The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: hancock4 on 17 Nov 2009 14:33 On Nov 17, 12:11 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps -you- might estimate that number by examining the disparity of > highway costs borne by the different classes of vehicles. > > That you apparently haven't investigated those figures suggests you > are comfortable forming conclusions from ignorance. Actually numerous civil engineers in multiple states have stated that highways cost substantially more to accomodate trucks than if they were to accomodate automobiles only. But if you suggest I'm ignorant, why don't you educate me by answering the question: how much more will groceries cost? Indeed, many in the motor truck industry are quick to remind us of increased costs if truckers faced higher costs or 53' trucks were banned from local uses. But what is the actual number? It's also possible than when 53' trucks were introduced, trucking companies merely kept the savings and didn't pass any to their customers. > > > NO NEW bureaucracy is needed. Simply raise the existing truck taxes. > > Which... by what amount... by what measure...? > > > The big picture would include that other motorists would save money > > because trucks would be paying their fair share. Now, motorists are > > subsidizing trucks. > > Non sequitur. Requires taxes on other motorists be reduced. > > > So sure, we might have to pay a few cents more for groceries, but > > would save money on our fuel taxes. > > Try to get a grip and inject some rationality into your argument. > > Will you raise taxes on trucks hauling road building materials... > cement; cars; gasoline and other petroleum products used to > manufacture common goods (like monitor cleaning fluid dispensers), > produce and meat, loggers (and paper and furniture)...? > > Will your tax be proportional to distance and/or weight? > ----- > > - gpsman
From: gpsman on 17 Nov 2009 17:59 On Nov 17, 2:33 pm, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Nov 17, 12:11 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps -you- might estimate that number by examining the disparity of > > highway costs borne by the different classes of vehicles. > > > That you apparently haven't investigated those figures suggests you > > are comfortable forming conclusions from ignorance. > > Actually numerous civil engineers in multiple states have stated that > highways cost substantially more to accomodate trucks than if they > were to accomodate automobiles only. Those engineers seem to have a remarkable grasp of what few would need an engineer to state. > But if you suggest I'm ignorant, why don't you educate me by answering > the question: how much more will groceries cost? $1000. > Indeed, many in the motor truck industry are quick to remind us of > increased costs if truckers faced higher costs or 53' trucks were > banned from local uses. But what is the actual number? 3.14159, indeed! > It's also possible than when 53' trucks were introduced, trucking > companies merely kept the savings and didn't pass any to their > customers. Because their customers wouldn't notice or have any interest in an extra 5' of trailer...? It was an industry secret? They cost no more than a 48' to purchase, license, insure or pull? You don't need to add goofy to irrelevant. ----- - gpsman
From: John S on 17 Nov 2009 22:45 rshersh(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Nov 15, 12:40 pm, John S <joh...(a)no.spam> wrote: >> hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Nov 14, 10:42 pm, John S <joh...(a)no.spam> wrote: >>>> hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> On Nov 11, 9:10 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Except there are many freeways and Interstates in NJ that are not toll >>>>>>> roads. >>>>>> Sure, there's I-295 in the northwest, and I-195 across the center. >>>>>> But a rather large proportion of NJs major highways are toll. >>>>> A very quick look at a road map of NJ shows: >>>>> I-80, I-287, I-280, I-78, free segment of GSP >>>>> NJ 15, NJ 21, NJ 3, NJ 18, NJ 42, NJ 55 >>>>> Notably, many of these roads carry extremely high volumes of traffic. >>>> Listing random route numbers is very interesting, but doesn't change the >>>> fact that toll lanes make up a very high percentage of overall freeway >>>> lane miles, relative to other states, which helps explain the points >>>> made a few posts ago. >>> Is it really that high a percentage? Quite a few lane miles are >>> free. Further, the free express roads carry quite a bit of traffic. >>> The AC Expy is a busy road, >> So is the New Jersey Turnpike. >> >> but I don't think it comes up to the >> >>> traffic volums carried by I-80. >> Please read what I wrote once more, specifically the phrase "relative to >> other states." What state has a higher percentage of tolled lane miles >> as a proportion of the total state freeway lane miles than New Jersey? > > > and how many states have a lower state gas tax then NJ > > due to those high percentage of tolled lanes???? > > why so oyu suppose that state gas tax stays as low as it does???? If you would have read the earlier posts in the thread, you would have known that gas tax had already been discussed...
From: Bernd Felsche on 18 Nov 2009 10:16 Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche ><berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>>> What about those motorists who have to pay for the damage trucks >>>> do to the highways? >>Losing sight of the big picture can be a problem when attributing >>"who pays". >>Goods vehicles carry goods. Stuff that is bought and sold. >>If the vehicles have to pay more to use the roads, then they will >>pass that increase on in the form of (higher) transport charges. >Or shippers of goods will find more cost-effective shipping methods. Like slaves pedalling carts? -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
From: John David Galt on 17 Nov 2009 15:12
>>> What about those motorists who have to pay for the damage trucks >>> do to the highways? Bernd Felsche wrote: > Losing sight of the big picture can be a problem when attributing > "who pays". > > Goods vehicles carry goods. Stuff that is bought and sold. > If the vehicles have to pay more to use the roads, then they will > pass that increase on in the form of (higher) transport charges. The > new bureaucracy that collects the fees from truck operators also > needs to be fed. So the charges for the use of the roads will have > to be higher than for simply maintaining the roads. > > It's simply a matter of accepting that the greater good is served by > providing the roads for the use of trucks, so that everything doesn't > get more expensive; largely due to the creation of a new > bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that sucks wealth. I don't buy it. Increase truck registration fees to pay for it, and the shippers will have enough incentive to change to rail or other modes when it makes sense. As it stands now, too much ships by truck. |