Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Who Pays for our Roads?
75 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2007 at 8:44 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 01, 2007 7:32 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 28, 2007 6:52 am) That is the problem that explains why many roads are overcrowded, especially in urban areas, by single commuters in their (sometimes) big cars. I personally favor the addition of an "infrastructure tax" on Gas to 1) fund roads up to 100% , including specific infrastructures paid by tolls incidently tolls would be removed, which would save costs and lower the gas bill. 2) Fund alternative infrastructure, namely light rail, mass transit and inter-city high speed transit. The Motorist would pay the real cost of gas (which is still cheap imho) and be offered more public transports as alternatives. Let us imagine after the necessary investments were done, that 20% of US population had access to public transport instead of 5% today (my own guess), then it would mean a potential of 15% fewer cars on the road. Currently, everyone has the choice of his/her transport mean, provided that it is a car. This situation is unhealthy, but are we willing to go for a change?
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Dec 02, 2007 4:27 am) If you look at cities like NY and London that have mass transit for most of the people, there roads are totally impacted. So how did mass transit help? I do not have hard data on who does or does not have access to mass transit. I know the suburb I am moving out of has bus and trolley service. The buses and the trolley run near empty most of the time. How does that cut down on traffic or pollution in the case of the bus running empty? In 2003 it was costing San Diego $50,000,000 to subsidize the trolley system. I have used it a few times to avoid high cost parking. I still had to drive several miles to a station and park my car in a lot that is a known theft area. Here is an interesting study on the subject: Voodoo Economics won't work. I have to pay taxes to build roads and defend our oil supplies whether I drive or not, and fire trucks, ambulances, and delivery vehicles need streets to drive on. Pretending that I somehow avoid those "hidden costs" by taking the bus is beneath stupid. Telling me that 45 minutes in a crowded, lurching bus is better or a more effective use of my time than 20 minutes in my car is a couple of levels below that. Wishful thinking won't cut it. It will do absolutely no good to say all these problems will go away if we can somehow persuade Americans to accept higher density and move back in from the suburbs. Suburbs began to sprawl back in the days of streetcars. Americans do not want to live in high density settings. Why not just accept it and plan accordingly? Studies have repeatedly shown two things: the more transportation is available, the more people spread out. Second, commuters start to get irritable when commute times exceed half an hour. Basically, commuters move out to a distance where they feel the time cost is acceptable, and get angry when the rules change. Moral: Americans like to spread out until other individuals do not seriously impinge on their freedom of action. Deal with it. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM
|
|
|
Washington has the largest ferry system in the Union. They exist to service the transport of a minority, but very high income people from the mainland to their remote island homes in Puget Sound and the San Juans. The Bremerton ferry may be an exception to high income folk, but the point is the ferries are subsidized by the state's gas tax which reduces the maintenance of existing highways and roads. Ferry support also takes away the building of needed new roads. The state is divided by the Cascade Range and the folks in Eastern Washington, Southern Washington, & Central Washington directly subsidize the ferries in The Peoples Republic of Puget Sound. If Oregon can charge by the mile and bikers pay their own way, how can the ferries be self supported by not being dependent on the gas tax?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Dec 03, 2007 10:44 am) Ditto other motorized forms of public transit. And they all pay annual permit fees too. Bikes are obviously the exception. It doesn't seem outrageous to me to require that bikes be required to have little license plates, just like motorcycles, with a fee to pay annually. Heck, don't you have to pay an annual fee to have a dog? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 02, 2007 6:20 am) My short experience of those 2 cities tell me that maybe mass transit is practically reachable by maybe 25-30% of the population. whereas the very centre of cities have some reasonably present subway lines, those lines are often operating at maximum capacity. Otoh, further suburbs are very lightly connected. the neigbouring railway system is patchy and under-represented given the population and the overall transit needs. All those need gaps are compensated by car journeys. I deliberately exclude the bus system as a mass transit system, unless it irrigates neigbouring mass transit station. A bus Journey will meet the same issues with clogged traffic and road usage. Reserved bus lines are a first step but can not replace a completely dedicated infrastructure. The situation of London is worse with a decrepit tube that is badly in need of extensive refurbishment and development. There are a few railway lines which suffer the same fate and whom everybody agree on how unpleasant any trip may be. Only the Congestion Charge (CC) set-up by red Ken is starting to bend motor usage in the hypercenter and bring some cash in to start the always postponed work. Yes, Mass transit need huge financing and return on investment is not as visible/quick as when you put your money on the market. I don't think of it as a replacement for individual transport but as an alternative to give people choice. OK let me dream somehow. let me imagine some 600 Billion USD were not "invested" by some government in a middle east venture but spent in 100 Mass transit / alternative infrastructure projects in the US? Maybe this money would have been enough to make such transports available to, say 25% of the US population instead of 5%? Your study talks about the problem of underfunded and inefficient public transport. Naturally, people won't do self flogging and spend one hour of bus journey instead of 30 minutes by car (unless forced to). Modern mass transit offers good level of comfort and attractive speed, provided it is seriously planned, funded and implemented. It won't be done without government support anyway. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 30, 2007 9:47 pm) And it does nothing to contradict what I posted earlier: As for more attractive public transit - if subsidies are the concern, then mass transit isn't the answer. On a per person mile basis, mass transit systems receive subsidies that are 50 times higher than that received by highway users. The share covered by user fees is 77.8 percent for users of highways and local streets, versus 23.9 percent for mass transit users. Those figures are straight from the federal government, and, if anything, are fairer to mass transit than other sources I've seen. It also doesn't answer the question that, if road users aren't covering their "fair share," why are we then diverting money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for non-road projects? I have no problem with bicycle paths (I enjoy bike riding myself), and I realize that mass transit benefits drivers by giving people other options (and provides transportation for those too poor to own a car, or unable to drive). But the hoary myth that drivers are getting a free ride at the expense of everyone else is just that...a myth.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Dec 05, 2007 11:32 am) "About 45 percent of all highway spending comes from the trust fund." (referring to the Highway Trust Fund - Fox News) "The bulk of highway and road funding, about 55%, comes from a combination of state and federal gasoline taxes. The rest generally comes from vehicle registrations, drivers' license fees, bonds and other public borrowing." WSJ via Planetizen Not really on point but this misallocation statement was entertaining: "Over the past 50 years, the motorists in Alaska have received six times as much from the federal highway trust fund as they have paid into it." Heritage Foundation The Highway Trust Fund has a bunch of problems - more fuel efficient cars means less money generated per mile traveled, purchasing power has declined while construction costs have risen, and the Minneapolis bridge collapse focused many people on an aging highway infrastructure (link).
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 05, 2007 12:21 pm) You would think that Alaska would have better roads. That new Seward Highway is horrible. Alaska attracts a lot of shyster type contractors. Build it and head South, never to be heard from again. Then they probably have sent more legislators to prison in the last few years of any state. Maybe they are just cleaning house. Something the other 49 states and Congress needs to do. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Who Pays for our Roads?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
