Yesterday, Representative John Mica, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, announced the names of the chairs and members of the committee’s various subcommittees. The good news for those who believe in user-fee driven transportation is that the chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee is John “Jimmy” Duncan, Jr., who is probably one of the four or five most fiscally conservative members of the House. The good news for those who believe in high-speed rail subsidies is that the chair of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, which oversees Amtrak, is Bill Shuster, who has a history of sending pork to his district in Pennsylvania.
Not your George Bush conservative: Rep. Duncan questioning the high cost of the war in Afghanistan.
Representing Knoxville, TN, Duncan is a hardcore paleoconservative. For those not familiar with the nuances in the conservative community, paleos are almost the polar opposites of neoconservatives. Paleos hated George W. Bush with a passion. Duncan himself voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as every stimulus bill. He thinks global warming is a scam, so he probably won’t be persuaded by many environmental arguments. Like almost all members of Congress, Duncan has taken advantage of earmarks, but he supports legislation to ban them and wants to cut federal spending.
Representing South Central Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster is the son of the notorious Congressman Bud Shuster, who never met an earmark headed for Pennsylvania that he didn’t like. Today, there are highways and buildings all over Pennsylvania named after him. When he retired in 2000, partly because he was annoyed by House rules preventing him from continuing as chair of the lucrative Transportation Committee, his son was elected to take his place.
Causes of high viagra bulk buy blood pressure and erectile dysfunction include the following.1. In order to levitra generic no prescription judge the credibility of the site.Erectile dysfunction is a terrible time in a man’s life, as he is unable to give his best in the bedroom during sexual activity. What makes this such a popular choice is that this is a GHRH, so a growth hormone releasing hormone made us of thirty amino acids. canadian pharmacy sildenafil The only precautions while tadalafil is that devensec.com low priced cialis people who are obese have severely dysfunctional metabolisms.
Rep. Shuster speaking about waste in the stimulus bill.
In his decade in office, Bill Shuster has authored numerous earmarks and brought lots of pork to his district. Unlike Duncan, I can’t find any record of Shuster supporting a ban on earmarks.
As overseer of Amtrak, Shuster’s committee will probably have something to say about high-speed rail as well. Since the Philadelphia-to-Pittsburgh moderate-speed rail corridor runs right through his district, he will be under pressure to support Obama’s high-speed rail plan. Still, we can hope that he will change his tune in the 112th Congress due to the election results.
In a sign of support for fiscal conservatism, Mica gave subcommittee chairs to two freshman members of Congress who won their seats with Tea Party support. Jeff Denham of California will chair the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee; and Bob Gibbs of Ohio will chair the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. While neither of these committees will be directly involved with transportation reauthorization, the selection of these rookie legislators may be a sign that Mica is serious about reducing federal subsidies to transportation.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Representing South Central Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster is the son of the notorious Congressman Bud Shuster, who never met an earmark headed for Pennsylvania that he didn’t like. Today, there are highways and buildings all over Pennsylvania named after him. When he retired in 2000, partly because he was annoyed by House rules preventing him from continuing as chair of the lucrative Transportation Committee, his son was elected to take his place.
As an aside, one notorious defect in the highway network of the 9th Congressional District of Pennsylvania was not corrected while Bud Shuster was in office, and has remained untouched since he left office.
What defect is that?
Where untolled I-70 (fails to) connect to the Pennsylvania Turnpike at Breezewood, forcing I-70 traffic through a signalized intersection and onto a section of U.S. 30, enriching the owners of several schlocky U.S. 30 business establishments in the process.
Over the past 10 or 20 years, the New York State Thruway and the Ohio Turnpike have systematically eliminated their “breezewoods,” but Pennsylvania shows no interest in getting rid of the original breezewood, or similar non-connections at Carlisle, Bedford and Somerset.
