From CBO Working Paper 2015-03 (by David Austin):

Although freight transport contributes significantly to the productivity of the U.S. economy, it also involves sizable costs to society. Those costs include wear and tear on roads and bridges; delays caused by traffic congestion; injuries, fatalities, and property damage from accidents; and harmful effects from exhaust emissions. No one pays those external costs directly—neither freight haulers, nor shippers, nor consumers. The unpriced external costs of transporting freight by truck (per ton-mile) are around eight times higher than by rail; those costs net of existing taxes represent about 20 percent of the cost of truck transport and about 11 percent of the cost of rail transport.

This study examines policy options to address those unpriced external costs. The options would impose taxes based on the weight or distance of each shipment, increase the existing tax on diesel fuel, implement a tax on the transport of shipping containers, or increase the existing tax on truck tires. The analysis estimates what would have occurred in 2007 had the simulated policies already been in place and had any initial, short-term transitions in response to the policies already occurred.

Adding unpriced external costs to the rates charged by each mode of transport—via a weight-distance tax plus an increase in the tax on diesel fuel—would have caused a 3.6 percent shift of ton-miles from truck to rail and a 0.8 percent reduction in the total amount of tonnage transported. Such a policy would have eliminated 3.2 million highway truck trips per year and saved about 670 million gallons of fuel annually (including the increase in fuel used for rail freight). On net, accounting for the effect of fuel savings on revenue from the fuel tax, such a policy would also have generated about $68 billion per year in new tax revenue and reduced external costs by $2.3 billion. Adopting instead the other policy options that were studied would have resulted in smaller changes in tonnage and ton-miles and smaller increases in tax revenue. All of the policy options would have narrowed the gap in the share of external costs paid in taxes by truck versus rail.

via www.cbo.gov

Posted in
  1. PaulS Avatar

    “On net, accounting for the effect of fuel savings on revenue from the fuel tax, such a policy would also have generated about $68 billion per year in new tax revenue and reduced external costs by $2.3 billion.”
    Oh, goody. So, on the face of it anyway, prices of bulk goods like food and building materials would rise by an aggregate $68 billion. Folks who are already struggling to buy food or housing would surely appreciate that. (But at least buyers of diamond jewelry, which weighs next to nothing, couldn’t even notice.) And in exchange for the harder struggle, a whopping $2.3 billion, or a whole gigantic 3% of the price increase, would be the reduction in external costs of truck traffic.
    And if history is any indication whatsoever, the $68 billion would be squandered on football stadiums in already-rich cities, and the like. As if hundred-millionaire football players and multi-billionaire team owners need yet more lavish subsidies.
    Seems like “bog-standard” self-aggrandizing Congressional boondoggling – you did say CBO – and nothing more. And yet – somehow our Congresscritters are perpetually shocked, just shocked mind you, at their abysmal public-approval standing, wherein the proverbial used-car salesmen look like saints by comparison.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading