America, is this the best you can do?
Steve said:
Why is it a good idea?
Well, in theory... I don't really think that highways should be metered, because that would be ridiculous, but I do think that many things are over-subsidized, roadways included.
So, it's really not a good idea, just another fanciful bit of libertarian claptrap. Instead, raise the gas tax (and make it a percentage with a minimum rate per gallon, maybe). Libertarian's always seem to ignore the costs of collection (and need for government enforcement through police powers) and the economic and social impact of their nonsensical ideas.
Gas tax is imperfect and will become more imperfect as more vehicles do not use fuel, or use it in combination with electricity. So an alternative is going to be needed to be found. And tracking mileage is becoming ever easier.
But the real point is that as much as possible those who use something should pay for it rather than it coming from general funds raised by general taxes. If people pay for what they use their use will be optimized.
But the real point is that as much as possible those who use something should pay for it rather than it coming from general funds raised by general taxes. If people pay for what they use their use will be optimized.
If by optimized you mean that only certain people will have access to many products and opportunities, yes, you are correct.
If government wants to subsidize certain groups that is a separate decision. But if the "price" is the actual cost it then become a transparent decision.
Is there anything that you believe shouldn't be pay as you go? Should there be pre-payment discounts? Who should run the systems (and who should shoulder those costs)? Who should enforce and who should pay the costs of enforcement? Who should settle disputes? Who should pay the costs of dispute resolution?
I have long said civil court is a good place to turn into pay as you go.
But who will fund the civil court operations? How will the costs be allocated? How will the revenue be raised? Why should I have to pay for the enforcement costs/dispute resolution related to someone else's use/non-use of the roadways? I pay my bills.
Mar 10, 2015 at 1:54pm Edited
ram, do I understand correctly you wish to replace the gas tax, which is paid by every driver based roughly on the number of miles they travel, with a system that would put a nanny state monitoring device in every vehicle, allowing far more than miles traveled to be determined? What about the tremendous cost of the devices, installing transponders everywhere and the complex systems every town would need to process the data and bill drivers? Should speeders also have tickets issued? Illegally parked cars? Would each municipality collect as you travel through, or will a reciprocal agreement need to be set up among every town in America? How about using county and state roads? These are all real questions inherent in a pay as you use tolling system for every mile traveled. Looking for some ideas on how you'd deal with the tremendous complications this introduces.
Of course if our gas tax was developed by Gov. Kean as a pay-as-you-go method of collecting funds to maintain and upgrade transportation infrastructure from its users. If the tax had been raised as needed during the last 26 years, it would have functioned ad intended. Instead, every penny now goes to the $1 billion yearly debt service on the bonds that substituted for a tax raise. I believe there's $10 billion in debt to be retired, so the tax is either here until that's paid or we need even more from the general fund if the tax is abolished. If the TTF functioned as designed, there wouldn't be any need to involve the general fund.
Please explain to the uninitiated how your libertarian paradise is anything other than an incomprehensibly complex and expensive way to accomplish what a properly administered had tax already accomplishes.
Of course if our gas tax was developed by Gov. Kean as a pay-as-you-go method of collecting funds to maintain and upgrade transportation infrastructure from its users. If the tax had been raised as needed during the last 26 years, it would have functioned ad intended. Instead, every penny now goes to the $1 billion yearly debt service on the bonds that substituted for a tax raise. I believe there's $10 billion in debt to be retired, so the tax is either here until that's paid or we need even more from the general fund if the tax is abolished. If the TTF functioned as designed, there wouldn't be any need to involve the general fund.
Please explain to the uninitiated how your libertarian paradise is anything other than an incomprehensibly complex and expensive way to accomplish what a properly administered had tax already accomplishes.
Oy, another tome! For anyone who doesn't feel like wading through it, I'll summarize. Long story short, our gas tax is exactly what ram prescribes. A fee paid by road users according to their level of use. At least it was supposed to be until our leaders abdicated their leadership role by borrowing rather than raising the tax to keep up with inflation and needs.
Again, the gas tax has been fine. But what happens as more and more re vehicles do not use fuel? Many will pay nothing. The gas tax increasingly is not going to be a workable method of raising funds in relation to road use. A new method needs to be found.
ram said:
Gas tax is imperfect and will become more imperfect as more vehicles do not use fuel, or use it in combination with electricity. So an alternative is going to be needed to be found. And tracking mileage is becoming ever easier.
