Why do taxpayers always give road spending a pass over other infrastructure?

[BrushStart]

Almost once a week, I read an article about Michigan's road woes. Either the article will complain about road quality, construction delays, poor salting/plowing, cost of gas, the lack of maintenance funds, etc. Yet, nobody seems able to identify the actual problem. In today's DetNews, we have an article about a potential rise in Michigan's gas tax because it is not sufficient at $.19/gallon to maintain our current infrastructure. Okay, fine. You've identified the fiscal problem. However, the author totally misses the boat in terms of identifying solutions. The only solution proposed is "a gradual increase in Michigan's 19-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax, the main source of state road money." Even worse, if you read through the comments to the article, the only thing posters can come up with is either [[a) the construction of the roads is lousy, so there must be problem with the contractors or the materials being used, or [[b) the gas taxes are being siphoned off for other purposes. Now, I don't proclaim to know much about civil engineering or road construction, but I can tell you that the gas taxes go primarily to roads, and sometimes money in the general fund even gets diverted from other projects to roads. Doesn't anyone see the real problem here?! We've built too many roads and they too expensive to maintain.

Another recent article discussed three small road projects happening around the Metro. Each project will cost the state in excess of $10 million dollars. That $30+ million right there down the drain assuming there are no cost overruns. At the end of the day, you will have nothing to show for that money other than smoother blacktop. To me, that sounds ludicrous. Michigan spends billions, literally, billions building and maintaining roads. Why? More roads do not benefit anyone other than a few contractors and suburban developers. It is the subsidy of subsidies, and the infrastructure has little to no marginal benefit at this point. Yet, nobody gawks at the enormous road budget figures, nobody realizes that what we're doing is not sustainable, nobody points out that this money could be better spent on other things. Hell, the article suggests that money might be taken from education funding to pay for more roads. That's. Just. Great.

I say, if you are one of the Archie Bunkers out there in Metro Detroit [[and you know who you are), and you're going to complain about money being spent on other infrastructure, institutions, or on education, you need to make that same scowling face when the government should be reining in road spending. Road spending is out of control and people need to see the forest through the trees. The author of the article suggests that we need better roads to attract businesses and residents to the region. Hogwash. Roads are not a solution, they are an ever growing problem.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...es-need-reform

[rencense]

totally agree,

Our state/region really hasn't grown in decades but we keep building new roads and expanding existing ones when it really isn't needed. I've noticed one silver lining in the economic downturn is that it appears that the hardcore sprawl machine is just about dead. Whether you live in the city or the burbs I wish we could all agree to just stop sprawling out further than we already are [[at least unless our region someday grows substantially) I doubt even brooks could say with a straight face that the area between 9 and 32 mile road is so crowded that we have to go further. I'm happy to see some people decide to stay and keep up their existing house/neighborhood instead of moving up a few more miles.

Lots of people like to squawk about some rudimentary mass transit beginnings being a waste of money when it is dwarfed by the cost of building new roads.

Sigh, well we also spend more on prisons than education. something seems pretty off about that too.

[DetroitPlanner]

Taxing gas is not a solution. The tax needs to be levied on the number of miles driven per year. This way there will be an incentive to drive less. With the advent of cars like the Prius, Volt, and Leaf we are seeing that taxing gas is a poor policy because while a Hummer may have paid hundreds of dollars in gas tax every year a Prius driving the same amount of miles is only paying $50, a Volt $20, and a Leaf is $0. Combine this with inflation and revenues go down the toilet.

These dollars are used not just for road maintenance, safety improvements, and some widenings but to support the development of non-motorized trail networks and pay for operating and replacing transit vehicles, as well as Rideshare programs thoughout the State.

By changing how we tax we also change development patterns. Therefore all the land use decisions that are currently made to accomodate peak hour cars will need revision to make areas more compact and cost efficient. It is only then that the policies that have given us folks who think that 40 mile commutes are not a big deal will be able to change as folks will make decisions on where they live based more on where they work and work to improve those school districts instead of heading out the bumpkinville.

Unfortunately changing these policies means abandoning an old beauracracy and adapting a new one. It is a lot of work to do this and politicians are afraid of too much change.

[bartock]

Why isn't there more clamour for tightening up the weight restrictions in this state? Arguments about building/expanding new roads aside, I thought that was a major culprit as to why MI freeways and roads are in constant need of repair.

[Detroitnerd]

Why isn't there more clamour for tightening up the weight restrictions in this state? Arguments about building/expanding new roads aside, I thought that was a major culprit as to why MI freeways and roads are in constant need of repair.

Interesting response, DetroitPlanner. Lots to think about there.

