Roads a.k.a. The Tragedy of the Commons

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:16:56 GMT, "Robert J. Matter"
> wrote:

>> And I don't know when you
>> decided that congestion is a problem, because you started off saying
>> drivers are the problem.
>
>Too many drivers are the problem. If people only rented a car the few
>times per year one was actually necessary then our situation wouldn't be
>so dire. But because the true cost of driving (fuel, infrastructure,
>medical care and insurance, police and fire departments, etc.) is
>subsidized by the entire population and not just those who drive, there
>is more "consumption" of driving.

Not only that, but roads and parking appear to be "free goods" - the
true costs are hidden in various tax-supported subsidies. With no
apparent barriers to unlimited consumption, it's no wonder our roads
are jammed to overflowing with traffic. And, just like the sheep who
ate up all the grass on the commons, we as a driving society are
headed for disaster.

You don't think $2.30 / gallon gasoline is an "apparent barrier to
unlimited consumption?" I do believe tacking another $0.05 to $0.10
onto the federal gas tax and a like amount by the states is a good
idea. And personally, I think a slowly escalating tax on imported oil
would be a good idea. Call it the defense of oil producing states act
of 2005.

Ed

On 11 Jul 2005 05:17:02 -0700, "Ed White" > wrote:

>You don't think $2.30 / gallon gasoline is an "apparent barrier to
>unlimited consumption?"

Obviously not. Traffic congestion has not noticeably reduced over the
last few years - in fact, it has gotten worse.

Even at $3/gallon, the cost of gas is only a miniscule fraction of the
true cost of owning and operating a personal automobile on public
roads. Now, if drivers paid all those costs DIRECTLY in the form of
user fees, instead of having it subsidized by everyone via taxes, THAT
would be a barrier to unlimited consumption.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:

>Even at $3/gallon, the cost of gas is only a miniscule fraction of the
>true cost of owning and operating a personal automobile on public
>roads. Now, if drivers paid all those costs DIRECTLY in the form of
>user fees, instead of having it subsidized by everyone via taxes, THAT
>would be a barrier to unlimited consumption.

According to a USDOT study in 2001, 91.2% of people who go to work do
it by car. And 92.1% of all households have at least one car. If drivers
_aren't_ paying the "true cost" of automobiles, who the hell is?

Not only are drivers paying the "true cost" of automobiles, they're
paying to subsidize that 4.9% of people who go to work by public
transit, too.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Jul 2005 05:17:02 -0700, "Ed White" > wrote:
>
>>You don't think $2.30 / gallon gasoline is an "apparent barrier to
>>unlimited consumption?"
>
> Obviously not. Traffic congestion has not noticeably reduced over the
> last few years - in fact, it has gotten worse.

see the post in misc.transport.roads describing how in 34 of 50 states, the
number of miles driven *is* decreasing? (texas being one of them) it is
postulated that this is a result of higher gas prices...

>
> Even at $3/gallon, the cost of gas is only a miniscule fraction of the
> true cost of owning and operating a personal automobile on public
> roads. Now, if drivers paid all those costs DIRECTLY in the form of
> user fees, instead of having it subsidized by everyone via taxes, THAT
> would be a barrier to unlimited consumption.

true, that would be an additional barrier. i think $3.00 per gallon ( and
even now, gas at around $2.30-2.50 gallon) is proving to be a barrier, both
psychological AND financial for a lot of people.

now scott, if i remember correctly you're living/driving in california or
AZ, (two places a i drive in a lot myself, and i live in socal) so you and i
may not see as much of this effect as we would like--probably because the
populations in these areas are simply growing too much to be offset by a per
capita driving habit change. but give it time... $3.00 per gallon will
likely have quite the stifling effect...

brink

brink wrote:
> now scott, if i remember correctly you're living/driving in california or
> AZ, (two places a i drive in a lot myself, and i live in socal) so you and i
> may not see as much of this effect as we would like--probably because the
> populations in these areas are simply growing too much to be offset by a per
> capita driving habit change. but give it time... $3.00 per gallon will
> likely have quite the stifling effect...

