Last post on Aug 07, 2012 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#73 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [steve_]
Dec 05, 2007 (11:32 am)
The Urban Land Institute is talking about how much individual vehicle owners are paying to drive, not how much they are subsidized by government. That is an entirely different question.
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.
#74 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [grbeck]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Dec 05, 2007 (12:21 pm)
So .... about 22% of road funding isn't borne by the road users from those numbers. That sounds like general revenue funding is picking up the slack. And I think it's going to get bigger unless fuel taxes are raised.
"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).
#75 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [steve_]
Dec 05, 2007 (8:44 pm)
"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."
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.
#76 of 82 cheap fuel means less road tax money collected?
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jun 18, 2012 (4:43 am)
"This abundance of natural gas is something we weren't expecting as a country, but it's here now, and it's a gift we should take advantage of," says Steven Mueller, chief executive of Houston-based natural-gas producer Southwestern Energy Co. "There's huge savings here and a way to help to environment."
Natural gas is already making big inroads in the commercial-truck market. Delivery companies, trash haulers and other firms that operate big fleets are switching to natural-gas vehicles to save on fuel costs."
At ~half the cost of diesel (not counting the infrastructure you need if you run a trucking terminal), wouldn't that mean you would pay half the road taxes that you are currently paying if your semi was running diesel?
#77 of 82 pay be the mile "solutions"
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jun 18, 2012 (4:51 am)
"As Sander Van Dedem recalled watching the charges tick up every 10 seconds on the dashboard meter on the way to the airport, he resolved to try public transportation next time. “Looking at the money makes you realize that a car isn’t always a good idea,” said Mr. Van Dedem, a commercial sales manager for I.B.M. here.
But his pricey ride was not in a taxi. He was driving his own Volvo XC60.
The car had been outfitted with the meter so that Mr. Van Dedem could take part in a trial of a controversial government tax proposal to charge drivers a fee for the miles they drive."
In Auto Test in Europe, Meter Ticks Off Miles, and Fee to Driver (NY Times)
Oregon has been wrestling with this issue for a while.
"If electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid cars do not consume gasoline, they don't have to pay the state gas tax.
Legislators are looking to change that."
Tax electric cars by the mile? 'The gas tax cannot survive' (KVAL)
Pay-per-mile tax is latest cash grab from greedy pols (Boston Herald)
#78 of 82 Re: cheap fuel means less road tax money collected? [steve_]
Jun 19, 2012 (10:25 am)
If only I had proof that taxes actually went to infrastructure and not to public sector graft
#81 of 82 Re: another non-starter, most likely [steve_]
Aug 07, 2012 (11:34 am)
Almost certainly a non-starter for now, but there are more and more versions of this tax-the-miles approach popping up all the time in various municipalities.
I would not be surprised at all to see the first of these ideas become reality in ten years. Me, I don't care about the privacy issues really, since I will be out on public roads, but I also don't believe the money will be used for what it was intended. So we will just be paying more and more to have third-world roads and constant gridlock.
#82 of 82 Re: another non-starter, most likely [nippononly]
Aug 07, 2012 (11:39 am)
I think you're right. Heck, more and more states are trying to affix tolls to Interstates which were all taxpayer funded.