5 ms·

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 ca

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.
potatolicious 9y ago
Amount of usage is what's missing from the equation. Nearly everyone will use the road infrastructure - even indirectly (see: buses, groceries that are delivered by truck), but users (theoretically - back to this part in a bit) have control over the amount of the infrastructure they use. The ideal argument is that by instituting tolls (or other similar per-use pricing), people will choose to be more efficient in their use of infrastructure, either by shifting modalities (see: taking the bus instead of driving), or shifting travel behavior (see: going to the store near you instead of driving two towns away). But, of course, this is a highly idealized model that doesn't account for negative impacts of tolling. For example, the poor tend to have disproportionately long commutes, and "consume" more road infrastructure as a result. Tolling negatively impacts this vulnerable group even more heavily than they already are impacted. Also, the idea that people who can't afford the tolls will switch to travel modes that lessen the burden (buses, trains, carpooling, etc) presumes the existence of competent alternative modalities. This is empirically false in (most of?) America. Proposals for extensive end-user tolling would be less problematic if the revenue can be guaranteed for developing alternate modes. As it stands the vast majority of such proposals I have seen simply institute a cost without offering anything resembling reasonable alternative modes.
- oftenwrong 9y ago
  >Tolling negatively impacts this vulnerable group even more heavily than they already are impacted. See Toll roads hurt the poor? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt-the-poor https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt...
  - potatolicious 9y ago
    To be clear - I'm not 100% opposed to tolling. Around here in NYC there is a plan by MoveNY to institute tolling on all East River bridges which I think is a great idea for raising revenue and reducing congestion. But the trick is that NYC has multiple competent alternative modes for people to fall back to - the train (both commuter and metro), as well as an extensive bus system - not to mention the ferry system. But more often than not tolling is proposed without reasonable alternative modes. The poor can take the bus instead of paying the toll - if the bus system was good enough to get them to work on time... If it serves their neighborhood at all. I'm not sure if the article you linked to is specifically in regards to a specific proposal in LA - I agree with its conclusions, but I don't think you can take a "tolls don't hurt the poor" conclusion from it. Heck, the very bottom of the article literally admits "Tolls may disproportionately burden the poor". Specifically, the UCLA graphic claims (IMO correctly) "tolling hurts less than a commensurate sales tax increase". This is absolutely correct - sales taxes are regressive and tend to impact low-income people much more than wealthy people. Tolling is the lesser of two evils here, but we can and should do better than just those two options. There are more ways to fund transport infrastructure than just tolls and sales taxes - property and income taxes, for one, which are progressive and do not have the disproportionate impact on low-income people. Property taxes in particular help the government realize the gains produced by infrastructure investment - a new transit center leads to rising property values, leading to more revenue that can be used to maintain or expand said infrastructure. In any case, I'm actually for tolling, but only if reasonable alternative modes are already in place. Unfortunately this means I'm against tolling in (most) parts of the US, because frankly alternative modes are either non-existent or so marginal that they are not reasonable fallbacks to driving.

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.

potatolicious 9y ago

Amount of usage is what's missing from the equation. Nearly everyone will use the road infrastructure - even indirectly (see: buses, groceries that are delivered by truck), but users (theoretically - back to this part in a bit) have control over the amount of the infrastructure they use. The ideal argument is that by instituting tolls (or other similar per-use pricing), people will choose to be more efficient in their use of infrastructure, either by shifting modalities (see: taking the bus instead of driving), or shifting travel behavior (see: going to the store near you instead of driving two towns away). But, of course, this is a highly idealized model that doesn't account for negative impacts of tolling. For example, the poor tend to have disproportionately long commutes, and "consume" more road infrastructure as a result. Tolling negatively impacts this vulnerable group even more heavily than they already are impacted. Also, the idea that people who can't afford the tolls will switch to travel modes that lessen the burden (buses, trains, carpooling, etc) presumes the existence of competent alternative modalities. This is empirically false in (most of?) America. Proposals for extensive end-user tolling would be less problematic if the revenue can be guaranteed for developing alternate modes. As it stands the vast majority of such proposals I have seen simply institute a cost without offering anything resembling reasonable alternative modes.

oftenwrong 9y ago
>Tolling negatively impacts this vulnerable group even more heavily than they already are impacted. See Toll roads hurt the poor? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt-the-poor https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt...
- potatolicious 9y ago
  To be clear - I'm not 100% opposed to tolling. Around here in NYC there is a plan by MoveNY to institute tolling on all East River bridges which I think is a great idea for raising revenue and reducing congestion. But the trick is that NYC has multiple competent alternative modes for people to fall back to - the train (both commuter and metro), as well as an extensive bus system - not to mention the ferry system. But more often than not tolling is proposed without reasonable alternative modes. The poor can take the bus instead of paying the toll - if the bus system was good enough to get them to work on time... If it serves their neighborhood at all. I'm not sure if the article you linked to is specifically in regards to a specific proposal in LA - I agree with its conclusions, but I don't think you can take a "tolls don't hurt the poor" conclusion from it. Heck, the very bottom of the article literally admits "Tolls may disproportionately burden the poor". Specifically, the UCLA graphic claims (IMO correctly) "tolling hurts less than a commensurate sales tax increase". This is absolutely correct - sales taxes are regressive and tend to impact low-income people much more than wealthy people. Tolling is the lesser of two evils here, but we can and should do better than just those two options. There are more ways to fund transport infrastructure than just tolls and sales taxes - property and income taxes, for one, which are progressive and do not have the disproportionate impact on low-income people. Property taxes in particular help the government realize the gains produced by infrastructure investment - a new transit center leads to rising property values, leading to more revenue that can be used to maintain or expand said infrastructure. In any case, I'm actually for tolling, but only if reasonable alternative modes are already in place. Unfortunately this means I'm against tolling in (most) parts of the US, because frankly alternative modes are either non-existent or so marginal that they are not reasonable fallbacks to driving.