Comments on: GOP-ers and Dems Agree: Feds Need to Get Their Transpo Act Together

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:58:30 +0000

Ken, trucks create even more air emissions and roadway wear and tear than cars. Why shouldn't they have to pay their own way? There's no reason to think the truck shipping industry deserves more subsidies than e.g. the sea shipping industry.

By: Ken Harris

Ken Harris — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:36:59 +0000

I don't think imposing this on trucks is the way to go. That would increase the cost of shipping goods and doing business much of it necessary, as rail doesn't get you everywhere. A VMT from odometer readings for non-shipping related vehicles makes more sense.

We need to reduce the amount of personal trips taken by car, rather than add yet more regulations to businesses.

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:55:19 +0000

It's not just wear and tear on the roads, Mom. It's also the cost of using that land, the cost of congestion, and the cost of sprawl. It's true that lighter vehicles contribute less to that, but only because they're usually smaller. if someone built a Hummer out of fiberglass, it would still take up just as much room.

By: taomom

taomom — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:20:22 +0000

It's interesting that although placing a carbon tax on gasoline has no privacy issues, is incredibly easy to levy (systems already are in place), and would discourage CO2 release, the far more difficult and costly to implement VMT is considered more politically acceptable. So be it. However, any VMT levied absolutely needs to be proportional to the weight of the vehicle involved so as to legitimately reflect the damage the vehicle inflicts on the road. Charging a Mini-Cooper the same fee per mile as a Hummer would be grossly unfair when the Hummer weighs four times as much. As a bicyclist, I would even be happy to pay a penny a mile VMT tax if an SUV had to pay an equivalent tax per pound of $2 per mile.

By: Jordan Hare

Jordan Hare — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:54:40 +0000

Fantastic stuff. It feels like a long-overdue return to pragmatism in terms of transport funding and issues.

I am interested in locating the inflection point when transport funding became so skewed towards automobiles, and when the push for road funding became axiomatic rather than logical. For instance increasing traffic on roads must have been a problem for truck drivers over the last 20+ years; why is it being raised as an issue now?

Not sure if it's a function of the political climate or if it's based on demographic shifts. Any tips from other more educated readers?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:03:46 +0000

Agree, great reporting. This new federal coverage is a valuable service SBlog is performing.

Kenney - good point. I believe starting with trucks is how a few European countries (e.g. Germany) have done it.

By: Kenney

Kenney — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:00:42 +0000

Elana, this is great reporting. I was present at today's BPC event, and this latest post is an excellent synthesis of it. On the issue of VMT, Streetsblog readers may also be interested to know that Rep. Petri suggested we introduce VMT by implementing it first with truckers, which is an excellent idea. As the Congressman himself explained (and I paraphrase), "Once everyone sees the big guys doing it, they'll feel more comfortable with it."

Thanks again, Elana.

By: Allan

Allan — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:16:57 +0000

Why does everyone think Privacy is such a concern with a VMT tax.

Just check odometers every year or two with car registration. put decently-high fees on cars with broken odometers and all will be well with the world