If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chris Bessert wrote: > > assumes that ALL states and provinces would simultaneously adopt this > > new high-tech solution to a low-tech problem. If Washington DIDN'T > > implement such a system after Oregon did, anyone near the border or > > regularly travel- ing across it would then be incentivized to simply top > > off in Oregon (no sales tax on the actual gasoline anymore) and do as > > much of their driving on the Washington side as possible (no "per mile" > > taxing there). Sounds like a problem. > > Not really: they'd just leave the existing gasoline taxes in place and add > the new per-mile charges *on top of* them. Problem, er, "solved". If you pull up to the pump without a transponder (because you're from out of state or because you've never retrofitted) they'll just add on a confiscatory additional per-gallon tax. It'll be something in the order of assuming your car gets X mpg (probably a very high figure), you're buying Y gallons, so X*Y means you went Z miles. Charge'm. Nobody ever said a miles fee was to "replace" the existing per-gallon tax. I don't know how they'll tell you ahead of time how much your miles tax will be, so you can be sure to have enough cash on hand. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
... > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:47:41 -0500, "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.... > > Funny, that didn't work in Illinois... Didn't work in Atlanta, either. Brad |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote: >Gary V wrote: > >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go - >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15 >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders, >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover >> expenses.) > >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free? No; it makes sense to shut it down. Making it free will increase demand, likely increasing costs over and above that of the loss of collecting the fares. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote: >Bob Ward wrote: >> >> The Real Bev > wrote: >> >> >Gary V wrote: >> > >> >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than >> >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go - >> >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15 >> >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders, >> >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so >> >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover >> >> expenses.) >> > >> >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's >> >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free? >> >> No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of >> it. > >Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and >into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then >we should be willing to pay for it. If we as a society really wanted it, we'd be doing it. Instead, self-appointed guardians of the civic good claim "we as a society" want it, while the rest of us continue to drive and most of those forced by circumstance or economics to ride the bus wish they had a car. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
> > "Ed Stasiak" > wrote > > > > If mass transit means pointing a gun at my head (thru outrageous > > gas costs, tax-by-the-mile, ect) to get me to use it, then there is > > something wrong with that mass transit system. > > 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, what they fail to mention is that without our tax dollars going to prop up the system, (that the vast majority never use) it would shut down over night. Here in metro Detroit, all one needs to do to see the "efficiency" of the SMART system is look at the bazillion ton buses, spewing diesel fumes and getting in everybody's way, as they carry 3 or 4 people to their job flipping burgers at McDonalds. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote: >Nice try, but were talking about urban areas. Boston - home of the Big >Dig - has been urbanized since the 1700s. It had to be torn apart and >rebuilt when we shifted from horses to automobiles. If we can afford >The Big Dig, we can afford to dig a few smaller tunnels for subway >trains. Yeah, but we can't afford the Big Dig boondoggle. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> 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. 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. This is untrue, of course, but that's the >perception caused by hiding the way roads are paid for. Once you >expose the true costs of roads by making drivers pay for their use >explicitly, suddenly a $1 bus ride looks a lot more attractive. Bus rides around here are $2-$3. Which is typically more than the _marginal_ cost of driving the same distance. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
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. Moving that from (largely) gas taxes to an explicit fee, if you could somehow do it, wouldn't change anything. In fact, some drivers already pay an explicit fee for the roads -- for instance, those who drive the Pennsylvania Turnpike (and they pay the gas tax ON TOP of that!). Doesn't stop them. >Why, the parking costs alone would be enough to get most people to >take the bus to work. Parking is a cash cow for cities and makes a profit for garage operators; it's not typically subsidized except sometimes in shopping districts. I park in a private lot leased by my employer. Since taking the bus would involve going something like 20 miles out of the way (for a 10 mile trip), that's not going to happen even if they did start charging me for parking |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flashpoint Racing Series begins tonight! | [email protected] | Simulators | 34 | February 18th 05 01:37 AM |
This explains some of the bad drivers | Cashew | Driving | 0 | February 11th 05 10:50 PM |
Wed Night N2003 league looking for drivers | [email protected] | Simulators | 0 | November 30th 04 02:46 AM |
Truck Drivers Needed | Trucking Recruiter | 4x4 | 0 | April 14th 04 01:33 PM |