The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 12 Nov 2009 13:25 Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote in news:hdhase$fpe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: >> I've driven to/from work, I've done the all-transit trips to/from work >> when my car has needed major repairs, and I've done the combo drive to >> the park and ride and then transit to and from work. >> >> Driving *is* total freedom, even in some cases where transit may >> actually get to/from work faster. > > You have an odd idea of what "freedom" means. > >> You mention getting stuck in a traffic jam, and being jammed in traffic >> isn't good. But in a car, one can use alternate routes if the main route >> is impacted by traffic--exit the freeway and use side streets for >> example, or take a freeway bypass instead of the main freeway, or take a >> toll road. > > During rush hour, the side streets, the bypasses, and toll roads are all > horribly congested as well. There is _no_ route that is uncongested, > because there are millions of other lemmings trying to optimize their > own commute just like you, with the result of uniform congestion. > >> In a light rail vehicle, the rails are the route. > > Right--and your trip always takes the same amount of time regardless of > the number of passengers. > >> Light rail and transit buses run on fixed schedules/frequencies. Miss a >> run, it could be a 15 minutes, 30 minutes or 1 hour wait for the next >> run. > > Or, during peak hours, when most passengers will be riding, it may be as > little as 2-5 minutes. That is a _lot_ less than the additional time > you'll lose stuck in traffic using your car for the same trip. > > Off-peak, yes, this is often a problem. > >> Driving, one can leave as early or as late as they choose to, >> depending on traffic conditions, > > ... which means you _can't_ leave as early or as late as you choose to; > you must leave early to pad your trip to account for congestion, > accidents, construction, detours, etc. > >> Lunch time! One didn't bring their lunch? Unless bus service is >> excellent near their workplace, plan on eating at the employee >> cafeteria, or else either walking or getting a ride from someone if they >> want to go out to eat. This isn't an issue when driving. Choose where to >> go based on food choice and traffic conditions, then just drive there, >> get lunch, and drive back. > > Transit in general works best when it serves walkable neighborhoods. > > Walking to a parking garage, navigating your way out with a flood of > other people doing the same, paying, driving a few blocks to restaurant > in horribly congested traffic, wolfing your food down, and reversing the > entire process in less than an hour doesn't sound like an appealing > alternative--if it's even possible. > >> After work... what about those 24 hour transit schedules? Very few if >> any exist, so now have to worry about last buses/trains home if working >> late or simply want to do something after work. > > Most transit systems run until at least midnight and start up again by > 4am, which means the _vast_ majority of to-/from-work trips can be > served. If your shift happens to start/end during that period, well, > you're one of the lucky few that might be able to drive in reasonable > traffic, compared to the gridlock the other 20 hours per day. > >> Driving, not an issue, >> just go whereever, for however long, and drive home when done. Driving, >> work as late as needed, the ride home their own vehicle in the employee >> parking lot whenever work is done. > > ... as long as it doesn't matter to you how long or how frustrating the > trip is. > >> Therefore, car drivers are definitely not a "slave" to anyone's >> schedules when compared to transit riders. > > The most insidious form of slavery is when one manages to convince the > slaves that they're not really slaves. > > S > How often do YOU ride mass transit? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: gpsman on 12 Nov 2009 13:36 On Nov 12, 11:03 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > gpsman wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 8:14 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > > > Subsidy to truckers contributes to more congestion on the highways > > > more wear and tear on the highways and gives nothing in return unless > > > you like diesel exhaust. > > > Right about here it appears you had a stroke. Might wanna get that > > checked out. > > Are you disputing the statement or just attempting to ignore it? It is obviously false. > > First of all I wasn't responding to whether Brent or anybody was > actually subsidizing truckers or not. It is his claim not mine that > truckers are contributing more to the wear and tear and operating cost > of roads than they pay for (that is presumably what he means by > subsidizing). > > If his claim is true, then how can it be reasonable to argue this > works to the motorist benefit? Nobody pays any attention to what Brent might say, other than to heap abuse upon him. Half the time he says nothing. The other half is meaningless other than as an exhibition of why you wouldn't want to be innocent and sit before a jury of his peers. > > > You have to wonder where the notion comes from > > > that it is more in a motorists best interest to subsidize trucking than > > > it is to subsidize mass transit. > > > If they want fuel for motoring conveniently located it seems it might > > be good policy. Jobs tend to pay more, I think, at companies where > > materials arrive and manufactured goods leave. > > Your changing the question. Should trucking be subsidized is a different > question than is subsidizing trucks come from the pockets of car > drivers. And whether there is a subsidy at all and how much, is yet > another question. I thought the question was relative to motorists interests in subsidizing trucking rather than mass transit. > Fuel travels far more efficiently in pipelines and goods can arrive and > leave factories by rail.... Not in passenger rail cars. Whether or not they might move "far more efficiently" (by undefined measure) by pipeline and/or rail is irrelevant. Practicality trumps efficiency. It is simply not practical to ship many if not most goods by rail, plane or pipeline. ----- - gpsman
