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_ (Nov 27, 2007 10:50 pm) That is the truth. Unlike mass transit that only a few benefit from. The roads connect us from San Diego to Maine and all places in between. Some will argue it was the end of the trains. That may be. What better way to spend tax dollars, than on the infrastructure? It is used in one way or another by ALL Americans, as was pointed out. I am for taxing by the mile for ALL users of our roads, bike paths and sidewalks. To include bikes, cars, trucks & wheel chairs. We are right now spending a lot of money to add sidewalks out in the boonies as mandated by some ADA legislation. Those that will use that should be taxed for its use. That is reality. Paying for what we use. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 28, 2007 6:52 am) We've been trying to dump them for years in NJ and invariably the argument against that is "if you use the road you pay for the road." This argument is usually made by people who don't live where they'd have to use of the state's 3 toll roads. So, now what do we have? A proposal to hike the tolls to cover infrastructure improvements on the free roads. Swell. |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Nov 27, 2007 10:28 am) Most drivers don't even know how much per mile it costs them to drive, much less how various subsidies come into play (ULI). "U.S. roadway user fees fund only about 63% of total roadway costs. General taxes spent on roads average about 1.8¢ per vehicle mile. Vehicle user fees would need to increase by 59% to fully fund roadway costs. It is sometimes argued that not all roadway costs should be charged to motorists. Even residents who never drive use road access for delivery of goods and services, walking and bicycling, and for utility lines. This can be addressed by establishing a standard of "basic access" that is unrelated to driving. Many people assume incorrectly that pedestrians and cyclists pay less than their fair share of roadway costs because they do not pay fuel taxes or vehicle registration fees dedicated to highway funding. Local roads (the roads used most for walking and cycling) are mainly funded through general taxes that residents pay regardless of their travel patterns. Less than 10% of local road funding originates from vehicle user fees in the U.S." (pdf file) from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (link) Still putting the social costs arguments on the back burner for a while longer. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 30, 2007 9:47 pm) If we figure the Federal gas tax at 18 cents per gallon. The only people paying their fair share are the Hummer drivers getting 10 MPG. The guy driving a Prius is a leach on our society by that measure. I think the only fair way to tax for highway usage is by the mile as Oregon is experimenting with and CA is looking at. It would be easy to tie it in with a mandatory yearly smog check on ALL vehicles including hybrids and diesels. What ever the difference from the year before you pay 1.8 cents per mile. With the advent of EVs something will need to be done. There is already a lot of CNG drivers not paying road tax when they use a home fueling device. We could tie a special tax on bikes, scooters, skateboards and wheelchairs.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 01, 2007 7:23 am) You left off walking and breathing. 
|
|
|
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?
|
|
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
