4 ms·

In the current world of automated tolling with FastTrak, IPASS and EZ Pass I feel like we should have already put tolls up all over the place.

by jtokoph 10y ago

lend000 10y ago
FastTrak is a nightmare. The answer is gasoline/carbon taxes, since you are "consuming against the environment" on a per gallon basis, not a per mile/per toll road basis.
- Clubber 10y ago
  It could be argued that the government should tax bikes and pedestrians instead, since they aren't paying their fair share of gasoline taxes that pay for infrastructure upkeep. I think the best idea is for people who want to ride bikes to ride bikes and enjoy their contribution to the environment without trying to impose taxes on people other than themselves.
  - emiliobumachar 10y ago
    Keep in mind that when bikers, pedestrians and public transportation riders are inconvenienced enough, they don't stay home. They get in cars, and get their cars in front of us, all while we have places to go. Incentivising alternatives to driving reduces traffic, and is in the drivers' best interests. Ideally, you and I would be the only ones left on the roads :)
    - Clubber 10y ago
      The suggestion from the OP, as I understand it wasn't incentivizing alternatives to driving but rather punishing car driving with extra taxation. I'm ok with the carrot, but not with the stick. The problem with taxation on things such as that is it's typically regressive, which is rarely good tax policy. Not only are you regressively taxing, you are regressively taxing people trying their best to keep their heads above water. If we really want to make a difference, electric cars should be heavily subsidized in the ballpark of 30-50%. Also have the government build out a charging infrastructure as part of the highway system. That would be a lot more bang for the buck against climate change than taxing waiters, clerks or everyday people trying to earn a living. I have a great idea, we should mandate 100% remote work whenever possible, and the savings companies get from paying less rents should go directly to the employees (minus a 20% management fee of course) who are now supplying their own work environment. If only ..
  - gpawl 10y ago
    The infrastructure upkeep of bike paths and side walks is less than the cost of trying to count it. When is the last time you had to repave the walk in front of your home? Meanwhile, your car is spewing toxic fumes into the faces of those bike riders.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      Oh god, is that the next thing? Self righteous bicyclists? Give me a break.
      - CalRobert 10y ago
        It's self righteous to want clean air?
      - hnal943 10y ago
        Have you ever met a bicyclist? Self-righteousness is as essential to that lifestyle as spandex pants.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    I'm going to stop contributing the political threads. Emotional people keep down voting me because they disagree with my argument. Same thing happens on the conservative threads where everyone is yelling at each other. I guess we can't break out of our political bubbles. Argue for the idea, not the party.
- reeddavid 10y ago
  The environmental costs are one thing, and those could be served by carbon taxes. But that doesn't address the congestion costs or the infrastructure costs. Ideally we'd separately tax each thing appropriately: Tax carbon to account for emissions, tax road use (per mile in accordance with vehicle weight) to account for road wear, and tax congestion (by time-based demand for commuter corridors, bridges/tunnels, or central business zones) to account for the congestion cost of adding another car to the road.
  - lend000 10y ago
    I love the idea of pure consumption based taxes, but I think it's definitely possible to get carried away (and end up wasting more in tracking minuscule tax amounts owed for various things than its worth). This is especially so when you consider complications such as the indirect benefits of an interstate highway system to someone who never drives on highways (economic benefits). It makes sense to have a 'pool' of taxes, like an income tax, for general societal maintenance instead of having an individual tax for every one of the thousands of functions of government, especially those that are either insignificant or impractical to track, such as individual wear and tear on every road, benefits from having a military/police force, etc.
    - wtallis 10y ago
      I agree that it's possible to get carried away and that some consumption taxes would simply have too much overhead. However, for roads, I think it is mostly practical, if you're using the right methods. Don't try to tax cars by the mile for road maintenance purposes (but do tax the commercial trucks that are heavy enough to meaningfully contribute wear and tear). Tax real estate based on how many miles of road and pipe and cable it requires the government to maintain, so that a sprawling low-density neighborhood has to bear most of the cost of repairing the potholes and leaks that develop in their own maze of twisty little cul-de-sacs. The owner of an apartment building in town with a business or two at street level should probably pay less per acre toward road and utility maintenance than the owner of a mansion on the same size lot 10+ miles from downtown and far off any thoroughfare. (The apartment building will still be paying far more overall for the variable costs of water and electricity.)
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
No, screw that. Toll roads everywhere just creates another revenue stream that can never be gotten rid of. Automating it makes price hiking easy and silent. By putting tolls everywhere You've succeeded in raising costs and increasing congestion everywhere tolls aren't
- gpawl 10y ago
  > putting tolls everywhere > everywhere tolls aren't see the flaw?
- dingaling 10y ago
  > Toll roads everywhere just creates another revenue stream that can never be gotten rid of. Well it can be 'gotten rid of' once car usage is 'gotten rid of'. In fact, it would eliminate itself with no intervention. Without tolling there is no line-item cost for people who choose to live in car-only suburbs and developments; the costs of fuel and insurance and car maintenance are all just aggregated into 'cost of owning a car'. Adding a per-usage cost, for example each time they exited from their suburb, would provide an evident cost that couldn't be ignored. And would also level the playing field for public transport, which generally has a per-usage cost too.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  Just building a road creates a massive obligation on future taxpayers to pay for maintenance for that road. It's even harder to get rid of a road than it is to get rid of a toll.

