Some 12 million veterans were being mustered out of the services and a greatful nation had passed the GI Bill of Rights covering housing and education.  These vets took full advantage of their new benefits and bought houses rather than return to the tenements of their parents (excuse the generalization).  This encouraged real estate developers like Mr. Levitt to build vast subdivisions on former farm lands.  That effectively destroyed the fixed guideway transit systems that most urban areas had.  One couldn't just stay in his new house; he had to get out and about, so pressure developed to produce automobiles for the returning vets, with easy financing to aid them.  Automakers needed new plants for the huge pent up demand, and being reasonably intelligent, they built their new plants near the markets rather than in Detroit.  Net-net, we really are discussing a fundamental change in American society.  I reject the idea that there were plots and schemes to do horrible things.  That you apparently believe this blather suggests a level of credulity that I simply cannot deal with.  Sorry, nbahn, but I don't believe I'll sign up for the fundamental change in American government that you seem to be advocating.  I still am idealistic enough to believe we can elect decent people to represent us in federal, state, and local governments.

Nbahn:

Real as Moses' effect on NYC was, it had very little direct effect elsewhere, yet the same development patterns were seen in areas that were clearly not directly effected.

As for PR -proportional representation, not Progressive Railroading - one of the reasons why it has not gained a foothold is that it is often -more- vulnerable to machine politics.

Larry Kaufman & anmccaff--

Thank you both for the courtesies of your replies.