No road pays for itself

[Slick Vik]

From TXDOT

 

Another way of describing this is to do a “tax gap” analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs. Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

 

 

[Slick Vik]

This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less.

 

http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2008/08/texas-dot-fesses-about-endless-subsidies-highways-%E2%80%94-will-wisconsin-be-next

[brijonmang]

From TXDOT

Another way of describing this is to do a “tax gap” analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs. Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

 

 

Do you not see that as a bad example?  That stretch of road will be a tollway.  It will pay for itself.

[cloud713]

agreed, the grand parkway is a bad example and will eventually pay for itself. isnt the beltway paid off already? 

i have been saying for a while that Texas needs to raise its fuel tax. we cant afford to pay for the roads we already have, and more and more people keep moving here, demanding more roads/lanes of traffic.

[samagon]

Do you not see that as a bad example?  That stretch of road will be a tollway.  It will pay for itself.

 

Tollways are horrible examples, because you pay a dollar for every 3 or 4 miles driven. Way higher than a $2 gas tax increase would be.

 

But overall, the point is sound, highways are not paid for in gasoline tax alone, it's really only worth bringing up when someone says that mass transit doesn't pay for itself and needs to rely on government to cover the difference.

[august948]

But overall, the point is sound, highways are not paid for in gasoline tax alone, it's really only worth bringing up when someone says that mass transit doesn't pay for itself and needs to rely on government to cover the difference.

And even then, it's only relevant when you are trying to analyze the return on investment of dollars between roads and rail.

[ToryGattis]

Whenever this point comes up, I always like to point out that the road network is not optional.  Every property must be connected to the road network, if only for deliveries, construction, police, ambulance, and fire access.  Only in SimCity can you connect the world with only transit. Therefore paying a substantial portion of the road network out of property taxes is completely fair, because all property owners benefit from being connected to that road network, even if they don't drive themselves.

[jgriff]

Roads carry a lot more than just people. Metro rail only carries people. The people that don't ride it or live near it get very little benefit from it. We all benefit from roads, even people who don't own cars.

[august948]

The shale boom may end up helping us pay for some of the roads and help keep a lid on gas prices to boot.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/04/30/shale-boom-has-major-impact-on-texas-budget/

[mfastx]

Agree with the sentiments that roads are necessary. 

 

However I do not think the "rail does not make profit" argument is valid either, because public transit is arguably a necessity in major cities, and buses do not pay for themselves either. 

 

It's really an uneccessary and silly argument anyway. 

[august948]

However I do not think the "rail does not make profit" argument is valid either, because public transit is arguably a necessity in major cities, and buses do not pay for themselves either.

Agreed. The conversation should be how do we invest the funds, ex-user/rider/driver payments, to get the greatest return on the investment of the tax dollars.

[Slick Vik]

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-lawmakers-last-bid-on-transportation-bill-4694825.php?cmpid=htx

 

So we don't have the funds to maintain the roads we do have, but then there are those like august who want more roads and highways. Yea that makes a lot of sense. I think finally the bubble may have burst for this road craze and even TXDOT can see it.

[RedScare]

No bubble has burst. Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too by not raising the gas tax, but wishing for more highways and roads. They will either bite the bullet and raise taxes for the first time in 20 years (like they should), or they will let the roads deteriorate while claiming they didn't raise taxes (like they will probably do).

 

None of this has anything to do with your train lust. If there is no money for roads, you'll never even sniff a rail track.

[august948]

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-lawmakers-last-bid-on-transportation-bill-4694825.php?cmpid=htx

 

So we don't have the funds to maintain the roads we do have, but then there are those like august who want more roads and highways. Yea that makes a lot of sense. I think finally the bubble may have burst for this road craze and even TXDOT can see it.

Hahahaha...you mean the "road craze" that has been going on since civilization began? This is just the same old haggle about how to fund it, nothing more. Either we raise some taxes or reduce spending elsewhere to pay for new roads and maintenance of old ones or we cut back on both. Either way it doesn't herald a new era of mass transit because that would be an even worse investment of limited tax dollars.

