As to trucks on interstate highways, My worst experience came when, six years ago, I was driving from Little Rock to Memphis. About half way, I grew tired of fighting with them, and went down to US 70. From time to time, I could look over to the interstate, and seemed that the trucks were less than a trucklength apart. How safe can that be?
Johnny
schlimm The damage heavy trucks do (and this is primarily on arterial streets and on non-Interstate highways) is out of proportion to their numbers. As to their numbers, it is only anecdotal, but try driving west on I 80 from Chicago towards Denver, where you often find a solid column in the right lane stretching for miles and occasionally several in the passing lane as well. Ditto on most of I 5.
The damage heavy trucks do (and this is primarily on arterial streets and on non-Interstate highways) is out of proportion to their numbers. As to their numbers, it is only anecdotal, but try driving west on I 80 from Chicago towards Denver, where you often find a solid column in the right lane stretching for miles and occasionally several in the passing lane as well. Ditto on most of I 5.
I-40 is the same way. And then there's I-81 which is possibly worse. Rather the rule on either of those that you get stuck in a long line of cars because several trucks in the left lane are trying to pass a long line of trucks in the right lane.
Now on I-30 from Little Rock to Dallas, the obstacle in the left lane is more likely to be some person in a passenger vehicle who believes it's his or her God-given right to drive in that lane all the way from Little Rock to Dallas (or the other way around), preferably just above the speed limit.
Here is a (rhetorical) question:
Why is that trucks in the U.S. would be the fastest vehicles on the road, passing you in a car doing the speedlimit, using radar detectors and CB radio to pass warnings "of Smokey takin' pictures" whereas trucks in Germany occupy the right lane, doing no more than 60 km/hr, while you in a rental car are looking for a break in the stream of Bayerische Waggons (Bimmers, in English), zooming by at 140 km+ while you are trying to get around the trucks?
And why are trucks in the U.S. no longer the fastest vehicles on the road, many of them cruising at 63 MPH or some amount under the legal speed limit now?
Simple, it is the price of fuel. The cost optimum is where the driver wages are roughly equal to the fuel cost. In Stephen Chu's Europe-of-the-high-fuel-prices, trucks creep along. In the U.S. trucks have slowed down because Diesel is a lot more expensive, more expensive than gasoline for a variety of technical reasons (not just fuel tax, hoo boy, trying heating your house these days with heating oil, which is just Diesel without the road tax).
The fleet operators have enforced economic speed limits on their drivers -- if someone passes you, they are probably an owner-operator who might skew the balance to valuing their time a little bit more than what the fleets pay their hired drivers.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 My post was simply to challenge the point made previously that trucks are the major beneficiary of the Interstate Highway System or any other roadway system. The argument whether trucks cover the cost to build and maintain the infrastructure is multi-dimensional and is open for debate.
My post was simply to challenge the point made previously that trucks are the major beneficiary of the Interstate Highway System or any other roadway system. The argument whether trucks cover the cost to build and maintain the infrastructure is multi-dimensional and is open for debate.
What was that quote, "Success has many fathers while failure remains an orphan?"
I remember our Austrian host of an engineering conference explaining how sensible things are in the host country to that conference. Gasoline cost significant more than Diesel at the pump in Austria and Germany (not so in less-enlightened Slovenia). On the other hand, Diesel car owners paid a yearly levy. The effect of these well-planned policies is that people who had to drive a lot purchased Diesel cars, where the savings at the pump overcame the yearly levy, whereas people who drove much less, purchased gasoline cars, a good outcome all around.
Turns out before leaving for home from Munich International, I spent an overnight in Bavaria and watched some TV. Maybe my German isn't quite that good and I watched an English language broadcast, maybe the BBC. They were covering protests by truck drivers (in Germany) regarding a plan to raise revenue by bringing the price of Diesel in line with gasoline.
Protests by truck drivers, who would have thought that Germany had a highway lobby and people opposed to raising fuel taxes to the correct level?
It all made sense to me. Diesel had somewhat lower tax than the Stephen Chu-level tax on gasoline. This came about by lobbying from German (and Austrian) truckers. They may be acting as crybabies demanding respect, but every Herr und Fraulein benefits from the goods delivered by trucks.
Then what happens is that all of this motorists buy Diesel cars to cash in on the price differential (the MPG differential is not that great, and yes, I have driven both Diesel and gas rental cars in Europe to get some comparison data). The "authorities" can't have any of that, but they can't raise the tax on Diesel lest the truckers take "direct action" with their protests and blockade the Autobahn, so they impose a high registration tax on Diesel cars. So this little story about the virtue of German/Austrian policy on Diesel fuel and Diesel cars was just that, a little story.
