Today thousands of cyclists around the country hit the streets for Bike to Work Day in the United States. In a country dominated by the car, bike transit - as opposed to recreational cycling - is still somewhat of a novelty. Even in large, densely populated cities, you’re more likely to find shared cars than shared bikes. And despite the fact that a car costs 40 times more than a bike, daily fees for renting bikes often exceed those for renting a car. (See WashCycle for a good missive on this.)

But several major cities in Europe have embraced the idea of shared bikes. Shared bikes are low-cost rental bikes parked at stations across the city, optimized for one way trips. For-profit companies like Cyclocity or SmartBike work in conjunction with city planners to help link transportation nodes that are too close for a bus or car, but too far to walk. And unlike shared cars which must be returned to the same parking space, bikes can be returned to any station in the system.

Members provide a refundable deposit (~$200) and pay a nominal annual fee (~$15).  Whenever they need a bike, they simply swipe a card to release an available bike. Rides under 30 minutes are usually free, with increasing fares after that. Most bikes have internal gears and solid tires minimizing muss and fuss - ideal for commuters.

Paris announced this week that it is introducing 20,600 shared bikes at more than 1,400 stations across the city by July 15. The idea has been popular in other European cities, from Lyon to Munich, but with nearly one shared bike for every thousand Parisians, the Bastille Day rollout is nothing less than… revolutionary (see statastic below).

Several US cities including San Francisco, Portland, and Chicago are studying the idea of shared bikes, but it looks like Washington DC will be the first American guinea pig. Early indications are that the DC plan will initially be modest. Like shared cars, shared bike systems greatly benefit from network effects. But now that the planet is heating up, this is no time to be modest. The more shared bikes, the more locations near potential riders, and the users more likely to give it a try, the more profitable, etc.

So can DC match the French passion for shared bike? Not just yet. In order to have the same density of shared bikes in DC as in Paris, Washington would need 5,700 bikes or about 80 Smart Bikes per square mile. And if shared bikes help gets tourists off of those goofy Segways, all the better.

Previously, I hypothesized that widespread adoption of the shared cars would decrease demand for streetside parking (especially with this concept), allowing for more, safer bike lanes. Shared bikes and shared cars could easily work in harmony with one another - there are certainly times when you need a car. But it is time for local leaders to shun the one-car, one-driver paradigm and shared bikes are a great way to start.

.

.

.

.

.

Tomorrow kite enthusiasts from around the country will converge on the National Mall for the 41st annual Smithsonian Kite Festival. Kite makers can can test their creations in a contest with rules and regulations you would expect in the nation’s capital:

By order of the Federal Aviation Administration, the weight of a kite must not exceed 5 pounds and altitude of flight must not exceed 500 feet. When informed that a Presidential helicopter is approaching, all kites must be pulled down immediately, and not re-flown until the all-clear announcement.

Kites have been a pastime since 3,500 years when they were invented in China. There is also some evidence that Malaysia, Indonesia and South Pacific islands developed kites for a more practical purpose: fishing. This clever technology mashup - still practiced today - enabled them to reach fish in shallows where there boats could not.

But fisherman weren’t the only ones to recognize the utility of kites - so did surfers. Kite surfing, also known as kite boarding, powers surfers through and above the water with a large inflatable kite usually attached to the user by a harness. Although the sport is only 13 years old, there are now more than 200,000 kite surfers around the world.

And if you’re more likely to pilot a large boat rather than a surfboard, you can just attach a Sky Sails to your ship. Cheaper than retrofitting large ships with sails and masts, these enormous kites can help reduce energy costs by taking advantage of ocean surface winds.

While the average five & dime kite is lucky to use all 500 feet of its discount cotton string, more serious kite enthusiasts upped the ante a few years ago. They started with a kite 30 feet in width, tethered it to a 3 inch thick Kevlar line and flew it to a record-setting height of 13,500 feet - more than two and a half miles in the atmosphere.

But recent research into using kites as a renewable energy source would shatter that world record.

Environmentalists were quick to hail wind turbines as a viable alternative to our reliance on fossil fuels, but bird lovers hated them. It seems that Don Quixote’s giants were swatting down some of their favorite feathered friends. So why not build the windmills farther from the ground?

