akirby Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The argument with roads is the same as with most services the government provides: Even those who don't directly use the resource benefit from others being able to use it. Roads socialize the cost of movement of goods and services, making it possible for individuals and businesses to easily reach larger markets, increasing competition in many industries. Exactly. The notion that interstates only benefit those who drive on them is ridiculous. They are necessities, not conveniences. The county maintains local roads with no tolls or per vehicle funding. Guarantee me that the tax money goes directly to road building and maintenance and I'm all in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Problem is the absolute ridiculous things that need to be done to build or repave a road now that add Millions and Millions in costs, 20%-30% of a lot of road projects could be saved if it was just done. You could not build the interstate highway system today. Public Hearings, Design by Committee, Sound studies, Shoulder and non travel lane improvements, water run off, turn radius improvements, by the book safety improvement (by the book I mean things that have never been an issue are an issue because MUTC or DOT guidelines state they are. ) not to mention when you do anything NIMBY's come out and just complain and bitch. I think you will see plate fees increased dramatically in the future, but not till after electrics and PHEV's become more prevalent on the roads. That or they will tax based on number of KWh used on the meters that charge the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The argument with roads is the same as with most services the government provides: Even those who don't directly use the resource benefit from others being able to use it. Roads socialize the cost of movement of goods and services, making it possible for individuals and businesses to easily reach larger markets, increasing competition in many industries. Wouldn't the same thing happen if the roads were toll roads? Exactly. The notion that interstates only benefit those who drive on them is ridiculous. They are necessities, not conveniences. The county maintains local roads with no tolls or per vehicle funding. Guarantee me that the tax money goes directly to road building and maintenance and I'm all in. the question is who truly benefits for using the road? the road user, is there a benefit in lower prices to the end user because the road is free, but the true cost saving from interstates is not because they are free but because they efficiently connect the country together by truck, with tolling that would not change, price would be slightly higher but more than made up for by the reduction in gas and other taxes. In Ohio all counties receive 1/88 of a portion of county Gas tax revenue, and a portion of license fees are given to each municipality. I think you will find a similar mechanism in each state. fine than guarantee me that all the water runoff from freeways that localities have to process and clean are paid for by those users as well. Problem is the absolute ridiculous things that need to be done to build or repave a road now that add Millions and Millions in costs, 20%-30% of a lot of road projects could be saved if it was just done. You could not build the interstate highway system today. Public Hearings, Design by Committee, Sound studies, Shoulder and non travel lane improvements, water run off, turn radius improvements, by the book safety improvement (by the book I mean things that have never been an issue are an issue because MUTC or DOT guidelines state they are. ) not to mention when you do anything NIMBY's come out and just complain and bitch. I think you will see plate fees increased dramatically in the future, but not till after electrics and PHEV's become more prevalent on the roads. That or they will tax based on number of KWh used on the meters that charge the car. you have point, if we reduced regulation on roads they would be much cheaper to build, but the issues are urban corridors where the need to add capacity require the taking of 100 of millions of dollars of land, and require the need for expensive specialized designs that explode the cost of the road, like the big dig in Boston. plus the days of tearing down neighborhoods to build roads for other people ended a long time ago. Oh yeah the cost of oil has had effect on the cost of Asphalt and concrete both of which require alot of fossil fuel to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Wouldn't the same thing happen if the roads were toll roads? Nope. With toll roads only the actual users of the road pay for the road. The people who benefit from others using the road don't pay a single dime. If you spread the costs of all roads amongst all users then everyone pays a share of all the roads. Why do we have to differentiate? It's not like we really have a good choice as to whether we need a 2 lane road or a 4 lane road or a 8 lane superhighway - that's dictated by traffic volume. Today with fuel taxes we don't differentiate between surface street drivers and interstate drivers. Why start now? It's not necessary and it adds overhead and difficulty. And adding tolls everywhere is cost prohibitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Odometer is already read as part of annual vehicle inspection and in most states with emissions inpections, logged with the state. There is no increased burden other than IT to tie this to registration fees. We don't have annual inspections, and our odometers are never read--it is recorded on the title when you do a title transfer, but the actual reading is left to the buyer and seller. We also don't have DMV offices; I can renew my tag online, by mail, or by going to a local tag agency, which is a private entity. The only time I had to deal with an o-fficial state agency (other than traffic stops/court) in my motoring career was when I went to a hole-in-the-wall testing facility run by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol; after I passed, they gave me a form that I took to the tag agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The argument with roads is the same as with most services the government provides: Well, if the gov't would stop wasting money doing things that it's not supposed to be doing and concentrate on doing what it should, dropping fuel taxes would be a non-issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Nope. With toll roads only the actual users of the road pay for the road. The people who benefit from others using the road don't pay a single dime. yes they do pay, through higher prices for goods transported on those toll roads. Think of gas surcharges on fright items. would you find it more appropriate to pay a few pennies more for an item than to pay for a massive increase in Fuel taxes to pay for roads that you rarely use.? If you spread the costs of all roads amongst all users then everyone pays a share of all the roads. but not everyone uses roads in the same way. It is not fair to burden non highway users with the costs of highway usage, it is like charging the same price for steak as you do for ground beef, how much ground beef would people buy if it costs the same price as steak? Well, if the gov't would stop wasting money doing things that it's not supposed to be doing and concentrate on doing what it should, dropping fuel taxes would be a non-issue... 100 years ago roads were privatized and tolls were everywhere. is that what you want? also originally roads were exclusively the realm of the states not the federal government, the reason States want to be able to toll is because they don't want to have to increase their state gas tax. About the gas tax, it is regressive tax. it hurts the poor and the middle class the most becuase they spend a higher percentage of their income on fuel than the wealthy do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 100 years ago roads were privatized and tolls were everywhere. is that what you want? Hardly--road building and maintenance are among the fundamental duties of government. It's even in the Constitution--one of the powers of Congress is the establishment of post roads. I'm saying if they stopped doing the crap they aren't supposed to be doing, funding the building and maintenance of roads and bridges wouldn't be an issue because the money would be there to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Hardly--road building and maintenance are among the fundamental duties of government. It's even in the Constitution--one of the powers of Congress is the establishment of post roads. I'm saying if they stopped doing the crap they aren't supposed to be doing, funding the building and maintenance of roads and bridges wouldn't be an issue because the money would be there to do so. Post roads were never intended to carry anything but mail, all other users routinely had to pay a toll or additional fee to use the road. Post roads also included railways, and routinely were privately owned and operated. why shouldn't the users of roads pay for them? this had nothing to do with what congress is spend money on but why they can't raise the gas tax to pay for those roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Post roads were never intended to carry anything but mail, all other users routinely had to pay a toll or additional fee to use the road. Post roads also included railways, and routinely were privately owned and operated. If Congress can torture the Commerce Clause to allow it to meddle in affairs that are entirely intra-state (a power denied to them by the 10th Amendment), why can't they use a far more vaguely-worded clause to support the interstate system, or at least the main parts that are truly inter-state (and thus directly affected by the Commerce Clause) or involved in national defense? why shouldn't the users of roads pay for them? this had nothing to do with what congress is spend money on but why they can't raise the gas tax to pay for those roads. Given that road building and maintenance are fundamental functions of government, at least as far back as the Roman Republic, it should be covered by the general taxation, just like public education, law enforcement, and defense. (Yes, I'm mixing local, state, and Federal, but there are roles for all three to play.) Of course, that would require fiscal discipline on the part of politicrits at all levels, and that is sorely lacking these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 but not everyone uses roads in the same way. It is not fair to burden non highway users with the costs of highway usage, it is like charging the same price for steak as you do for ground beef, how much ground beef would people buy if it costs the same price as steak? Since when did highways become a luxury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 but not everyone uses roads in the same way. It is not fair to burden non highway users with the costs of highway usage, it is like charging the same price for steak as you do for ground beef, how much ground beef would people buy if it costs the same price as steak? This is an excellent point, and one that Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute discusses in his latest policy brief (Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways). O'Toole even uses the same steak-hamburger analogy: "Paying for roads with gas taxes is like paying for groceries through shopping cart rentals: shoppers would choose filet mignon instead of hamburger." