Wow -- maybe $4/gallon gas really is the psychological tipping point. No amount of AAA propaganda and boosterism can cover up what could be a real trend toward conservation.
Now before we go dancing in the less-clogged streets t celebrate the new conservation ethic, let's not forget the downside: less fuel-tax revenue means less money in the already tight road-repair budget.
A loss of fuel-tax revenues compounds the shortage of federal money for road projects, [South Dakota Secretary of Transportation Darin Bergquist] said.
Money has become so tight that the Transportation Department is focusing on maintaining highways rather than improving roads or building new ones, Bergquist told legislators.
"We are in preservation mode," he said.
The revenue shortfall has been coupled with highly inflationary costs of road projects in recent years, Bergquist said. "We have seen unprecedented increases."
Although federal highway funding has doubled since 1993, inflation has far outpaced the extra money, he said.
Nearly 80 percent of state highways are in excellent or good condition, most of the rest are fair, and only 3 percent to 4 percent are in poor condition, Bergquist said. But he said no change in federal funding could lead to 19 percent of state highways slipping into poor condition by 2020 ["Officials Say S.D. Needs Road Money," AP via Sioux City Journal, 2008.06.20].
Now maybe, just maybe, another encouraging 38 will save us from a road-repair disaster: nationwide SUV sales dropped 38% in May versus same month last year. If people are driving less and driving less weighty vehicles, maybe the roads won't need as much repair. (Yeah, right -- now if we could just put heated domes over the roads so they wouldn't freeze and thaw every winter and spring....)
Our state DMV director Deb Hillmer appears to agree with me: she told legislators yesterday that vehicle weight and use are the main causes of road wear. Taxing vehicles based on age (that's how we do it now) doesn't square with the impact those vehicles have. It may thus be time to find a new formula for taxing vehicles to fund highway repair. (Hey, how about a vehicle productivity tax? ;-) )
---------------------------
Update 09:05 CDT: On a related note, A Duke University prof says we should think of gas mileage in terms of gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon:
[Dr. Richard] Larrick said most people think improvements in miles per gallon are all the same, where a 5 gallon per mile improvement would yield the same gas savings in a car that gets 10 miles per gallon or 20 miles per gallon. (One mile equals 1.61 kilometers, and one U.S. gallon equals 3.79 liters.)
"The reality that few people appreciate is that improving fuel efficiency from 10 to 20 miles per gallon is actually a more significant savings than improving from 25 to 50 miles per gallon for the same distance of driving," Larrick said [Julie Steenhuysen, "U.S. Drivers Should Think in Gallons Per Mile: Report," Reuters via Yahoo, 2008.06.19].
Or maybe we just need to do like Clint Eastwood in Firefox: hop in our MiG-31s and думать на русском языке -- think in Russian!
The story doesn't say anything about less fuel being sold. It just says tax collections from the fuel tax are down. You can't necessarily equal a 38% drop in taxes with an exact 38% drop in consumption. There may be other factors at play here.
ReplyDeleteI do bet total fuel sales in $$$ are up, but since we tax fuel by the gallon instead of the dollar, it's hard to tell.
I marvel at how low the vehicle registration fees are in this state. I'm no fan of raising fees or taxes, and am certainly against any new taxes. But I could see the reasoning behind higher registration fees for vehicles over a certain weight, or for those evil SUVs and pickups.
ReplyDeleteI drive a pickup. Although it's a small one (Chevy S-10), I wouldn't carry around any resentments at paying a higher registration fee every year. Heck, I pay a couple hundred more in insurance alone compared with the small car I had before.
It would be hard to get along without this pickup in the winter, but I've managed to reduce my driving enough to break even on the fuel cost compared with the smaller car, even taking gas price hikes into account. (I realize not everyone can cut back on their driving as I can.)
I would not be among those cheering at the sight of five, six, and seven dollars a gallon for gasoline. Treating a disease (gasoline addiction) may be painful; I can live with that. I would derive some comfort from the effects of the treatment (reduced overall consumption, less road repair, cleaner air for our neighbors to the east, more fuel available for all, etc.) despite the pain. But I would derive no joy from the pain itself. I won't be dancing in the streets to celebrate our general social agony, as if somehow suffering equals redemption. Clumsy as I am, I'd likely fall into a pothole and break my leg.
