The scene:  It is a steamy day in this Bold New City of the South.  Our main character, a forty-something woman wearing bright, casual walking garb and wide-brimmed hat, is enjoying a tour of stately historic homes dotting the riverbank neighborhood of the city.  While pedestrians and bicyclists meander from home to home with tickets in hand, children sell lemonade on the corner and porch fans spin.  It is a scene frozen in time.

Our protagonist emerges from one “shoes-off-at-the-door-please” manse, and takes a seat on the spacious wraparound porch as she waits for the rest of her party to emerge from the home.  She ponders which truth she should embrace: She Lives in a Hovel, or She is Incapable of Such Self-Indulgence?

Taking a seat next to her is a heat-weary gentleman with a cane.  This nice, talkative fellow turns out to be the homeowner taking a break from his hosting duties, something he can do as he is blessed with a gracious horde of volunteers inside.  The niceties move past compliments of his home and the fine taste of his professional decorator wife to the topic of work.  A retired doctor, he travels the country speaking at engagements, which explains his facility for making new friends quickly.  “The key to connecting with people,” he tells his guest, “is to speak at their level.  You can’t elevate them to your level, but you can get down on their level to make them comfortable.”  This will enable them to “hear” you better, he tells her.

She raises her eyebrows and smiles politely.

“What do you do for work, my dear?” he asks.

“I am an executive recruiter in engineering and planning consultancy as it relates to transportation infrastructure such as airports, roads, rail, transit and ports,”  she responds.

He sits up attentively: “What do you think of this fast train they want to build down in South Florida?”

Her amusement that, in this part of the world, Tampa and Orlando are considered “South” Florida quickly dissipates as she struggles with how to respond to this question.  Recalling that Southern ladies do not generally talk politics with strangers, she smiles and responds:  “Of the proposed lines in the United States, the Tampa-Orlando project is the most shovel-ready. They could start building it today.”  She thinks this is a nice, neutral response.

“Do you think the government should have to pay for that?  Do you think we as taxpayers should have to pay for that?”  One hand on his knee, one waving in the air as he leans in, she can tell he won’t be settling for her compact answer.

No calculations are required to determine this gentleman’s position on the topic, so she chooses to answer the question by explaining why the anti-high-speed-rail camp’s position is weak.

“People who oppose this project are not opposed to building it; they merely think it should be a privately funded endeavor, operating for profit.  However, they are not measuring our current transportation network to the same standard.”

“The costs of our road system are widely distributed.  We fund the building of our roads through tax revenue and selling of bonds, the latter of which is debt our taxes pay over time.  This cost includes acquisition of the land for the roads.  We fund the significant operations and maintenance activities of this road system through annual budgeted tax dollars, including security and safety such as the Highway Patrol.  The drivers — you and I — pay for our own equipment and for the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  We also pay for gas, tolls, our own liability through insurance each of us is required to carry and any parking costs at our destination.”  She pauses for the grand finale:  “Add to this the cost of defending our interests in oil-producing regions of the world, and suddenly driving doesn’t really look so cheap.”

“Assuming that the equation on the roadway side is now complete, there is no reasonable way to expect a private operator to pay for its land, track, equipment, liability, operations, maintenance, fuel, staff and safety, then roll that into an individual ticket price and actually compete on a per-trip basis.  Why?  Because the driving public cannot add all of the ways it pays to drive on the same per-trip basis; it’s not an apples to apples comparison.”

Her point made, she slides up to the edge of her seat.  She can tell she has his attention.  “We are here today because we obviously appreciate beautiful things.  What we have to decide is whether we want to respond to a future requiring increased capacity by building 20-lane highways — and bearing the associated direct and non-direct costs of that decision — or provide a dependable and dignified alternative to travelers so that they develop habits that will mitigate a future overwhelmed by concrete and cars.  That future is not only unsightly, it will continue to deceptively bleed each of us of our hard-earned cash.  From a long-term perspective, we are painting ourselves into a very expensive and ugly corner by not grabbing the opportunity to build this project.”

Silence falls.  He looks at her and squints, “You’re good, very good.”

He turns to her fellow tour-goers, who meandered into the scene as it unfolded, points to our heroine and says, “She’s good.”

They nod.

Curtain closes.

~~~~~ THE END ~~~~~

If you missed the part about WHY we need a new means for funding the maintenance and growth of our transportation infrastructure, then let’s recap:  

First, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which pays for much of our roadway development, is depleted.  At the same time, the revenue to the HTF from gasoline taxes – already not enough – only promises to decline as fuel efficiency increases.   Concurrently, much our infrastructure is at a critical juncture in it’s life cycle — in need of major repair or a complete rebuild.

It’s the perfect storm:  Less money when more is sorely needed.

So, how do we raise more money for the work which needs to be done?  Here are some scenarios swirling around policy war rooms today:

• Reconfigure the gas tax to an ad valorem tax: Setting the gasoline tax as a percentage of fuel purchase instead of a flat, cents per gallon tax would be a better way to index revenue to road use and inflation. However, this idea presents a future conflict of interest to a nation which seeks to incentivize sustainable energy solutions and reduce its dependence on oil.  How can we justify funding mobility from the sale of fossil fuels?
• Toll roads: This classic model will have a new spin in that your toll road might be leased to a private company that has been selected to operate and maintain the road for a specific number of years.  They will recoup their operating costs through tolls to the user, and will be responsible for upkeep and performance as well as all services provided on the facility.  In some cases, the investor will also design, build, operate and maintain the roadway, for which they will be awarded a much longer lease (we’re talking greater than 50 years).  In the business we call this Public-Private Partnership, PPP, or P3, and it’s already a successful model in many U.S. states.
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Given the advent of more fuel efficient vehicles, this idea is meant to recapture monies lost in gasoline sales.   It seems to be a more effective use tax, since it is fairly applied by actual miles driven than by gasoline consumed, and may be a better behavioral incentive for eliminating trips, combining trips, or exercising mode choice.  Since mileage tax is collected by the states, this proposal gets sticky when drivers cross state lines, but I am certain since I’ve last read up on the topic that they have come up with a solution to this problem.  (Anyone?)

In the United States, one can expect that in the future there will be a more direct correlation between transportation mode of choice and individual burden/cost.  This means there will be a different and very direct price to fly, drive, bus, rail or bike it.  The user will certainly weigh this price against available time and budget, then make choices accordingly.  The biggest change will be in the cost to drive…and it may change the way you move forever.

How do you believe these hypothetical changes will affect your own travel behavior?  What cultural/societal shifts do you predict will occur as a result of such changes?

Special Thanks to Contributing Researcher & Writer Crystal Pendergrass, civil engineer/jobseeker, and to Contributing Editor, Donald Galligan, AICP, all around nice guy.