Taxing Drivers By The Mile

> I have always advocated getting rid of the taxes and charging drivers
> directly for the costs of driving. That means no more "free" (i.w.
> subsidized) parking, no more "free"ways - every drivers pays their
> way. The increase in direct costs will be directly and precisely
> offset by the decrease in taxes - the only difference is the costs
> become "visible" to the average driver.
>
That will never happen. Government tries to hide its costs as much as
possible, spreading them out so you don't notice the big hit you're
taking.

That's why there's millions of Americans just thrilled that they're
getting a tax "refund" on April 15. They think it's extra money coming
to them. When in actuality it's merely getting a small portion of your
own money back, after an interest-free loan to the govt. It was
suggested a few years ago to get rid of withholding and make everyone
pay their income taxes directly each year. The powers that be were
scared to death to let the constituents really feel how much they were
paying in a lump sum like that. But they hid their fear in statements
of concern for the poor - what about those people who don't save enough
during the year to pay their taxes? We have to help them by taking
some out of each paycheck. And for the vast majority who don't peruse
their paystubs, the cost of govt is hidden.

The same thing with gas taxes for roads. Sure everyone "knows" that
part of the money you spend at the pump is taxes. But by parcelling it
out every fillup, they never consider the total amount they are paying.

> Nobody wants to walk 10 blocks from Grant
> Park to the office in 30 below windchill...
>
And how many people want to walk 10 blocks to the bus stop or train
station and wait for 20 minutes in 30 below windchill?

There are many reasons for transit, good reasons. If my employer
didn't provide parking, I'd consider it. (However, zoning approval for
any *new* development usually requires adequate parking facilities.) I
took the bus to work shortly after I was first married, so my wife
could take the car to school. After moving to my current location, I
took transit when my wife needed the car (e.g. doctor appts for the
kids). But when we could afford 2 cars, we got them - for the
convenience.

I could take the bus to work today. But that would require me getting
to downtown of my suburb (~2 miles) to catch the bus, which leaves
about the time I'm normally getting out of bed - and that bus is an
express - in order to get to work on time. There's a connecting bus,
but I don't even know the schedule. It's just more convenient to
drive. And I gladly pay for that convenience in the cost of a second
car, insurance, gas, gas taxes, registration, etc.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2005 16:08:08 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
> >I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in
the
> >fare box to pay for construction and operation.
>
> Irrelevant. Transit, like roads, is a public good, and is not
expected
> to turn a profit. If transporation infrastructure were intended to be
> a for-profit operation, every road would be a toll road.
>
> The only people who bitch about mass transit not being profitable are
> the people who hate mass transit.

Wait - weren't you the one making the argument that road users should
shoulder the entire burden for their driving, without getting any
subsidies (taxes, provided parking, etc)? Why does that not apply to
transit?

I don't hate transit. I wish Detroit and the suburbs could get over
their turf wars and create a logical regional transit system - in part
because then the portion of my taxes that goes to it would be better
spent. I don't mind providing transit for those that need it. I think
Amtrak should survive - my daughter's taking it home from college this
week. We make that choice, just like I make the choice to drive to
work.

But you can't argue that roads must pay for themselves, and transit can
operate at a loss.

In article >,
Robert Morien > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> 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.

You can do it, but those loops are going to be buses unless you have
NYC-like density. Almost nobody likes buses. You've also gone to a
three-seat ride for many destinations, which people don't like either;
transfers are a pain. And, the time and mileage spent taking the loop
instead of a direct path eat up the efficiency of the system.

In article >,
Robert Morien > wrote:
>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.

No, the pot DOESN'T stay the same, because you're attracting people
from transportation which produces revenue for the state to forms of
transportation which don't.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:10:54 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>>>
>>>Obviously nobody really wants to get people out of their cars. If they
>>>did, it would be incredibly simple: remove all subsidies, gas taxes,
>>>sales taxes, property taxes, and every other hidden method of paying
>>>for roads and parking, and charge drivers EXPLICITLY for those costs.
>>
>>You're confused. Drivers already pay more than enough to build the
>>roads.
>
>Of course they do - through sales taxes, property taxes, and other
>indirect means. Of course, this means that NON-drivers also pay, since
>they pay those same taxes.

