For example, the county public works department I work for is replacing a mid-sized bridge. We had low bid to design the bridge under $50,000, and an estimated construction cost of $500,000. Then we got it on the federal aid list, and these costs became $500,000 and $1,000,000. The added hoops to jump through when federal aid is involved inflate the costs in a way I think is as bad as the Defense Department's $2000 hammers.

Since federal aid pays for 80% of the project, it makes sense for the county to apply for federal aid. This is a perverse incentive. We are rewarded for pursuing a funding source that inflates the overall project cost, because it reduces our cost.

So, to pay for transportation, we need to out as many as the additional hoops to jump through as we can, while still maintaining accountability. That's the administrivia part.

To remove the perverse incentives, perhaps some sort of means test is needed to see if an agency really needs federal aid for a project. For a small town with a $1/2M annual budget, federal aid for a $1/2M bridge makes sense. In our case, it did not.

As you and others note, there are solid arguments against a VMT-based scheme.

Gas tax increases poll poorly, and politicians are thus very reluctant to increase them. Hasn't happened here in CA since the early 90's. They won't even index it to inflation. I'm with you at a policy level; for the next decade or two, it's probably the best way to go.

Chris

Respectfully, the existence fuel-efficient vehicles are not a justification for a VMT tax; you can get the same effect by increasing the gas excise tax, or by automatically adjusting that to the average vehicle efficiency. The issue of vehicles that don't use gas freeriding on those that do is simply not a problem that we have today. If we do get to a point where fuel-free vehicles constitute more than, say, 5% of the vehicles on the road (as opposed to the current ~0.001% we have today), that would be an appropriate time to revisit this issue.

Cheers,

--Ian

I'll be happy if you are right. And surprised.

For one thing there isn't enough money to maintain the roads and bridges we have, let alone pay for new ones (something that I agree should be stopped). For another, like the Republicans the Democrats don't actually believe what they say they believe, they believe what they are paid to believe.

A little story. Back in the early 1990s, I was assigned to work with the City Planning Commission on parts of the charter mandated (but never repeated) Planning and Zoning report. The Commission was stuffed with Dinkins appointees with Great Society backgrounds and ideas, but the city was broke. So the answer they wanted to give to everything was federal money. Poverty? Federal money. Infrastructure? Federal money. Education? Federal money. Housing? Federal money.

Finally I couldn't stand it anymore. Does the Commission believe, I asked, that New York City given its needs and its federal tax payments, the NYC was getting a fair share of the federal money that was already being spent? NO! they all agreed. Then what made them think that having the federal government spend more non-entitlement money (ie. discretionary and politically controlled) would direct more money to the city? Because, they said, it was the additional money that WASN'T being spent that would have been spent in NYC.

Then we had a Democratic congress and President (Clinton). NY paid more and got screwed. Then we had a whole new type of federal spending (Homeland Security) based on a devastating attack on NYC. NYC got screwed.

NY has lots of rich and well connected people who want to run the world. And they are happy to sell out the interests of the little people, in how much in taxes they pay and what they get in return, in exchange for the advancement of their personal power, a deal others are often willing to take.

Ask the leadership of our state.

>Ian Turner

So, what exactly is the policy justification for taxing VMT instead of gas?

>LJR

Chris, how low do you want to set the bar?

Some things are more important than transit policy; basic goddamned liberty is among them.

Larry, we will see. There is a strong push by Transportation For America and its coalition of activist groups to shift federal transit spending from roads to transit. Given the current emphasis on global warming among the Democratic majority, I think it is possible that, after this year's TEA reauthorization, there will be a federal push for non-automotive modes.

I agree with you, but in that case perhaps it's time to look outside the box. Perhaps the best that the federal government can do is nothing, with its transportation spending eroding with gas tax revenues.

At the federal level, there will tremendous pressure, given the fix Americans have gotten themselves into, to subsidize those locked into using more public and personal resources to get by. Mortgage relief for McMansions. Bailouts for auto companies. Oil anyway we can get it.

The push for transit and non-motorized trips, is coming from individual areas that have them, or are seeking them. It is non-federal.

You may recall that NYC recovered from its long decline in the Reagan era. It wasn't due to help from the Reagan Administration -- just a malign neglect. The federal government stopped subsidizing new water and sewer systems for new suburbs, and that made what the cities already had more valuable.

Me, I'm hoping for national health care financing. It would free up money for NYC to set its own course, and take away federal money that can be used to do more damage.

Haven't we actually overinvested in freeways and underinvested in transit, pedestrians, and bicycles? Maybe we need a shift of spending rather than an increase in spending.

A carbon tax or cap and trade can discourage driving and use the money to develop alternative energy.

A gas tas or VMT tax will discourage driving, but the political reality is that much of the additional money it raises will go into building freeways, which will encourage driving.

Remember that, when he was trying to get the stimulus bill passed, even Obama was repeating the mantra "roads and bridges." If they try to pass an increased gas or VMT tax, it will be based on the same mantra.

Of course, we are just talking about transportation infrastructure here - not about other needed infrastructure such as a smart grid.