Taxing Drivers By The Mile

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Scott en Aztl=E1n <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.

Neither will ever happen. There needs to be subsidy for both.

In article >,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> 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.

While at the same time having transportation that lowers the costs of
operations and repairs

FREE is an obscene four letter word beginning with F. There is no free
lunch.

If you can't identify how you pay for something, the cost is external
to your control. Someone else pays for it and provides it to you in
exchange for something you provide. You look at it as FREE.

People abuse things that are FREE.

For instance, parking.

If your employer or your city provides parking and does not charge you
to park, parking seems FREE. But there is an opportunity cost. The
employer had to pay for the parking space. Public Works had to pay to
build public parking. Would your employer give you a raise if he did
not have to pay your parking? Or would your employer pocket that money?
Or would your employer pass the savings on to people that buy things
from your company?

Would your taxes be lower if the city did not have to build FREE
parking? Or would your government just divert those taxes into
something else? If the parking wasn't there, would your commuting costs
be higher or lower? Both answers are true. The answer depends on where
you live.

Someone pointed out that zero percent of a road is paid for by fares.
In his mind that is undoubtedly true. But does he see that 100% of the
road is paid for by stable and dependable taxes on fuel. What I just
said about zero percent and 100 percent funding is an ideal. Not many
places have the balance. Most places require bookkeeping magic to keep
the funds straight. Any kind of transportation has external costs.
Someone else pays for a piece that appears to be FREE.

Transit has the greatest split between visible cost and FREE cost. As
someone pointed out, fare box represents 15% to 56% of the operating
costs of transit. Nothing was said about construction cost. The balance
is provided by taxes, advertising revenue, employer contribution, etc.

There seems to be friction between people that don't want a particular
solution rammed down their throats. I don't blame them. If you don't
like the transportation system where you live, shop around, you can
find one more to your liking. But for an individual to change the
system that is in place? Unless you are Cody Pfansteihl or Shedd, good
luck.

As for the comment on California reformulated gasoline. Someone is
recovering some of the costs that are FREE in other states. California
has a unique inversion problem. Not unique to California. Unique to
those areas that have inversions. Does Needles have inversions? Even if
Needles doesn't have inversions, I doubt Arnold will give you a FREE
ride.

Dick Boyd wrote:
> Someone pointed out that zero percent of a road is paid for by fares.
> In his mind that is undoubtedly true. But does he see that 100% of
the
> road is paid for by stable and dependable taxes on fuel.
(snip)

Untrue. Taxes on fuel are neither stable nor dependable. Most gas taxes
aren't indexed to inflation and lose buying power each year; as more
vehicles hit the road thatr are fuel efficient they produce less
revenue into the system while adding to the need for more capacity and
safety imnprovements.

More importantly, fuel taxes come nowhere near paying for "100%" of all
the construction and operation of the roadway systems. Where I live,
we're paying sales taxes, special district assessments on top of
property taxes and other general fund revenues to build, operate and
maintain street networks.

> wrote:

> More importantly, fuel taxes come nowhere near paying for "100%" of all
> the construction and operation of the roadway systems. Where I live,
> we're paying sales taxes, special district assessments on top of
> property taxes and other general fund revenues to build, operate and
> maintain street networks.

That's pretty much irrelevant, because street networks must exist, no
matter how much transit people use.

--
RJ

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Dick Boyd wrote:

> FREE is an obscene four letter word beginning with F. There is no free
> lunch.

The hell with free lunch, there is no free TRADE.

> People abuse things that are FREE.

See above "free" trade.

> As for the comment on California reformulated gasoline. Someone is
> recovering some of the costs that are FREE in other states. California
> has a unique inversion problem.

Yep: Lawyers and MBAs are running everything, while engineers are begging
for work. That is an inversion of how it should be. Unfortunately, it's
not unique to California.

RJ wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > More importantly, fuel taxes come nowhere near paying for "100%" of
all
> > the construction and operation of the roadway systems. Where I
live,
> > we're paying sales taxes, special district assessments on top of
> > property taxes and other general fund revenues to build, operate
and
> > maintain street networks.
>
> That's pretty much irrelevant, because street networks must exist, no
> matter how much transit people use.

That hardly renders the costs or their sources irrelevant. What I am
disputing is the claim made by Dick that fuel taxes pay for 100% of the
roads. They come nowhere close, and local subsidies abound for them. I
am not advocating that we not build roads. Obviously we need them.

> wrote:

> RJ wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > More importantly, fuel taxes come nowhere near paying for "100%" of
> all
> > > the construction and operation of the roadway systems. Where I
> live,
> > > we're paying sales taxes, special district assessments on top of
> > > property taxes and other general fund revenues to build, operate
> and
> > > maintain street networks.
> >
> > That's pretty much irrelevant, because street networks must exist, no
> > matter how much transit people use.
>
> That hardly renders the costs or their sources irrelevant. What I am
> disputing is the claim made by Dick that fuel taxes pay for 100% of the
> roads. They come nowhere close, and local subsidies abound for them. I
> am not advocating that we not build roads. Obviously we need them.

Neighborhood streets and arterials are very different creatures.
--
RJ

In article ich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> Yep: Lawyers and MBAs are running everything, while engineers are begging
> for work. That is an inversion of how it should be. Unfortunately, it's
> not unique to California.

The US is an image/perception driven society. Thusly, competence doesn't
matter. Even in engineering, it's the kiss-ass social climber who got an
engineering degree because he was good at school but couldnt design his
way out of a wet paper bag that gets to go to the top.

China seems to understand this problem in the USA. They are taking full
advantage of it to meet their goals.

Wouldn't it be interesting if all the engineers and various other
technical people just 'pulled the plug' for 24hrs and made the MBA's,
lawyers, and finance people cover. After all, they believe we have no
value and are replacable cogs.

RJ wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > RJ wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > More importantly, fuel taxes come nowhere near paying for
"100%" of
> > all
> > > > the construction and operation of the roadway systems. Where I
> > live,
> > > > we're paying sales taxes, special district assessments on top
of
> > > > property taxes and other general fund revenues to build,
operate
> > and
> > > > maintain street networks.
> > >
> > > That's pretty much irrelevant, because street networks must
exist, no
> > > matter how much transit people use.
> >
> > That hardly renders the costs or their sources irrelevant. What I
am
> > disputing is the claim made by Dick that fuel taxes pay for 100% of
the
> > roads. They come nowhere close, and local subsidies abound for
them. I
> > am not advocating that we not build roads. Obviously we need them.
>
> Neighborhood streets and arterials are very different creatures.

Does this mean they don't cost money?

Besides, non-user revenues such as property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
pay for much more than just neighborhood streets and arterials. Even
so, these are also an indispensible part of the network. Their costs
cannot be shoved aside as irrelevant just because they don't fit the
model of "100% fuel tax paid roads." Their costs are shouldered by us.
As they should be. We rely on them even if we don't drive.

Don't mistake my points as meaning we shouldn't build roads. I am a
roads advocate. I am arguing for recognition of all the costs, and
further, for paying them!