In San Diego prices are already over $2.60/gal most places, and I don't
know anyone who's mentioned driving less as a result. Maybe between
the taxes and housing prices $3 doesn't seem like that much.

Of course, I also bought a 30+ mpg vehicle over a year so maybe I just
care less than someone with a 12 mpg F-150.

Dave

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> brink wrote:
>> now scott, if i remember correctly you're living/driving in california or
>> AZ, (two places a i drive in a lot myself, and i live in socal) so you
>> and i
>> may not see as much of this effect as we would like--probably because the
>> populations in these areas are simply growing too much to be offset by a
>> per
>> capita driving habit change. but give it time... $3.00 per gallon will
>> likely have quite the stifling effect...
>
> In San Diego prices are already over $2.60/gal most places, and I don't
> know anyone who's mentioned driving less as a result.

well now you know someone! i drive less as a result of gas prices.

Maybe between
> the taxes and housing prices $3 doesn't seem like that much.

looks like we'll get a chance to find out...

> Of course, I also bought a 30+ mpg vehicle over a year so maybe I just
> care less than someone with a 12 mpg F-150.

probably. lots and lots of cars out there getting 10-16 MPG, that $3.00
price starts to get pretty expensive...

brink

Duh, Roads are paid for my gasoline taxes. And at least in my state, so
is the State Police. In fact, as far as I can determine a significant
portion of road taxes are being diverted to uses not directly related
to roads. And this doesn't even begin to include the property taxes
collected based on the value of cars, or the property taxes associated
with structures that house cars (garages) or taxes on car sales, or
taxes on buisness that sell cars and car parts, or income taxes from
the people that sell cars and car parts, taxes on large trucks,
property taxes related to the trucking industry, etc., etc., etc.

I just looked through the Raleigh City Budget (they are asking for a
bond referendom to pay for roads) and realized that more than half of
the funds collected based on gas taxes and automobile property taxes
are being diverted to finance other items. Of course this doesn't leave
enough money to keep the roads in good repair, so the politicians are
asking for more money (so that they can continue to divert legitimate
highway funds to other pet projects like a new Civic Center and pulling
up a stupidly designed down town "mall").

It is just plain silly to claim that gasoline and automobile based
property taxes are not sufficient to cover the cost of roads and other
automobile related costs. The one "cost" I will conceede that is not
being covered is use of the "air" to fuel cars and to act as a dumping
ground for exhaut gases. An extra $0.50 gas tax is justifiable to cover
this usage.

Ed

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:15:25 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>>Even at $3/gallon, the cost of gas is only a miniscule fraction of the
>>true cost of owning and operating a personal automobile on public
>>roads. Now, if drivers paid all those costs DIRECTLY in the form of
>>user fees, instead of having it subsidized by everyone via taxes, THAT
>>would be a barrier to unlimited consumption.
>
>According to a USDOT study in 2001, 91.2% of people who go to work do
>it by car. And 92.1% of all households have at least one car. If drivers
>_aren't_ paying the "true cost" of automobiles, who the hell is?

They are paying most of it, but they don't KNOW they are paying it.

Ask the typical driver how much they pay to drive every year. Chances
are you'll get some hemming and hawing about how much they paid for
gas, licensing, and car insurance. A few of the smarter ones might
mention oil changes and repairs. How many are going to mention the
cost of street paving in their town, or the cost of traffic cops'
salaries, or the costs of "free" parking?

Drivers have the illusion that using their cars is largely a "free
good" - and they consume accordingly.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:42:59 -0500, "brink" >
wrote:

>now scott, if i remember correctly you're living/driving in california or
>AZ, (two places a i drive in a lot myself, and i live in socal) so you and i
>may not see as much of this effect as we would like--probably because the
>populations in these areas are simply growing too much to be offset by a per
>capita driving habit change. but give it time... $3.00 per gallon will
>likely have quite the stifling effect...

I'm looking forward to it.

BTW, the Chevron station I walked past on my way home from the train
station is selling premium at $2.85/gallon. Looks like we won't have
long to wait.