Who tears up the roads?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Question: Who tears up the roads?

Answer: Big trucks and buses. Even though cars USE the roads a lot more and trucks pay a lot more in taxes (although of course most transit buses are exempt), heavy vehicles don't pay for the wear and tear that they do. Autos and light trucks do.

http://www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/summary/sum7.html#allocation

Table 24. Summary of Key Findings in the 1997 Federal HCAS  Passenger vehicles (autos, pick-ups, vans) travel 92 percent of all VMT, account for 96 percent of all vehicles and will pay about 64 percent of all Federal highway user fees in 2000. Trucks on average pay almost 10 times more Federal highway user fees per mile of travel than passenger vehicles.  Overall, the Federal user fee structure is more equitable today than it was in 1982. Changes in the composition of the Federal highway program and changes in Federal user fees account for most of the difference.  Passenger vehicles are expected to overpay Federal user fees by about 10 percent, while unit and combination trucks will underpay by about 10 percent in 2000. These averages, however, mask inequities among vehicles. For example, while automobiles pay their share of highway costs, pickups and vans overpay. In virtually all truck classes the lightest vehicles pay more than their share of highway costs and THE HEAVIEST VEHICLES PAY CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THEIR SHARE OF COSTS.  In general, the more axles under heavy vehicles, the lower their highway cost responsibility at any given weight and the more closely they come to paying their highway cost responsibility.  State governments collect over two-thirds of total HURs and the equity of their user fee structures strongly affects the overall equity of user fees collected by all levels of government. Federal user fees are somewhat more equitable than average State user fees for lighter vehicles, but State user fees on average come somewhat closer to capturing the cost responsibility of the heaviest truck classes.  Increasing the diesel differential or eliminating the $550 cap on the HVUT could result in incremental improvements to user fee equity. Modifications to the HVUT rate schedule or new taxes such as a WDT or axle-WDT could result in larger gains in equity.

Maybe it's time to start charging these 30 ton behemoth buses that frequently carry only 2-3 passengers (and systemwide average including rush hour and sporting event buses is only 15 pax) for the damage they do to the public roads.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999

Answers

Wake Up Washington!!! lets ban any truck over 15000 gvw from traveling during the "Rush Hours" What a no brainer

-- ROY (NANNOOOK@AOL.COM), December 22, 1999.

To Craig: Sounds fair to me. If we know a certain class of vehicles is damaging the roads, then we should charge them accordingly. But, it make no sense to charge mass transit, as long as it is a government agency. If we had a network of tolled roads in conjunction with private transit, then the toll could reflect the added wear & tear.

I'd love to see big trucks (and RVs, too) banned during rush hour, but I'm afraid the Teamsters wouldn't stand for it.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 1999.


And dont we know have a somewhat fair system (after I695)... We have gas tax supporting the roads, right? The bigger and heavier the vehicle, the more gas it uses..... thus, the more tax it pays... and yes, i agree... many huge buses only carry 2-3 passangers at a time.... can the transit disticts not see this, or do they just ignore it...

-- Allan E. (ae_me@yahoo.com), December 22, 1999.

"But, it make no sense to charge mass transit, as long as it is a government agency." The point isn't to charge tham, Matt, it's to understand their true costs.

Metro King County, for instance, APPEARS to ONLY COST about a third of a billion a year, with about 15% funded by riders. The REALITY is that it costs much more than that due to wear and tear that they do not pay for. It is yet another "hidden tax" that supports transit.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.


And dont we know have a somewhat fair system (after I695)... We have gas tax supporting the roads, right? The bigger and heavier the vehicle, the more gas it uses..... thus, the more tax it pays... and yes, i agree... many huge buses only carry 2-3 passangers at a time.... can the transit disticts not see this, or do they just ignore it...

The wear and tear occurs when heavy vehicles use the roads, not just during rush hour. While it might decongest things a little bit to switch them out of rush hour, it would not change the amount of damage they do to the roads.

Yes transit districts can see this. Transit districts are not about economical logistics, they are about growth. Last year the DOT gave a grant to Okanogan county for a transit system AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD VOTED THE SYSTEM DOWN. They then put a toll on the system that they admitted was MERELY INTENDED TO COVER THE COST OF COLLECTING THE TOLL. If you had worked any time in government, you'd understand. Any competent program manager can spend every dime the taxpayers give them. They may not spend it wisely or efficiently, it may go down a rathole, but they will ensure that there isn't a single dollar left in the account at the end of the fiscal year.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 22, 1999.



Big trucks????Well a lot of those big trucks carry things that make our jobs possible. They carry food. I get deliveries at work from big trucks all the time.

Forbid them to use the roads during rush hour??? Okay!! But only as long as the geniuses who have come up with this brilliant idea are willing to be at work to receive and load all of the stuff that cannot possibly be loaded or unloaded during normal hours because you don't wanna be on the road with them.

RVs???? Well the big thing for Rvs would be a mandate that no one over 40 years of age be allowed to drive them. Have you noticed that when we are young and have good reflexes and driving skills we are forced to drive tiny vehicles because we can't afford bigger ones? And by the time we are so old that we feel we have accomplished something wonderful if we actually pee in the correct room we are relegated to driving something as big as a Greyhound bus!!

Now public buses??? well when they start contributing to road construction and maintenance then they should be allowed to use the roads..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.