I find it interesting that someone who once claimed to be a libertarian (I'm glad you've shed that skin) would rather have the government track your whereabouts to charge you for the highway mileage you use than pay an imperfect (though suitable for now) tax to pay for roads. When cars that don't run on fossil fuel become more prevalent, they'll find another way. But for now, a gas tax is better than government lojack.
Mar 10, 2015 at 6:46pm Edited
Guess I overreacted a tad. If you recall a former MOLer named Pennboy, I had the same discussion years ago. Only he wanted to get the system described up and running as soon as possible. Sorry for taking out my flashback anger on you ram.
You do raise an interesting point about subsidies. Most people have no clue how widespread our daily activities are artificially cheaper due to massive subsidization My praise of the NJ gas tax aside, driving is the most heavily subsidized action in the US. Drivers pay only 51% of the cost of maintaining the road system in user fees. The rest comes from general revenues, to the tone of $78 billion/year. Ram, I completely agree drivers should pay the full cost of their activity. I also think the mechanisms we have can be adjusted to make up for lessened demand for gas. The mile based user fee will never be cost effective, nor do I think there's any way to address privacy concerns.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/
Continuing the who pays how much theme, transit riders pay 20% of their costs. But the total of that subsidy pales in comparison to what autos get. Republican bete noire Amtrak pays 85% of its costs. The long distance routes have been pared to a bare bones network. Maintenance isn't an issue as Amtrak pays the freight RRs for access.
The profitable NE Corridor runs on a dangerously decrepit infrastructure that it owns. If passengers had to pay for repairs, ticket costs would be unaffordable. This is the reason for constantly increasing subway fares in NY. After granting billions in state funds to accomplish the miracle turnaround of the 80s, Pataki told the MTA they would now need to borrow the billions needed to continue. So riders there are paying most of those costs, while drivers still receive outsized subsidies from everyone else, including the City's many non-drivers. If someone should be getting a break, it ought to be those who benefit the City and the environment, rather than those who degrade both.
If autos have it sweet, trucks have it the sweetest. They cause 99% of road damage, but pay only 35% of user fees. That's a $60 billion/year subsidy. Is this fair to competing modes, particularly freight RRs, that pay every cent of maintenance costs and property taxes as well?
http://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/
With the costliest parts our transportation system so heavily subsidized, reducing or eliminating them will result in higher out of pocket costs for nearly everyone. If trucks had to pay full freight, every part of the economy would obviously be effected. All of this would combine to reduce income and drive inflation.
Ideas anyone?
You do raise an interesting point about subsidies. Most people have no clue how widespread our daily activities are artificially cheaper due to massive subsidization My praise of the NJ gas tax aside, driving is the most heavily subsidized action in the US. Drivers pay only 51% of the cost of maintaining the road system in user fees. The rest comes from general revenues, to the tone of $78 billion/year. Ram, I completely agree drivers should pay the full cost of their activity. I also think the mechanisms we have can be adjusted to make up for lessened demand for gas. The mile based user fee will never be cost effective, nor do I think there's any way to address privacy concerns.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/
Continuing the who pays how much theme, transit riders pay 20% of their costs. But the total of that subsidy pales in comparison to what autos get. Republican bete noire Amtrak pays 85% of its costs. The long distance routes have been pared to a bare bones network. Maintenance isn't an issue as Amtrak pays the freight RRs for access.
The profitable NE Corridor runs on a dangerously decrepit infrastructure that it owns. If passengers had to pay for repairs, ticket costs would be unaffordable. This is the reason for constantly increasing subway fares in NY. After granting billions in state funds to accomplish the miracle turnaround of the 80s, Pataki told the MTA they would now need to borrow the billions needed to continue. So riders there are paying most of those costs, while drivers still receive outsized subsidies from everyone else, including the City's many non-drivers. If someone should be getting a break, it ought to be those who benefit the City and the environment, rather than those who degrade both.
If autos have it sweet, trucks have it the sweetest. They cause 99% of road damage, but pay only 35% of user fees. That's a $60 billion/year subsidy. Is this fair to competing modes, particularly freight RRs, that pay every cent of maintenance costs and property taxes as well?
http://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/
With the costliest parts our transportation system so heavily subsidized, reducing or eliminating them will result in higher out of pocket costs for nearly everyone. If trucks had to pay full freight, every part of the economy would obviously be effected. All of this would combine to reduce income and drive inflation.
Ideas anyone?
