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: 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
