6 ms·

Agree with everything you say. Personally, I hope that self-driving cars are introduced alongside a road-use tax that moves the true cost of road construction a

Agree with everything you say. Personally, I hope that self-driving cars are introduced alongside a road-use tax that moves the true cost of road construction and maintenance (and the opportunity cost of all the last currently dedicated to roads) to users, rather than the general public.

shuntress 9y ago
>moves the true cost of road construction and maintenance ... to users, rather than the general public. Public infrastructure should not be a la carte.
- ecshafer 9y ago
  Buses and trains are. why should roads be purely subsidized? Why should free parking be subsidized. Car driving is massively subsidized and it has a hugely negative impact on the environment, it's expensive, does not scale, and difficult to maintain. Reducing car use, and shifting to a transit and walking focused style of living is better on every front.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    Whether or not car driving is subsidized, it's incorrect to suggest that it's levied uniformly across the population. Gas tax makes up a very large fraction of public spending on roads. Also, although buses and trains charge per user, they are also heavily subsidized.
    - Fricken 9y ago
      Busses are part of the public transportation infrastructure, just like roads, sidewalks, bridges and everything else. It's weird that they aren't fully subsidized.
      - hueving 9y ago
        But roads aren't fully subsidized. That's what the gas tax is for. Drivers of electric cars are currently free-riders, which is something that will have to be addressed if they become a significant fraction of drivers.
        thatcat 9y ago
        Electric cars are technically still taxed on electricity, registration, and purchase. They shouldn't be taxed further until other cars are forced to pay the full cost of their effects including NOx and CO2.
        hueving 9y ago
        Those taxes are not specifically for roads like the gas tax is.
        Fricken 9y ago
        We will at some point have to do a total rethink of how we pay for roads.
  - shuntress 9y ago
    >Buses and trains are. why should roads be purely subsidized? I believe my statement was quite clear. Public infrastructure should not be a la carte. "Buses and trains" are included in "Public Infrastructure". At least by my definition.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >Buses and trains are. They are still subsidized (at least in the US). Almost all public transit in the US isn't self-sustaining based on its fares. The road tax in gasoline is similar. Additionally, most of the wear on roads comes from tractor trailers, which is why they are taxed additionally.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    > walking focused style of living is better on every front Try that in Phoenix, AZ in the middle of July @ 3pm - I'll even buy you a 2L Camelpak filled with ice water. Trust me, about an hour in you'll be begging for a car. Snark aside, the problem in the United States (especially in the southwest) is that our cities aren't set up for walking, nor do we have anywhere near adequate public transportation. That can't be changed overnight (heck, the Phoenix Metro area has only had light rail system for less than a decade); cities won't become magically walkable or bikeable (and I can't imagine Phoenix ever being this way in the summer, unless every employer installs showers for employee use). There's also the factor that many people (though the demographics seem to be shifting) see vehicles as more than a tool; they seem them as objects of self-expression - almost like a mechanical costume, in a way. There's also the fact that car affords you the ability to get to your destination on your own schedule, not someone else's. Plus, there's just the sheer joy of driving for driving's sake (sometimes, I like to drive my car just to drive it - no particular destination or reason, just because I like to drive - fancy that).