And as to being heartened and taking good cheer from the suggestion that higher taxes be levied on trucks in the U.S., dunno, in the name of Social Justice or something, I think this speaks more to the heart and mind of the person being heartened rather than the reality on the ground.
I would like to see much more truck traffic off the road and placed on rail intermodal. For that to happen, we would need to come up with tech more transfering trailers or containers that is much less capital intensive, to allow trains to cover more of the shorter hauls. That would require at least consideration of some of the late John Kneiling's ideas regarding the Steadman container side-transfer system. But then again, John Kneiling's memory got some drive-by disrespect on another thread, I guess for Social Justice reasons given his dislike of unions, so all of John Kneiling's ideas need to be condemned as unworkable.
This thread (which started about President Obama's budget proposal to use a small amount of gas tax money to fund intercity passenger rail) has drifted off into people blowing off steam about how the amorphous "they" are not only underfunding rail, "they" are underfunding highways because they "they" don't want to raise the gas tax, which if you believed these "they" was a user fee for highways except according to the "us" it is a tax like any other tax that should be apportioned through the political process, except when the political process is "broken" for preferring roadways to railways?
For all I know, in a perfect world, truckers should pay higher fuel taxes and reg fees because of, dunno, the damage done to roadways, the danger to auto drivers of lines of their big rigs nearly bumper-to-bumper, or maybe their poor taste in music they listen to in their cabs. Feels good to think that way and have this affirmed by persons of like mind. But every Herr und Fraulein gets "stuff" we use every day delivered by truck. I would like to see less truck traffic on the roads and more on rail intermodal, I am studying how to make this happen, but there is more to the big picture of our shared prosperity than some anti-truck feelings.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Dragoman schlimm An "Act" is when a bill is passed (enacted) by both houses. It is promulgated when signed by the president, or if he vetoes, it is promulgated into law once overridden by a 2/3 vote in each house, not needing his signature. Quite so, BUT ... Most bills have a title, which is usually in the form of "The Such-and-Such Act", and that is frequently how it is referred to as it makes it way through the legislative system, even before it passes. Now the fact that the title is sometimes so misleading (was the USA Patriot Act all that patriotic??), is a whole different discussion.
schlimm An "Act" is when a bill is passed (enacted) by both houses. It is promulgated when signed by the president, or if he vetoes, it is promulgated into law once overridden by a 2/3 vote in each house, not needing his signature.
An "Act" is when a bill is passed (enacted) by both houses. It is promulgated when signed by the president, or if he vetoes, it is promulgated into law once overridden by a 2/3 vote in each house, not needing his signature.
Quite so, BUT ...
Most bills have a title, which is usually in the form of "The Such-and-Such Act", and that is frequently how it is referred to as it makes it way through the legislative system, even before it passes.
Now the fact that the title is sometimes so misleading (was the USA Patriot Act all that patriotic??), is a whole different discussion.
Does the state of Oregon still levy a ton-mile tax on heavy trucks? This went into effect about 60 years ago.
V.Payne "trucks pay extra taxes to offset extra wear and tear..." Offset in this context would mean getting a bit closer to paying the cost. The almost two foot deep paving section going in on the new build interstate I am working in a southern state is not for automobiles. Generally, when a new toll road is proposed, such as when SH-130 in Texas was analyzed, the toll is approximated in studies as (n-1) x Automobile rate, with n= number of axles, so a factor of 4 x for a common semi-truck. This is an attempt to actually pay for the full capital and maintenance cost of the road in total. But the automobile toll is $0.15/mile and except for the period when TxDOT bought down the truck toll it has followed either 3x or 4x the automobile rate. But the standard State and Federal Fuel taxes and sales tax only bring in about $0.11/mile or so for large trucks. The difference between those two rates is supported by the leverage off the locally financed system.
"trucks pay extra taxes to offset extra wear and tear..." Offset in this context would mean getting a bit closer to paying the cost. The almost two foot deep paving section going in on the new build interstate I am working in a southern state is not for automobiles.
Generally, when a new toll road is proposed, such as when SH-130 in Texas was analyzed, the toll is approximated in studies as (n-1) x Automobile rate, with n= number of axles, so a factor of 4 x for a common semi-truck. This is an attempt to actually pay for the full capital and maintenance cost of the road in total. But the automobile toll is $0.15/mile and except for the period when TxDOT bought down the truck toll it has followed either 3x or 4x the automobile rate.