From: Brent on 12 Nov 2009 13:46 On 2009-11-12, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: > jim wrote: >> Contrary to what Brent believes all the money collected for road use >> taxes is spent on roads. > > No, 15% of federal fuel excise taxes is diverted to pay for transit, and > many states also divert part of their fuel excise taxes to other uses > (e.g. education). OTOH, plenty of money collected via _other_ taxes is > spent on roads; it's a gigantic shell game that is virtually > impenetrable to the average citizen. Don't forget the diversions to bike trails, police check points, and much more. >> He refuses to look at the simple fact that the total sum of money spent >> on roads exceeds the total collected in vehicle and fuel taxes/fees by >> users of the roads. > This is undeniably true; even the FHWA's own statistics demonstrate this. No, it's not. FHWA is government. It has an agenda, more money, more control. It wants to show that so it does. Yank all the taxes collected on anything to do with driving or trucking that go into the general fund. Not just the diversions, the taxes you pay on tires, the sales tax on a car, all of it and put it to roads only. Watch the elected office holders scream. City governments want car dealerships in their towns for the tax revenue. Also, even with the indirect taxes those are paid mostly by people who drive. So drivers pay it ANYWAY. That's the point that I made that my new personal troll is looking to ignore. Non-drivers are such a tiny fraction of taxpayers that eliminating their contribution to roads is like taking a cup of grain out of a silo.
From: jim on 12 Nov 2009 13:53 Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > jim wrote: > > Contrary to what Brent believes all the money collected for road use > > taxes is spent on roads. > > No, 15% of federal fuel excise taxes is diverted to pay for transit, No it isn't. Something like 13% of the HTF goes to mass transit, but look at how much is put into trust fund from general revenues - a whole lot more. If you look at totals the fuel excise and other fees and taxes for road use do not cover the expenditures on roads. >and > many states also divert part of their fuel excise taxes to other uses > (e.g. education). You say that as if it is some sort of moral sin which is an interesting commentary of your belief system. And second the total expenditure at all levels of government on roads far exceeds the fuel excise taxes paid. > OTOH, plenty of money collected via _other_ taxes is > spent on roads; it's a gigantic shell game that is virtually > impenetrable to the average citizen. It is not as if you have to trace the path of every dollar. All you need to do is look at the totals. the federal Highway administration is a lot more transparent than the local expenditures are. At the state and local level there is less of a tendency to map a particular revenue stream to a particular expenditure. However, you can still examine the totals. > > > He refuses to look at the simple fact that the total sum of money spent > > on roads exceeds the total collected in vehicle and fuel taxes/fees by > > users of the roads. > > This is undeniably true; even the FHWA's own statistics demonstrate this. So why did you in your first sentence claim money is being diverted? > > The second problem is that a large fraction of roads are _not_ supported > by fuel excise taxes, the so-called "user fees". The entire idea behind > the Highway Trust Fund and fuel excise taxes is that the government > would tax _all_ driving to provide a _few_ highways. Less than 5% of > the mileage on my car is on a HTF-supported road, but I'm paying that > tax on 100% of the miles I drive--in addition to the property taxes or > tolls that I'm paying to fund the other 95% of my use. Yes. You and everybody are not paying enough fuel tax to cover the total cost of roads. So how can there be any dollars left to be diverted? > > > Trucks pay considerably more per vehicle than cars but they also cause > > more of the wear and tear. > > They pay more per vehicle because their fuel efficiency is lower (which > is natural, since they're hauling cargo) and they drive a lot more miles > per year. Still, they pay the same amount of tax per gallon of fuel, No they pay more for fuel and there are other road use fees that truckers pay. > whereas the estimate road wear is _ten thousand times_ that of a > passenger car. Road wear is proportional to the _cube_ of the vehicle's > weight. Well that's your opinion. Trucks cause more wear, but ten thousand times is certainly an exaggeration. > > > Like everything else in government today some of the current > > expenditures on roads is coming