[livincinco]

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-lawmakers-last-bid-on-transportation-bill-4694825.php?cmpid=htx

 

So we don't have the funds to maintain the roads we do have, but then there are those like august who want more roads and highways. Yea that makes a lot of sense. I think finally the bubble may have burst for this road craze and even TXDOT can see it.

 

I blame it on those crazy Romans and all their road building.

[Slick Vik]

Hahahaha...you mean the "road craze" that has been going on since civilization began? This is just the same old haggle about how to fund it, nothing more. Either we raise some taxes or reduce spending elsewhere to pay for new roads and maintenance of old ones or we cut back on both. Either way it doesn't herald a new era of mass transit because that would be an even worse investment of limited tax dollars.

 

You honestly think Houston's public transport system is sufficient as is, with the constant population that is moving in every day? If so, that's simply false. Something has to be done, would be better now ahead of the problem but if we have to wait until the gridlock becomes like LA, then I guess that is what it will take. But the path of using most of the money on roads and highways while turning a blind eye to mass transit is ignorant and sad.

[SkylineView]

This is actually a really interesting question, let's use 20 miles of I-10 as an example.  Forgive me, but math is incoming.

• 20 miles of road
• 250,000 cars per day (maybe high)
• ... 5,000,000 miles driven per day
• ... 1,825,000,000 miles driven per year (probably high, not accounting for weekends)

And now the gas tax

• $0.20/gallon
• Lets assume an average of 25 mpg (optimistic today)
• ... yields $0.008 per mile driven (this is much lower than I had assumed, less than one cent per mile)

Combining the total miles driven on I-10 in this scenario with the gas tax... you get $14,600,000 per year.  That is a small amount of money to do anything with... much less cover debt payments on $3B of construction costs (assuming even 3%, that would be $150,000,000/year.

 

I'm sure this isn't news to anyone else on the forum, but the math exercise drove home the gap for me.  The obvious answer is that today roads aren't solely funded through the gas taxes, instead capitalizing on other revenue.  (Side note, is anyone else sick of taxes being collected in buckets and reallocated to different buckets?  Let's call a spade a spade and collect taxes as "Taxes" and spend them as "Taxes", or alternatively collect them as "Gas Taxes for Roads" and spend them on roads.)    

 

I'm a republican, I support higher gas taxes. 

[livincinco]

I think that you've really hit home on the reason why there are so many toll roads being constructed at this point.  It's just not possible to continue to develop roads at the rate of population growth with the current funding.

 

That being said, it's pretty myopic to think that rail alleviates the need for roads.  Just look at the example of Dallas, they spent a bunch of money on a rail system and it really hasn't slowed their need to construct roads at all.  Rail is useful in certain situations, but its uses are limited.

[Slick Vik]

I think that you've really hit home on the reason why there are so many toll roads being constructed at this point.  It's just not possible to continue to develop roads at the rate of population growth with the current funding.

 

That being said, it's pretty myopic to think that rail alleviates the need for roads.  Just look at the example of Dallas, they spent a bunch of money on a rail system and it really hasn't slowed their need to construct roads at all.  Rail is useful in certain situations, but its uses are limited.

 

If it's built in the right way it can alleviate congestion to an extent. And not just rail, but rail in combination with bus rapid transit and buses. Mexico City is a good example.

[august948]

If it's built in the right way it can alleviate congestion to an extent. And not just rail, but rail in combination with bus rapid transit and buses. Mexico City is a good example.

Hahahaha...once again you provide the perfect example to refute your own point. Mexico City is by far the worst city in the world for commuting.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/transportation/10-worst-cities-for-commuting-2011-edition/892

Houston doesn't even make the list. All of the top cities have more extensive public transport systems than Houston and all of them are far worse places to commute.

[livincinco]

If it's built in the right way it can alleviate congestion to an extent. And not just rail, but rail in combination with bus rapid transit and buses. Mexico City is a good example.