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Since when did highways become a luxury? Before the federal government started building them. remember their is a lot of history that happened before we were born, what we consider to normal today was the exception not to long ago. for example the concept of Jay walking is only 80 years old, before cars it was considered that all users had equal right to the road, when a person was hit by a car it was the motorist whom was held at fault not the person walking in the road. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/# things change, highways are luxuries, have always been luxuries it is just no one has ever considered them to be luxuries for a very long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Highways reduce congestion on surface streets. If you tax all the highways it will drive more traffic to surface streets causing them to wear out twice as fast and causing state and local government to widen the surface streets. Everyone has to be somewhere and highways are a more efficient route. Everyone uses them at some point. If highways are luxuries then let's go close them all and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 highways are luxuries, have always been luxuries it is just no one has ever considered them to be luxuries for a very long time. Please. Read some history. Start with the Roman Empire. Lots of highway building there. And not for luxury. Moving on to modern times and luxury roads, consider the Alaska Highway, built in 1942, to allow supplies to be shipped to Alaska to counter a possible Japanese attack. Luxury? Consider the fading of American railroads as the Interstate system replaced them for shipping by Class 8 tractors. Luxuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 If Congress can torture the Commerce Clause to allow it to meddle in affairs that are entirely intra-state (a power denied to them by the 10th Amendment), why can't they use a far more vaguely-worded clause to support the interstate system, or at least the main parts that are truly inter-state (and thus directly affected by the Commerce Clause) or involved in national defense? It took a supreme court ruling to open up the post roads to all users, and not simply limit the roads for postal use only. it is ironic that national defense is often cited for interstate development but during wars, real wars, the military uses boats and trains instead. it is simply more efficient to transport a brigade by rail using 10-20 trains than by road using 2000- 3000 trucks. the postal roads clause was not vaguely written at all. Given that road building and maintenance are fundamental functions of government, at least as far back as the Roman Republic, it should be covered by the general taxation, just like public education, law enforcement, and defense. (Yes, I'm mixing local, state, and Federal, but there are roles for all three to play.) Of course, that would require fiscal discipline on the part of politicrits at all levels, and that is sorely lacking these days. my question to you is what keeps roads from becoming healthcare, where the costs are continuing to increase with no end in sight.( BTW we have this problem with roads already) in a free market cost based rationing keeps demand in check what would you propose to control the costs of roads? do you trust that the politicians will have the political will not spend like a drunken sailor on roads? neither do I. If you are willing to spend general funds monies on roads, why not take over the rial system as well? provide just a much subsides to rail and transit as you do to roads. level the playing field, even though Rail receives a fraction of the subsidies that roads or air receive, yet Rail carries 48% of all freight in the country, compared to 36% by truck. all privately owned and operated, while you propose more of a subsidy to trucking paid for by the taxes paid to government by the railroads. with healthcare the word "rationing" is a bad word but health care is already being rationed, by the 30 million Americans without it. (except through the emergency room, hmm...) other statistics, Rail fright transports 48% of all domestic freight, while consuming 231,000 barrels/day of diesel fuel Trucking transports 36% of all domestic freight, while consuming 2,552,000 barrels/day of diesel fuel While carrying 33% more freight than trucks rail consumed 9% of the fuel. how in a free market can trucking compete with rail even if it is at such a cost disadvantage, because trucking is heavily subsidized while rail is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I got my lesson on how AAA pushed for a car society with one of my city's engineer's. We