But the standard State and Federal Fuel taxes and sales tax only bring in about $0.11/mile or so for large trucks. The difference between those two rates is supported by the leverage off the locally financed system.
You are overlooking the fact that the operators of private carrier trucks, as well as common carrier trucks, pay substantial federal and state income taxes, excise taxes, inventory taxes, and property taxes. These taxes flow into local, state, and federal government general funds. Some of the monies flow back to dedicated transportation funds to cover the financial shortfall between the cost of supporting trucks and the direct revenues generated from them.
JB Hunt is a good example. In 2013 its accrued income tax liability was $3.8 billion. In addition, it paid more than $700 million in operating taxes and licenses, which were on top of an undisclosed amount of fuel taxes. Its total fuel and fuel taxes bill was $8.2 billion. Assuming that 10 to 15 per cent of the fuel bill was for federal and state fuel taxes, the fuel tax bill would have been more than $1 billion. And this is just one trucking company.
Cost is just one side of the cost/benefit ratio, which is frequently overlooked in the discussions in these forums. Trucks bring a substantial benefit to Americans that cannot be duplicated by trains. Another factor that is frequently overlooked is the transfer of a substantial portion of the fuel taxes at the federal and state level to non-roadway activities, i.e. to the Mass Transit Administration at the federal level and public education in Texas. In Texas 25 per cent of the fuel taxes are transferred to support public education. And they have been since 1969.
Generally, when a new toll road is proposed, such as SH-130 in Texas that is about to miss a bond payments, the toll is approximated in studies as (n-1) x Automobile rate, with n= number of axles, so a factor of 4x for a common semi-truck. This is an attempt to actually pay for the full capital and maintenance cost of the road in total. But the automobile toll is $0.15/mile and except for the period when TxDOT bought down the truck toll it has followed either 3x or 4x the automobile rate ($0.45 to $0.60/mile).
But the standard State and Federal Fuel taxes and sales tax only brings in about $0.11/mile or so for large trucks. The difference between those two rates (a large incremental loss) is supported by the leverage off the locally financed system.
But the real problem for the future is that the Loading (Truck weight x miles driven) is increasing relative to the Volume (Automobile use) so the long term basis to leverage the system between vehicle classes is declining. You can throw a lot of money at the problem, but at some point the incremental cost recovery needs to be considered so that there is a well maintained rail network available to the benefit of the country.
"The higher tax is justified because trucks, the main user, are harder on the roads....
Several years ago, if I remember correctly, I read an article claiming that drivers of personal vehicles, i.e. cars, vans, SUVs, pick-up trucks, etc., made up 80 per cent of Interstate highway users.
According to Face the Facts USA, A Project of George Washington University, big trucks make us 4.3 per cent of all highway vehicles. And they account for 10 per cent of total highway miles traveled. The same reports says that half of all big truck miles are racked up on Interstate highways and, in some areas, they account for 1/4 of all the vehicles on the Interstates.
"In 2010, trucks transported 34.2 million tons of freight around the U.S. every day. These trucks pay extra taxes to offset extra wear and tear on roadways. In 2009, these taxes amounted to $3.2 billion – 11 percent the Federal Highway Trust Fund’s total revenue."
These numbers appear to support the notion that the major users of the Interstate highways are every day drivers like most of the folks who post to these forums. A substantial percentage of them are commuters.
The project cites two Federal Highway Administration studies to support its findings: The Freight Transportation System and Freight Facts and Figures 2011.
A question for our legal eagles -------------
The US DOT is calling this an act but is it just a proposal ?
Once a proposal is submitted to congress and submitted ( including amendments ) for votes it becomes a bill ?
Once a bill passes thru both houses of congress and is signed by president or allowed to become law with out a signature is it then an "ACT " ?
Inquiring minds want to know ? ? ?
dakotafredThe higher tax is justified because trucks, the main user, are harder on the roads. Probably it should be a lot higher yet (with maybe you passenger guys allowed to file for a refund on your taxes).
NKP guy Let's not forget that demographic trends indicate less interest in Interstate highways in the future. Imagine, then, funding the massive re-building of our Interstates, only to discover that the next generation of drivers significantly eschew them in favor of expanded public transportation! Talk about a day late and a dollar short!