More user fees & user-based taxing (ie gas) to finance transportation is more efficient and produces better results. More [& better] roads/lanes will be the outcome, since they have a much lower cost (per passenger-miles). It’s strange how the moral & economic principle, of paying for one’s own consumption/use, is hardly applied. Of course most of gov cannot operate that way, but better linkage will be beneficial, and the mass redistribution (creeping socialism) is disastrous. Application to transport is unequally applied in that transit is only ~1/3 paid by users, while roads are paid ~3/4 via various usage payments. Regardless, with 85%+ of adults being drivers, it can be irrelevant, for general taxes going towards it.
How about just getting the feds out of it? All the federal government’s money comes from the states anyway (+ foreign borrowing), and has many extra costs (ie admin), plus negative externalities ensue (ie improper cost-benefit analysis, favoritism, extra projects). People often forget, that when an entity only pays a portion of something (subsidy), incentive is added to make unwise, imprudent & uneconomic decisions.
If the states [& sub-units] had complete financing control (w/out the feds), they would be more responsible. A $0.60 to $1.20 gas-tax/gallon, collected by each state, and spent only on roads (no transit skimming) would provide for better transportation.
A charge per VMT could be done, but adds much cost & factors in cheating. It also has no incentive for better mpg, which isn’t really all that necessary anyway (buying more gas/mile, alone is an incentive). Although it would unjustly avoid differences in vehicle wear & tear on roads (ie weight).
Prospects look good, for the GOP to stick to the principles of limited government & market-based approaches, including more freedom & less coercion. It’s strange how lefties say more choice for transit in low-density areas, at the huge expense of others.
However, despite Obama’s BS rhetoric in pretending to be pro-business & pro-liberty, in his negotiation & deception, he still is contradictory in about every speaking-point, to himself, or his actions. His czars & the agencies will still be doing much damage to the country. His "creating crisis strategy" is continuing, while pretending to try helping, but the gov making adverse conditions, and then blaming the problems on capitalism & the Repubs (ie mortgages). We will see many vetoes & further march to bigger gov.
So the test for me if Duncan really supports user fees is will he allow Pennsylvania to toll Interstates 80 and 79 to provide additional revenue for transportation spending in the state of Pennsylvania.
So far, the FedGov has done its darndest to thwart the will of my state legislature in pursuing this aim.
CPZ: “Pennsylvania shows no interest in getting rid of the original breezewood, or similar non-connections at Carlisle, Bedford and Somerset.”
I’d say a higher priority is preventing the road from completely falling apart. If I had several hundred million to suddenly spend on the PA Turnpike above and beyond current priorities, I’d widen Bedford to Breezewood from four to six lanes before I’d create the direct connection.
The PA Turnpike is currently working on the bigest non-connection of all – I95 to the Turnpike. This will allow the PA and NJ Turnpikes to be resigned as I95 between Bristol and Metuchen and close the final Interstate gap.
But to your point, the PA Turnpike has recently redone the Cranberry (I79) and Reading (I176) interchanges to make them direct, and the Fort Washington Interchange with SR309 was modernized to eliminate the stop signs at the end of the ramps to SR309. Its unfair to complain they haven’t done all of them yet, when the road is under total reconstruction in a very lengthy program.
Scott:
“A $0.60 to $1.20 gas-tax/gallon, collected by each state, and spent only on roads (no transit skimming) would provide for better transportation.”
Why is skimming to subsidize Interstate highway commuters okay, but skimming to subsidize anyone else is not?
Toll roads are generally charging around 8+ cents per mile. Anything less than a charge of that level means that drivers who tend not to use Interstates are subsidizing those who do by paying gas taxes for use of roads that will never see a dime of that money. @25mpg average, tat would be $2.00 per mile.
Andrew, I’ll touch on your silly question, which is missing the meaning of skimming; the mostly silly part is how you avoided so much other content.
So it’s not okay for roads to be funded ~20% by non-usage taxes that benefit directly, ~85% of adults?
But it’s okay for transit to be funded ~65% by non-usage taxes, that benefit directly, <4% of adults?
That's a huge hypocritical disparate inconsistency.
So, in other words, each person of the 85% should pay directly for all usage,
but all 100% of persons (general taxes) should pay for most for the 4% riders.
What do you claim is skimming for Interstates? I'll give a hint: none.
Gas & similar taxes are on road vehicles, for the purpose of roads.