have an initiative to streamline some of our neighborhood streets and make them thinner, to slow down traffic from the current wide ones we have and he gave me the background of how AAA and the car culture took over and how engineers design streets to move cars, not help pedestrians. Above article pretty much sums it up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 it is ironic that national defense is often cited for interstate development but during wars, real wars, the military uses boats and trains instead. it is simply more efficient to transport a brigade by rail using 10-20 trains than by road using 2000- 3000 trucks. Your totally misconstruing your facts here: Here's a quote for you from Wikipedia from an article from American Scientist Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II. He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion. It wasn't going to replace the railroad system, only supplement it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Rail fright transports 48% of all domestic freight, while consuming 231,000 barrels/day of diesel fuel Trucking transports 36% of all domestic freight, while consuming 2,552,000 barrels/day of diesel fuel While carrying 33% more freight than trucks rail consumed 9% of the fuel. how in a free market can trucking compete with rail even if it is at such a cost disadvantage, because trucking is heavily subsidized while rail is not. It is a false comparison. Trains carry freight to intermodal hubs where it is then put on trucks ro be delivered to the final destination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 It took a supreme court ruling to open up the post roads to all users, and not simply limit the roads for postal use only. it is ironic that national defense is often cited for interstate development but during wars, real wars, the military uses boats and trains instead. it is simply more efficient to transport a brigade by rail using 10-20 trains than by road using 2000- 3000 trucks. the postal roads clause was not vaguely written at all. my question to you is what keeps roads from becoming healthcare, where the costs are continuing to increase with no end in sight.( BTW we have this problem with roads already) in a free market cost based rationing keeps demand in check what would you propose to control the costs of roads? do you trust that the politicians will have the political will not spend like a drunken sailor on roads? neither do I. If you are willing to spend general funds monies on roads, why not take over the rial system as well? provide just a much subsides to rail and transit as you do to roads. level the playing field, even though Rail receives a fraction of the subsidies that roads or air receive, yet Rail carries 48% of all freight in the country, compared to 36% by truck. all privately owned and operated, while you propose more of a subsidy to trucking paid for by the taxes paid to government by the railroads. with healthcare the word "rationing" is a bad word but health care is already being rationed, by the 30 million Americans without it. (except through the emergency room, hmm...) other statistics, Rail fright transports 48% of all domestic freight, while consuming 231,000 barrels/day of diesel fuel Trucking transports 36% of all domestic freight, while consuming 2,552,000 barrels/day of diesel fuel While carrying 33% more freight than trucks rail consumed 9% of the fuel. how in a free market can trucking compete with rail even if it is at such a cost disadvantage, because trucking is heavily subsidized while rail is not. Why didn't you just say that you want truckers to pay more for highway use because you think they have an unfair advantage over the railroads? Geez...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Highways reduce congestion on surface streets. If you tax all the highways it will drive more traffic to surface streets causing them to wear out twice as fast and causing state and local government to widen the surface streets. Everyone has to be somewhere and highways are a more efficient route. Everyone uses them at some point. If highways are luxuries then let's go close them all and see what happens. The problem was before we started building these interstates, there was far less congestion than we have today. more importantly there was far less driving than we have today. the theory of induced traffic demand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv0Fjk9D968 induced demand, is when you add road capacity and that additional capacity causes more drivers to use that road. it was supposed that we add capacity because we expect a future increase in traffic volume, in areas where there is developable land, usually on the out skirts of metro areas, we expect development and build accordingly, the question that is never asked is what would happen if capacity wasn't added? what has been found is that those areas with out added capacity enhancements will grow slower, and at a more sustainable pace. in areas where capacity is added grow faster and quickly fill up that additional capacity. returning to the original state of congestion. which causes a repeat of the cycle. I am not suggesting closing them at all, I want to toll them and make the user pay for the "more efficient route" by your logic all airline flights should be non stop and direct flights because they are more efficient for the passengers. but for the airlines