by Sherman Johnson, NMA Maryland Member
Editor’s Note: NMA e-newsletters and blog posts that stir debate serve the valuable purpose of creating conversation that often leads to a better understanding of the issues at hand. Sherman Johnson’s response to The Automobile Won (Part 1, NMA E-Newsletter #702, and Part 2, #703) follows. The NMA’s stance on mileage-based user fees can be found here.
The author and I agree that the “war on the automobile” is a lost cause. We further agree that cars have improved dramatically over the last 50+ years. I also support the idea that no portion of the funding for buses and subways should come from the Motor Fuel Tax receipts (the Highway Fund). All user fees should be dedicated to the stated purpose—just as entrance fees at national parks are used exclusively for park expenses.
There are however several areas where we disagree.
One is ‘induced demand.’ There are hundreds of examples across the country of new freeway capacity creating more highway travel. Those who dispute this sometimes say that to the extent there are additional vehicles, they are due to ‘latent demand’—people who previously avoided the freeway during rush hour who now are motivated to use it. No doubt that is sometimes a factor. A much larger source of additional traffic is suburban sprawl—ugly developments that are often encouraged by what is seen as “excess highway capacity.” Those additional vehicles come later, after the subdivisions are built. Bottom line—’if you build it they will come’—and it really doesn’t matter where they come from when you are stuck in traffic.
Induced demand is not a “myth.” It is very real. As long as employers insist upon locating in/near large overcrowded urban areas, residential sprawl will continue (because close-in real estate is very expensive), roads will have to be widened, leading to more development and then more lanes—until almost every major right-of-way (ROW) is paved from one edge to the other. Once the ROW is used up and the highways are once again as congested as they were before being widened, then we begin to hear the Lexus/high-occupancy-toll (HOT) lane schemes that the author is so fond of, e.g. Mileage-Based User Fees for Highway Finance.
For more on induced demand from a wide range of sources, Google: “Real-world examples of “induced demand” traffic.”
If highways are to be widened, those additional lanes should be accompanied by a moratorium on any further residential construction. Plenty of people make a lot of money from paving prime farm land and building ugly boxes, and needless to say, they will fight any prohibition on new construction—but even developers must admit that there are hard limits to highway ROW. Once it’s gone, it’s game over. Expanding it further is prohibitively expensive because all of the land must be purchased at market rates, and in many cases, there are improvements on that land — houses, commercial buildings, etc. The last thing we want is to end up with highways that are linear parking lots for several hours every day, and no ROW left for new lanes. THAT would be a very serious problem with no solution.
Well-placed hike/bike trails are money well spent. Better to have dedicated trails than to have bicyclists mixing it up with cars, SUVs, and trucks. Don’t like bicyclists traveling 10-12 mph creating a rolling road block? Neither do I. The way to avoid that is wide shoulders and (preferably) bike trails. They benefit everyone—not just those who use them. Every bicyclist is a potential additional motorist.
Public transportation is not the enemy. Mass transit takes cars off the road. In addition, there are people who cannot or do not drive, for a variety of reasons—they are poor/low income; elderly; disabled; live in a major city where owning a car does not make sense, etc. Public transportation is a necessity for many. Per capita driving may have gone up while public transportation was being expanded, but there can be no doubt that per capita driving would have increased even more without a public transit option.
Here in the Washington D.C. region, it is an accepted fact that if Metro were to shut down, the entire area would be gridlocked—because tens of thousands of commuters drive to the outlying Metro stations and then ride the subway the rest of the way to work.
Contrary to O’Toole’s wishes, mass transit cannot be privatized—just as the social safety net cannot be privatized. It almost always operates at a loss (fares only cover a fraction of operating costs, let alone capital expenses). Of course, as with almost anything else, the government can and does sometimes spend too much on transit, as O’Toole points out. However, it does not follow that public transportation should be shut down or privatized—any more than the DoD should be eliminated because congress appropriated too much money for unused tanks and other hardware.
Ideally, everyone would be able to pay their way, cover 100 percent of their own expenses. In the real world, that’s not always the case. Sometimes user fees or fares are not enough. Public transportation rarely pays for itself—at least not directly (there are benefits for everyone though—cleaner air; fewer accidents; less traffic; lower demand for gasoline, etc.) Of course, the same can be said of many government programs. People can and do debate the usefulness of certain programs (particularly when they do not personally benefit from them) but Americans (through our representatives) have decided these programs are necessary, and must be funded. We can debate where the money comes from. We can place the Highway Trust Fund strictly off-limits, but the money must come from somewhere. Sometimes we must pay for things we do not use. That’s always been the case. It’s the price of living in a civilized democracy.
Mileage based user fees are problematic and not necessary. One issue is privacy. The government, and/or a (usually foreign) corporation has no need, or right, to know where and when Americans travel.
User fees are unnecessary because the Motor Fuel Tax works just fine. There is no location tracking, and the administrative cost is extremely low—about 0.6 percent. Some people raise the fact that EVs do not use fuel. True, but the electricity they used can be metered and taxed. For those concerned about EV owners plugging into an untaxed power source, there’s no reason why each EV cannot keep track of how much electricity it has used. In fact, I imagine they already do. In short, it can be done. We certainly do not need to be tracked with mileage-based user fees that are a “solution” in search of a problem.
O’Toole writes (emphasis mine): “Highways are egalitarian, giving equal access to people whether they are driving a Chevrolet Spark (the lowest-priced car in America today) or a Rolls Royce Boat Tail (the most expensive new car in America today).”
That’s true, as long as the highways remain open to ALL motorists, 24/7/365—funded with the fuel tax (and electricity tax) and not subject to exorbitant tolls, as is the case with most HOT/Lexus Lanes. Unfortunately, according to his pro mileage-based-user-fee blog entry noted earlier, the author argues for the exact opposite. The author talks about ‘egalitarian highways’ but actually supports Lexus Lanes for the rich (HOT lanes). Just to pick one quote from that blog entry:
“The only sure way to keep traffic from exceeding a lane’s capacity is through variable pricing, either in the form of tolls or as a part of a mileage-based fee program.”
O’Toole studiously avoids the term “HOT Lanes,” but that is exactly what he is referring to. Proponents like to talk about efficiency and how (theoretically) anyone can use the Lexus Lanes, but here’s the reality:
By definition, the Lexus Lane tolls are set high enough that they exclude all but a fraction of drivers. They must do that, to keep average speeds above a preset lower limit—say 45 or 50 mph. In effect, the limited space in the Lexus Lanes is ‘auctioned off’ to the highest bidders. Those who make enough money that (say) $3 per mile (maybe $60 total one-way) is pocket change may think Lexus Lanes are a great idea. However, most of us will be sitting in the “peasant” lanes—sucking exhaust fumes while corporate attorneys and other well-off people blow past in their European sport sedans.
Not quite the definition of egalitarian.
