Taxing Drivers By The Mile

Cartlon Shew wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2005 13:14:27 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:

> >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.
>
> Actually, it came with the building. They own some of their
buildings
> and lease others.

They still had to pay for it when they bought or leased the building.
It's included in the price. Nothing just "comes with" the building that
you don't in some way pay for.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:51:50 -0500, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

> 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.

Sure, and I note he hasn't challenged them either.

--
Keith

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:41:57 -0500, RJ wrote:

> 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?

"Density" he's not missing.

--
Keith

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:46:11 -0500, "ParrotRob" >
> wrote:
>
>>Oh yeah, that's exactly what people want. The American Dream. A
>>three-story condo by the metro station. Where do I sign up?
>
> http://www.tustinlegacy.com/
>
> When this development opened, even before the models had been
> completed, over FIVE THOUSAND people got on the waiting list for a
> chance to buy a condo. It's right next to the tracks and about a
> 5-minute walk to the station.

"The residential mix is as follows:
a.. 126 Detached Cluster Homes
b.. 52 Paired Homes
c.. 58 Row Town Homes
d.. 140 Clustered Homes
The approximately 31.6 acre site also includes a 1.3 acre park, open space,
access to a future Regional Park trail system and is centrally located to
regional shopping and transportation facilities."

And your point is? I fail to see how that has anything to do with high-rise
condos...???

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:20:58 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:24:44 -0500, "ParrotRob" >
>wrote:
>
>>>>Oh yeah, that's exactly what people want. The American Dream. A
>>>>three-story condo by the metro station. Where do I sign up?
>>>
>>> http://www.tustinlegacy.com/
>>>
>>> When this development opened, even before the models had been
>>> completed, over FIVE THOUSAND people got on the waiting list for a
>>> chance to buy a condo. It's right next to the tracks and about a
>>> 5-minute walk to the station.
>>
>>"The residential mix is as follows:
>> a.. 126 Detached Cluster Homes
>> b.. 52 Paired Homes
>> c.. 58 Row Town Homes
>> d.. 140 Clustered Homes
>>The approximately 31.6 acre site also includes a 1.3 acre park, open space,
>>access to a future Regional Park trail system and is centrally located to
>>regional shopping and transportation facilities."
>>
>>And your point is? I fail to see how that has anything to do with high-rise
>>condos...???
>
>Re-read the third sentence in the quoted text above.


Counting from where?

Sounds like you aren't really trying to provide an answer.


The third sentence above mentions "a three story condo" - what's that
got to do with high rise ANYTHING?

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> > wrote:
>> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> >
>> >Isn't it obvious? Fuel taxes and user fees such as vehicle
>> >registrations don't come close to covering all the costs of
>building,
>> >operating and maintaining the roadway network and all of the
>> >accoutrements that are part of the system.
>>
>> So you say. I say otherwise.
>
>But you would be wrong, that's the difference. I've already laid out
>for you numerous non-user revenues that are part of the system.

They are applicable in your area, but most are not in mine. Further,
the existence of non-user reveues doesn't mean that user revenues
don't "come close".

>You can't wave them away with an "I say otherwise." Believing a falsehood
>doesn't make it true.

Nor does making an unsupported claim.

>> >But, it *is* a subsidy by non-users. So what? There's subsidy
>> >everywhere. To quote George Costanza, "We're living in a society!"
>> >Embrace it and let's get the most out of our resources.
>>
>> The further you separate the use of a resource from the payment for
>> the resouce, the greater the misuse of the resource will be. THAT'S
>> "So what?"
>
>Immaterial here. *Everyone* uses roads even if they don't drive. It's
>how your food gets to your store then to your table. It's how your new
>sofa gets delivered. I disagree that, in principle, a general sales tax
>dedicated to roads, or a general fund transfer from property taxes,
>that goes to specific road projects, is more likely to be a misused
>resource.

I'm not talking about the sales tax; I'm talking about the roads. If
roads are paid for by a general sales tax, then the costs of using the
roads are not seen by the user -- whether a direct user or an indirect
user. That means there's less incentive to use the roads more
efficiently.

In article >,
keith > wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:51:50 -0500, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Sure, and I note he hasn't challenged them either.