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  I'm really curious, if it was a la carte, who wouldn't be using it? The OP says it like there's a large group of people not using that infrastructure.. but I can't fathom who those people are? Hermits living in the woods, alone? Hunting their own food, making their own furniture, etc? It seems like anyone with even the most minor connection to society are using the goods and services of the road infrastructure. Am I missing something obvious?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Anyone who doesn't own a car? If you're making the common argument that they're still "using" it because they patronize stores whose goods arrive by roads and such, that doesn't really make a lot of sense. You want the direct users of something paying for it. If the non-car-owner benefits from the roads through stores using them to ship goods, they should pay for that as part of the price of those goods.
    - notheguyouthink 9y ago
      Well, I wasn't exactly making the "argument", but yes that was my thought process. I disagree though that they shouldn't pay for it. Everyone should. However, the most likely scenario is paying indirectly, in your case. Eg, if we increased road taxes and applied them only to those who actually use the roads directly, then shipping products will also require price increases to cover said increased road costs. So the end user is paying for the taxes whether they like it or not, in most cases.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Right, but then the end user is paying for it in proportion to how much they benefit. Someone who uses the roads more (directly or indirectly) pays more than someone who uses the roads less. Which is how it ought to be. The argument that you benefit indirectly could be applied to almost anything. You benefit from the computers used by the businesses you patronize, so should we levy a tax to pay for them? Probably not.
  - 9y ago
- potatolicious 9y ago
  I agree. In the spirit of making sure public infrastructure is maximally available and not a la carte, let's make buses and trains free to end users and funded like roads currently are.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >let's make buses and trains free to end users and funded like roads currently are Presumably there are no gas taxes or licensing fees in this magical place you live?
  - shuntress 9y ago
    I agree. But I would like to clarify, I am not 100% against tolls. Its perfectly reasonable to be expected to pay, for example, a small entrance fee at a national park. But it is unreasonable for this small entrance fee to fund the entire park and unacceptable for it to become a large entrance fee.
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
I assume you are in favour of financing public transport also from the pockets of only those who use it? Maybe libraries, too? How about schools? (Truth be told, I'm from quite the opposite land where driving taxes finance much of the public spending. I wouldn't really mind your proposition too much.)
chronix632 9y ago
Lol. Liberal living in SF.
sverige 9y ago
Shouldn't "users" include everyone who benefits from the roads being used to bring things to them, like groceries to the local store and laptops from manufacturers?
dclowd9901 9y ago
Given that everyone relies on vehicles that use roads (emergency vehicles, for instance), there's no such thing as "users" distinguished from "the general public." Thing bigger, friend.
- syrrim 9y ago
  The tax would presumably be proportional to (or at least a function of) the amount of use. If the only time a person relied on the road was when they needed an emergency service, then they would pay very little tax indeed. If someone decided to start a delivery business, which saw thousands of cars going to and from peoples houses every day, then they would pay a much larger tax. This tax would presumably be passed onto their customers, making their customers pay a higher tax than the rest of the public.

