Taxing Drivers By The Mile

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Robert Morien > wrote:
> >
> >The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive. In doing this new
> >developments occur near the mass/rapid transit lines instead of hiway
> >exits. I've also seen some theoretical developments that were more like
> >mini-towns with most of the "necessities within walking distance of all
> >housing AND a transit line either thru the middle or near the most dense
> >population point connecting to the next development.
>
> Unfortunately, mathematics and economics severely limit the
> scalability of this approach. There's only so much space within
> walking distance of each station. Once that's filled up, everyone
> else has to live and work elsewhere. And if that's the most desirable
> space, it'll quickly become enormously expensive because it's both
> desirable AND rare, meaning only the wealthiest people and companies
> will locate there.
>

That just isn't true. Since that system can't happen overnight, over the
generation or two it would take to change land use planning to this
model, adaptations would create the same type of neighborhoods in
existing neighborhoods. You don't have to build single family homes in
these developments, three story condo/apts would work

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:52:45 -0800, Robert Morien
> > wrote:
> >
> >>The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive.
> >
> >Cars are already doing that to themselves, by virtue of their sheer
> >numbers that grow faster than our ability to expand roads to
> >accommodate them.
>
> Transit systems, however, are making themselves unattractive even
> FASTER, through higher fares (which still cover less than half the
> cost) and poorer service.

which is why you make them free and fund them at the same rate as roads.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:57:29 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, The Etobian wrote:
>
>> Aside from the privacy issues, the major problem I have with a
>> mileage-based tax is that drivers of efficient cars (who tend to make
>> less money) will pay relatively higher taxes while those driving SUVs
>> (who tend to make more money) will pay relatively lower taxes.
>
>Your assumptions are flawed. Priced out a hybrid vehicle lately, have you?
>
I said "tend to," which implies exceptions such as expensive hybrids
and low-cost, high mileage beaters. Still, I feel such a tax,
overall, will shift taxes away from SUVs and toward more economical
vehicles.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:18:14 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:30:59 -0500, The Etobian >
>wrote:
>
>>Aside from the privacy issues, the major problem I have with a
>>mileage-based tax is that drivers of efficient cars (who tend to make
>>less money)
>
>I challenge that assumption.
>
>Have you priced a Prius lately? Poor people cannot afford those kinds
>of cars. Poor people drive an old Impala or a Caprice or some other
>gas-guzzling beater.

The Honda Insight was pretty cheap. Of course, you don't get much car
for the price, but it was cheap.

I wonder what used ones go for.


There's an '04 with 27 miles on it going for $6001 on ebay right now.

In article >,
Robert Morien > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Robert Morien > wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, mathematics and economics severely limit the
>> scalability of this approach. There's only so much space within
>> walking distance of each station. Once that's filled up, everyone
>> else has to live and work elsewhere. And if that's the most desirable
>> space, it'll quickly become enormously expensive because it's both
>> desirable AND rare, meaning only the wealthiest people and companies
>> will locate there.
>
>That just isn't true. Since that system can't happen overnight, over the
>generation or two it would take to change land use planning to this
>model, adaptations would create the same type of neighborhoods in
>existing neighborhoods. You don't have to build single family homes in
>these developments, three story condo/apts would work

Increasing density near the stations only scales linearly; that's not
sufficient as the demand scales with area served. It _does_ partially
offset the problem of only the wealthiest living there, but not
completely -- as Manhattan proves, sometimes even the wealthy will
live in a hive.

In article >,
Robert Morien > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:52:45 -0800, Robert Morien
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive.
>> >
>> >Cars are already doing that to themselves, by virtue of their sheer
>> >numbers that grow faster than our ability to expand roads to
>> >accommodate them.
>>
>> Transit systems, however, are making themselves unattractive even
>> FASTER, through higher fares (which still cover less than half the
>> cost) and poorer service.
>
>which is why you make them free and fund them at the same rate as roads.

Where are you going to get that funding? You'll be taking it from a
diminishing population of road users and trying to use it to serve the
increasing use of transit. So what'll happen is that both your road
system AND your transit system deteriorate from lack of funding.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:46:48 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Robert Morien wrote:
>
>> Let's spend as much per year on mass transit as we spend on roads.
>
>Just mass transit, then, eh? Not a word about getting freight off the
>roads and back into railcars where it belongs, then?


For part of the trip, perhaps, but, like commuters, rail freight
doesn't go everywhere it's needed either.

In article >, Bob Ward wrote:

> For part of the trip, perhaps, but, like commuters, rail freight
> doesn't go everywhere it's needed either.

But it can get reasonably close cutting down truck milage considerably.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:34:14 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> For part of the trip, perhaps, but, like commuters, rail freight
>> doesn't go everywhere it's needed either.
>
>But it can get reasonably close cutting down truck milage considerably.
>
>
>
Try selling that idea to the Teamsters...

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Robert Morien > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Robert Morien > wrote:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, mathematics and economics severely limit the
> >> scalability of this approach. There's only so much space within
> >> walking distance of each station. Once that's filled up, everyone
> >> else has to live and work elsewhere. And if that's the most desirable
> >> space, it'll quickly become enormously expensive because it's both
> >> desirable AND rare, meaning only the wealthiest people and companies
> >> will locate there.
> >
> >That just isn't true. Since that system can't happen overnight, over the
> >generation or two it would take to change land use planning to this
> >model, adaptations would create the same type of neighborhoods in
> >existing neighborhoods. You don't have to build single family homes in
> >these developments, three story condo/apts would work
>
> Increasing density near the stations only scales linearly; that's not
> sufficient as the demand scales with area served. It _does_ partially
> offset the problem of only the wealthiest living there, but not
> completely -- as Manhattan proves, sometimes even the wealthy will
> live in a hive.

I suppose it's not impossible to have transit loops so that the system
serves a larger area while not overly increasing the size, density or
complexity. One might even consider the inter-development lines as
express and the loop as local.