Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  ASCE name being used in opposition to California proposition

    Posted 10-20-2018 01:39 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 10-20-2018 01:39 PM
    I have heard radio ads in Los Angeles stating that "Prop 6 is opposed by ... American Society of Civil Engineers..." The way I understand it, Proposition 6 is the result of an initiative to repeal a gas tax and vehicle registration tax that were in a bill passed last year by the California legislature to generate revenue to be used for a purpose that was already funded by existing taxes, and to impose a requirement on the legislature that tax increases must be approved in advance by voters. The radio ad seems to me to be deceptive because it says only that the proposition is to repeal funding for badly needed road repairs, which will stop those that are currently underway. 

    If my understanding is correct, then ASCE is endorsing an outcome on a proposition that will tell the California legislature that the perfect way to get access to more revenue is to raise taxes by passing a bill and starting projects to provide something needed even if that something is supposed to be covered by existing taxes. That will free up existing taxes for purposes other than what they were supposed to be used for. I know that ASCE endorses public funding of infrastructure. Does ASCE really endorse "no on Prop 6"?  

    By the way, the average price of gas in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area is $3.73 per gallon, up $0.60/gal compared to one year ago, according to American Automobile Association.

    ------------------------------
    Jeffrey Keaton Ph.D., P.E., P.G., ENV SP, F.ASCE
    Principal Engineering Geologist
    Wood, Los Angeles CA
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: ASCE name being used in opposition to California proposition

    Posted 10-21-2018 05:01 PM

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts about ASCE's efforts to support the "No on Prop 6" campaign.  ASCE's position to oppose Prop 6 is based on the Society's public policy statements, most notably Policy Statement 299 - Infrastructure Investment and Policy Statement 382 - Transportation Funding. These policies are adopted by ASCE's Board and provide direction for the Society's advocacy efforts.  

     

    ASCE regularly advocates for improvements to our nation's infrastructure through increased and dedicated revenue for infrastructure. In fact, the California Report Card Committee accelerated the development and publication of the roads, bridges, and transit chapters from the upcoming Report Card for California's Infrastructure. The grades from the 2018 Report Card for California's Surface Transportation, released on October 3, show that the state's bridges, transit and roads are in need of investment if they are to meet the current needs of Californians. The Report Card finds that 44% of California's major roads in the state are in poor condition and that California's bridges account for 13 of the top 25 most traveled structurally deficient bridges in the United States.

     

    We understand there has been some confusion around Prop 6, but voting "no" on Prop 6 means keeping in place the fuel taxes and vehicle feels that the legislature enacted in 2017 as part of the Road Repair and Accountability Act. This vote in the legislature on SB 1 was followed by a vote of Californians on Prop 69 in June 2018 to "lockbox" these new funds. Prop 69 was passed by nearly 81% of voters.

     

    Unfortunately, if Prop 6 is enacted, it would be extremely detrimental to efforts to improve California's roads and bridges.  The business community, local governments, labor, environmentalists and first responders agree with ASCE's position in opposition to Prop 6 because it eliminates more than $5 billion annually in existing transportation funds and would stop funding for more than 6,500 bridge and road safety, transportation and public transit improvement projects currently underway throughout California. 

     

    Prop 6 will stop thousands of projects currently underway throughout California to upgrade bridges and overpasses to meet earthquake safety standards and to improve the safety of our roads.  According to the California State Transportation Agency Prop 6 would also eliminate the funding for more than 6,500 transportation improvement projects already underway around the state.  The California Chamber of Commerce and business organizations throughout the state oppose Prop 6 because it would eliminate 68,000 jobs and $183 billion dollars in economic investments as thousands of road construction projects are halted.



    ------------------------------
    Kwame Agyare P.E., ENV SP, M.ASCE
    Senior Civil Engineer
    Fremont CA
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: ASCE name being used in opposition to California proposition

    Posted 10-21-2018 10:20 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 10-21-2018 10:20 PM
    Thank you Mr. Agyare, you wrote a very good explanation. I see confusion and conflict in the future because many of the stakeholders (anyone who uses a road or bridge) do not understand what share of the road and bridge construction cost they are paying.  How many stakeholders think that trucks are paying the majority of the bill? What share of the reconstruction cost is paid by light truck and car owners? What would be the cost per user if pavement damage was assessed to the heavy load haulers?

    "Who is paying for what?"