First, we have too many roads. The 20% of our roads rated fair or poor should be cut from the system, given to counties or townships or abandoned. We cannot afford four lane roads to every Hootterville. We played in the road building bubble and are now stuck with the maintenance.
ReplyDeleteSecond, gas gouging in SD contributes to our tax shortfall. Seasoned, experienced travelers (those who buy petrol by the hundreds of gallons and dollars), schedule their purchases outside our gas gouging state - thanks to information provided via the internet. The gas gougers impale us twice - once for over charging residents, second for causing tax revenue to be collected in adjacent states. It ain't rocket science: http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
Third, can anyone believe the happy news that's still coming from the SD tourism industry - since gas tax collects are down 38%. What's the impact going to be on tourism and sales tax collections?
Taxes on vehicles should bear some relation to damage done to highways. Loaded tractor-trailer rigs may do 15,000 times as much damage as a small car or empty pickup truck.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem has been allowing railroads to tear up roadbeds and the failure to develop highspeed light rail to reduce traffic on roads and in the air.
Douglas, I'm totally on board (pun intended) with you on the light rail! I heard James Howard Kunstler first advocate for nationwide light rail a few years ago, and ever since I've thought it an awesome idea, even for out here in rural America. It would be a huge culture shift for us to be willing to take the rail to our "metro" areas for a Saturday visit (hmmm, might have to buy less stuff when we get there!) or for job commutes, but hey, they do it on the east coast and all over Europe...and other places around the world.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would jump at the chance to take high-speed light rail even for a trip to the Hills. I've traveled on Vancouver, BC's fantastic public transit system for a couple weekend trips away from the city (took a combination of bus and ferry), so I know it's possible to pack for several days away and still get all the necessities on a train. Yes, it can be a bit of a pain, but then you also get to just sit back, relax, and let someone else do the driving. For cheap.
If the money the state takes in via taxes is down, maybe the state can start cutting travel expenses for state employees and put that money toward road repair. According to a state employee I know, nothing has been done to reduce the number of trips at state expense by state employees, nothing to encourage car pooling for employees that must travel from Pierre to points across the state.
ReplyDeleteAnd evidently a state employee who takes their own vehicle on state business to, for example, Sioux Falls, is allowed reimbursement for only a small X amount of miles for extra driving around town. However, if a state employee takes a state vehicle, that employee can drive around town all he/she wants for pleasure and be reimbursed for every personal mile by the taxpayers.
How about it, Gov. Rounds? It's time for the state to tighten its belt too.
Stan might like to pay higher vehicle taxes, but I'm sure that most of the citizens of this state don't.
If the state is going to be short of funds for necessities, maybe it would be a good idea for state employees to submit ideas on how to make more efficient use of available tax monies. For instance, don't buy every employee in a division their own personal printer/fax! Review job descriptions and eliminate unnecessary employees. Cut back on state travel, rely more on telecommunication for meetings etc. There is a lot of fluff in gov't - find it and cut it out.
Nonnie
Road maintenance will be the least of our problems for within three to five years we'll probably see oil at $500 per barrel. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=774744570&play=1
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:14 (π!): "We cannot afford four lane roads to every Hootterville"? Uh oh -- I think you just got disinvited from the next Four for the Future fundraising soireé!
ReplyDeleteInteresting gouging theory... but could travelers make a -38% difference in tax revenues?
Define difference. I suspect that the gouger-traveler linkage contributes, perhaps significantly contributes, to the drop in gas tax revenues - but without a study it's admittedly logical conjecture. We're not talking about Prius or Civic travelers, but rather the big RVs and 18 wheelers that buy gas like a drunken sailor.
ReplyDeleteHey, Cory, I heard that same interesting discussion about mileage vs. gas usage on Talk of the Nation. Revealing, indeed, like seeing the emperor's real costume.
ReplyDeleteIt's fun to invert other parameters, too. Wages in minutes per dollar ... studying a mathematics textbook in hours per page ... measuring the period of a radio wave in nanoseconds per cycle.
If you keep showing people something upside-down, eventually they'll think they're seeing it rightside-up. No wonder our heads are in the sand and our feet are up in the air.
If Old No. 8 sits in the garage for a week, its performance is the same either way: zero over zero. The best deal of all.