Diverting that revenue to other sources, is skimming.
For any use & skimming, besides the retirement funds, what kind of source-specific taxes/fees are diverted to another use? certainly not roads. If you are referring to general revenues, that is not skimming. Property tax does not fall in that category, it is, naturally, to cover some infrastructure.
In fact, how about citing any budgets for any roads at all, that get general tax revenue. For state roads, maybe sales & income tax (both general), among other taxes, but still not skimming.
Anyway, as previously typed, when a very large majority of people are drivers and all benefit from roads (buses, freight, deliveries, being a car-passenger, etc.) the use of general funds is insignificant.
You also seemed to ignore the portion differences (transit vs roads).
Scott; Anyway, as previously typed, when a very large majority of people are drivers and all benefit from roads (buses, freight, deliveries, being a car-passenger, etc.) the use of general funds is insignificant.
THWM; Didn’t you call this stuff mob rule before?
Any ways, I’d still paying for street in front of my house through property taxes even if there were no automobiles.
Though we also all benefit from railroads & mass transit directly & indirectly too.
Though we also all benefit from railroads & mass transit directly & indirectly too.
I see that the village idiot has spoken again. The only “benefit” the average person sees from “mass transit” is the “privilege” of paying for it.
Andrew wrote:
So the test for me if Duncan really supports user fees is will he allow Pennsylvania to toll Interstates 80 and 79 to provide additional revenue for transportation spending in the state of Pennsylvania.
I do not personally consider pay and benefit increases for tenured and militantly unionized public transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to be “transportation spending.”
So far, the FedGov has done its darndest to thwart the will of my state legislature in pursuing this aim.
Because what Pennsylvania’s legislature wanted to do was to impose tolls on I-80, with the resulting revenues being diverted to transit subsidies for places far away from I-80, and that is not allowed by federal law. Peter Samuel of TOLLROADSnews discussed it better than I can here.
I’d say a higher priority is preventing the road from completely falling apart. If I had several hundred million to suddenly spend on the PA Turnpike above and beyond current priorities, I’d widen Bedford to Breezewood from four to six lanes before I’d create the direct connection.
That’s a worthy project, but one that would cost orders of magnitude more than the two ramps needed for I-70 to bypass Breezewood.
The PA Turnpike is currently working on the bigest non-connection of all – I95 to the Turnpike. This will allow the PA and NJ Turnpikes to be resigned as I95 between Bristol and Metuchen and close the final Interstate gap.
That is correct. Though the PTC and PennDOT are taking their sweet time on this project. Peter described the I-95 project schedule as “unbelievably protracted” here.
But to your point, the PA Turnpike has recently redone the Cranberry (I79) and Reading (I176) interchanges to make them direct, and the Fort Washington Interchange with SR309 was modernized to eliminate the stop signs at the end of the ramps to SR309. Its unfair to complain they haven’t done all of them yet, when the road is under total reconstruction in a very lengthy program.
You are correct that some of the Penna. Turnpike breezewoods have been eliminated. But getting back to the Antiplanner’s comment about Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Penna. 9), where the Breezewood is located, remediating the breezewood in his district is a relatively inexpensive and simple project, yet it’s not one that is even being considered in the long term.
Metrosucks; The only “benefit†the average person sees from “mass transit†is the “privilege†of paying for it.
THWM: You don’t realize it but, you interact with people on a regular basis that need public transit so they can get to work.
Did you actually think that all the people that work at McDonald’s or Wal-Mart drive there?
Scott:
“So it’s not okay for roads to be funded ~20% by non-usage taxes that benefit directly, ~85% of adults?”
As I’ve explained before, gas taxes are not a user fee – they are a tax on fuel purchases. I pay the gas tax when I fuel up my lawn mower. If I am deriving some sort of benefit from the interstate highway system by cutting grass in my lawn, it is a very inscrutible benefit that I fail to understand.
A user fee for roads would be a revenue fee/toll/tax applied on a per mile basis directly to the subset of roads it benefits.
