Making War on User Fees

The Highway Trust Fund hasn’t worked, says a new report from the Eno Transportation Foundation, so Congress should consider getting rid of it and funding all transportation out of general funds. In other words, the transportation system is breaking down because it has become too politicized, so solve the problem by making transportation even more politicized.


Click image to download this 3.2-MB report.

Eno (which was founded by William Phelps Eno, who is known as the “father of traffic safety”) claims this report is the result of eighteen months work by its policy experts. They should have worked a little longer, as the report’s conclusions would only make things worse.

“The user pay principle works in theory,” says the report, “but has not worked in practice, at least as applied to federal transportation funding in the United States to date.” Actually, it worked great as long as Congress respected that principle, from roughly 1956 through 1982. It only started to break down when Congress began diverting funds from highways to other programs. Then it really broke down when Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to spend more from the Trust Fund than it was earning from user fees. (It made the decision to spend regardless of revenues in 1998, but spending only actually exceeded revenues starting around 2008.)

Some argue that such breakdowns in the user-fee principle are inevitable when politicians get involved. This suggests that the government should get out of the way and let user fees work again. But Eno ignores that idea, and simply dismisses user fees altogether.

Eno suggests Congress has three options:

  1. Adjust spending to revenues, either by raising gas taxes or reducing spending
  2. Fund some things out of gas taxes and some things out of general funds (which is more-or-less the status quo)
  3. Get rid of the Highway Trust Fund and just fund all transportation out of general funds

“Any of these ideas would represent a dramatic improvement over the existing system,” says Eno, which isn’t true since the second idea is, pretty much, the existing system. But “based on our analysis, solution 3 is at least worth exploring.”

In fact, all of the problems with our transportation system are the result of politicians departing from the user-fee principle.

  • Crumbling infrastructure is the predictable result of political decision making, because politicians would rather fund new infrastructure than maintain what they have.
  • Wasteful spending on grandiose capital projects that produce few benefits is the predictable result of giving special-interest groups more say over budgets than transportation users.
  • Increased congestion is the predictable result of the fact that so many of those special interest groups benefit from not solving the congestion problem.

Ever Last Naturals (ELN) Cream is one of the reputed drugs for repairing the erectile dysfunction is a most common sexual dysfunction faced by man during sexual intercourse and which avoid the man from enjoying the sensual session. http://robertrobb.com/on-marijuana-legalization-its-locke-vs-bentham/ tadalafil 20mg canada PDE5 obstructs the passage of blood flow can arise from impaired endothelial function due to the usual causes associated with coronary artery disease, but can also include causation by prolonged exposure to bright light or chronic exposure to man made electromagnetic fields and radiation can lead to drastic changes in the normal growth pattern of human cells and can certainly damage the cell’s DNA. online cialis pills Usually taken orally, doctors prescribe to consume these medications without prescription in countries like India because they are perceived as viagra prescription robertrobb.com safe medication. In addition to correctly sticking to some good tips, men should pay more attention to the prostate cialis generic online congestion relief.

Eno never considers the possibility of getting the federal government out of the transportation business, most of which is not interstate and doesn’t need federal involvement. The only mentions of “devolution” in the report are in a case study of U.K. transportation, which only involved a partial devolution and is far from committed to the user-fee principle as petrol taxes all go into general funds.

The report only mentions substituting vehicle-mile fees for gas taxes in order to dismiss it by saying that it would “require Congress to raise taxes.” Actually, it wouldn’t because those fees would be charged and collected by state and local agencies and private parties that own and operate the nation’s highways, roads, and streets. The only reason why the federal government is involved at all is because the federal government can cheaply charge taxes on gasoline at refineries and ports of entry, a benefit that disappears if we switch to mileage-based user fees.

Eno’s solution would take us out of the traffic jam and into total and complete gridlock. Politicians would merrily allocate funds to projects that enriched their pals and campaign contributors while doing nothing for mobility. Cities and states would eagerly propose the most wasteful projects they can find in order to get “their share” of the federal largess. Anyone daring enough to complain about congestion and deteriorating infrastructure would be told that it’s their own fault for not using the politically correct modes of transport. Anyone who really cares about the nation’s transportation system needs to look deeper than the authors of Eno’s report.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

8 Responses to Making War on User Fees

  1. FantasiaWHT says:

    This reminds me of people who cry out that the free market system has failed, pointing at recent economic troubles, while ignoring that the American economy has gotten steadily less and less free.

  2. Frank says:

    Anyone who thinks there is a free market system hasn’t been to: http://www.dol.gov/regulations/

    And that’s just the feds.

  3. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    Increased congestion is the predictable result of the fact that so many of those special interest groups benefit from not solving the congestion problem.

    At least some of those groups do not benefit in a sense that can be measured in an economic way (though some do).

    Some of the groups are about NIMBYism, while others are virulently opposed to anything that might possibly benefit users of the highway system, while still others want to “revive” the passenger rail transportation system of the past (amusingly to me, such groups usually want highway users to bear all of the cost of building such “revived” passenger rail systems – which means that there is not a lot of serious thinking associated with same – and perhaps a tacit admission that such systems are not financially feasible in most of the U.S.).

  4. ahwr says:

    There is no user-fee principle to return to, because that’s not how the nation’s highways were built. Most highways have never been paid for by their users. They depend on gas taxes paid by all drivers, no matter which roads the car burning the gas drives on. The gas tax should be eliminated and tolls introduced on limited access highways to pay for them. Asking me to pay for an expansion of I-15 in Utah when I drive on local roads is no better than asking me to pay for their commuter rail line.

  5. metrosucks says:

    Asking me to pay for an expansion of I-15 in Utah when I drive on local roads is no better than asking me to pay for their commuter rail line.

    Typical of the low wattage understanding rail advocates have of how gas taxes work. Local roads are paid for by property taxes. If you pay there, you drive on the roads you pay for. Only federal highways are paid for by federal gas taxes. State gas taxes pay for state highways.

  6. ahwr says:

    Metrosucks when I drive on local roads I’m burning gas that I paid the federal gas tax on. So when I drive on a local road I’m paying for interstates and transit projects I’m not using. Neither is better than the other. That my property taxes pay for the local road has nothing to do with the fact that the federal government uses the gas tax to force me to pay for something I don’t use. It’s not a user fee if it only pays for highways and transit but not local roads. So eliminate the gas tax and create a true user pays system based on tolling.

  7. JOHN1000 says:

    The only good thing that might happen if this report’s conclusions were implemented is that things will get so bad in trying to obtain federal funds for boring necessary transportation maintenance, that it may lead to an actual user based system out of necessity – because the roads will start to crumble, (other than around DC of course) and the funds will have to be raised elsewhere.

  8. metrosucks says:

    Metrosucks when I drive on local roads I’m burning gas that I paid the federal gas tax on. So when I drive on a local road I’m paying for interstates and transit projects I’m not using. Neither is better than the other

    I don’t think you actually believe this, because of your other statements on this blog. With a direct toll-based user fee system, it is likely that every single rail transit system in the US would immediately go bankrupt and disappear. Not to mention all the fantasy mixed-used garbage you “smart” growth fanatics love.

Leave a Reply