In many ways, policy initiatives on both sides of the aisle over the past four decades to make vehicles greener and our nation less oil dependent are coming to fruition. To ensure sustainability it will be essential to apply a metric other than pay at the pump. Fortunately the technology already exists to allow an accurate measurement of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to apply distance base charging (DBC) that reflects actual road usage by passenger and commercial vehicles--with further consideration possible through such decision-based factors as route selection away from congested areas or time-of-day choice away from peak periods. Trials of such programs are ongoing in Europe already, with a number of forward-thinking state DoTs contemplating near term VMT pilots in the future. Paying for road usage is not a new thing--one way or another we have always done it and must continue to do so. It is just a matter of using the technology now available to ensure that payment remains proportional to use.

Phineas

I am not sure that I understand your transport strategy, but it is good to know that you oppose “drill to drive”.

Whether or not “Roads Pay for Themselves”, would you accept, as a general proposition, that all federal transport subsidies should be phased out?

As you also oppose “user pays” policies for transport, would it be in order to ask you to explain who (if not users) should pay for transport and who (if not users) should decide what should be provided?

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

The notion that America's transportation system is funded by "user fees" has always been something of a myth. Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” The House drill-to-drive proposal isn't serious as a way to finance future needs, but it creates more political mischief that will distract Congress and the public from serious debate.

To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy – particularly at a time of tight public budgets – it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century.

As our 2011 report, Do Roads Pay for Themselves? Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding documents, federal fees are only tenuously connected to use of federal transportation resources. The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes – unlike other true user fees such as admission fees for state parks or turnpike tolls. Drivers on local streets and roads, for example, pay gasoline taxes for the miles they drive on those roads, even though those taxes are typically used to pay for state and federal highways. Efforts to ensure that residents of a given area “get back” what they pay in gasoline taxes – such as the federal equity bonus program – actually perpetuate wasteful pork-barrel spending since they allocate money with no consideration of need or the benefits those investments would deliver to society

State gas taxes typically don't even serve as “extra” fees. Most states exempt gasoline from the state sales tax. The substitution of the gasoline tax for the sales tax diverts much of the money that would have gone into a state’s general fund to a fund used often for the exclusive benefit of drivers. In some states, such as New Jersey, the gasoline tax is at times lower than the corresponding sales tax would be, meaning that drivers get a net tax subsidy that encourages the purchase of gasoline relative to other goods.

America needs serious investment in transportation infrastructure, but highway advocates often use funding myths about user fees to justify their budgets and to make public transit, pedestrian routes and other forms of transportation appear relatively expensive – diverting attention from the full accounting of costs and benefits that should be the basis of sound transportation decision-making.

A full accounting of the costs and benefits of transportation would lead policy makers to encourage transportation that consumes less oil while curtailing projects that increase vehicle miles travelled. Transportation outcomes do not occur in a vacuum for each user. The virtues of major transportation decisions are almost entirely a matter of externalities. The broader effects of transportation choices can not be well considered by individual users and we can not depend on individual consumption decisions to aggregate into forward-looking policy.

We need a transportation system that will establish dependable financing for the future and with spending that is oriented toward reducing oil consumption. The House proposal would put these two goals at complete cross purposes. It would make the solvency of the nation's transportation system directly dependent on increased volumes of oil.

Those who try to apply market principles to transportation might reply to Fawn’s five questions as follows:

“Does the ‘Users pay’ model still hold up for transportation?” I hope so, as the alternative of “taxpayers pay” is likely to be worse for those who travel or send goods.

“Is there a better way to pay for infrastructure?” I cannot think of one.

“Can users fully fund the roads, bridges, and railways they use?” In the US, frequently not. But a more relevant question might be “Should people have the right to use roads, bridges and railways that they are not prepared to pay for?” If they have that right, then others have an obligation to provide, an obligation some might not accept.

“How much should users be on the hook for?” In a market economy they generally pay for what they get, and get what they are prepared to pay for.

“What about taxpayers?” Taxpayers should expect to pay for government services, such as street lighting, that cannot be provided by economic markets. Local roads are often paid for in this way, by property taxes.