Let's not forget that demographic trends indicate less interest in Interstate highways in the future. Imagine, then, funding the massive re-building of our Interstates, only to discover that the next generation of drivers significantly eschew them in favor of expanded public transportation! Talk about a day late and a dollar short!
NKP, I wonder if the increased interest in public transportation isn't mainly for metro travel, to and from work. In any case, I think our growing population will ensure plenty of traffic for the Interstates for at least as far into the future as the life of a rebuilt system.
I will say, I sure as heck don't want to undertake this massive expense for the exclusive benefit of trucks!
schlimm CMStPnPInteresting I am paying more tax for my clean burning BLUETEC Diesel than you guys with the gasoline engines are paying (that pollute more). Not sure why that is but it's fine as I get better mileage with a Diesel than I would with a gasoline engine so it is probably a wash. The federal tax alone is 6 cents higher than for gasoline cars. Sometimes diesel is actually cheaper than gasoline, but in Europe it is always cheaper.
CMStPnPInteresting I am paying more tax for my clean burning BLUETEC Diesel than you guys with the gasoline engines are paying (that pollute more). Not sure why that is but it's fine as I get better mileage with a Diesel than I would with a gasoline engine so it is probably a wash.
The federal tax alone is 6 cents higher than for gasoline cars. Sometimes diesel is actually cheaper than gasoline, but in Europe it is always cheaper.
MidlandMike I think some members of congress like making the interstates toll roads, because it sets the stage for privatization, as has been done with he Indiana Toll Toad.
I think some members of congress like making the interstates toll roads, because it sets the stage for privatization, as has been done with he Indiana Toll Toad.
The gas tax is unpopular because some view it as a regressive tax that hits the poor harder. I'd throw the BS flag on that though and argue that anyone filling a cars gas tannk with gas needs to pay the darn gas tax and we shouldn't attempt income equalization at the gasoline pump.
Interesting I am paying more tax for my clean burning BLUETEC Diesel than you guys with the gasoline engines are paying (that pollute more). Not sure why that is but it's fine as I get better mileage with a Diesel than I would with a gasoline engine so it is probably a wash.
According to a report I saw recently on NBC, I think, Congress will be asked to allow states to start charging tolls on the Interstate highways of their choice. The taxes on gasoline would remain the same under the proposed legislation. The idea is to make those who use the road pay for its renewed infrastructure. There seems to be no political will to raise the gasoline tax. Also, the states could treat the gasoline tax afterwards as a source of money that could be used on any state transportation project, presumably including rail projects.
Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about Congress raising gasoline taxes anytime soon.
schlimm Since vehicles get far more miles per gallon than when the rate was put at 18.4 cents in Oct. 1993 (briefly lowered to 18.3 cents 1996-97), the tax clearly needs to be raised to pay for infrastructure.
Since vehicles get far more miles per gallon than when the rate was put at 18.4 cents in Oct. 1993 (briefly lowered to 18.3 cents 1996-97), the tax clearly needs to be raised to pay for infrastructure.
Another consideration is that, the Interstate system having been built within a relatively short time window, it is now (after 50 years) basically wearing out all at once, periodic (and piecemeal) reconstruction efforts notwithstanding. Recovery will require a mobilization of capital equal to the original effort, adjusted upward for inflation.
As railroad fans, we might be cheered by the advantage to rail freight. But we know in our hearts that we still need our highways for trucks -- for that "last mile," if nothing else! -- as well as for our personal travel.
The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel. These are fixed rates. State excise taxes vary, but they are also per gallon. Since vehicles get far more miles per gallon than when the rate was put at 18.4 cents in Oct. 1993 (briefly lowered to 18.3 cents 1996-97), the tax clearly needs to be raised to pay for infrastructure.
Some states and large municipalities also charge a percentage sales tax, usually calculated on the wholesale price per gallon. NJ ranks # 48 (14.5 cents total state and local) while next door NY ranks # 3 (58.82 cents).
Ok...first Dave, Federal Taxes might be 18 cents but that includes the nine tenths of a cent shown at the pump. But my point was that through each process the oil is passed on to the next process by selling to the next processor even if the processor/transporter/wholesaler is the same company. The other point is that taxes based on per cent rather than a fixed number at any point yields a higher income for the posting political entity so politicians like higher prices.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 ... And what happens along the route of a gallon of gas? Driller/pumper sells it to the transporter who sells it to the refiner who sells it to the transporter who sells it to the branded company who sells it to a transporter who sells it to a regional wholesale distributor who sells it to a local franchise who sells it to a gas station who sells it to the unsuspecting customer. With at least doubling of price at each sale, plus certain applied taxes at certain levels the customer is still buying ten cents worth of gasoline no matter what price he pays! Alright, maybe I exaggerate. But not by much.