Furthermore, 85% of the country’s drivers do not drive on freeways for their daily commute. Most people drive only on local streets. Their commute is used to subsidize long distance commuters in exurbs and long distance trucking outfits. If I drove to work I’d take pretty much the same route I bike on and my route would never touch an freeway. I don’t think that I am particularly unusual either.
“But it’s okay for transit to be funded ~65% by non-usage taxes, that benefit directly, <4% of adults?"
Where I live in Philadelphia, transit use between SEPTA, NJT, PATCO, and DART is up over 1,000,000 rides per day. I don't know of a source for vehicle on-offs on our five freeways, I-95, I-295, US422/I-76/SR42, US202, and I476, but each road-mile carries an average daily traffic of 50,000 to 190,000 vehicles per day. I can't imagine that the total number of cars on them is orders of magnitude higher than the number of transit users like you are implying with your assertion of a benefit to 20+ times as many people. Are you suggesting 20,000,000 people use the Philadelphia area freeways every day? We only have 7 million inhabitants in the CMSA.
"That's a huge hypocritical disparate inconsistency."
No its an assertion that road use would not be so popular, and mass transit much more popular, if freeway users were made to actually pay for their expensive freeways. Freeway users pay at most about 10-20% of the actual costs of building their roads when all costs are considered.
"So, in other words, each person of the 85% should pay directly for all usage, but all 100% of persons (general taxes) should pay for most for the 4% riders."
Before the subsidized freeway came along, rail transit was unsubsidized and turned a profit for its private investors AND paid for maintenance of the paved streets it ran on.
"Gas & similar taxes are on road vehicles, for the purpose of roads.
Diverting that revenue to other sources, is skimming."
Gas was taxed long before freeways came along. It was only directed to freeway spending in 1956 with the Interstate program. Before then, it was just a revenue source like taxing beer and wine. Surely you don't think that liquor taxes should be used to subsidize the construction and maintenance of breweries and vintners, do you?
"For any use & skimming, besides the retirement funds, what kind of source-specific taxes/fees are diverted to another use?"
You don't need to continue to be this obtuse. I've provided my own example before. My wife and I drive about 20,000 miles per year and buy 1000 gallons of gas, which means I pay around $500 in gas taxes (I also pay around $400 in tolls, mostly on the PA Turnpike, which accounts for about 4000 of my miles per year). My mileage on roads subsidized by the gas tax is at most 5% of that total. The vast majority of my gas tax is skimmed away to support someone else's lifestyle of heavy freeway use.
"all benefit from roads (buses, freight, deliveries, being a car-passenger, etc.) the use of general funds is insignificant."
Indirect benefits are meaningless to me. In your view, those users have already fully paid for their use by the gas tax. My patronage of their services has no cause for me to pay an additional fee of my gas tax money to receive the benefit of their services.
And I fully support raising transit fares to cover the farebox. I would gladly pay twice my current fare to continue avoiding the need to buy a second car, drive every day, buy gas weekly, and pay for daily parking downtown.
CPZ:
“Because what Pennsylvania’s legislature wanted to do was to impose tolls on I-80, with the resulting revenues being diverted to transit subsidies for places far away from I-80, and that is not allowed by federal law.”
But federal law and state law does require all the gas tax revenue generated by driving on the PA Turnpike to be used to subsidize driving in places far away from I76 like driving on I80, and apparently that is just fine with you. Furtheremore, its well known that I80 is nothing but a long-distance shortcut across Pennsylvania since it goes from nowhere to nowhere with a typical major intermediate town being such bustling metropoli like State College and Williamsport (pop. 55,000). Many people on this road simply fuel up in Jersey or Ohio and drive straight across I80. It costs us in Pennsylvania hundreds of millions every year, but we get no money from these users to pay for their use.
“the Breezewood is located, remediating the breezewood in his district is a relatively inexpensive and simple project, yet it’s not one that is even being considered in the long term.”
This project is simply of almost no benefit to Pennsylvanians. It would reduce commerce and tax revenue dramatically for a travel time savings of a couple of minutes, mostly for out of state drivers who are too stupid to use I68. Every time I go through town, it seems like most plates there are MD, DC, and VA. There are thousands of other road improvements I’d like to see built in my state before this one is even considered.