In the current world of automated tolling with FastTrak, IPASS and EZ Pass I feel like we should have already put tolls up all over the place.

by jtokoph 10y ago

In the current world of automated tolling with FastTrak, IPASS and EZ Pass I feel like we should have already put tolls up all over the place.

lend000 10y ago

FastTrak is a nightmare. The answer is gasoline/carbon taxes, since you are "consuming against the environment" on a per gallon basis, not a per mile/per toll road basis.

Clubber 10y ago
It could be argued that the government should tax bikes and pedestrians instead, since they aren't paying their fair share of gasoline taxes that pay for infrastructure upkeep. I think the best idea is for people who want to ride bikes to ride bikes and enjoy their contribution to the environment without trying to impose taxes on people other than themselves.
- emiliobumachar 10y ago
  Keep in mind that when bikers, pedestrians and public transportation riders are inconvenienced enough, they don't stay home. They get in cars, and get their cars in front of us, all while we have places to go. Incentivising alternatives to driving reduces traffic, and is in the drivers' best interests. Ideally, you and I would be the only ones left on the roads :)
  - Clubber 10y ago
    The suggestion from the OP, as I understand it wasn't incentivizing alternatives to driving but rather punishing car driving with extra taxation. I'm ok with the carrot, but not with the stick. The problem with taxation on things such as that is it's typically regressive, which is rarely good tax policy. Not only are you regressively taxing, you are regressively taxing people trying their best to keep their heads above water. If we really want to make a difference, electric cars should be heavily subsidized in the ballpark of 30-50%. Also have the government build out a charging infrastructure as part of the highway system. That would be a lot more bang for the buck against climate change than taxing waiters, clerks or everyday people trying to earn a living. I have a great idea, we should mandate 100% remote work whenever possible, and the savings companies get from paying less rents should go directly to the employees (minus a 20% management fee of course) who are now supplying their own work environment. If only ..
- gpawl 10y ago
  The infrastructure upkeep of bike paths and side walks is less than the cost of trying to count it. When is the last time you had to repave the walk in front of your home? Meanwhile, your car is spewing toxic fumes into the faces of those bike riders.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Oh god, is that the next thing? Self righteous bicyclists? Give me a break.
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      It's self righteous to want clean air?
    - hnal943 10y ago
      Have you ever met a bicyclist? Self-righteousness is as essential to that lifestyle as spandex pants.
- Clubber 10y ago
  I'm going to stop contributing the political threads. Emotional people keep down voting me because they disagree with my argument. Same thing happens on the conservative threads where everyone is yelling at each other. I guess we can't break out of our political bubbles. Argue for the idea, not the party.
reeddavid 10y ago
The environmental costs are one thing, and those could be served by carbon taxes. But that doesn't address the congestion costs or the infrastructure costs. Ideally we'd separately tax each thing appropriately: Tax carbon to account for emissions, tax road use (per mile in accordance with vehicle weight) to account for road wear, and tax congestion (by time-based demand for commuter corridors, bridges/tunnels, or central business zones) to account for the congestion cost of adding another car to the road.
- lend000 10y ago
  I love the idea of pure consumption based taxes, but I think it's definitely possible to get carried away (and end up wasting more in tracking minuscule tax amounts owed for various things than its worth). This is especially so when you consider complications such as the indirect benefits of an interstate highway system to someone who never drives on highways (economic benefits). It makes sense to have a 'pool' of taxes, like an income tax, for general societal maintenance instead of having an individual tax for every one of the thousands of functions of government, especially those that are either insignificant or impractical to track, such as individual wear and tear on every road, benefits from having a military/police force, etc.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    I agree that it's possible to get carried away and that some consumption taxes would simply have too much overhead. However, for roads, I think it is mostly practical, if you're using the right methods. Don't try to tax cars by the mile for road maintenance purposes (but do tax the commercial trucks that are heavy enough to meaningfully contribute wear and tear). Tax real estate based on how many miles of road and pipe and cable it requires the government to maintain, so that a sprawling low-density neighborhood has to bear most of the cost of repairing the potholes and leaks that develop in their own maze of twisty little cul-de-sacs. The owner of an apartment building in town with a business or two at street level should probably pay less per acre toward road and utility maintenance than the owner of a mansion on the same size lot 10+ miles from downtown and far off any thoroughfare. (The apartment building will still be paying far more overall for the variable costs of water and electricity.)

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

No, screw that. Toll roads everywhere just creates another revenue stream that can never be gotten rid of. Automating it makes price hiking easy and silent. By putting tolls everywhere You've succeeded in raising costs and increasing congestion everywhere tolls aren't

gpawl 10y ago
> putting tolls everywhere > everywhere tolls aren't see the flaw?
dingaling 10y ago
> Toll roads everywhere just creates another revenue stream that can never be gotten rid of. Well it can be 'gotten rid of' once car usage is 'gotten rid of'. In fact, it would eliminate itself with no intervention. Without tolling there is no line-item cost for people who choose to live in car-only suburbs and developments; the costs of fuel and insurance and car maintenance are all just aggregated into 'cost of owning a car'. Adding a per-usage cost, for example each time they exited from their suburb, would provide an evident cost that couldn't be ignored. And would also level the playing field for public transport, which generally has a per-usage cost too.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
Just building a road creates a massive obligation on future taxpayers to pay for maintenance for that road. It's even harder to get rid of a road than it is to get rid of a toll.