    For the first twenty years 1921 to 1941 the US was basically just trying to "get out of the mud." Up until the WPA and State Highway Commissions started to grade up these so-called roads, they were just cart paths with little to no grading, drainage or surfacing. The post war period opened more commerce, advanced engineering and public demands for better roads and bridges. I was part of the large block workers who under took many projects on the interstate highway system from the 1950's to the end in of the era in the 1980's. It was in the 1980's that I noticed the breakup of pavements on nearly all of the road constructed in the 1950's. Up until this point the benefits and the costs were enjoyed and paid by the public with no thought of what was causing the pavement breakup. The average highway user thought the road surface was simply old and worn out. In truth, the axle loads of the 1950's era design were 5 tons per axle and the trucks had moved up to much heavier axle loads. The cost of rebuilding these highways was not shared in proportion to the life taken. Except for toll roads we continued using the model of everyone paying for the towards the reconstruction based on gas usage (gas tax) and licenses purchased (vehicles owned).
    Now we find ourselves in 2018 paying for a transportation system that has changed from a basic access system to one that must do all things for all people. If we are to continue to have any type of sustainable transportation system, we will need to assign costs to users based on the burden they place on the facility. This grates on many who will say "I already pay plenty of taxes," but unless and until we design a transparent-sustainable "fee for use" system we will continue to race to the bottom of the global market place. We are already seeing a strong resistance to increasing traditional gas taxes. It is not surprising given the fact that light-small vehicles are paying (taxes and fees) $500,000 per mile for a new highway while trucks contribute (taxes and fees) $100,000 per mile of this new highway cost. (This is typical for a mile of rural state highway with a total cost of $600,000, also, tax revenues are based on a typical rural state highway with ADT of 1500 and HCADT of 150.)

    I would propose a system that would be transparent and sustainable. First what is the cost of moving one loaded truck over one mile of rural highway? It appears at test facilities that a typical pavement will last about 600,000 trips per lane. After 600,000 passes on a lane the pavement will need to be reconstructed. If this highway is rural and typical it will also need drainage, turn-lane and structural updates. A large part of the cost is grade and base foundation work to support a loaded truck.

    To summarize, we have a rough idea of the cost per mile per pass ($600,000 cost divided by number of passes for two lanes 1,200,000) at $0.50 per mile per truck pass.

    But what about small-light vehicles? What burden to they place on the highway? They demand safe passage, with sight lines that allow for slowing or stopping, snow and ice removal, signs with clear directions, pavement markings that work at night-in the rain, drainage to prevent flooding, ponding and hydro-planning, crossings that are allow safe entry and merging and safe shoulders and slopes, free of obstructions to errant vehicles and finally, the tough nut to crack, the traveling public demands a smooth surface that will not bend their wheels and tie rods.

    Again, to summarize, what is the cost to provide such a road and bridge system to the small-light vehicle traveler? I estimate about $4,000 per year per mile, thus using a typical rural road again with 1500 cars/light trucks per day or 546,000 per year. Taking the annual cost of $4,000 and dividing by 546,000 and rounding up we have about $0.01 per vehicle.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that for transparency and sustainability we will need to assess loaded trucks at a rate of $0.50 per mile and small-light vehicles at $0.01 per mile. Up until recently it was not possible to record the routes driven by a given vehicle but that has changed and it is now entirely possible to bill vehicle users in much the same way a telephone or other utility is billed.
     
    Please tell me if I have miscalculated any of the above because it indicates that cars and light trucks are paying 60 to 80% the cost of pavement damage caused by loaded trucks.  If this is true then we should also subsidize transportation systems that remove loaded trucks from these (our own) public roads and bridges. I would propose an equal subsidy for rail roads, river barges and air freight. Or let the market level the playing field by charging heavy haulers the actual cost of the pavement damage they cause.

    ------------------------------
    Barry Anderson P.E., M.ASCE
    Granite Falls MN
    (320) 564-4500
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: ASCE name being used in opposition to California proposition

    Posted 10-21-2018 05:14 PM
    Edited by Tirza Austin 10-21-2018 05:13 PM
    ASCE believes that we need a transportation infrastructure that supports citizens and businesses.  ASCE believes that California has not adequately funded efforts to maintain and improve that transportation infrastructure. Proposition 6 will reduce the funding for transportation infrastructure to an unacceptable level. Thus ASCE has opposed Proposition 6.


    ------------------------------
    Mark Gilligan P.E., M.ASCE
    Berkeley CA
    (510) 548-8029
    ------------------------------