...
And what happens along the route of a gallon of gas? Driller/pumper sells it to the transporter who sells it to the refiner who sells it to the transporter who sells it to the branded company who sells it to a transporter who sells it to a regional wholesale distributor who sells it to a local franchise who sells it to a gas station who sells it to the unsuspecting customer. With at least doubling of price at each sale, plus certain applied taxes at certain levels the customer is still buying ten cents worth of gasoline no matter what price he pays! Alright, maybe I exaggerate. But not by much.
Henry, what in the heck are you talking about? The federal tax is 18 cents. And of course it ought to be raised after 20 years. American drivers can afford to pay twice that to keep our highway infrastructure in shape. While we're at it, we'd better make arrangements for our crumbling water and sewer lines, too.
One of these days we will figure out that a modern society depends on more than the ever-popular income transfers to keep chugging.
Ah, the gas tax. Next to the oil companies contributions, politicians favorite financial plumb! Nine tenths of one cent is Federal tax, then several other federal bites before the staties take a chunk. Some are whole numbers like the nine tenths of a penny per gallon or a nickle here or there. But the most lucrative taxes are the percents...one percent, 5 percent, and the best of all, the sales tax of 5 to 15% according to state and municipal combinations. So what politician is going to fight for lower gasoline prices when they have so much to gain...8% of two bucks is 16 cents and 8% of four bucks in 32 cents why would they want to get gas prices lower than even 2 bucks?
They should index the gas tax increases to inflation and pass the last increase. The back and forth on the gas tax is stupid. I think I would also collect a portion of the State automobile license registration fees as maybe a surcharge to also pay for road infrastructure, index that to inflation as well and increase it to cover lost gas tax revenues as cars become more fuel efficient or electric..........pretty easy and simple solution if you ask me.
Bad idea to tie it into the general revenue fund, IMO. That's not only a political cop out but will ensure that future budgets are inadequate to the job as they will bounce all over the place based on what administration is in the Oval Office. We really need a fixed source of funding here that is indexed to inflation.
It might do one thing, as long as the approach decreases Federal manipulation of the freight market and uses the free market ..
"Subsection (e) (National Freight Policy, Network, Plan, and Data) would move and revise the provision currently located in section 167 of title 23, United States Code. Under current law, the focus of the national freight policy, network, plan, and data is highway focused. This provision would make the policy, network, plan, and data multimodal focused."
But there is going to be a massive pushback from the ATA who got that in MAP-21 to start with. There needs to be a lot more analysis published in the public realm to explain why there needs to be such an equitable treatment, which the USDOT has not done.
If however it was done, the shift of more road freight to intermodal rail would only help the operation of passenger rail on the national network, with the associated extra sidings and trackage geared to timely delivery of freight.
I believe what is missing is a way to rank projects by financial efficiency, which would require you to undo the economic "time savings" methodologies for ranking projects by monetized economic B/C. A lot of people are not yet ready to admit that the incremental revenue collected on highways covers a fraction of the financial cost. I have seen some surveys that suggest people tiring of the "pot-o-money" idea.
Yesterday, the Obama Administration released the Grow America Act, a proposed bill that would extend MAP-21, the surface transportation program. MAP-21, which covers highways, transit and other programs but not intercity passenger rail, expires September 30 of this year. The Highway Trust Fund is expected to run out of money in late-summer.If passed by Congress, the Grow America Act would convert the Highway Trust Fund into the Transportation Trust Fund, which would be funded by both the current gas tax and general revenue. Intercity passenger rail would be included in the surface transportation program for the first time ever.The Grow America Act would replace the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail program authorized by PRIIA with a $5 billion a year High-Performance Rail program that would include true high-speed rail, state corridors, Amtrak and freight improvements. It would also make important improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program, making that program more useful for high-speed rail development.Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into the railroad portions of the bill. It is a big step forward in policy development.Unfortunately, the proposed bill was not well received by Congress, primarily because it fails to raise the gas tax, which has not been raised since 1993.A summary of the bill is here.http://1.usa.gov/POxiAFA section-by-section analysishttp://1.usa.gov/1kjvXM1The full bill texthttp://1.usa.gov/1kbRwN6
Midwest High Speed Rail Association4765 N. Lincoln Ave.Chicago, IL 60625
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.