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

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> 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.

Roads and parking are not 'free goods' given the price of fuel enhanced
by taxes and the exorbitant fees for parking charged by some
municipalities. The problem is that, from an economic point of view, it
isn't the most productive people who can afford to pay the high rates.

One factor not mentioned is the cost which congestion adds in the form
of wasted time. Unfortunately, this cost is higher for more productive
people (higher wages or cost per hour) and lower for those who drive
'recreationally'. The ideal price structure would be one that
discourages nonproductive uses of our roadways while not imposing undue
burdens on those who make productive use of the resources.


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:21:04 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:31:16 -0500,
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>You're engaging in some bogus accounting here. If drivers pay $1M in
>>>gas taxes, and $1M is spent to pave a road, that's $1M in expenses to
>>>drivers, not $2M.
>>
>>I may be missing something, but I don't see how your statement
>>contradicts mine.
>
>Some of the costs you're counting are income to the same entities
>which directly pay some of the other costs you mention. You're
>double-counting.

Be specific. Of the items I mentioned (street paving in their town,
the cost of traffic cops' salaries, and the cost of "free" parking),
none are paid for entirely by gasoline taxes. Here in Orange County,
these costs are largely paid for by property, Mello-Roos, and sales
taxes like Measure M.

>>>>Drivers have the illusion that using their cars is largely a "free
>>>>good" - and they consume accordingly.
>>>
>>>It's not a free good and drivers know it.
>>
>>Go ahead, convince me.
>
>I drive, and I know it's not free.

Extrapolating form a sample of one does not exactly compel.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:17:22 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote:

>>> 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.
>
>Too few roads are the problem.

That's like saying the Tragedy of the Commons was caused by "not
enough grass."

>> Not only that, but roads and parking appear to be "free goods" - the
>> true costs are hidden in various tax-supported subsidies.
>
>That is a lie. Road user fees (gas tax and car registration) are greater
>than the cost of building, maintaining, and policing roads.

Then why do we have sales taxes like Measure M?

http://www.octa.net/octa/measurem/about.asp

>But I have no problem with making these costs more visible by abolishing
>those taxes and replacing them with explicit tolls (with electronic
>collection), so long as the tolls get spent on road improvements.

Then we agree.

>While
>we're at it, though, let's require all transit services to recover all of
>their costs -- including design and construction -- directly from fares.

Absolutely - what's fair is fair.

>Then we'd quickly see which modes of transportation pull their own weight
>and which do not.

My point all along.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

> The ideal price structure would be one that
> discourages nonproductive uses of our roadways while not imposing undue
> burdens on those who make productive use of the resources.

You wish !

New Boss.....

Same as the old Boss.....


Graham

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:21:04 -0500,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> Be specific. Of the items I mentioned (street paving in their town,
> the cost of traffic cops' salaries, and the cost of "free" parking),
> none are paid for entirely by gasoline taxes. Here in Orange County,
> these costs are largely paid for by property, Mello-Roos, and sales
> taxes like Measure M.

Maybe I don't understand the California / Orange County Budget process, but
it seems to me from taking a quick look at the information available on
line, you are wrong. Orange county collects 26.8% of its revenue from
Vehicle Licence Fees. Only 37.3 % comes from Property Taxes. Only 12.2% of
the total budget is devoted to infastructure improvement (including roads
and parking). So it seems to me, that not only are cars paying for the
roads, much of the car related income is being diverted to other needs. Take
a look at the Roads section of
http://www.oc.ca.gov/finance/2005FN/appx_frm.htm . Most of the money spent
on roads in Orange County came from intergovermental revenuse. This is
generally gas tax money collected by the state and federal governments and
trasferred to the local governments. Orange Count actually spent 10M less on
roads last year than the "road related" revenue that was collected. Of
course this year they are planning on spending that surplus.

The net is, general property taxes are not paying for your roads.

Regards,

Ed White

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:17:22 -0700, John David Galt
> >That is a lie. Road user fees (gas tax and car registration) are greater
> >than the cost of building, maintaining, and policing roads.
>
> Then why do we have sales taxes like Measure M?
>
> http://www.octa.net/octa/measurem/about.asp

That's an easy one. Your government has squandered the money they are
collecting based on automobiles on other projects. Rather than admit this,
they just play on the publics desire for better roads to add a new tax.
Please see my other reply in this chain for more details. However, the most
important quote from my previous post is: "Orange county collects 26.8% of
its revenue from Vehicle Licence Fees. Only 37.3 % comes from Property
Taxes. Only 12.2% of the total budget is devoted to infastructure
improvement (including roads and parking)."