Indeed there are several companies considering this. Treehugger reported that a Canadian company called Magenn has invented a wind-powered generator that is a cross between a kite and a helium balloon. Held aloft by helium 1000 feet in the air, winds cause the Magnus effect where “rotation increases, lift increases, drag will be minimized because of reduced leaning, and stability increases.” Electricity generated by these floating turbines is then sent to the ground via an electrical line.

Another idea takes windmills and attaches kites. The Italian company Kite Wind Generator uses kites 1000 meters in the troposhere that “are anchored to a revolving structure on a vertical axis, analogous to a giant merry-go-round, which conveys the energy… (to a) power-plant.”

And if kites pulling a merry-go-round isn’t innovative enough, imagine if Thomas Edison invented a kite today. Recent research proposed that flying electric generators (FEGs) could harness kinetic energy in jet stream winds. These winds more than six miles above the surface of the earth produce up to 100 times more energy than winds on the ground. According to the Washington Post, “just tapping into 1 percent of the energy in high altitude winds would be enough to power all of civilization.”

Of course, if none of these other kite-based solutions solve U.S. energy problems, President Bush can just go fly his What Would Jesus Do? kite.

.

Statastico tries to provide a diverse look at world around us. I’ve written about butter cows, decapitation, planets the size of countries, even measured wieners. The result of this eclecticism is that some odd, disturbing (and anonymous) google searches have led people to my web site over the past month.

Some folks have pretty normal requests. Most web searches that end up on statastic.com are searching for one of three things: 1) nursing wage information, 2) video games, or 3) critiques of the Bottom of the Pyramid. These folks I can help.

Then there are the others…

Someone in Vancouver wants to know “how many breaths a human takes in a week?” All statastic can tell you is how much hot air from a politician it takes to fill up a balloon, but the good people of Vancouver are asking the right questions.

A Los Angelean wants to know the “definition of Joshua”. No idea, but have a look at joshuakucera.net, maybe he can tell you when he’s not worrying about The Rise of the Neo-Con Artists.

A Canuck wants to know about “cannibalism in Islam”. I’ll go ahead and field this one. Cannibalism is indeed a fundamental precept of the Muslim religion. And you are right to be worried: Most Muslims prefer the tender, maple-syrupy taste of Canadians. Now you understand why Bush is so concerned about Islamic Cannibal Extremism.

But maybe it’s the Romanians we should be focused on. Apparently someone in the San Francisco Bay Area is wondering about cannibalism in Romania. Hopefully, they were looking for this old Romanian folktale: The Cannibal Innkeeper.

Someone in Norcorss, Georgia (I’ll a assume an optimistic young man) did a google search on “super models AND alcohol”. Finally someone thinking straight. After reading my entry on how to drink the most alcohol per calorie, he now knows that supermodels prefer Keystone Light.

“Swiss cow subsidies” were on the mind of someone in Zurich, Switzerland. You know, I’ll bet Swiss cows are nearly perfect. They stand on two legs at the top of the hour when it’s time to be milked, and put the toilet seat down after using the cow-let. Well worth the EU subsidies, I’m sure.

Over in Utrecht, Netherlands, someone was wondering about Agassi and death. He’s alive and well, it was the death of American (men’s) tennis that had Statastico worried before Roddick’s encouraging run at the U.S. Open.

Finally, someone in Tucson, Arizona was thinking about “breast terror”. Dear god. Why anyone looking up breast terror on the Internet would click on a site called statastic! is beyond me, but a recent search shows that statastic.com still comes up third on the google search for the terms.

Perhaps the Arizonian was looking for a justification for getting breast implants during our Global War on Terror:

Shrapnel from rocket lodged in implants, sparing Israeli woman

August 15, 2006: JERUSALEM - An Israeli woman’s breast implants saved her life when she was wounded in a Hezbollah rocket attack during Israel’s war with the Lebanese group, a hospital spokesman said Tuesday.

Doctors found shrapnel embedded in the silicone implants, just inches from the 24-year-old’s heart.

It’s a weird world wide web.

Days are getting shorter as winter approaches. But climate is not the same at every latitude. The jet stream gives Europe a more moderate climate throughout the year. The shadows will be the same length in Chicago and Rome this winter, but the weather will not be. We tend to associate weather to geography, but there are several surprising latitude equivalents.

Athens and Washington, DC share more than their love of Doric columns; they also share the same latitude. Istanbul in Iowa, pyramids in New Orleans, Red Square Alaska, and the Tampa Taj Mahal form a confusing impression of where latitudes from famous cities around the world fall in North America. Fortunately, the Canadians can speak some French to Parisians visiting the Vancouver Eiffel Tour. And most appropriate of all the latitudinal mix ups: Casablanca in Hollywood.