Mar 11, 2015 at 12:16am Edited
ParticleMan said:
ram said:
Gas tax is imperfect and will become more imperfect as more vehicles do not use fuel, or use it in combination with electricity. So an alternative is going to be needed to be found. And tracking mileage is becoming ever easier.
I find it interesting that someone who once claimed to be a libertarian (I'm glad you've shed that skin) would rather have the government track your whereabouts to charge you for the highway mileage you use than pay an imperfect (though suitable for now) tax to pay for roads. When cars that don't run on fossil fuel become more prevalent, they'll find another way. But for now, a gas tax is better than government lojack.
Since any new system will take time to design and implement there is less time than you think. Tesla is close to a mass market rollout, Chevy is bringing out a better Volt. My BIL has filled the tank of his plug in Prius once in the year he has owned it, admittedly in LA where the parking garages mostly have charging ports.
As I have posted I have been skeptical of all electric cars. And I continue to be because while there have been advances there has not been the breakthrough yet in range and charging speed. But Tesla has come farther than I would have thought possible. And I think right now plugin hybrids are viable and in the future will allow people to make the majority of their trips gas free. The future is coming faster than I expected.
@dk50b You have the best information...
(I have no ideas/solutions.)
(I have no ideas/solutions.)
Spend our tax dollars on repairing the infrastructure, put people back to work and enjoy the resultant economic improvement. Every item in the state and federal expenses should be examined and difficult choices will have to be made. The same process we all use to determine our financial priorities on where our personal dollars should be spent. Some items are now, some are deferred and yes, some must be eliminated. You can't spent your way out of debt. When the infrastructure has been improved, spend on the next priority item. We have elected officials that have made poor spending choices for years and we are feeling it and will continue to face these problems unless real change is made.
ram said:
Having used both I I'll say the Port Authority is much worse. Yes there are some more spacious central areas but the bus loading and unloading areas are chaos.
Signage is pretty poor. That's what gets me the most. Though it is less seedy than it was in the 70's, but so is everything else.
marylago said:
The mechanics can fix them, but it's a constant battle. Like all the time. Food and gum and coffee and other liquids, not to mention what I don't even want to think about... Imagine if every time you drove, someone was constantly dropping food and wrappers and liquids onto your fan belt. I'd be willing to bet it'd stop working pretty soon...
Is this seriously the cause of most of the outages? If so, there should be a way of dealing with it.
While the stuff that is dropped into it does not help, basically this is simply an issue of age. The escalator dates from 1965 and it appears it has never really had an overhaul:
"First installed in 1965, the escalator recently fell into disrepair, posing a safety risk, a railroad spokesman said.
The upward escalator’s main drive motor seized shortly after Jan. 1. A half-century of dirt, grime and exposure to the elements made necessary an overhaul or replacement of its components, from its stairs to chain to hand rails, the spokesman said. Estimated cost: $300,000.
Two Amtrak engineers have been assigned the task full-time, along with other staff as needed, he said. The work is expected to be completed by late March or early April.
“It’s taken time to disassemble the mechanism, clean the assembly and order parts,” the spokesman said. “The actual rebuilding process will move more quickly than the first stages of the project.”
Simply reversing the down escalator isn’t an option. The Amtrak spokesman said the moving staircase has been rolling the same way for about 50 years, and won’t run in the opposite direction more than a few minutes before breaking down."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fixing-broken-penn-station-escalator-will-take-weeks-1425260829
"First installed in 1965, the escalator recently fell into disrepair, posing a safety risk, a railroad spokesman said.
The upward escalator’s main drive motor seized shortly after Jan. 1. A half-century of dirt, grime and exposure to the elements made necessary an overhaul or replacement of its components, from its stairs to chain to hand rails, the spokesman said. Estimated cost: $300,000.
Two Amtrak engineers have been assigned the task full-time, along with other staff as needed, he said. The work is expected to be completed by late March or early April.
“It’s taken time to disassemble the mechanism, clean the assembly and order parts,” the spokesman said. “The actual rebuilding process will move more quickly than the first stages of the project.”
Simply reversing the down escalator isn’t an option. The Amtrak spokesman said the moving staircase has been rolling the same way for about 50 years, and won’t run in the opposite direction more than a few minutes before breaking down."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fixing-broken-penn-station-escalator-will-take-weeks-1425260829
Mar 11, 2015 at 11:21am Edited
Can we just fly a couple of consultants over from France or Germany to show them how to fix it?
ram said:
I have long said civil court is a good place to turn into pay as you go.