To net it out, your leaders are screwing you at least as far as claiming the
Measure M taxes are needed for road improvements. They already are receving
enough "vehicle related" revenue to pay for the improvements, except they
are diverting significant portions of it to other uses. It is just the usual
political shell game. Around here anytime the COunty governement wants to
raise taxes, it is for education. Well that is untill recently. Now the City
of Raleigh has started saying they are raising taxes for road improvements.
They just never mention that a large percentage of the money raised by taxes
that were originally supposed to be for roads is now being used elswhere.
However, the roads have gotten so bad that people are despearate for
improvements and are willing to swallow this latest lie.

Ed

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:
>
> > The ideal price structure would be one that
> > discourages nonproductive uses of our roadways while not imposing undue
> > burdens on those who make productive use of the resources.
>
> You wish !

The only practical system I can think of to reduce road congestion is to
limit the number of drivers licenses issued in an area. For example, if
the roads in a particular metropolitan area were 20% over capacity and
there were 1 million licensed drivers, just raise the pass/fail criteria
on a periodic renewal test to such a level that only 800,000 drivers
would pass.

Its not perfect, but it gets rid of exactly the people that we* don't
want driving in the first place.

*The problem here is the definition of 'we'. The auto industry stands to
make a lot more money off the 80 year-old geezer that buys a Cadillac
than the average driver. They make even more money if he wrecks it one a
year and comes back for a new one. The industry has more lobbyists than
you or I do.
--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
God doesn't play dice. However, He does play a mean game of
3 card monte.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:41:15 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>> Be specific. Of the items I mentioned (street paving in their town,
>> the cost of traffic cops' salaries, and the cost of "free" parking),
>> none are paid for entirely by gasoline taxes. Here in Orange County,
>> these costs are largely paid for by property, Mello-Roos, and sales
>> taxes like Measure M.
>
>Maybe I don't understand the California / Orange County Budget process, but
>it seems to me from taking a quick look at the information available on
>line, you are wrong.

It's amazing how someone can be given a direct link to proof that I am
right and still try to claim I'm wrong.

I guess denial is not just a river in Eqypt...

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:16:41 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> wrote:

>The only practical system I can think of to reduce road congestion is to
>limit the number of drivers licenses issued in an area. For example, if
>the roads in a particular metropolitan area were 20% over capacity and
>there were 1 million licensed drivers, just raise the pass/fail criteria
>on a periodic renewal test to such a level that only 800,000 drivers
>would pass.
>
>Its not perfect

It's not even close.

When people drive 30, 60, and even 100 miles each way to their jobs,
basing the number of licenses on the capacity of roads near where
people live isn't going to help reduce congestion near major
employment centers.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:41:15 -0400, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Be specific. Of the items I mentioned (street paving in their town,
> >> the cost of traffic cops' salaries, and the cost of "free" parking),
> >> none are paid for entirely by gasoline taxes. Here in Orange County,
> >> these costs are largely paid for by property, Mello-Roos, and sales
> >> taxes like Measure M.
> >
> >Maybe I don't understand the California / Orange County Budget process,
but
> >it seems to me from taking a quick look at the information available on
> >line, you are wrong.
>
> It's amazing how someone can be given a direct link to proof that I am
> right and still try to claim I'm wrong.
>
> I guess denial is not just a river in Eqypt...


I am amazed that you claim your are right when your own county's budget says
you are wrong. Read it. Clearly Orange County is collecting more "car
related" revenue than they are spending on roads. The fact that they are
collecting an additional property tax to replace the road related revenue
they blew on other things, is just an elaborate shell game. The politicians
claim they need the money for roads becasue that is popular. If they told
the truth, they'd never get the additional tax. You are merely helping them
screw you by not insisting they tell the truth about where the road related
revenue is actually being spent.

To make it clear to you, here is how I see it:

For 2004-2005

Orange County Total Revenue was 4,630.9 Million Dollars (that is one rich
county)
Most of this money came from intergovermental transferrs
Property Taxes only generated about 202.4 Million Dollars in Revenue
Motor Vehicle Fees generated 145.6 Million Dollars of Revenue all by
themselves

Look closely at page 524 of the budget (the Road Section
http://www.oc.ca.gov/finance/2005FN/appx_frm.htm) and page 244
(http://www.oc.ca.gov/finance/2006WB/p3_frm.htm ). Total projected road
expenses for 2004 -2005 were only $69,117,502. This is over 70 million less
than was collected from Motor Vehicle Fees alone in the year. And this
doesn't include revenue from intergovernemtnal transfers, motor vehicle
related fines and fees, property tax esrelated to motor vehicles and the
motor vehicle industry, etc., etc., etc.

Now explain to me how property taxes are paying for the roads in Orange
County.

You might also want to read page 246
(http://www.oc.ca.gov/finance/2006WB/p3_frm.htm) where they specifically
mention that $23M of gas tax revenue is beign diverted to cover a prior
bankruptcy.

Your politicians are screwing you.

Regards,

Ed White