Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of a new increased gas tax to raise the funds to maintain our roads. I am a stalwart advocate of reducing taxes and government size, but after looking at this, it appears there may be little choice. I would like to hear what others have to say. Do you want to pay more tax on gas, or pay to fix your car constantly due to decaying roads and no money to repair or replace them? I think that I already spend as much or more on tires, suspension and alignment repairs as any added gas tax will cost me. How will decaying roads impact Michigan's business environment?
What I know is:
MDOT has had their budget cut repeatedly while costs continue to rise. They have well over 200 unfilled positions and are operating on a pretty skeletal staff.
MDOT has a huge obligation for debt service and cannot in good conscience continue to borrow more and more funds. Debt service eats up a very substantial portion of their budget. If they keep borrowing, they will either spend their entire budget on debt service, or they will have to default.
As people start driving more efficient cars, and start paying more attention to how they drive, the total am out of fuel sold decreases (probably a good thing, but very bad for fuel-tax-Dependant road repair budgets).
Even if further cuts could be made by MDOT, those cuts could never produce enough money to keep up with the necessary maintenance, repairs and replacement. They are behind already (did you notice?). They are looking at falling ever further behind unless something is done to finance repairs, maintenance and replacement of our roads.
Counties, and other local government agencies are in equally bad positions and cannot afford to maintain the local roads for which they are responsible.
Although costs for fuel, asphalt oil, and other materials continue to go up, contractors bid prices are not increasing at the same rate. Many contractors are bidding for this work with margins that barely allow them to keep the doors open. If something goes wrong, they go out of business. Prices for performing the work are not going to fall significantly no matter how bad things get. No one will pay the government for the privilege of building them a road.
Although public-private partnerships (toll roads) could fund some of the necessary repairs for a few major freeways, it is not going to meet all of the need. Besides, toll roads are not better than gas tax, they slow you down and still cost you more money when you drive. I actually love the fact that Michigan has no toll roads.
MDOT may save some money (maybe) if the state will allow them to bid out design build projects or design-build-maintain projects, but the savings, if any, will not generate enough funds to meet the need.
Even combining all of the various options used by others States (many of which should be done in Michigan anyway), MDOT will not be able to meet the needs for maintenance, repair and replacement.
Lansing is not going to cut enough money from other parts of the budget to provide the necessary funding. I suspect that they could cut a lot of non-critical programs, but they will not. Our roads will fall to pieces long before any agreement is made to cut enough to pay for the needed repairs/replacement. Washington is not going to provide the means to solve the problem. They have too much debt to repay already. Too many States with far more political clout are equally needy. Besides, the transportation trust fund is broke (I think for the first time since it was created).
The more the surface of a road decays, the faster the decay occurs. Once rain and ice get under the pavement, the entire road bed will fail fairly quickly. The further a road is allowed to decay, the more it costs to repair/replace it.
The money has to come from somewhere. If they cannot raise the funds, the only choice will be to stop maintaining certain roads and simply close them, or leave residents to fend for themselves. Eventually, some roads will become impassible and that will just be too bad. They will have to choose roads that only serve a few people and just let them go. They will also have to stop any mowing, cleaning, painting, replacing signs, rest stops, etc. When bridges fail, they will just have to close that section of the road (bridges are super expensive).
Like all of the United States a lot of our bridges are of questionable safety. Many people do not realize it, but they drive over dozens of bridges every day. Bridges cross rivers, streams, culverts, other roads, railroads, etc. Very few roads have no bridges on them. If a bridge fails, that part of the road is completely impassible. As bridges begin to fail or become unsafe, who Will decide which people get trapped, and which get the benefit of the limited available funds?
A lot of people talk about closing the rest stops. That will not make enough difference in the budget to have any real impact. However it may become necessary for political reasons - people need to see that MDOT has gone to extremes to cut every possible expense before they will agree to an increased tax. Frankly I think it would be a shame if this becomes necessary, because it will generate little savings, and create significant problems for travelers. Here, private partnerships may be the answer. Contract with McDonald's to maintain the rest stops in exchange for being able to sell food there.
I think that Lansing needs to trim more fat (do State employees really need Cellular telephones? Internet access? Other things that they used to do without?) Maybe MDOT can trim something more (stop mowing perhaps?). Maybe MDOT Can take another chunk out of their worker's pockets (another option that I dislike). However nothing is going to generate enough money to solve the problem. Much as I hate it, it seems that there must be some form of gas tax, mileage based tax or other revenue to cover this cost. I would rather pay an extra ten or twenty cents per gallon than lose our roads and continue to pay a fortune for repairs to my cars.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/state_various_sales_rates_2000-2010.pdfWe (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/state_various_sales_rates_2000-2010.pdf - broken link) We currently have the 7th highest gas tax in the USA, yet the 2nd worst roads next to Pennsylvania (according to a MSN story from a few months ago). Gas tax for Michigan roads is not working.States like Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, that also get severe weather have considerably less gas tax yet have better roads.Cars may be getting more fuel efficient, but people are driving more miles these days. Many cars in the 80s got similar mileage to cars they are making today.Sorry about the link, my computer does not post paragraphs and links correctly in this forum.
Michigan also has a higher population than Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota combined, not to mention much more paved roads than Montana and North Dakota.
LOL at cars in the 80's getting similar mileage as cars today.
SImply saying that an alternative is not working, does not work. Such statements do not fix roads.
What should we do?
1. Allow the roads to fall apart?
2. Borrow even more money and then put the State into bankruptcy when they cannot repay the debt?
3. Use a different kind of tax to pay for the roads?
Do you think that the states you mentioned repair their roads without money? Do you think that they get their roads repaired at a lower price? (Maybe slightly lower, but not significantly lower). If they do not raise the money through gas tax, they get it from another tax source. With fewer residents, they may have fewer roads. I think that they have a greater percentage of interstate highways compared to other roads (thus more ferderal funding). They probably have better senators and representatives (thus more federal funding). However, we cannot change those things.
I have heard some discussion of a tax based on the mileage on your car. That may be workable, but it seems like determining the mileage would be an expensive endeavor, plus people would just disconnect their odometer for part of the year. On top of that, people who drive a lot in other states would be paying extra tax that should not be charged to them. I do not see any advantage to that over a gasoline tax. It would just create more costs as we would need people to verify mileage.
Although gas tax is high, our income tax is low, as is our sales tax. We could fund road repair with increased sales tax or income tax, but most people seem to prefer a tax that is tied to road usage.
You may not have noticed, but in the 1980s, we had far fewer paved roads. In fact we had fewer and smaller roads period. MDOTalso did not have the massive debt service to address (at least as far as I know they did not). The conditions of the past do nto exist today, and as much as we may want to return to 1980, we cannot (the music would be much better that is for sure, but the hairstyles?? Ugh!). I am not sure where you get the information that people drive further "these days" If you mean compared to 1980 that may be true, but if you compare now to 2003, you will find a substnatial decline in the amount of fuel being used.
I do not see other alternatives, do you?
Last edited by Coldjensens; 08-02-2010 at 07:10 PM..
While Michigan gas stations are some of the highest in the country, I really don't know what the alternative would be. Not a single person can deny that Michigan has terrible roads.
I also think that Michigan should use more concrete in building the roads instead of asphalt. While asphalt is nice and smooth at first, two or three years into use it begins to crack slightly and in the spring when we constantly get the freeze/thaw weather the asphalt's cracks get larger and potholes develop like crazy in 2-3 year old asphalt. Yes, concrete will do the same thing eventually but not nearly as fast as asphalt will. Concrete is more expensive that asphalt, but I think it is a better investment.
They are moving more into concrete, in part because the price for asphalt which is made with oil products, has increased recently, while the price for cement, which holds concrete together, has actually dropped considerably.
Still asphalt is initially cheaper I think. However, they have to balance the initial cost with the expected life of the finished product and determine the value over time. That number has changed as asphalt prices increase while concrete prices fall.
At the same time, they have to be aware of how much money is available. Sometimes, they have to accept a temporary fix since there is not enough money for a longer lasting solution. A simple grind and topcoat of asphalt is cheap, but may only last three years. Completely replacing asphalt should last ten to eleven years. Properly construted concrete roads can last for decades.
Rideability is also a consideration. Asphalt generally creates a smoother and quieter surface. Concrete generally provides better traction and longer life (and it wears your tires out faster). COncrete usually does not buckle like asphalt. Asphalt is easier to patch. There are lots of things to consider.
Roads need to be fixed. We could cut the pay of politicians, we could reduce welfare and food stamps and we can tax inbound Canadian garbage. Just a few ideas to pay for road repair. Taxing gas????? no way. Taxes stifle the economy, and that is not a good idea with unemployment at 13%.
The hell with it. Lets go back to dirt and have fleets of road graders. Keep the Highways paved of course and anything more than two lanes. Other than that MAKE EM DIRT! Then I'm buying a car wash!!!
"We could cut the pay of politicians."
That is the best Idea in the long run. How ever some where along the line the people of this county, state, and country gave up the right to regulate the pay of politicians.
If we were to cut all their pay by $20,000 a year they still would be in the high income bracket in Michigan for the amount of time they acutuly work for us.
Also take away their life time health insurance. Why should they be so privliged that way when millions they are supposed to work for can not afford health care. Maybe once elected they should have to live on the pay of a fast food employee for 2 years to get a feel for what it is really like to live as so many are forced to live in this state.
More problems with urban sprawl and the use of gas tax money to subsidize it. Money runs thin when there are more and more new roads to take care of. Michigan needs to get a lot smarter about the way it uses land and treats cities.
This is what happens when you abandoned a city and create sprawl wasteland- you have to take care of twice the amount of roads for what the population needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Al