No, though fuel taxes, registration fees, traffic fines, and the like.

>>Parking is a cash cow for cities and makes a profit for garage
>>operators; it's not typically subsidized
>
>Do you drive to work? How much do you pay to park in your employer's
>parking lot? How much do you pay to park at the mall? Those are prime
>examples of "free" (subsidized) parking.

See, now you're playing word games; that's not a government subsidy.
How much does a SEPTA rider pay for the bus shelter at the King of
Prussia Mall?

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:42:43 -0500, "Ed Stasiak" >
>wrote:
>
>>> Actually, the problem is the way roads are paid for. They appear
>>> "free" to you, because you never pay for the costs of using them
>>> directly.
>>
>>I'm aware of how our roads are funded, in fact the gas pump
>>has a sticker on it informing me that $0.33 of every dollar of
>>gas I put in my truck is taxes.
>>
>>> It's all done indirectly through taxes. This makes people think mass
>>> transit is more expensive because they have to pay a fare every time
>>> they use it.
>>
>>Actually it's mass transit proponents that are trying to fool people
>>into believing that it's cheaper then driving a car
>
>Who's fooling who?
>
>If ALL subsidies were to disappear tomorrow, how much do you think
>automobile drivers would have to pay per mile to use the roads? How
>much would bus and train riders pay? Your perception is that personal
>automobiles would be cheaper. Boy are you in for a shock...

An automobile driver driving the PA Turnpike -- paid for by tolls, no
subsidy, or so sayeth the Turnpike commission -- will pay $2.25 for
the trip between the Philadelphia interchange and the Valley Forge
interchange. A SEPTA rider taking the 125 bus from Philadelphia to
the King of Prussia mall (about the same distance, though not a
similar route) will pay $3. The SEPTA ride is heavily subsidized as
to operating costs, and does not at all contribute to paying for the
bus itself, or the roads the bus is rolling on (SEPTA does not pay fuel taxes).

Who's fooling who now?

In article >,
ParrotRob > wrote:
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:23:05 -0600,
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>The MOST-USED transit line in the SEPTA (Philadelphia-area) system
>>>recovers 56% of operating costs in fares. Some of the least used are
>>>around 16%. Real efficient.
>>
>> The average freeway recovers 0% of its construction and operating
>> costs in fares. Even LESS efficient.
>
>So not ONE CENT of my income tax, sales tax, gas tax or any other tax goes
>back into construction and operating the "average freeway"? That's the most
>ridiculous thing I've heard all day.

Naa, Scott's just playing games with words. Like trying to count the
cost of parking my car in an employer-paid lot as a "subsidy"
(probably he'd count the employer-paid computer as one) -- and a
subsidy at the retail price of parking in a pay-by-the-hour lot, no
less. Even just counting direct fees and taxes on drivers and vehicle
owners (that is, fuel, registration, taxes on commercial trucks, etc,
but not income or sales taxes), a freeway recovers far more of its
costs from its users than any mass transit system.

Scott en Aztlán > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:22:45 -0500, (RJ) wrote:
>
> >> >I don't know of any public transit system that collects enough in the
> >> >fare box to pay for construction and operation.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. Transit, like roads, is a public good, and is not expected
> >> to turn a profit.
> >
> >So *all* transit is a good thing, no matter what it costs?
>
> Considering that freeways are just about the most expensive form of
> public transit we have, how could anyone complain about what the other
> modes cost?

Cite?

--
RJ

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Irrelevant. Transit, like roads, is a public good, and is not expected
>to turn a profit. If transporation infrastructure were intended to be
>a for-profit operation, every road would be a toll road.

I don't want it to turn a profit. I want it to break even. That goes
for roads (as a whole) too.