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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:45:02 -0500, "brink" >
wrote:

>> 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.

So how do you get around when you're not driving?

On 11 Jul 2005 17:26:08 -0700, "Ed White" > wrote:

>Duh, Roads are

....partially...

>paid for my gasoline taxes.

And your property taxes. Here in Orange County, CA, we also have a
sales tax (Measure M) that pays for roads.

>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.

While this is a tangential point, I happen to agree with you. The fees
drivers pay should be used ONLY for the costs drivers incur - road
building and maintenance, traffic cops, highway patrol, etc. And,
instead of paying for other things from gas tax revenues, use the
property and other tax revenues that are currently going to roads and
use THAT money to pay for the things that are currently paid for by
diverted road taxes.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:45:02 -0500, "brink" >
> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> So how do you get around when you're not driving?

i bike and walk a lot more. i'm fortunate in that i don't commute and i
live quite near (less than a mile) to several big box retailers including a
lowe's, best buy, a petsmart and a target. that and a grocery store, lots
of restaurants, coffeehouses, and a brand-new cinema multiplex that went in.

i'm no anti-car snob either, shoot i own a big honkin RV fer garsh sakes. i
try to leave the vehicles in the garage for a few days at a time though and
i can usually get by just fine as long as i plan accordingly...

brink

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

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.

>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. The _marginal cost_ of
using an automobile you already own is, however, fairly small.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

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.

>>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.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:43:25 -0500, "brink" >
wrote:

>>>well now you know someone! i drive less as a result of gas prices.
>>
>> So how do you get around when you're not driving?
>
>i bike and walk a lot more. i'm fortunate in that i don't commute and i
>live quite near (less than a mile) to several big box retailers including a
>lowe's, best buy, a petsmart and a target. that and a grocery store, lots
>of restaurants, coffeehouses, and a brand-new cinema multiplex that went in.

You sound a lot like me. Although I don't ride my bike to my
current job (our building lacks shower facilities), I have commuted by
bicycle in the past, and I currently walk to the train station and to
nearby shopping centers every day. Everything from movie theaters to
restaurants to Barnes & Noble to grocery stores to dry cleaners to
OfficeMax to Circuit ****ty to CompUSA to Best Buy (although I refuse
to shop there) is within a 1-mile radius of my house.

The sense of freedom one gets from not being 100% aurto-dependent is
quite refreshing.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:43:25 -0500, "brink" >
> wrote:
>
>>>>well now you know someone! i drive less as a result of gas prices.
>>>
>>> So how do you get around when you're not driving?
>>
>>i bike and walk a lot more. i'm fortunate in that i don't commute and i
>>live quite near (less than a mile) to several big box retailers including
>>a
>>lowe's, best buy, a petsmart and a target. that and a grocery store, lots
>>of restaurants, coffeehouses, and a brand-new cinema multiplex that went
>>in.
>
> You sound a lot like me. Although I don't ride my bike to my
> current job (our building lacks shower facilities), I have commuted by
> bicycle in the past, and I currently walk to the train station and to
> nearby shopping centers every day. Everything from movie theaters to
> restaurants to Barnes & Noble to grocery stores to dry cleaners to
> OfficeMax to Circuit ****ty to CompUSA to Best Buy (although I refuse
> to shop there) is within a 1-mile radius of my house.

what do you have against best buy? not that it's difficult to imagine...
i've heard other peoples' horror stories. i've actually had pretty good
luck with them over the years (knocks on keyboard) buying all kinds of stuff
from them, so until i have a run-in of my own i guess i'll continue to shop
there...

brink

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.

>>>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. Why don't you go down to your
local gas station and survey the drivers, asking them if they think
using their cars is free?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

>> 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. Everyone uses roads whether they drive or
not. Even a recluse who never left home would need them to get his food
shipped in, not to mention access for emergency services.

> 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. (Not all road
funds come from those sources, but that's irrelevant because money is
fungible.)

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

John David Galt wrote:

> 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.

If that were truly the case, then what would support the tolling
authority bureaucracy?