Car-sharing is gaining popularity in cities across the United States. The idea is simple: car-share companies or cooperatives park hundreds of cars in convenient locations that any member can rent by the hour. Most car-share programs cost about $8 to $12 per hour, including gas, insurance and maintenance.

On the face of it, car-sharing is a economical and eco-friendly way to get around. Zipcar has about 40 members sharing each car in their national fleet. That’s certainly better than 1 car per person, right? Perhaps. If your goal is to reduce the total area dedicated to parking a vehicle, it does indeed free up valuable urban space. If, however, your goal is to reduce traffic congestion, smog, or reliance on fossil fuels, the jury’s still out.

Car Sharing Increases Mobility - and Traffic - Amongst Urbanites

Car-sharing is most appealing to urbanites who choose to live in densely-populated cities in part to avoid car ownership. Zipcar and Flexcar have both built a business model on enhancing the mobility of these groups. The consequence of increased mobility, unfortunately, is that more urbanites are driving alone. According to a study sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, 26% of users reported driving more as a result of car sharing.

Flexcar and Zipcar are for-profit companies, and each has recently received $20 million in investments. Those investors expect profit, and that profit will be generated largely by getting more people to drive more of their cars. Most privately-owned cars spend 95% of their time parked. Shared cars have much higher usage rate - most users are unlikely to pay $10 per hour to just to park their car somewhere (which is why commuters who drive to work are unlikely customers for car-sharing). In short, car-share companies generate revenue when people drive those cute little Zipcars around town. (Sorry, but the Flexcars are significantly less attractive. It looks like their marketing department went out for a drive and had a fender-bender with their new logo).

Like public transportation, the economics of car-sharing only make sense with high urban density. In fact, car-sharing is a substitute for other transportation options, many of which are better for the environment. When asked what people would do if a shared car were not available, nearly half of respondents said that they would have taken public transportation or not made the trip at all. It appears that half the time shared cars are used, they have the potential to increase traffic.

This is balanced by another effect of car-sharing: People are more aware of how much they drive. If a user factors in the cost of a Flexcar for a quick trip to the grocery store, the price of a gallon of milk could soar from $3 to more than $10. And that suits the car-sharing business model. Flexcar and Zipcar need high usage rates to remain profitable. But forty members sharing a single car means that each week, a member can only reserve a car for an average of 4 hours. If a member wants a car during premium hours after work or on the weekend, car-share members had better plan ahead: members have an average of about 1 premium hour per week.

Getting Suburbanites Out of Private Vehicles and Into Shared Cars

Although urban car-share members may drive more, suburban users help account for the 46% of drivers who reported that they drove less after they started using car-sharing. Although the FTA report concluded that, “many studies show no statistically significant change (in vehicle miles traveled),” car sharing helps fill a mobility gap created by insufficient public transit in the car-centric suburbs. Suburban two-car households can significantly reduce their expenses by switching to one car plus what Zipcar calls a “fractional second car.” And this may help reduce vehicle miles driven (VMT). Arlington, a northern Virginia suburb of DC, reported that the average car-share member reduced their VMT by 43% between 2005 and 2006.

For now, shared cars are focused on the more densely populated areas with populations that are inherently less reliant on car culture. Flexcar and Zipcar have about 75% of their total fleet in the District of Columbia despite the fact our 515,000 residents make up only 10% of the total DC metro population. Even in close-in suburbs like Arlington, 83% of the 3,500 car share members live in the densely populated Metrorail corridor.

Car Sharing Eases Parking Pressure

Densely populated areas stand to gain the most from car-sharing for a reason that may not be immediately obvious: parking pressure. Despite what urban dwellers may believe, even un-metered street parking is not free. Street parking is public land where private citizens are allowed to store their vehicles. Any taxpayer without a car is effectively subsidizing vehicle owners. All parking spaces have an opportunity cost. That is, there is the opportunity to use that space for something else that is forfeited when we park our cars on the street.

Convenient parking also reinforces America’s car culture. Albuquerque, New Mexico, for example, devotes more land to parking than to all other land uses in the city combined. According to Donald Shoup, the author of The High Cost of Free Parking, 15% of parking spaces must be open at all times or people will be dissuaded from driving. Car share minimizes this problem for neighborhood street parking because its parking spaces are permanently reserved. This means less time, and less traffic, caused by people driving around looking for a spot near home.

