Americans Slam the Brakes on Driving, Threatening Infrastructure

[TinmanMS6]

In the past seven months, Americans have slashed their driving by more than 40 billion miles in an astonishing reaction to soaring gas prices, according to a new study released on Monday by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The cutbacks in driving mean that less money is available to rebuild the nation's crumbling highway system.

"Less driving means less money for the Highway Trust Fund," said Acting Federal Highway Administrator Jim Ray in a statement. "The status quo cannot and will not work in the 21st century."

As Americans continue to park their cars, ride bicycles and carpool, the federal Highway Trust Fund gets less revenue from gas and diesel sales.

Because of high gas prices, Americans drove 3.7 percent fewer miles in May than they did a year earlier, the report says, more than double the 1.8 percent drop seen in April.

"By driving less and using more fuel-efficient vehicles, Americans are showing us that the highways of tomorrow cannot be supported solely by the federal gas tax," said U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters in a statement.

The big question is whether Americans can stomach an increase in the federal gas tax, which most Washington insiders say isn't a politically viable option.

The entire report on Traffic Volume Trends can be seen at the Federal Highway Administration Web site.

What this means to you:Add a transportation funding crisis to the unrelenting bad news about fuel prices and the meltdown of the Detroit automakers.

[Edmunds Inside Line]

[Rogue]

if they raise the tax on fuel that will (1) motivate more people to drive less, (2) cause more increase of price on everyday goods like groceries and toiletries caused by the higher cost of delivery (diesel fuel).

Anyone else see the sinking ship?

[SuperStretch18]

This article doesn't make sense. Yes, Americans are driving ~4% less, but gas prices are up 25%+. Since the gas tax is an overall percentage of each sale, shouldn't the tax revenue still be up pretty significantly?

[Rogue]

knowing government, since gas prices are up 25%, that means they're spending 25% more. Since people are driving less, they're not getting in as much money.

[i12drivemyMP5]

It's all bullshit. What they are failing to mention IS.......If we drive less then the roads don't get torn up as fast so they don't have to spend the same money they're talking about to fix worn pavement as fast AND if people are driving less then that means that there will be less traffic negating the need for expansion projects on roads/freeways that were just completed months ago or on existing ones that will now handle the traffic AND the thing they worry most about this is that if oil company profits go down then so will all the lobby money they get from oil companies. My ass is a smokeless environment, blow it up someone else's Uncle Sam.

[nate0123]

This article doesn't make sense. Yes, Americans are driving ~4% less, but gas prices are up 25%+. Since the gas tax is an overall percentage of each sale, shouldn't the tax revenue still be up pretty significantly?
I thought the gas tax was per gallon

[i12drivemyMP5]

Oh & BTW, this wouldn't not be an issue if the goverment didn't automatically plan on fucking the majority of the population forever & expect people to ask for more.

[i12drivemyMP5]

I thought the gas tax was per gallonIt is, so if gas is 25% higher per gallon but only 4% less driving then they're getting a higher percentage of less gallons used. They're still making more than they were last year & we are making less than last year.

[TinmanMS6]

It is, so if gas is 25% higher per gallon but only 4% less driving then they're getting a higher percentage of less gallons used. They're still making more than they were last year & we are making less than last year.

He was saying he thought the gas tax was a flat amount per gallon, which I believe it is. I don't think gas tax is a percentage.

[TinmanMS6]

if they raise the tax on fuel that will (1) motivate more people to drive less, (2) cause more increase of price on everyday goods like groceries and toiletries caused by the higher cost of delivery (diesel fuel).

Anyone else see the sinking ship?

They could increase the tax on gasoline and not on diesel. This would provide consumers with incentive to switch to more efficient diesels, but that would also exacerbate this problem.

[TinmanMS6]

It's all bullshit. What they are failing to mention IS.......If we drive less then the roads don't get torn up as fast so they don't have to spend the same money they're talking about to fix worn pavement as fast AND if people are driving less then that means that there will be less traffic negating the need for expansion projects on roads/freeways that were just completed months ago or on existing ones that will now handle the traffic AND the thing they worry most about this is that if oil company profits go down then so will all the lobby money they get from oil companies. My ass is a smokeless environment, blow it up someone else's Uncle Sam.

I think the issue is actually the more efficient automobiles, rather than the reduction in driving. If one day somebody is driving a Suburban and getting 15 mpg, then the next day trades that Suburban in on a Fit, getting 30 mpg, unless they start driving a lot more, they're going to use a lot less gas for the same amount of driving. Then again, I'm sure a Fit causes less than half the wear on the infrastructure as a Suburban too, because it weighs about 1/3 as much.

[i12drivemyMP5]

He was saying he thought the gas tax was a flat amount per gallon, which I believe it is. I don't think gas tax is a percentage.
Oh yeah but still, the expansions & improvements that won't be needed will more than make up for that tiny bit.

[i12drivemyMP5]

I think the issue is actually the more efficient automobiles, rather than the reduction in driving. IMO, it'd be both. So they want us to be more frugal & save the planet but burn the same amount or more fuel to get the same taxes from it? Doesn't add up. They want us to drive less but still hand out the same amount of our money. Retarded. If they reallllly cared about mpg then a lot of different stuff could of went on starting 20 yrs ago. I know it's a balancing act but please, they need to try & make sense.

[SuperStretch18]

I thought the gas tax was per gallon

Ahhh, you are correct sir. Now the article makes more sense. Sorry for the confusion...

[robin2660]

It's all bullshit. What they are failing to mention IS.......If we drive less then the roads don't get torn up as fast so they don't have to spend the same money they're talking about to fix worn pavement as fast AND if people are driving less then that means that there will be less traffic negating the need for expansion projects on roads/freeways that were just completed months ago or on existing ones that will now handle the traffic AND the thing they worry most about this is that if oil company profits go down then so will all the lobby money they get from oil companies. My ass is a smokeless environment, blow it up someone else's Uncle Sam.

Is that one sentence? (shrug)

The majority of wear-and-tear on the roads is due to large vehicles, not personal vehicles. Big rigs are still going down the roads even though personal vehicle use is down.

[i12drivemyMP5]

Is that one sentence? (shrug)

I counted 2 short & 1 run on. lol