The NSTPRSC is too car friendly

In my previous post, I gave an overview of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission’s final report.  While it is pretty mediocre, it is full of great charts, but the report is a .pdf so I can’t insert any charts.  Some of their recommendations, such as raising and then indexing the federal fuel tax surchage, are spot on, but they still do too much to reinforce our over reliance on cars.

The Good:

• We learn that, at the current rate, we have a funding shortfall of $220 to $301 billion dollars through 2035.  This translates into an increased federal gas tax of $.63 to $1.00 (2007 dollars).
  • Of this total, transit is $.05-.10; freight rail $.o1; and passneger rail $.04.
  • A 1 cent increase in the fuel tax raises approximately $1.9 billion per year.
• The fuel tax should immediately be increased 5 to 8 cents per year for the next five years.
  • It has not been increased since 1993, which represents a 40% decline in the revenue’s real purchasing power; this represents a loss of approximately $50 billion since 1993.
  • The 4.3 cent raise in 1993 was dedicated to repaying federal debt from 1993 until 1997.
• The fuel tax should be indexed to some measure of inflation.
• Rail is integral to our transportation future.
• The Highway Transport Fund should be renamed the Surface Transportation Transport Fund to reflect its broader infrastructure role.
• Tax rates on freight trucks should be raised; the report does not say from where to where.
• Passenger and intercity rail need dedicated funding sources.
• Congestion pricing (including toll roads) is necessary.
  • This includes Public-Private Partnerships where necessary.
• Levy new freight fees at customs to support freight infrastructure.
• In 2005, states provided the most revenue for highways: $77.7 billion.  Local governments and the Highway Trust Fund, at $43.9 and $31.2 billion, were next.
• In 2005, $6.8 billion dollars went to transit.  63% of this money came from local funds and taxes; 20.2% from states; and 16.9% from the federal government.
  • The federal government’s money comes from the fuel tax and general funds.
• The largest amount (~41%) of transit revenue comes from specialized taxes; the next largest (~28%) from fares.

The Bad

• The report’s solutions put too much stock in process redesign and buzzwords such as “transparency,” “efficiency,” “flexibility,” and “sustainability.”
• A vehicle miles traveled tax does not strike me as a good idea (for reasons I will discuss later).
• The report wants funding for intercity rail to come from increased taxes on rail tickets.  Though this might work, the installed base of users is too low to provide a major initial stimulus, and not using highway fuel charges would miss an opportunity to nudge individuals away from highway driving (which is more dangerous and harmful to the environment anyway).
• Too many proposals to increase revenue are too vague.  For example, the government should take “measures to reduce evasion of fuel and other highway-user taxes” and “improve financial assistance to the railroads to support capacity enhancement.”
• No focus on the design of more livable cities.
• No mention of the environmental benefits of rail versus highway transport; these have serious economic impacts that are frequently left out of cost-benefit calculations.
• The idea of an infrastructure bank receives scant mention.