How Shared Cars Can Create Bike Lanes

Eliminating the need for free street parking is indeed a worthy goal. Anyone experienced with urban biking has had nightmares about a driver’s door whipping open in front of them. Bike lanes alleviate some risk by granting a wider berth to cars parked curbside, but according to WashCycle, U.S. cities often build bike lanes too close to parked cars. Michael King at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill advocates at least 14′ from the curb to the edge of the bike lane, but this guideline is ignored by many U.S. cities. This may explain why many cyclists refer to bike lanes as “suicide lanes.”

So what would happen if U.S. cities accepted shared car culture as the norm? Statastic used a Northeast Capitol Hill neighborhood as an informal case study to find out. Assuming that the neighborhood has the same average density as the rest of DC, there are about 4,000 people living in an area about 6 long and 11 blocks wide.

Now for the assumptions. According to census data, about 18% of DC residents drive by themselves to work. We’ll let them keep their cars. Another 28% are car owners who either carpool or don’t drive to work. We’ve decided that one-third of them will be converted to car sharing and will give up their cars. The remaining 32% of DC residents over age 18 don’t have a car, so let’s assume that 100% of them become car share members. The result is that 1,600 of 4,000 residents in this neighborhood are now full-time car share members.

Using the Zipcar ratio of 40 members per car, the neighborhood will need an additional 33 shared cars, bringing the total to 40. Zipcar claims that each shared car replaces 15 to 20 private vehicles, and that means more available street parking. Those 40 shared cars in northeast DC could replace 800 private cars, freeing up twelve miles of street parking. Eliminating street parking on one side of a 44′ wide road would also liberate about 16% of the pavement. Wider bike lanes could be added, existing traffic lanes could be widened, and wider lane for street parking would eliminate risk of getting doored while biking by.

The best part is that by increasing the density of shared cars, there would likely be a tipping point where it would become increasingly popular. As people convert to shared cars, the distance between the average resident and a shared car shrinks. Another way to look at it is that with a high conversion rate, the number of cars within three blocks of any resident would increase from 2 to 15. That means more cars to choose from: hybrids for quick city trips, trucks for hauling, or a convertible Mini for a weekend away.

How could we get to this tipping point? Taxing the free parking along city streets would be a start. To give an idea of how valuable the land is that DC residents park their cars on, consider that the going rate for a private parking spot is about $200 in the Dupont area of DC. Taxing street parking could be done in conjunction with proportionally lowered property taxes to avoid political backlash from homeowners. Although cities won’t necessarily generate more income from street parking taxes, residents would understand the real cost of parking and could make a rational economic decision about car ownership.

Shared cars and biking everywhere. Does the car-free life sound like a pain? It’s easy to get used to - Statastico does it every day.

Today’s announcement that British Petroleum would be taking crude oil production offline to make urgent repairs drove up oil prices to $77 a barrel. So what about those renewable resources we keep hearing about? We want to break the oil addiction!

Ethanol is indeed sparking renewed interest and a flurry of investment in the U.S. Most of the 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol came from corn and was used in the states where it was grown. Impressive until you realize that Brazil produces 4.8 billion gallons of sugarcane-based ethanol, providing about 40% of their annual gasoline needs.

We have been producing ethanol-based fuels in the United States for decades. Most of the Midwestern states (see charts below) that benefit from $4 billion in corn subsidies have an available 10% mix of ethanol in their gasoline. And with low corn commodity prices, high gas prices and a lack of ethanol refining in the Midwest, it has created the perfect investment storm.

Profit from Archer Daniels Midlands’ (ADM) corn bioproducts increased from $259 million to $446 million this year, and they have aggressive expansion plans. According to today’s Barron’s:

“In the past year, the difference between ethanol [prices] and corn prices has soared from less than 50 cents to about $3.10 a gallon…. That’s lifted the annual return on capital for some ethanol plants toward 50% and set off a stampede of new investment in ethanol refining.”

So it will come as no surprise that the ethanol industry has a strong lobby to protect itself. It’s a twisted relationship. The federal government’s price supports and subsidies regularly create overproduction of corn. This drives corn prices lower suppressing world prices (something the developing nation’s rightly bemoan).