As for those weight limits, trucks can weight as much as 164,000 pounds. I have heard arguments for cutting that weight limit in half. Some people say that the way the axles are configured on these heavy trucks, the actual PPI2 aren't so bad. Others say that's preposterous. Then still others say that cutting the weight limit will save some road repair but double the truck traffic and pollution.

I would like to see governmental units working together with auto companies and auto suppliers to see how much of this traffic can be taken off the road and put into intermodal facilities. And I do wish we could get past all the noise in these arguments and make some sensible changes to these weight limits. At least it seems to me that 82-ton trucks are really beyond the pale.

[iheartthed]

Taxing gas is not a solution. The tax needs to be levied on the number of miles driven per year. This way there will be an incentive to drive less. With the advent of cars like the Prius, Volt, and Leaf we are seeing that taxing gas is a poor policy because while a Hummer may have paid hundreds of dollars in gas tax every year a Prius driving the same amount of miles is only paying $50, a Volt $20, and a Leaf is $0. Combine this with inflation and revenues go down the toilet.

It's probably well past time that Michigan implemented a toll road system.

[DetroitPlanner]

It's probably well past time that Michigan implemented a toll road system.

Unfortunately converting freeways to toll roads would be very difficult. Granted, newer technology has made it easier to do, but there would be an incredible number of ways to get around transponders because the existing system was never set-up for tolls to begin with. You would almost have to have road blocks and cops stationed writing tickets to those who do not have transponders. It sets up a military state of sorts.

[Rocko]

I'm right with you all. And then, somehow, it's always a big deal when Michigan has to renew it's yearly $8 million subsidy for Amtrak to run the Blue Water and Pere Marquette. The common refrain is always "can't we better spend that money on a road somewhere?" Ridiculous.

Sidebar: Want to raise more money for highway repair? Employ people to man all the various truck weigh stations more frequently than just-slightly-more-often-than-never. I don't know how much fines are for semis that are overweight, but I'd expect one or two of them ought to cover the cost of paying a person to sit there for the day. Anything more than that is profit, so to speak.

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm right with you all. And then, somehow, it's always a big deal when Michigan has to renew it's yearly $8 million subsidy for Amtrak to run the Blue Water and Pere Marquette. The common refrain is always "can't we better spend that money on a road somewhere?" Ridiculous.

Sidebar: Want to raise more money for highway repair? Employ people to man all the various truck weigh stations more frequently than just-slightly-more-often-than-never. I don't know how much fines are for semis that are overweight, but I'd expect one or two of them ought to cover the cost of paying a person to sit there for the day. Anything more than that is profit, so to speak.

Unfortuately with the state gas tax not generating enough to match federal aid, that $8 million if used to match fed aid becomes $41 million for reconstructing roads. This year the fight will be big.

Weigh stations are old technology. The State uses weigh in motion on most freeways now.

[gnome]

I believe the early 1960's Michigan ConCon required that the gas tax is earmarked for road construction and repair. If you recall, George Romney - the President of American Motors - was the chairman of the Convention and in those go-go auto days, pegging the gas tax to road infrastructure seemed like a great idea.

We were asked in the last election if we wanted to re-write the Constituion, the gas tax thing certainly would have been on the table for re-evaluation; however, the wisdom of 60+% of the electorate were happy with the status quo . We do get another chance to up date the Constitution every 16 years, so if we're still around in 2026, we'll have a chance to fix this situation.

You could launch a Constitutional Ammendment movement, might set you back a few million, but could make a nice way to spend your nights and weekends.

[iheartthed]

Unfortunately converting freeways to toll roads would be very difficult. Granted, newer technology has made it easier to do, but there would be an incredible number of ways to get around transponders because the existing system was never set-up for tolls to begin with. You would almost have to have road blocks and cops stationed writing tickets to those who do not have transponders. It sets up a military state of sorts.

I think something like what they do on the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey could world in Michigan, especially on state roads like Telegraph and 8 Mile, which are built very similar to the GSP. Every X amount of miles there is a booth set up with a 25 cent or 50 cent toll. Stop, toss the change into the basket and go. It doesn't have to catch every single person who uses the road, but it does introduce a tiered cost to people who use the road for long distances.

[DetroitPlanner]

Gnome, the basic law began in 1951 with Act 51. It has been amended several times since then but has not changed much since the last gas tax increase about 14 years ago.

[gnome]

Thanks for clearing up my memory, DP.

[milesdriven]

Taxing gas is not a solution. The tax needs to be levied on the number of miles driven per year.

Excuse me while I go disconnect the odometer on the hooptie.

[BrushStart]

Excuse me while I go disconnect the odometer on the hooptie.