“I do not personally consider pay and benefit increases for tenured and militantly unionized public transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to be “transportation spending.—
The pay level at these agencies is laughable. Many of the workers could make 50%+ or more over what they are paid if they went on the outside. One friend of mine left SEPTA management making $55,000 per year with no overtime and took a job in private consulting paying $89,000 with straight overtime pay. There are licensed engineers with 20+ years experience working for the agencies making less than $80,000 per year. They could make $160,000 in private work. SEPTA bus drivers make around $20 per hour. I suppose we could import Mexican illegals if we wanted to drive that level down, but I seriously doubt it is a higher wage than they could earn driving a truck. A trucker friend of mine is making $75,000 per year. Transit jobs pay less because it is easy work on a regular schedule where you are guaranteed to be home every night. No one is getting rich at these agencies off their ridiculous payscales.
The pay level at these agencies is laughable. Many of the workers could make 50%+ or more over what they are paid if they went on the outside.
Despite the assertions of some movement conservatives, ideologues and partisans that gummint wurkurs are paid too much, we have a Repub Sec’y of State who is defiant in asserting that he is going to moonlight on the outside because, goldurnit, he can’t make enough money as a public servant.
DS
Andrew wrote:
But federal law and state law does require all the gas tax revenue generated by driving on the PA Turnpike to be used to subsidize driving in places far away from I76 like driving on I80, and apparently that is just fine with you.
Are you proposing that motor fuels sold on the Pike’s service plazas be tax-free? Under our system of transportation funding, that would mean a cut in federal transit subsidies (and state transit subsidies, in those states where motor fuel tax revenues are diverted to transit).
Motor fuel taxes are paid by users of the highway network, and should be used to maintain and expand said system. Not used to pay urban transit workers, or diverted to questionable passenger rail projects.
Furtheremore, its well known that I80 is nothing but a long-distance shortcut across Pennsylvania since it goes from nowhere to nowhere with a typical major intermediate town being such bustling metropoli like State College and Williamsport (pop. 55,000). Many people on this road simply fuel up in Jersey or Ohio and drive straight across I80. It costs us in Pennsylvania hundreds of millions every year, but we get no money from these users to pay for their use.
None of your above statement applies to commercial buses, trucks or truck combinations with registered weights over 26,000 pounds, since they have to pay road use taxes regardless of what state or Canadian province they purchase fuel in. They also have to pay registration fees in every state and province in which they operate.
And Pennsylvania is hardly the only state where long sections of the Interstate network cross sparsely-populated areas. Ever considered I-95 across Maine, North and South Carolina? Or I-80 across Wyoming? I-77 across Virginia? I-94 across South Dakota? In case you were not aware, the highway system is a national system. Compare and contrast with urban mass transit systems.
This project is simply of almost no benefit to Pennsylvanians. It would reduce commerce and tax revenue dramatically for a travel time savings of a couple of minutes, mostly for out of state drivers who are too stupid to use I68. Every time I go through town, it seems like most plates there are MD, DC, and VA. There are thousands of other road improvements I’d like to see built in my state before this one is even considered.
Does not really matter to me where the users of the misery called Breezewood live, and it should not matter you either. Ever heard of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? PennDOT data say that on average, 21,000 vehicles pass through there on a daily basis. And Pennsylvania and Bedford County taxpayers do pay to respond to and investigate the numerous crashes (usually rear-enders on westbound I-70 (running compass north into Breezewood) that happen – just to protect the owners and employees of U.S. 30 businesses).
SEPTA bus drivers make around $20 per hour. I suppose we could import Mexican illegals if we wanted to drive that level down, but I seriously doubt it is a higher wage than they could earn driving a truck. A trucker friend of mine is making $75,000 per year. Transit jobs pay less because it is easy work on a regular schedule where you are guaranteed to be home every night. No one is getting rich at these agencies off their ridiculous payscales.
More than what you claim above, according to a Web search. Apparently a top rate of over $24 per hour, not including a very generous package of health insurance and pension benefits.