Gas Tax.


Stagnant Federal Gas Tax Lies At Heart Of Transportation Funding Crisis
United States | Government / Politics | Transportation
Posted by: Irvin Dawid
Thanks to: MTC-ABAG library
26 May 2007 – 11:00am

Congress’ reluctance to raise the gas tax, as well as the President’s refusal to approve an increase, lies at the heart of the transportation funding crisis, affecting both roads and transit.

“The federal tax on a gallon of gas has not risen in 14 years and Congress is reluctant to increase it.” Ironically, the transportation funding crisis is exacerbated by the high price of fuel and the increased usage of high-mileage vehicles, as less driving translates into fewer dollars pumped into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, as does more fuel-efficient driving.”

“Of the 18.4 cents a gallon in federal excise taxes, about 15.44 cents goes to the highway trust fund, 2.86 cents to mass transit programs and one-tenth of a center to a leaking underground storage tank fund. The tax on diesel fuel is slightly higher.”

“Gasoline was only 30 cents a gallon and the excise tax on it was just 3 cents in 1956 when Congress created the highway trust fund. As gasoline prices rose, so did the tax. But a tax-adverse Congress has kept it at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, when gasoline prices were about $1.10 a gallon.”

“Two years ago, lawmakers proposed a 4-cent-per gallon boost in the fuel tax to finance a $375 billion highway bill. They backed off when President Bush pledged to veto any road legislation with a tax increase. In the end, the spending plan came to $286 billion.”

“The Congressional Budget Office predicts the fund will run a deficit of $1.7 billion at the end of 2009 and $8.1 billion by the end of 2010, when the current highway program expires and Congress will write a new one.”

“A drastic cut in federal highway and transit funding will result unless Congress steps in,” John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, said in a report.

Horsley’s group said the fuel tax would have to be increased by 10 cents per gallon through 2015 to restore the purchasing power of the program.”

“In the long run we’ve either got to admit we are going to underinvest and accept more gridlock and congestion” or find new revenue sources, said Rep. Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on highways and transit.

“What is clear to him is that raising taxes of any kind for the highway trust fund is possible only if people are convinced that more spending will mean less congestion, safer roads and a cleaner environment.”

Source: Associated Press via Inside Bay Area.Com, May 21, 2007

MTA Should Lower Fares.


It starts out with a budget shortfall, then fewer routes, then few riders, and pretty soon there is nothing left. The MTA is proposing raising fares, with the victims being those people who ride the buses and trains. How can Los Angeles allow this?

The MTA doesn’t only benefit its riders. Its increasing coverage and capacity is intrinisic to the health of the entire region. Less air pollution, less automobile traffic, cleaner air, the ability to move lots of persons around the city.

There is a solution, and it would cause an uproar. We should have an additional tax, of perhaps a dime per gallon, on gasoline. These taxes would help fund the MTA, while helping to conserve the viability of public transport in this city.

One hears a load of happy talk about a greener California, from Villaraigosa (a million trees) to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s appearance on MTV’s “Pimp My RIde” to tout alternative fuels. But are these leaders doing anything concrete? We are bombarded with news daily about global warming, asthma and children’s health, and obesity. Walking and using buses and trains helps combat many of the ailments of our modern dilemnas.

Why should MTA be fighting this battle alone? The entire state and city needs to step in to assist them and keep the trains and buses cheap, frequent and abundant.

Shonan monorail, Japan


.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }


Shonan monorail, Japan, originally uploaded by FotoBob#.

Imagine if one could travel from Valencia, CA to Long Beach by way of monorail? Or picture this snaking its way through the densely populated neighborhoods along the #10 from Santa Monica to Alhambra and beyond all the way to Palm Springs?

Think of the car trips that would not be.

Would we need to be in Iraq if we didn’t use oil to drive our SUV’s?

Why wouldn’t we even consider monorails?

Give me one good reason.

Schwarzenegger’s Hometown: Graz, Austria


.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }


Hauptplatz, originally uploaded by Salmon Pie.

“With an assist from Democratic lawmakers, Schwarzenegger has gleefully positioned California as the nation’s low-carbon test lab. Last September, he cemented his position by approving California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires a 25 percent cut in the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020—and an 80 percent cut by 2050—the most aggressive standard in the nation. The bill received only a single Republican vote, notes former assemblywoman Fran Pavley, who wrote the law. “As a Republican governor, he was walking a fine line with his own party,” she says. One conservative Web site took Schwarzenegger to task for imposing a “neo-Euro-socialist” law on California.”

Newsweek Magazine, “The Green Giant” April 16, 2007

Amsterdam Bicycles


.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }


Amsterdam Bicycles, originally uploaded by jbonniwell08.

Imagine this outside of Union Station in Los Angeles. Unimaginable!

One Way Streets and Pedestrians.


.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }


las ramblas, originally uploaded by Colin Busby.

Photo: Colin Busby

The LA Times writes:

“L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has his finger on the Easy button: Why not just turn Olympic and Pico boulevards into one-way streets going opposite directions?”

This is part of the ongoing conversation in LA on how people can get from one part of the city to the other. Especially on the Westside, traffic is now unbearable, and the wealthiest are the angriest at having to sit in their S.U.V.s for hours just to travel one mile.

I have seen one way streets in NYC and they basically work at moving traffic. Fifth Avenue goes south, Madison goes north, etc. But NYC also has a strong public transportation system and legions of walkers. There are more people on the subway trains and on foot than in cars.

Barcelona’s Las Ramblas is an enormous sidewalk full of life, commerce and urban pleasures. Can one imagine a one way Pico or Olympic providing the same amenities to Angelenos?

Part of the sickness of Los Angeles, and I do term it a disease, is the obsession with getting from point A to point B with maximum speed without stopping to enjoy the city along the way. We have built a massive, sprawling, polluted sea of monotony and junk billboards that barely qualifies as a world class metropolis.

The proposal to turn Olympic and Pico into one way freeways, full of red light running speeders, is a bad, dangerous and destructive idea.

Barcelona has a better idea. So do most cities outside of the US of A.