You can ridicule potential alternatives all you want, but until someone proposes a workable solution, we are stuck with the same unsustainable quagmire of having increasing road costs and a diminishing source of road funding.

Since our new governor seems open to anything in terms fiscal changes, now would be an opportune time to start this discussion.

[laphoque]

We could actually levy taxes based on how much money we actually need for a functioning government, maybe even return the rest if we go over. It'd be way better than this hodgepodge that is always under.

[Atticus]

Taxing gas is not a solution. The tax needs to be levied on the number of miles driven per year. This way there will be an incentive to drive less. With the advent of cars like the Prius, Volt, and Leaf we are seeing that taxing gas is a poor policy because while a Hummer may have paid hundreds of dollars in gas tax every year a Prius driving the same amount of miles is only paying $50, a Volt $20, and a Leaf is $0. Combine this with inflation and revenues go down the toilet.

These dollars are used not just for road maintenance, safety improvements, and some widenings but to support the development of non-motorized trail networks and pay for operating and replacing transit vehicles, as well as Rideshare programs thoughout the State.

By changing how we tax we also change development patterns. Therefore all the land use decisions that are currently made to accomodate peak hour cars will need revision to make areas more compact and cost efficient. It is only then that the policies that have given us folks who think that 40 mile commutes are not a big deal will be able to change as folks will make decisions on where they live based more on where they work and work to improve those school districts instead of heading out the bumpkinville.

Unfortunately changing these policies means abandoning an old beauracracy and adapting a new one. It is a lot of work to do this and politicians are afraid of too much change.

While I agree there are many issues facing the gas tax, VMT simply has too many issues with it to be a viable solution. Germany has shown this first hand with their system. Basically, your overhead administrative costs to process each vehicles mileage and assign a toll is incredibly high. Second, it is very easily subject to corruption as motorist try to make it appear they "drive less". Third, you can't legally regulate vehicles from other states [[or Canada) from having VMT transponders in their car. And all of this precludes any "big brother" argument that the public will be sure to have once the government is tracking their driving.

I agree a new system is needed, just not VMT. Electronic tolling [[toll roads) and congestion pricing are likely the wave of the future.

[Hypestyles]

divert 50% of road funds into mass transit development..

[EL Jimbo]

I hate to break it to you, but stuff costs money. On average, it costs about $9 million to reconstruct one mile of expressway that goes 3 lanes in each direction. Materials costs are skyrocketing. EVERYTHING, whether it is the surface material itself like concrete or hot mix asphalt, the steel that goes into the rebar inside the concrete, or even the diesel fuel that runs the equipment has exploded over the past decade. Throw in the costs associated with traffic detours and everything else and there are reasons why this stuff is expensive.

If you think that MDOT isn't looking at ways to stretch their dollars every way they can then you are just uninformed. I PERSONALLY know for a fact that MDOT looks at EVERY road project and reviews it from a cost/benefit perspective. It isn't like it is some fly by night operation. Believe it or not, there are actually some professionals there who know what they are doing.

[BrushStart]

If you think that MDOT isn't looking at ways to stretch their dollars every way they can then you are just uninformed. I PERSONALLY know for a fact that MDOT looks at EVERY road project and reviews it from a cost/benefit perspective. It isn't like it is some fly by night operation. Believe it or not, there are actually some professionals there who know what they are doing.

I don't doubt anything you say. But, I think what you said suggests that the state, from a fiscal planning standpoint, needs to look at the rising cost of roads realistically in saying that [[a) we have built more road than we can afford, and [[b) we should consider alternatives to current practices, including toll roads, weight restrictions, and mass transit, etc.

[BrushStart]

How can we simultaneously have a quarter of a billion dollars to spend on road construction while Allen Park has no fire department?

http://www.freep.com/article/2011022...text|FRONTPAGE

http://www.freep.com/article/2011022...xt|FRONTPAGE|s

The irony of our situation around here teeters on the border of the sick and the funny.

[DetroitPlanner]

How can we simultaneously have a quarter of a billion dollars to spend on road construction while Allen Park has no fire department?

In Michigan funding transportation mostly falls on the Federal and State governments while fire protection falls onto local units of government.

[EL Jimbo]

I don't doubt anything you say. But, I think what you said suggests that the state, from a fiscal planning standpoint, needs to look at the rising cost of roads realistically in saying that [[a) we have built more road than we can afford, and [[b) we should consider alternatives to current practices, including toll roads, weight restrictions, and mass transit, etc.

Trust me, all those things ARE being looked at or have been looked at in recent years. A big issue is the fact that the money coming from Washington is very compartmentalized and can only be used for specific things.