Scott from Aztlan claims that the cost of driving, if charged directly to the
driver, would exceed by orders of magnitude the cost of mass transit,
if charged directly to the user. To do so he IS implicitly challenging Scott
Kozel's figures.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:34:49 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 22 Feb 2005 07:57:09 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
>
>>There may be another reason why the people of Irvine, CA and Tucson, AZ
>>voted against mass transit. Possibly one of the reasons being that mass
>>transit does not match land use.
>
>What does that mean?
>
>>Why
>>add more seats to the transportation equation when the greatest
>>commodity is empty seats? Fill some of those empty seats before asking
>>for more seats.
>
>In order to fill seats, those seats need to take people where they
>need to go.
>
>Catch-22.
>
>The only way to solve the chicken-or-egg problem is to have the
>political balls to put the basic system into place. Then it can grow
>naturally, just as the Metrolink commuter rail system has grown.

There's another choice: no mass transit for that area.
Mass transit, by definition, needs a mass of people to transport. If
that mass isn't there, they aren't going to be transported.
Installing a transit system just to have one is extremely inefficient,
and does not serve the local population at all.
Just looking and seeing a bunch of people driving doesn't mean mass
transit is any answer to a perceived problem. If the transit system
can't provide a reasonable alternative, what good is it?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article
.com>,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Isn't it obvious? Fuel taxes and user fees such as vehicle
> >> >registrations don't come close to covering all the costs of
> >building,
> >> >operating and maintaining the roadway network and all of the
> >> >accoutrements that are part of the system.
> >>
> >> So you say. I say otherwise.
> >
> >But you would be wrong, that's the difference. I've already laid out
> >for you numerous non-user revenues that are part of the system.
>
> They are applicable in your area, but most are not in mine. Further,
> the existence of non-user reveues doesn't mean that user revenues
> don't "come close".

I'd be willing to bet that there are in fact numerous non-user
supplemental revenues to highways in the Philly area. You're not that
different from the rest of the country. And as I already documented in
other posts, the gap is quite large between between user-paid revenues
and what's being spent, not to mention what more is needed.

> >You can't wave them away with an "I say otherwise." Believing a
falsehood
> >doesn't make it true.
>
> Nor does making an unsupported claim.

That's why I chose to make supported claims.

> >> >But, it *is* a subsidy by non-users. So what? There's subsidy
> >> >everywhere. To quote George Costanza, "We're living in a
society!"
> >> >Embrace it and let's get the most out of our resources.
> >>
> >> The further you separate the use of a resource from the payment
for
> >> the resouce, the greater the misuse of the resource will be.
THAT'S
> >> "So what?"
> >
> >Immaterial here. *Everyone* uses roads even if they don't drive.
It's
> >how your food gets to your store then to your table. It's how your
new
> >sofa gets delivered. I disagree that, in principle, a general sales
tax
> >dedicated to roads, or a general fund transfer from property taxes,
> >that goes to specific road projects, is more likely to be a misused
> >resource.
>
> I'm not talking about the sales tax; I'm talking about the roads. If
> roads are paid for by a general sales tax, then the costs of using
the
> roads are not seen by the user -- whether a direct user or an
indirect
> user. That means there's less incentive to use the roads more
> efficiently.

How would I use a road differently if I did -- as I could quite easily
-- calculate how much in the half-percent sales tax for south Jefferson
County roads I actually have paid? It wouldn't make a stitch of
difference. I'd still drive down Belleview Avenue anytime I needed to.
You're drawing a distinction that makes no difference. Do you think
that if people calculated all the non-user resources they pay to help
build and maintain their road systems -- and they are plentiful -- that
they would stop driving? Or that they would demand an end to income
taxes, property taxes or sales taxes going to road systems so that they
could pay an extra 50 cents or so per gallon at the pump instead?

On 22 Feb 2005 15:40:48 -0800, wrote:

>Cartlon Shew wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2005 13:14:27 -0800, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Actually, it came with the building. They own some of their
>buildings
>> and lease others.
>
>They still had to pay for it when they bought or leased the building.
>It's included in the price. Nothing just "comes with" the building that
>you don't in some way pay for.

Out here, the ground is as hard as pavement. It would have cost more
to NOT make it a parking lot.