Taxing Drivers By The Mile

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> 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.

The pot stays the same, yes. mass/rapid improves and becomes more
dependable/desireable and the roads pretty much stay the same. Parity is
achieved. eventually people will look at roads as they now look at
mass/rapid transit.

In article >,
(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.
>
>
>
>

I certainly see no shortage of trains carrying freight/cargo containers.

In article >,
Bob Ward > wrote:

> 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...
>
>

Plenty of OTR that aren't teamsters.

In article >, Bob Ward wrote:
> 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...

I dunno... every time a trucking company recruits with radio ads around
here they talk about more 'home time'. I would imagine the number of
trucking jobs would be about the same. But the drivers would get to go
home at the end of the day instead of sleeping in the back of their
cabs....

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:42:43 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Bob Ward wrote:
>> 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...
>
>I dunno... every time a trucking company recruits with radio ads around
>here they talk about more 'home time'. I would imagine the number of
>trucking jobs would be about the same. But the drivers would get to go
>home at the end of the day instead of sleeping in the back of their
>cabs....
>
>
Here's a big hint for you - they get paid by the mile - I'm sure they
are all jazzed about your plans to reduce their workload.

How many Teamsters does it take to change a lightbulb?
47 - you got a problem with that?

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.

There is a big cost for a mode change. Screws up the JIT value chain.

--
RJ

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Brent P wrote:

>>In article >, Paul wrote:

>>>Tolls can be removed if the people keep an eye on the authority
>>>collecting the toll and demand the toll's removal when the project is
>>>paid off.... See: http://tinyurl.com/7xmmg

>>Well it's not that easy in c(r)ook county IL. Even if there was an
>>elected offical who wanted to do it, he couldn't.
>>
>>Besides the corruption and politics, there is the ass-backwards way this
>>is sold to the moron majority.
>>
>>The toll road authority just kept coming up with new projects, deciding
>>that users of the original toll road system had to keep pay tolls for.

> The problem is that most people find the toll prices reasonable. If
> they didn't, they would take I-94 or surface streets instead of I-294.

In WV, we have a rather unorthodox situation with tolls on the WV
turnpike. Basically, in the '50s, a super 2 (lane) road was built from
southern WV to Charleston. Tolls were put on the road and bonds were
sold to fund construction (all this managed by the WV Turnpike
Commission). Within the next 10 to 15 years, the WVDOT and FHWA started
upgrading the toll road to an interstate standard 4 lane divided road
and that was funded with the standard 10/90 split between the WVDOT and
the FHWA.

By the late '80s, the original costs of the turnpike were paid off.
Unfortunately, the state government was low on money and they came up
with the idea that the WV Turnpike Commission owed the WVDOT for its 10%
share of the cost of upgrading the turnpike to interstate standards
(yes, you heard me, the government claims that it owes itself money).

You can read the rest of the story he
.com>






>

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...

> I've got a proposal that will make
> people pay per-mile taxes inversely
> proportional to their actual
> (not estimated) mileage. I call it the
> "gas tax", and it works like this:
> Whenever someone buys fuel, charge
> them a certain amount per gallon
> regardless of their mileage. They
> get 30mpg, they pay half the tax
> per mile as someone who gets 15mpg.
> Pretty cool, huh? Now if only some
> government would implement such a thing....

Of course, something as simple as taxing each gallon of gas as it is
purchased doesn't require the use of a little black box in the car to
track and record everywhere the vehicle goes for the government and/or
big business.

You wouldn't want to deny them their little data mine, would you?

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> The problem is that most people find the toll prices reasonable. If
> they didn't, they would take I-94 or surface streets instead of I-294.

They are as of 1-1-05

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>scott, you do the old trim and attack for not having what you trimmed.
>>Suck an egg.
>
> No, YOU suck one. In one breath you claim that $40 parking lots don't
> exist, and then in the very next sentence you admit that they might
> exist after all, but you're not sure.
> Sorry if I embarrassed you by calling your lame argument on the
> carpet.

Read again scott. That's not what I did. I said if they existed, they'd
go out of business.

>>> My point is, there is no "free parking" in downtown Chicago.
>>> Effectively, people in America *are* being charged to drive in urban
>>> areas.

>>Grant park garage. Nowhere near $40.
> Nobody said that ALL parking downtown is $40/day. However, you don't
> have to look very hard to find it. Grant Park is cheap because it's
> out of the way; it's also subsidized to encourage people to come
> downtown and shop or to visit the city as tourists. Workers in
> downtown office buildings pay more to park in those smaller, private
> lots that are scattered throughout the downtown area because those are
> closer to where they work. Nobody wants to walk 10 blocks from Grant
> Park to the office in 30 below windchill...

I've never seen $40 a day parking anywhere downtown. Unless you mean
parking there for the full 24 hours instead of the usual 8-12.

>>Although when I go down town I
>>either park south of 12th and bike or I park in areas I know well on the
>>south side or northside and bike downtown.

> I'm talking about people who WORK downtown.

So a day of parking is 8-12 hours.

>>>>Transit is promoted by making driving
>>>>more painful. A completely ass backwards approach. But since most transit
>>>>advocates are not really pro-transit, but anti-car, this makes sense.

>>> Do you see me as "anti-car?"

>>No.

> It was a rhetorical question. I merely wanted you to realize that not
> all transit advocates are car-hating loons.

If you read my whole post, you'd have realized that I already knew that.

Go read the whole post.