Taxing Drivers By The Mile

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>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.

Why?

> wrote:

> 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?

No, it means neighborhood streets have to exist even if nobody owned a
car.

--
RJ

In article . com>,
Dick Boyd > wrote:
>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.

Forget opportunity cost. Stick with actual costs, unless the object
is just to play accounting games. Or should I count the opportunity
cost of replacing train stations and bus parking and service areas
with office or factory space, too?

>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?

None of the above; they'd lose money on the deal because to not pay for
parking, they'd have move to someplace more crowded where office space
is more expensive and doesn't include parking. They could
(theoretically) sublet the parking where they are, but no one would
want it who doesn't work in the building.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>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;

Except that jurisdictions periodically raise them.

>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.

"Fortunately", fleed fuel efficiency really isn't imrpoving.

>More importantly, fuel taxes come nowhere near paying for "100%" of all
>the construction and operation of the roadway systems.

Fuel taxes and other direct-to-motorist costs come very near paying
the costs of 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.

Sounds like idiot government at work, particularly the sales taxes;
property taxes for local roads at least make some sense. When they're
done screwing around with that, they'll no doubt raise the gas tax and
keep the extra ones too.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:06:06 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:35:19 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>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
>
> And you believe that?
>
>>will pay $2.25 for the trip between the Philadelphia interchange and the Valley Forge
>>interchange.
>
> So tell me, how much did this road cost to build? Are the bonds paid
> off yet? How much money do they take in every year, how much do they
> allocate to debt service, and how much to repairs and maintenance? I'd
> love to see that budget...
>
>>Who's fooling who now?
>
> Sounds like you're fooling yourself.

Dunno about the PS turnpike, but since it was one of the first
limited-access highways, my bet is that it's been paid off a few times
over. ...not to mention the gas taxes paid in the service areas (one
doesn't got off to buy gas from the locals).

The NYS throughway was "refinanced" to buy out Interstate 84 some twelve
years ago. Why "buy" an Interstate? ...to shuffle state bonds from one
pocket into another, and keep the tolls on the Throughway. The NYS
throughway is a plumb political appointment, as well as paying a few
thousand state workers. Can't have them go poof, now can we? The
fact is that they collect gas tax on the same highway, that's supposed to
be paid for by tolls. Double taxation, eh?

--
Keith

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:08:33 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:01:17 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
> How can a "free" road which generates $0 of income ever possibly break
> even?

Ever hear of the "gasoline tax". It's supposed to pay for the roads. If
it doesn't, raise it. If it does, stop raiding it as another general fund
item. If you want to raise money for public transit as a user fee, as
the gas tax is supposed to be, I'd have no problem. You use it, you pay
for it. Though note that your food comes by truck, they should pay their
share too (they don't).

--
Keith

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:14:19 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:13:02 -0500, (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.
>
> And transit MUST exist - for the same reasons. Public mass transit is
> as necessary to modern society as good roads.

Bull****. Mass transit can only work where there is a mass. Outside your
little world, this country is *huge*. There just aren't masses of people
to move to make mass transit work. ...outside your little world. My bet
is that you don't even use it daily.

--
Keith

--
Keith

keith > wrote:
>
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> > How can a "free" road which generates $0 of income ever possibly break even?
>
> Ever hear of the "gasoline tax". It's supposed to pay for the roads. If
> it doesn't, raise it. If it does, stop raiding it as another general fund
> item. If you want to raise money for public transit as a user fee, as
> the gas tax is supposed to be, I'd have no problem. You use it, you pay
> for it. Though note that your food comes by truck, they should pay their
> share too (they don't).

Direct road user taxes and fees (fuel taxes, license fees, registration
fees, tolls) produces over $100 billion per year in revenue in the U.S.

Scotty from "Aztlan" knows these FActs, but he has decided to be one of
the more annoying trolls around here.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

That is a better definition of inversion than the traditional weather
phenomenon.

Where I live now, there are multiple sources of funds for
transportation. CSAs, timber depletion, aggregate tax, fuel sales tax,
state fuel tax and federal fuel tax. There are also multiple levels of
government to deal with. The closer to home and the smaller, the easier
to deal with.

For the most part, I'm satisfied with the local roads and with the
participation in the decision process by the people using the local
roads. Funds are identified, collected and for the most part spent for
what people think they were collected for. The exception is federal tax
money. About 20% leaves the state. Some of that 20% paying for stuff
that isn't even transportation, in my opinion.

I feel disenfranchised. Not only am I ignored, I'm villified for even
suggesting that I should have a say so in how my money is spent. After
all, it is no longer my money, it is gummint money. I guess if you are
willing to face the disgrace of being in public office, you are
entitled to some graft.

We don't have any fedral roads in the county, unless you want to count
the timber haul road that was paid for by federal timber taxes. The
timber is being cut in National Forests. Timber taxes are ulitmately
paid by the person buying the house where the timber is used. But the
county awarded the contracts using federal specifications. I think the
county got a better deal than the feds ever could have. But there is
still some county contribution to pay for a road to get timber to
market.

Rail tracks are being torn up in my area, even as we speak. What we
really need is more deep water ports. Land where the tracks once were
will be more valuable for something else. Possibly a linear park.
Possibly something yet to be invented.

Most of the food processing plants have moved to China or Chile.
Railroads don't want tracks they have to pay taxes on unless there is
revenue for those taxes.

Now we have Arnold.

In contrast, where I used to live, participation in the transportation
decision process was after the fact, if at all. Major effort was to
find someone else to pay. If you did participate in public meetings, it
was mere formality. The decisions were made before the meetings.

You probably have guessed that I used to live near DC.

Scott en Aztlán > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:13:02 -0500, (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.
>
> And transit MUST exist - for the same reasons. Public mass transit is
> as necessary to modern society as good roads.

Aren't you leaving out a parameter here? Like population density?

--
RJ