they are less efficient, because they can charge more for the luxury of a non stop flight, giving the passenger the option to pay more or to pay less. In economics you can demonstrate the power that price has on changing behaviors. one behavior that could be changed by using tolls is to only toll during rush hour, or charge a higher toll during rush hour, which as London has proven can drastically reduce congestion, by spreading peak volume over a larger time period. improving safety, reducing commute time and saving money. the issue with drivers, is that their costs feel very personal to them, the cost for car payments, cost of gas, cost of insurance, cost of time, left in a vacuum of personal cost the driver chooses to minimize all or most of those costs. but there is a very public cost for the decisions they make. Freeways are the most expensive road to operate but they are also the least expensive road for drivers to use, this is where private costs conflict with public costs. The choice we have to make is to see a doubling or tripling of the gas tax, mileage tax or general use tax, or we charge drivers for the convenience of using the interstate. the gas tax is regressive it will hurt the middle class and poor much harder than the rich, every dollar taken from them will mean a dollar they cannot spend somewhere else. with tolls you have choice to take an alternative route that takes more time or pay the toll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 the gas tax is regressive it will hurt the middle class and poor much harder than the rich, every dollar taken from them will mean a dollar they cannot spend somewhere else. with tolls you have choice to take an alternative route that takes more time or pay the toll. Thats bullshit...I relocated to a "rural" county in Maryland and the prices of items here are more then they where in Suburban or Urban NJ. For example, I was looking at a lawnmower, and it was $100 bucks more at the Loews up the street from where I live, then it was in Delaware (15-20 minute drive) or even where I lived at NJ. Food prices are also more expensive in the local food stores then they where in New Jersey. I'm not exactly out in the middle of the sticks either...I'm roughly halfway in between Baltimore and Philadelphia....not Podunk Kansas, where you have to drive 200 miles plus to get the big city Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 People don't suddently start driving more just because a new highway gets built or expanded. Maybe it works different in Cleveland but in Atlanta the existing roads are all clogged up with traffic way before they ever begin to widen existing roads or add new ones. So you put tolls on highways and increase traffic even more on the surface streets causing them to have to be expanded and repaired more frequently. Who pays for that? Nobody was suggesting paying for roads out of general funds - we were saying that drivers should pay based on GVWR and miles driven if possible. This would also force truckers to pay a bigger share for road use - perhaps an even bigger share than they pay today with fuel taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Please. Read some history. Start with the Roman Empire. Lots of highway building there. And not for luxury. Moving on to modern times and luxury roads, consider the Alaska Highway, built in 1942, to allow supplies to be shipped to Alaska to counter a possible Japanese attack. Luxury? Consider the fading of American railroads as the Interstate system replaced them for shipping by Class 8 tractors. Luxuries? during Roman times, there was very little personal transportation, everyone did not have a horse or a mule to use those roads, traveling was expensive 97% of people never left their village. 90% of all military cargo during WW2 was shipped by rail. Road building was a hallmark of new deal spending the 1930s, free roads operated on by private companies is a subsidy, or to use a libertarian term the government picking winners. did you know that railroads pay local property taxes, where ever they have rails? do highways pay property taxes? BTW Roman roads were routinely tolled to fund their upkeep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Thats bullshit...I relocated to a "rural" county in Maryland and the prices of items here are more then they where in Suburban or Urban NJ. For example, I was looking at a lawnmower, and it was $100 bucks more at the Loews up the street from where I live, then it was in Delaware (15-20 minute drive) or even where I lived at NJ. Food prices are also more expensive in the local food stores then they where in New Jersey. I'm not exactly out in the middle of the sticks either...I'm roughly halfway in between Baltimore and Philadelphia....not Podunk Kansas, where you have to drive 200 miles plus to get the big city What? is the gas tax not regressive? my mom lives in a tiny town in Alabama, and everything there is more expensive than it is here. even at Walmart once they killed of every other business in town started raising prices, because the buyer had no where else to go. when I worked at Radio shack we had 5 different pricing tiers that were determined by the market the operated in. the effect of monopoly i guess. SilverSVT you want everybody else to subsidize your lifestyle by providing you with expensive free roads? Edited May 18, 2012 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.