Some of this surplus is used for ethanol. Why? Refineries - and consumers - are incentivized by a $.51 per gallon tax credit for 10% ethanol-based gasoline. Ethanol producers also enjoy significant trade protection in the form of a 2.5% ad valorem tariff and import duty of 54¢ per gallon of ethanol.

In August, 2006, Amani Elobeid and Simla Tokgoz from Iowa State University published a paper that analyzed the economic effects of removing these protections:

“The study finds that the removal of trade distortions induces an increase in the world price of ethanol and a decrease in the U.S. domestic ethanol price, which results in a decline in U.S. ethanol production and an increase in consumption. Consequently, U.S. net ethanol imports increase significantly….”

The Iowa State paper shows that if we were to remove trade barriers and the tax credit, we would see a 14.46% price drop in ethanol for consumers. Ethanol currently makes up 10% of our gasoline in a limited number of markets in California and the Midwest. Lifting trade barriers would allow Brazilian ethanol to more easily reach ports on the East Coast.

Yet we continue to protect ethanol refineries. ADM Chief Executive Patricia Woertz told Barron’s that “ethanol demand could triple. ‘It looks like it has room to grow to 14 billion or 15 billion [gallons per year],’ she said, ‘which is a full 10% blend in the gasoline pool in the United States.’”

Barron’s analysis of the ethanol market was about as sheltered as the heavily-protected ethanol refining industry: “Unfortunately, before ethanol refiners can reach that goal [14 billion or 15 billion gallons per year], they might reach the limits of the country’s corn supply. America’s entire corn crop would satisfy just 12% of gasoline consumption, leaving no corn to feed livestock and humans.”

No corn to feed our delicious cows? Once we remove ADM’s trade protections and give the Brazilians a new market for their ethanol, we should have plenty of corn to feed those future Big Macs. It will help our farmers counteract the predicted 1.7% drop in domestic corn prices, and it might help lift some desperate Brazilians out of poverty.

Didn’t most of us learn competitive advantage in econ 101? This may be a good time for Congress to brush up.

Sources: Statastic research; Environmental Working Group - Farm Subsidy Database

Trade model based on scenario 2 in the following paper: “Removal of U.S. Ethanol Domestic and Trade Distortions: Impact on U.S. and Brazilian Ethanol Markets,” Amani Elobeid and Simla Tokgoz, Working Paper 06-WP 427, August 2006, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University

With crude oil prices hovering around $75 per barrel, big oil companies once again announced record profits yesterday. Congressional inquiries into price fixing went nowhere, primarily because oil companies don’t need to fix prices. They have a U.S. population addicted to driving (never mind what makes the car go), high switching costs, and fuel standards that make China look progressive.

How did this happen? After the record oil prices in the late 1970s - prices that produced the 1981 U.S. historical high of $3.01 per gallon (in 2006 dollars) - Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were made more stringent. From 1978 to 1981, U.S. car and truck fuel efficiency standards rose by 24%.

Then came the cheap oil of the 1990s and the SUV revolution. As a percentage of income, the average American was able to buy three times more gas in 1998 than they could in 1980. Fuel standards reflected the cheaper oil. CAFE standards in 1983 were 24.8; in 2004 the average was 24.7 miles per gallon (MPG). The U.S. has long lagged behind Europe in fuel efficiency standards, but more surprisingly, even the developing world makes us look bad.

China’s red-hot economy has meant a rapid shift from bicycles to cars, and the government is taking stern measures to increase fuel efficiency. One major difference with the U.S. CAFE standards is that Chinese standards are based on weight rather than class of vehicles. The lightest vehicles in China were required to get 38 MPG in 2005, increasing to 43 MPG by 2008. Contrast that with the U.S. CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG for cars.

The United States fuel efficiency peaked nearly two decades ago, and today the oil companies are posting record profits. But don’t blame the oil companies. They’re just small-brained, carnivorous, profit-making sharks that swim and devour money. It’s the bloated American, SUV-loving consumer that we should blame for willingly wading into these shark-infested waters. Chomp!

Notes & Sources: # Historical Real GDP per capita is in 2006 dollars. 2006 GDP estimated by statastic.com using latest Economist forecasts. Gas prices are the annual average gas price and were adjusted to 2006 dollars.
^CAFE fleet standards for cars and trucks. 2005 and 2006 data unavailable, so 2004 standards of 24.7 MPG were used.