So if I file an action to enjoin you from posting on MOL what should you have to pay to defend yourself?
ligeti said:
Can we just fly a couple of consultants over from France or Germany to show them how to fix it?
Let's not get them from England - those guys suck hard, apparently:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228490/Named-shamed-The-10-WORST-railway-stations-UK.html
ligeti said:
Can we just fly a couple of consultants over from France or Germany to show them how to fix it?
Once you negotiate the project and flights with their works councils it will cost much more than $300k. Even if they don't strike.
dk50b said:
Guess I overreacted a tad. If you recall a former MOLer named Pennboy, I had the same discussion years ago. Only he wanted to get the system described up and running as soon as possible. Sorry for taking out my flashback anger on you ram.
You do raise an interesting point about subsidies. Most people have no clue how widespread our daily activities are artificially cheaper due to massive subsidization My praise of the NJ gas tax aside, driving is the most heavily subsidized action in the US. Drivers pay only 51% of the cost of maintaining the road system in user fees. The rest comes from general revenues, to the tone of $78 billion/year. Ram, I completely agree drivers should pay the full cost of their activity. I also think the mechanisms we have can be adjusted to make up for lessened demand for gas. The mile based user fee will never be cost effective, nor do I think there's any way to address privacy concerns.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/
Continuing the who pays how much theme, transit riders pay 20% of their costs. But the total of that subsidy pales in comparison to what autos get. Republican bete noire Amtrak pays 85% of its costs. The long distance routes have been pared to a bare bones network. Maintenance isn't an issue as Amtrak pays the freight RRs for access.
The profitable NE Corridor runs on a dangerously decrepit infrastructure that it owns. If passengers had to pay for repairs, ticket costs would be unaffordable. This is the reason for constantly increasing subway fares in NY. After granting billions in state funds to accomplish the miracle turnaround of the 80s, Pataki told the MTA they would now need to borrow the billions needed to continue. So riders there are paying most of those costs, while drivers still receive outsized subsidies from everyone else, including the City's many non-drivers. If someone should be getting a break, it ought to be those who benefit the City and the environment, rather than those who degrade both.
If autos have it sweet, trucks have it the sweetest. They cause 99% of road damage, but pay only 35% of user fees. That's a $60 billion/year subsidy. Is this fair to competing modes, particularly freight RRs, that pay every cent of maintenance costs and property taxes as well?
http://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/
With the costliest parts our transportation system so heavily subsidized, reducing or eliminating them will result in higher out of pocket costs for nearly everyone. If trucks had to pay full freight, every part of the economy would obviously be effected. All of this would combine to reduce income and drive inflation.
Ideas anyone?
You are right. Subsidies (gas and roads) have made driving too cheap in the US. As a result, we need more roads, wider highways, longer highways, as so many people drive sometimes over 50 miles each day each direction to and from work. Now we are stuck with long and numerous warn-out roads.
Mar 11, 2015 at 2:52pm Edited
“It’s taken time to disassemble the mechanism, clean the assembly and order parts,” the spokesman said.
It sounds like he's describing the slide projector at a middle school science department. This is the busiest transit stairwell IN THE WORLD. Two and a half months. What an embarrassment.
The Europeans are laughing at us.
Shame on America.
It sounds like he's describing the slide projector at a middle school science department. This is the busiest transit stairwell IN THE WORLD. Two and a half months. What an embarrassment.
The Europeans are laughing at us.
Shame on America.
Thanks for the shout outs. Obviously I enjoy the sound of my own keyboard.
I was going to exclude Britain from the nations with better infrastructure list, but my post was already long enough. Since it's come up, I of course must comment. The various rankings often place the US and UK close by. The important thing to realize is the improving but still decrepit state of Britain's transport system is largely the result of a disastrous privatization program.
The state owned and operated British Rail was contracted to private carriers beginning in 1996. A single entity, Railtrak, retained ownership of all infrastructure. In the run up to the 1997 elections, it was hastily privatized so Labour couldn't keep it government owned. Railtrak became an unaccountable corporation separated from the train operators. It had nothing near the funds to undertake the needed maintenance and repairs, with the ultimate result being a derailment at Hatfield in 2000 caused by poor track. It was re-nationalized in 2002, and the entire misadventure has been an extremely costly failure that met none of its goals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337205/High-fares-old-trains-big-railway-rip-Damning-study-says-privatisation-failed-deliver-passengers.html
The privatization of London Underground was equally disastrous and costly, and lasted about 10 years. There have been successful privatizations in places like Sweden and Japan, but Britain's multiple disasters are far more instructive on what the results of privatization would be in the US. Our nations share a similar heritage in terms of early and extensive RR development, as well as the results of underfunding transport for many years.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/11/london-undergrounds-privatization-experiment-dead-as-remaining-ppp-is-bought-out/
I was going to exclude Britain from the nations with better infrastructure list, but my post was already long enough. Since it's come up, I of course must comment. The various rankings often place the US and UK close by. The important thing to realize is the improving but still decrepit state of Britain's transport system is largely the result of a disastrous privatization program.