shuntress 9y ago

>moves the true cost of road construction and maintenance ... to users, rather than the general public. Public infrastructure should not be a la carte.

ecshafer 9y ago
Buses and trains are. why should roads be purely subsidized? Why should free parking be subsidized. Car driving is massively subsidized and it has a hugely negative impact on the environment, it's expensive, does not scale, and difficult to maintain. Reducing car use, and shifting to a transit and walking focused style of living is better on every front.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Whether or not car driving is subsidized, it's incorrect to suggest that it's levied uniformly across the population. Gas tax makes up a very large fraction of public spending on roads. Also, although buses and trains charge per user, they are also heavily subsidized.
  - Fricken 9y ago
    Busses are part of the public transportation infrastructure, just like roads, sidewalks, bridges and everything else. It's weird that they aren't fully subsidized.
    - hueving 9y ago
      But roads aren't fully subsidized. That's what the gas tax is for. Drivers of electric cars are currently free-riders, which is something that will have to be addressed if they become a significant fraction of drivers.
      - thatcat 9y ago
        Electric cars are technically still taxed on electricity, registration, and purchase. They shouldn't be taxed further until other cars are forced to pay the full cost of their effects including NOx and CO2.
        hueving 9y ago
        Those taxes are not specifically for roads like the gas tax is.
      - Fricken 9y ago
        We will at some point have to do a total rethink of how we pay for roads.
- shuntress 9y ago
  >Buses and trains are. why should roads be purely subsidized? I believe my statement was quite clear. Public infrastructure should not be a la carte. "Buses and trains" are included in "Public Infrastructure". At least by my definition.
- hueving 9y ago
  >Buses and trains are. They are still subsidized (at least in the US). Almost all public transit in the US isn't self-sustaining based on its fares. The road tax in gasoline is similar. Additionally, most of the wear on roads comes from tractor trailers, which is why they are taxed additionally.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > walking focused style of living is better on every front Try that in Phoenix, AZ in the middle of July @ 3pm - I'll even buy you a 2L Camelpak filled with ice water. Trust me, about an hour in you'll be begging for a car. Snark aside, the problem in the United States (especially in the southwest) is that our cities aren't set up for walking, nor do we have anywhere near adequate public transportation. That can't be changed overnight (heck, the Phoenix Metro area has only had light rail system for less than a decade); cities won't become magically walkable or bikeable (and I can't imagine Phoenix ever being this way in the summer, unless every employer installs showers for employee use). There's also the factor that many people (though the demographics seem to be shifting) see vehicles as more than a tool; they seem them as objects of self-expression - almost like a mechanical costume, in a way. There's also the fact that car affords you the ability to get to your destination on your own schedule, not someone else's. Plus, there's just the sheer joy of driving for driving's sake (sometimes, I like to drive my car just to drive it - no particular destination or reason, just because I like to drive - fancy that).
notheguyouthink 9y ago
I'm really curious, if it was a la carte, who wouldn't be using it? The OP says it like there's a large group of people not using that infrastructure.. but I can't fathom who those people are? Hermits living in the woods, alone? Hunting their own food, making their own furniture, etc? It seems like anyone with even the most minor connection to society are using the goods and services of the road infrastructure. Am I missing something obvious?
- mikeash 9y ago
  Anyone who doesn't own a car? If you're making the common argument that they're still "using" it because they patronize stores whose goods arrive by roads and such, that doesn't really make a lot of sense. You want the direct users of something paying for it. If the non-car-owner benefits from the roads through stores using them to ship goods, they should pay for that as part of the price of those goods.
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
    Well, I wasn't exactly making the "argument", but yes that was my thought process. I disagree though that they shouldn't pay for it. Everyone should. However, the most likely scenario is paying indirectly, in your case. Eg, if we increased road taxes and applied them only to those who actually use the roads directly, then shipping products will also require price increases to cover said increased road costs. So the end user is paying for the taxes whether they like it or not, in most cases.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Right, but then the end user is paying for it in proportion to how much they benefit. Someone who uses the roads more (directly or indirectly) pays more than someone who uses the roads less. Which is how it ought to be. The argument that you benefit indirectly could be applied to almost anything. You benefit from the computers used by the businesses you patronize, so should we levy a tax to pay for them? Probably not.
- 9y ago
potatolicious 9y ago
I agree. In the spirit of making sure public infrastructure is maximally available and not a la carte, let's make buses and trains free to end users and funded like roads currently are.
- hueving 9y ago
  >let's make buses and trains free to end users and funded like roads currently are Presumably there are no gas taxes or licensing fees in this magical place you live?
- shuntress 9y ago
  I agree. But I would like to clarify, I am not 100% against tolls. Its perfectly reasonable to be expected to pay, for example, a small entrance fee at a national park. But it is unreasonable for this small entrance fee to fund the entire park and unacceptable for it to become a large entrance fee.

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago

I assume you are in favour of financing public transport also from the pockets of only those who use it? Maybe libraries, too? How about schools? (Truth be told, I'm from quite the opposite land where driving taxes finance much of the public spending. I wouldn't really mind your proposition too much.)

chronix632 9y ago

Lol. Liberal living in SF.

sverige 9y ago

Shouldn't "users" include everyone who benefits from the roads being used to bring things to them, like groceries to the local store and laptops from manufacturers?

dclowd9901 9y ago

Given that everyone relies on vehicles that use roads (emergency vehicles, for instance), there's no such thing as "users" distinguished from "the general public." Thing bigger, friend.

syrrim 9y ago
The tax would presumably be proportional to (or at least a function of) the amount of use. If the only time a person relied on the road was when they needed an emergency service, then they would pay very little tax indeed. If someone decided to start a delivery business, which saw thousands of cars going to and from peoples houses every day, then they would pay a much larger tax. This tax would presumably be passed onto their customers, making their customers pay a higher tax than the rest of the public.