I agree that big trucks and buses cause significantly more damage to roadways than cars. But cars also cause significant damage, especially during the winter months with snow tires and chains. With this in mind, shouldn't there be a tax/fee/levy on people who purchase these items? And since skiers probably get to their destinations using these items, couldn't a tax/fee/levy be imposed on all lift tickets?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

Again, I have no problem with a network of tolled roads. You could charge buses, trucks, snow-tired cars, etc. whatever is a fair amount. If the toll for buses and trucks is so high that they can't make a business case for paying the toll, then they would not use the tolled roadways. I have no problem with this.

I certainly can understand people's objections to buses with low ridership. The transit agencies have a moral and ethical obligation to terminate such lines.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.


"I certainly can understand people's objections to buses with low ridership. The transit agencies have a moral and ethical obligation to terminate such lines. " Except, they've been doing just the opposite. They have been adding service and subsidizing it from tax money decreasing efficiencies. And they've been subsidizing parking (including the infamous $29,000 a stall underground parking garage for Mercer Island) to try to keep the new capacity filled.

You've never worked in government, have you. In over twenty years in government I have never seen a major program manager say, "My program has expanded out of its niche and is no longer very cost-effective at the margins. I have a moral/ethical obligation to expand it no further." I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, but I've never seen anything like it, or even remotely like it.

The South King County routes that are scheduled to be cut back AVERAGE less than nine passengers an hour. Given that the average passenger rides the bus for about 20 minutes (4 miles at 13 mph) that means that at any given time that 30 ton bus will have three passengers. The problem with transit is NOT a capacity problem. It is a demand problem.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.


To Craig: Yes, there is absolutely a demand problem for transit. Part of the problem is transit is not privatized, so they have lack a certain "mojo", and fail to find out what the customer really wants. Perhaps the "customers" are the employees of the transit agencies.

But, it's hard to point fingers at the transit agencies, when the roadways aren't privatized, either. It seems hypocritical to criticize the heavily subsidized transit agencies, when the roadways aren't bastions of free enterprise, either.

Once we have a useful network of tolled roads, there might be a business case for transit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 24, 1999.



"But, it's hard to point fingers at the transit agencies, when the roadways aren't privatized, either." Except the roadways are largely supported by the users, through fuel and other taxes. The transit is disproportionately subsidized by non-users, and of course benefits from the roads that are again, supported by non-users.

"It seems hypocritical to criticize the heavily subsidized transit agencies, when the roadways aren't bastions of free enterprise, either." Not to me. It's like saying I shouldn't criticize a thief or murderer, because I've broken the law too (hammered by the Seattle cops for jaywalking, October of 1980). Differences in degree, really do count. Hypocrisy is a relative thing. Not absolute.

"Once we have a useful network of tolled roads, there might be a business case for transit." I think that transit could be made more cost efficient through privatization, but it still has a cost-effective niche. If you try to push iot outside of that niche, particularly into areas of modest population density, it becomes increasingly costly and inefficient. We're already well past that point in much of the Puget Sound region.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 25, 1999.


Those of you who want to penalize big trucks as the answer to transit problems are only shooting yourselves in the foot!!! You will probably be the first to scream "where's my package" when it doesn't5 arrive till four days after it should of. You all forget that we've eliminated the railsystem in this country because it was too slow for some of our commodities. We've created this monster all in the name of hurry, I need it today. Now that that fact has been established let's not blame the trucker for our transportaion problems. Also, you recieve your commodities at competitive prices, with higher taxes on the commercial vehicles you will only drive up pricews at your local foodstores and retailers. The answer is to make government accountalbe for the taxdollars spent on the highways and then make sure that transportation funds are used only for transportation. Sincerel;y yours, Craig Green Green &Sons Log Trucking

-- Craig Green (rainforestracing@techline.com), December 26, 1999.

Craig (Like your name, by the way)-

I'm not anti truck.

I don't WANT a railroad spur going to every department store and to every block in town.

What i'm pointing out is simple physics. We overbuild some roads because we need them for heavy trucks and buses. There is no real question that a thirty ton transit bus rips up roads (and requires heavier engineered roads and bridges) than does automobiles. Same goes for heavy trucks, and their taxes are MUCH higher than auto taxes to offset this. But buses are not taxed higher, in fact, they are exempt, in fact again, they are highly subsidized. I WISH every 30 ton transit bus was taxed to support the roads like every 30 ton truck is. They'd come a whole lot closer to offsetting the damage that they do.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 27, 1999.


We all agree that the Trucks, RV's and Buses wipe out the roads.. So let's keep them in one lane so they stop destroying all the lanes. Then when it is time to fix the lanes, we only have one lane to fix! On I-5, I-405, and I-90 (mult-lanes) all trucks, RV's and Buses would drive only in the second lane from the right side of the road at 10 mph slower than the posted speed. They would stay 500 feet from the truck in front of them. This would allow cars to merge across lanes. The truck lane would be painted "Trucks ONLY" and painted like a nopassing stripe to keep cars from staying in the lane. I also like seeing the 1-800 signs on the back of trucks and trailers because the driver has his/her job on the line. Why not give Free signs to all companies doing business in our state, handcrafted by our guest living in our state prisons. If the truck ahead of you was going to slow.. well you do have their phone number..

-- Jim Campbell (shadylake@juno.com), January 04, 2000.

"So let's keep them in one lane so they stop destroying all the lanes. Then when it is time to fix the lanes, we only have one lane to fix! Kind of like we can avoid an all over sunburn by getting under a magnifying glass that will concentrate all the light into just a few square centimeters of skin. A FASCINATING concept.

-- (Spock@vulcan.federation), January 05, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