from borrowing from the future. That to > > me looks like both car drivers and truckers are getting a subsidy. > > "Borrowing from the future" is not a subsidy per se if it will be paid > off by the people that benefit from it. How are the future taxpayers going to benefit from roads that are being worn out by today's vehicles? They will end up paying for today's maintenance costs as well as those in the future. And they will have to do this in an economy run on more expensive fuel. > > The main problem with debt comes when you take longer to pay for > something than the useful lifetime of what you used it to buy. > Borrowing additional money to finance interest charges, like the US > Government does nearly every year, is catastrophic. Yes. > > Aside from toll roads, though, what jurisdiction actually uses debt to > fund roads? I'm talking about the federal dollars that are spent on road maintenance. The general fund is already in the red. Any new dollars taken from the general fund for road construction are borrowed dollars. The amount taken from the general fund and put into the HTF started to grow rapidly about 2 years ago and there is every indication will continue to grow. -jim >AFAIK, all non-toll roads in the US are paid for with > current or past tax revenues. This is actually one of the _few_ things > the government doesn't borrow much money for--and one of the few where > it _should_, since roads are a long-lived asset that will generate new > revenue over its lifetime that will easily pay off the debt. > > IMHO, the correct solution is to get rid of all fuel excise taxes; fund > all limited-access highways with toll-backed debt, and fund surface > roads with property taxes. Unfortunately, that's far too logical for > our politicians. > > S > > -- > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: Clark F Morris on 12 Nov 2009 14:19
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:13:46 -0600, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: >jim wrote: >> Contrary to what Brent believes all the money collected for road use >> taxes is spent on roads. > >No, 15% of federal fuel excise taxes is diverted to pay for transit, and >many states also divert part of their fuel excise taxes to other uses >(e.g. education). OTOH, plenty of money collected via _other_ taxes is >spent on roads; it's a gigantic shell game that is virtually >impenetrable to the average citizen. > >> He refuses to look at the simple fact that the total sum of money spent >> on roads exceeds the total collected in vehicle and fuel taxes/fees by >> users of the roads. > >This is undeniably true; even the FHWA's own statistics demonstrate this. > >The second problem is that a large fraction of roads are _not_ supported >by fuel excise taxes, the so-called "user fees". The entire idea behind >the Highway Trust Fund and fuel excise taxes is that the government >would tax _all_ driving to provide a _few_ highways. Less than 5% of >the mileage on my car is on a HTF-supported road, but I'm paying that >tax on 100% of the miles I drive--in addition to the property taxes or >tolls that I'm paying to fund the other 95% of my use. > >> Trucks pay considerably more per vehicle than cars but they also cause >> more of the wear and tear. > >They pay more per vehicle because their fuel efficiency is lower (which >is natural, since they're hauling cargo) and they drive a lot more miles >per year. Still, they pay the same amount of tax per gallon of fuel, >whereas the estimate road wear is _ten thousand times_ that of a >passenger car. Road wear is proportional to the _cube_ of the vehicle's >weight. > >> Like everything else in government today some of the current >> expenditures on roads is coming from borrowing from the future. That to >> me looks like both car drivers and truckers are getting a subsidy. > >"Borrowing from the future" is not a subsidy per se if it will be paid >off by the people that benefit from it. > >The main problem with debt comes when you take longer to pay for >something than the useful lifetime of what you used it to buy. >Borrowing additional money to finance interest charges, like the US >Government does nearly every year, is catastrophic. > >Aside from toll roads, though, what jurisdiction actually uses debt to >fund roads? AFAIK, all non-toll roads in the US are paid for with >current or past tax revenues. This is actually one of the _few_ things >the government doesn't borrow much money for--and one of the few where >it _should_, since roads are a long-lived asset that will generate new >revenue over its lifetime that will easily pay off the debt. Any jurisdiction that issues Garvee bonds (tax anticipation notes) is doing this. I suspect that New Jersey has done this. The bond issues being local or at most statewide generally fly under the national radar. > >IMHO, the correct solution is to get rid of all fuel excise taxes; fund >all limited-access highways with toll-backed debt, and fund surface >roads with property taxes. Unfortunately, that's far too logical for >our politicians. > Given that most travel is on non-limited access highways and that in some cases these can be a tolerable alternative to limited access highways (routes 1, 9 and 22 in New Jersey for example) would this have the effect of putting some heavy truck traffic on property tax based roads? I totally agree that transportation funding is a confused mess for practically every mode (pipelines may be straight forward but I won't take bets). >S |