Everyone loves a good wiener. But which frankfurter is the most satisfying? The humble Ball Park Beef Frank, measuring only 4.6 inches, barely fills the bun. On the other hand, a single Polish kielbasa comes in almost 20 inches in length. It might be big enough for the whole gang, but it’s a bit unwieldy, so you’d better know what you’re doing.

Just be sure that your wiener isn’t mocked at the next backyard barbecue by keeping in mind that the average hot dog bun is six inches long.

Source: Statastic research

Note: Wiener images are not to scale

People all over the world love beer. Some like beer made by monks, some prefer their watery domestics. Yes, most American beer is a bit pale and tasteless, but Americans seem to know what they’re doing when it comes to packing a lot of alcohol into as few calories as possible.

So to celebrate Friday, Statastic is providing you with a guide to beers that give you the best bang for your… belly. Bear in mind that alcohol content varies by state, especially if you’re living in Utah. This is also a limited sample as alcohol content and caloric data for beer is tough to come by.

Statastic’s Beer List may not help you avoid a beer belly – that’s apparently genetic – but it does provide a headstart for your weekend. The results? With the available data, Sam Adams Triple Bock is the champion. Of the beers you’re more likely to find in your grocery store or local bar, Michelob Ultra, Coors Aspen Edge and the great tasting, less filling Miller Lite are all promising. And if advertising is as accurate as I suspect it is, cracking open a cold Keystone Light is a surefire way to fill your hot tub with supermodels. Supermodels love watery domestics, especially when they only have 100 calories and 4.2% alcohol.

Cheers!
Statastico

All beer calories and alcohol content provided by RealBeer.com
Except: ^Calorie-count.com and CalorieKing.com
**Askmen.com

Back in the 1930s and 1940s, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads Thomas Harris MacDonald imagined a nationwide network of toll-free highways. His vision was largely implemented: Today only 1 out of every 16 miles on the Interstate system is toll road. All of these freeways has helped (ahem) fuel urban sprawl resulting in more cars per person, more miles driven, and arguably, increased American tubbiness.

Statasico would love to remedy this by raising the gas tax. Among other things, ncreasing the gas tax would:

1) Capture the negative externalities caused by greenhouse gas emissions and traffic

2) Create a potential pool of money for mass transit projects

3) Really upset the oil companies, and

4) Never happen with gas prices hovering around $3 per gallon.

What about mass transit? Isn’t some of that federal 14.7 cent per gallon gas tax applied toward mass transit? Yes… in spirit. Right now a whopping 1% of the price of every gallon of gas (about 2.7 cents of every gallon) goes toward the Mass Transit Account.

So I’m giving in. Let’s build more highways. And make every one of them a tollway. But don’t stop with just the new highways. We should also convert the remaining miles of the Interstate system to toll roads. I’m not advocating that states continue privatizing toll collection. That’s one role the government should not outsource.

One of the common complaints about toll roads was the inefficiency of sitting in a line of cars sputtering greenhouse gasses while someone ahead of you scrambles for change. But E-ZPass has started to change that. Unfortunately, toll collection is still slow because not all cars use the E-ZPass lanes. So the government should require every to have an electronic toll collection (ETC) technology installed as soon as a car is registered.

The government must stay actively involved because tollways are a regressive tax. Fixed tolls take a higher percentage of wages from low income workers than high income workers. Once again, technology can help remedy this. E-ZPass could be linked to a driver’s tax bracket, enabling the government to impose lower tolls for low income workers. Likewise, hybrid cars or alternative fuel cars could pay lower tolls.

Even better toll collection technology already exists across the Atlantic. Last year, Germany introduced an automatic toll system for trucks traveling along its 7500 miles of autobahn. The Toll-Collect system utilizes GPS technology, so Germany can reap about $3.2 billion annually while never requiring trucks to slow down to collect a single toll.

So what is the gas tax equivalent of tolls? Looking around the country, tolls average about $.04 per mile. With average passenger car and light truck fuel economy was 21.8 miles per gallon in 2004, those tolls are the equivalent to a gas tax of $.83 per gallon. Unlike a gas tax, tolls don’t necessarily lead consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. But tollways make it easy for drivers to see some of the expenses associated with 46,000 miles of “free”ways. And with added toll revenue, perhaps we can beef up that Mass Transit Account and start to get people out of their cars.

*Uses the 2004 average fuel economy for cars and light trucks in the U.S. of 20.8 miles per gallon.