 

Thank you for illustrating the point that I've been trying to make all along.  Mexico City has used BRT and a subway line to reduce congestion.  What's missing from that equation - light rail.  I'm all in favor of an extensive BRT/express bus network fed by local buses with subway in heavily trafficked areas (although I'm not sure Houston has any routes that really qualify for subway in the foreseeable future).

 

All of this conversation hasn't convinced me that LRT is a value add (in comparison to BRT) in anything other than aesthetics.

[Slick Vik]

Thank you for illustrating the point that I've been trying to make all along.  Mexico City has used BRT and a subway line to reduce congestion.  What's missing from that equation - light rail.  I'm all in favor of an extensive BRT/express bus network fed by local buses with subway in heavily trafficked areas (although I'm not sure Houston has any routes that really qualify for subway in the foreseeable future).

 

All of this conversation hasn't convinced me that LRT is a value add (in comparison to BRT) in anything other than aesthetics.

 

I am no lover of light rail. But if that's the only option they are going to offer up, well it is better than no rail at all and certainly better than the bus.

[Slick Vik]

Hahahaha...once again you provide the perfect example to refute your own point. Mexico City is by far the worst city in the world for commuting.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/transportation/10-worst-cities-for-commuting-2011-edition/892

Houston doesn't even make the list. All of the top cities have more extensive public transport systems than Houston and all of them are far worse places to commute.

 

Have you even been to Mexico City? Imagine how much worse it would be without the extensive mass transit that it does have. It has an excellent system that is packed at all hours of the day and night. The fact it is still congested is not to be blamed on mass transit but a gargantuan population.

[livincinco]

I am no lover of light rail. But if that's the only option they are going to offer up, well it is better than no rail at all and certainly better than the bus.

We already had the BRT vs LRT discussion. You didn't convince me. I didn't convince you. No reason to go over it again.

[august948]

Have you even been to Mexico City? Imagine how much worse it would be without the extensive mass transit that it does have. It has an excellent system that is packed at all hours of the day and night. The fact it is still congested is not to be blamed on mass transit but a gargantuan population.

 

Or it's one of many examples of how pouring money into feel-good mass transit projects instead of using that money to expand the road system and suburban job centers just makes things that much worse.

[august948]

I am no lover of light rail. But if that's the only option they are going to offer up, well it is better than no rail at all and certainly better than the bus.

 

Buses are always the better option since they can use a shared infrastructure instead of requiring a dedicated setup.

[Slick Vik]

Or it's one of many examples of how pouring money into feel-good mass transit projects instead of using that money to expand the road system and suburban job centers just makes things that much worse.

You have to give people options. There is also an environmental component to this.

Buses are always the better option since they can use a shared infrastructure instead of requiring a dedicated setup.

Wow. That takes away any possible efficiency.

[Slick Vik]

We already had the BRT vs LRT discussion. You didn't convince me. I didn't convince you. No reason to go over it again.

As I said before it depends on demand. If demand is very high then rail makes sense. If its low then Brt is fine so long as there aren't a lot of bridges and tunnels at which point the cost difference isn't much.

[august948]

You have to give people options. There is also an environmental component to this.

Wow. That takes away any possible efficiency.

 

The environmental component will take care of itself via techology.  Buses are far more efficient as they can go anywhere there is a road, can be rerouted at will and can be put to use for special events and emergencies.  Rail and BRT are stuck on their narrow tracks.  Just because they look prettier doesn't make them more efficient.

[livincinco]

As I said before it depends on demand. If demand is very high then rail makes sense. If its low then Brt is fine so long as there aren't a lot of bridges and tunnels at which point the cost difference isn't much.

OK, I'll play. You say that high demand requires light rail. The North/South corridor of the Express BRT in Curitiba carries an average of 188,000 passengers a day. METROs red line carries 36,000 passengers on an average day and the maximum it has ever carried is 71,000 people. If the max that you've ever carried is 40% of the proven average capacity of BRT, then please explain what the demand needs to be to justify LRT instead of BRT.