In terms of future construction, transportation agencies at the state and local level are going to be looking at ways to integrate more transit, as well as find alternative uses of right of way in order to alleviate some of those issues. The problem, however, is that most of our network IS needed. along some corridors, expansion is needed. In others, "road dieting" is being looked at. In others, simply maintaining the current right of way in good shape is the goal. The bottom line, however, is that the roads we have built, for the most part, are not going to go away. The emphasis, as it has been for a decade, is on maintaining the existing pavement rather than making new roads or higher capacity.

[DetroitDad]

Many people were against dismantling our rail system and building the mass motorway system because of the difference in future costs to maintain each of them. Beyond that, it was apparent that once this happened, it would make us "stuck" with the system we chose, while building anything new [[rebuilding rail) would seem fiscally absurd.... which is exactly what has happened.

Unfortunately, we must keep commerce moving, and in order to do that, we have to keep the current system in grade A shape. If we do not do this, it has very serious affects on our economy and quality of life. Poorly maintained roads will significantly raise insurance rates, drain disposable income diverted to vehicle repairs and tow, cause an increase in accidents and thus medical costs, and significantly shorten the life of a vehicle. Most of all, poor road conditions have an indirect affect when realizing that many vehicles are used for commercial purposes, thus affecting prices for consumer goods, along with unemployment rates.

Adequate insurance is key, but there is still a lot of risk for, say, a farmer transporting perishable goods to markets. Delay of delivery can ruin produce [[and does contribute to higher prices), and down drivers and equipment can still have opportunity costs [[they could be making additional money beyond what insurance is paying to replace). Beyond that, claiming damage from government agencies can be a long and tiresome battle, that goes on and on, with no guarantee that you will get anything. And, if you suffer injury because of a pot hole or other defect, you will likely not be compensated by road accident funds, as they tend to only offer assistance to cases of accidents with other vehicles, or in hit-and-runs.

Until we actually have better alternatives, Metro Detroit and the rest of Michigan will be forced to continue subsidizing costly maintenance of the mass motoring transit system. As we found out by our industry history, we tend to put all our eggs in one basket, and fail to see why diversity is good, until it is too late to avoid extreme discomfort or death.

The mass motoring subsidation system has a reasonable possibility of bankrupting Michigan in the foreseeable future. That is the legacy we are leaving for our children.

Almost once a week, I read an article about Michigan's road woes. Either the article will complain about road quality, construction delays, poor salting/plowing, cost of gas, the lack of maintenance funds, etc. Yet, nobody seems able to identify the actual problem. In today's DetNews, we have an article about a potential rise in Michigan's gas tax because it is not sufficient at $.19/gallon to maintain our current infrastructure. Okay, fine. You've identified the fiscal problem. However, the author totally misses the boat in terms of identifying solutions. The only solution proposed is "a gradual increase in Michigan's 19-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax, the main source of state road money." Even worse, if you read through the comments to the article, the only thing posters can come up with is either [[a) the construction of the roads is lousy, so there must be problem with the contractors or the materials being used, or [[b) the gas taxes are being siphoned off for other purposes. Now, I don't proclaim to know much about civil engineering or road construction, but I can tell you that the gas taxes go primarily to roads, and sometimes money in the general fund even gets diverted from other projects to roads. Doesn't anyone see the real problem here?! We've built too many roads and they too expensive to maintain.

Another recent article discussed three small road projects happening around the Metro. Each project will cost the state in excess of $10 million dollars. That $30+ million right there down the drain assuming there are no cost overruns. At the end of the day, you will have nothing to show for that money other than smoother blacktop. To me, that sounds ludicrous. Michigan spends billions, literally, billions building and maintaining roads. Why? More roads do not benefit anyone other than a few contractors and suburban developers. It is the subsidy of subsidies, and the infrastructure has little to no marginal benefit at this point. Yet, nobody gawks at the enormous road budget figures, nobody realizes that what we're doing is not sustainable, nobody points out that this money could be better spent on other things. Hell, the article suggests that money might be taken from education funding to pay for more roads. That's. Just. Great.

I say, if you are one of the Archie Bunkers out there in Metro Detroit [[and you know who you are), and you're going to complain about money being spent on other infrastructure, institutions, or on education, you need to make that same scowling face when the government should be reining in road spending. Road spending is out of control and people need to see the forest through the trees. The author of the article suggests that we need better roads to attract businesses and residents to the region. Hogwash. Roads are not a solution, they are an ever growing problem.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...es-need-reform

[oladub]

Roads derive much of funding from use taxes; from set fees from annual licensing and from fuel taxes. Money being spent on "other infrastructure, institutions, or on education" often depends on income tax. State universities usually raise about one third of their revenue from users and two/thirds from income taxes. It just seems easier to squeeze money out of actual users than the tax paying public.