Comments on: Fuel Taxes: Let’s Insist on Getting Something Back http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2010/02/17/fuel-taxes-lets-insist-on-getting-something-back/ Providing logistics professionals with clear and concise analyses of Logistics Trends, Technologies, and Services Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:04:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dmiller http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2010/02/17/fuel-taxes-lets-insist-on-getting-something-back/comment-page-1/#comment-171 dmiller Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:17:23 +0000 http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2954#comment-171 Tom makes a number of good points. We need to do two things: 1) increase the highway fuel taxes from 1993’s levels to at least match the inflation-adjusted rate of today, and 2) make sure that those taxes which are collected in the name of maintaining and improving our highway infrastructure are, in fact, fully devoted to this critical national need. The second point, which speaks to diversion of trust fund monies to non-highway uses, is just as important -– if not more so -- than Tom’s other recommendations. The trucking industry contributes billions of dollars every year to the Highway Trust Fund in the form of registration fees, fuel, sales and excise taxes, tolls and other assessments. These are monies intended for bridge and road maintenance and capacity increases for our nation’s highway infrastructure. The mechanisms used to collect these taxes are proven reliable and effective. The larger issue is how some of these funds are being co-opted for uses other than modernizing and repairing our highways. Today, about 25% of every gasoline or fuel tax dollar collected from highway users is diverted to non-highway use — projects such as heavy and light-rail mass transit, bridle paths, bicycle trails and Frisbee parks. (see www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/02/trucks-and-rails-a-new-era-of-cooperation/) The Highway Trust Fund and its funding mechanisms perform as they were designed. The monies are being collected and the system is equitable and effective. It ensures that highway users pay their fair share toward the costs of maintaining and improving our infrastructure. What needs to be addressed are those policy decisions that prevent 100% of these funds from being applied to where they are most sorely needed — our highways. And that’s where Congress, with a little common sense, can do what’s right for the nation and help ensure that those funds intended to fix our crumbling infrastructure are fully applied to this national imperative. Dave Miller, Senior Vice President, Global Policy and Economic Sustainability, Con-way Tom makes a number of good points. We need to do two things: 1) increase the highway fuel taxes from 1993’s levels to at least match the inflation-adjusted rate of today, and 2) make sure that those taxes which are collected in the name of maintaining and improving our highway infrastructure are, in fact, fully devoted to this critical national need.

The second point, which speaks to diversion of trust fund monies to non-highway uses, is just as important -– if not more so — than Tom’s other recommendations. The trucking industry contributes billions of dollars every year to the Highway Trust Fund in the form of registration fees, fuel, sales and excise taxes, tolls and other assessments. These are monies intended for bridge and road maintenance and capacity increases for our nation’s highway infrastructure. The mechanisms used to collect these taxes are proven reliable and effective.

The larger issue is how some of these funds are being co-opted for uses other than modernizing and repairing our highways. Today, about 25% of every gasoline or fuel tax dollar collected from highway users is diverted to non-highway use — projects such as heavy and light-rail mass transit, bridle paths, bicycle trails and Frisbee parks. (see http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/02/trucks-and-rails-a-new-era-of-cooperation/)

The Highway Trust Fund and its funding mechanisms perform as they were designed. The monies are being collected and the system is equitable and effective. It ensures that highway users pay their fair share toward the costs of maintaining and improving our infrastructure.

What needs to be addressed are those policy decisions that prevent 100% of these funds from being applied to where they are most sorely needed — our highways.

And that’s where Congress, with a little common sense, can do what’s right for the nation and help ensure that those funds intended to fix our crumbling infrastructure are fully applied to this national imperative.

Dave Miller, Senior Vice President, Global Policy and Economic Sustainability, Con-way

]]> By: dnelson http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2010/02/17/fuel-taxes-lets-insist-on-getting-something-back/comment-page-1/#comment-167 dnelson Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:04:06 +0000 http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2954#comment-167 Davis-Bacon should be repealed because it is inherently unfair and to my mind unconstitutional, but politically it is a non-starter. Rather than increase taxes and count on our benevolent leaders to spend it wisely on infrastructure, I would prefer we privatize the highway system, which is a total pipe dream, but probably just as likely as repealing Davis-Bacon. Davis-Bacon should be repealed because it is inherently unfair and to my mind unconstitutional, but politically it is a non-starter. Rather than increase taxes and count on our benevolent leaders to spend it wisely on infrastructure, I would prefer we privatize the highway system, which is a total pipe dream, but probably just as likely as repealing Davis-Bacon.

]]> By: csaynor http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2010/02/17/fuel-taxes-lets-insist-on-getting-something-back/comment-page-1/#comment-166 csaynor Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:54:01 +0000 http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=2954#comment-166 Tom, Great article. And very refreshing to hear someone from the transportation/logistics industry advocating higher fuel taxes. Of course, even with higher fuel taxes it is ensuring that the extra revenue is directed to transport infrastrucutre projects which is key. In the UK, fuel taxes are much higher than the USA and have risen in the last decade by more than inflation. However, none of this (extra) tax-revenue is specifically ring-fenced for infrastructure projects resulting in the same under-investment that the USA has. Chris Saynor, CEO, eyefortransport Tom,

Great article. And very refreshing to hear someone from the transportation/logistics industry advocating higher fuel taxes. Of course, even with higher fuel taxes it is ensuring that the extra revenue is directed to transport infrastrucutre projects which is key. In the UK, fuel taxes are much higher than the USA and have risen in the last decade by more than inflation. However, none of this (extra) tax-revenue is specifically ring-fenced for infrastructure projects resulting in the same under-investment that the USA has.

Chris Saynor, CEO, eyefortransport

]]>