The state owned and operated British Rail was contracted to private carriers beginning in 1996. A single entity, Railtrak, retained ownership of all infrastructure. In the run up to the 1997 elections, it was hastily privatized so Labour couldn't keep it government owned. Railtrak became an unaccountable corporation separated from the train operators. It had nothing near the funds to undertake the needed maintenance and repairs, with the ultimate result being a derailment at Hatfield in 2000 caused by poor track. It was re-nationalized in 2002, and the entire misadventure has been an extremely costly failure that met none of its goals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337205/High-fares-old-trains-big-railway-rip-Damning-study-says-privatisation-failed-deliver-passengers.html
The privatization of London Underground was equally disastrous and costly, and lasted about 10 years. There have been successful privatizations in places like Sweden and Japan, but Britain's multiple disasters are far more instructive on what the results of privatization would be in the US. Our nations share a similar heritage in terms of early and extensive RR development, as well as the results of underfunding transport for many years.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/11/london-undergrounds-privatization-experiment-dead-as-remaining-ppp-is-bought-out/
Mar 11, 2015 at 6:46pm Edited
As for Port Authority Bus Terminal, which John Oliver recently termed the "single worst place on earth", shockingly it turns out Christie is to blame for the needed replacement being nowhere in the PA's capital plan. Act One was stealing $3 billion in capital funds for a non-PA project, the Pulaski Skyway Rehab. Act Two was rewarding United Airlines for their new AC service by pushing the completely unnecessary Newark Airport PATH Extension to the top of the list.
http://gothamist.com/2014/08/04/video_john_oliver_declares_port_aut.php
This project will only provide improved airport access to Lower Manhattan and three stations in Jersey City. Of its $1.5 billion price tag, $1 billion would buy a new PABT.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/10/24/analysis-christie-s-airport-path-deal-undercuts-rail-tunnel-pa-bus-terminal-needs/
And thinking of the PA's entire network, as the Christie takeover now prevents, there is an airport that lacks any rail access. You know the one that's the most embarrassing, inadequate airport in the developed world. It happens to be in Queens, so I can only point out the ridiculous fact it still has no rail transit connection makes it a far more pressing priority than an airport that has it.
The article also reminds us that NJ hasn't dedicated a penny to Amtrak's Gateway Tunnel, which likely won't be getting Federal funds anytime soon, so I guess why waste the money. We'll need $3 billion, same as our ARC contribution for half the capacity in a tunnel and station owned by Amtrak.
Words fail (first for everything!).
http://gothamist.com/2014/08/04/video_john_oliver_declares_port_aut.php
This project will only provide improved airport access to Lower Manhattan and three stations in Jersey City. Of its $1.5 billion price tag, $1 billion would buy a new PABT.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/10/24/analysis-christie-s-airport-path-deal-undercuts-rail-tunnel-pa-bus-terminal-needs/
And thinking of the PA's entire network, as the Christie takeover now prevents, there is an airport that lacks any rail access. You know the one that's the most embarrassing, inadequate airport in the developed world. It happens to be in Queens, so I can only point out the ridiculous fact it still has no rail transit connection makes it a far more pressing priority than an airport that has it.
The article also reminds us that NJ hasn't dedicated a penny to Amtrak's Gateway Tunnel, which likely won't be getting Federal funds anytime soon, so I guess why waste the money. We'll need $3 billion, same as our ARC contribution for half the capacity in a tunnel and station owned by Amtrak.
Words fail (first for everything!).
ligeti said:
“It’s taken time to disassemble the mechanism, clean the assembly and order parts,” the spokesman said.
It sounds like he's describing the slide projector at a middle school science department. This is the busiest transit stairwell IN THE WORLD. Two and a half months. What an embarrassment.
The Europeans are laughing at us.
Shame on America.
Europeans are not laughing at Americans. In Paris, that escalator might be a staircase. There is nothing efficient about a French workforce.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
KarenMarlowe