The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: jim on 12 Nov 2009 15:01 gpsman wrote: > > 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. But it isn't false. the more you subsidize trucking the more trucks on the road you will get. Or put it the opposite way, if you increase fuel and other fees on trucks it will tend to reduce the number of trucks on the road. > > > > > 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. Subsidizing trucking doesn't benefit a motorists any more than it benefits someone who never drives. Subsidizing trucking would tend to put more trucks on the road. It should be obvious, that if you collect more taxes from trucks there is less need for tax collected from car drivers. And then there is the little thing of trucks have an advantage when they collide with motorists. So very clearly the thinking motorist would find his interests to be at odds with trucking. OTOH, Subsidizing mass transit can reduce traffic congestion. It may even be more cost effective to put some money into mass transit than put it all into expanding roads. The thinking motorist might find its a good idea to support some level of mass transit. It is very little different than a motorist supporting another road built somewhere else that he doesn't use, if the result is it takes some of the traffic off the road that he uses. > > > 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. Yeah so? We know it is practical to ship some things not in a truck. And when trucking is more costly there are more things that fall into that category. -jim > ----- > > - gpsman
From: spsffan on 12 Nov 2009 15:10 All snipped. This thread is a perfect example of the best definition of USENET I ever read: A group of people standing around, viciously beating a greasy spot on the ground where, once, a long, long time ago, there had been a deal horse.
From: Stephen Sprunk on 12 Nov 2009 16:33 jim wrote: > 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. I said nothing either way about subsidies _into_ the HTF; I only mentioned the most egregious subsidy _out of_ the HTF. Rather than putting general funds into the HTF, then taking money out of the HTF to pay for transit, we should simply put general funds into transit. Presto, one thread in the Gordian Knot removed. >> 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. A moral sin? You're reading things into what I said that simply aren't there. I do think it's dishonest to claim fuel excise taxes are "user fees that go into a highway trust fund" and then use that money for other purposes. I feel the same way about how some toll bridge authorities do the same thing. > And second the total expenditure at all levels of government on roads > far exceeds the fuel excise taxes paid. Indeed it does. The _net_ subsidy to roads is an inflow. >> 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. Luckily, the FHWA has collected all the figures and done all the math for us, though it's such a gigantic pain that they don't do it every year. 2004 figures: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf1.htm 21% of total road spending in the US comes from property taxes and other general funds, 11% from bonds, 6% from "other imposts", and 5% from "miscellaneous receipts" (including interest). Only 57% comes from fuel excise taxes and tolls, which is far lower than Big Oil and their advocates such as the Reason Foundation will admit to. >>> 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? Have you never heard the term "net"? If you give Bob $5, and he gives you $3, then the _net_ flow of money is from you to Bob in the amount of $2. It doesn't mean that Bob never gave you any money. >> 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. *shrug* That's what the civil engineers say, and I don't have the domain knowledge to say that they're wrong. >>> 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? A road _should_ have a lifetime of around 30 years; therefore it is appropriate to fund it with 30-year revenue bonds. When the road is "worn out" and no longer benefits people, they will no longer be paying for it either. > They will end up paying for today's maintenance costs as well as those > in the future. One should never use bond funds to pay for operating expenses (e.g. maintenance), only capital expenses (e.g. construction, land, equipment). > And they will have to do this in an economy run on more expensive fuel. Maybe, maybe not. My crystal ball gets fuzzy on that more than a few years out, considering all the drastic changes that _might_ take place due to future political interference in the energy and automotive markets being discussed today. >> 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. Since you said federal, exactly how many dollars were taken from the _federal_ general fund to pay for highways, net of all the dollars taken out of the federal HTF for other purposes? The net subsidy to roads is mostly at the state and local level, where the governments are required to have balanced budgets. 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: hancock4 on 12 Nov 2009 16:40 On Nov 12, 1:00 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-12, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > > In developed areas, many transit routes run very frequently, like > > every 2-3 minutes. > > NYC subway in rush hour? Where do you get this 'many'? I never saw the > CTA running that frequently. I just checked the CTA web page. Some rapid transit routes run every 3 minutes during the rush hour, and some lines run 24/7. On many sections there are multiple routes so there is even more frequent service.
From: Brent on 12 Nov 2009 16:56
On 2009-11-12, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 1:00�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2009-11-12, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >> > In developed areas, many transit routes run very frequently, like >> > every 2-3 minutes. >> >> NYC subway in rush hour? Where do you get this 'many'? I never saw the >> CTA running that frequently. > I just checked the CTA web page. Some rapid transit routes run every > 3 minutes during the rush hour, and some lines run 24/7. Some, a few, maybe for a few hours... exceptions made into rules. > On many sections there are multiple routes so there is even more > frequent service. which are different routes so that's irrelevant. |