3 ms·

Cool, cool, as long as we're moving to user fees for everything, let's also have that apply to roadways which are not remotely covered by the gas tax.

sbov 9y ago
At least on the federal level, considering the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, it does a pretty good job at covering the costs of roads. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/
- peatmoss 9y ago
  That link is only showing the state of the gas tax fund, and shows none of the transfers from the general fund to prop up shortfalls. Second, local roads (i.e. the majority) are mostly funded through the general fund of municipalities. Here's an overview of how laughably short gas taxes fall when it comes to paying for the roads: http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
alexanderstears 9y ago
I agree that road users should pay for the roads but fuel tax isn't the right way to do it. First, bicyclists make use of the roads so there should be a congestion free. Second, diesel taxes are aimed at trucks but also ensnare diesel cars which don't wear the road more than an equivalent passenger car so we need a vehicle specific paradigm. This is probably the appropriate way to price in scarcity - most motorcycles consume more fuel than most hybrids but motorcycles should wear the road less.
- peatmoss 9y ago
  Oh yes, totally, the fuel tax is the wrong mechanism. I also agree that congestion is the key. Congestion isn't a constant throughout the day, yet fuel taxes are. If we want to maximize our investment in all those roads, we should have higher pricing when that resource is most scarce. At present, bicyclists mostly represent a mode shift away from driving, which represents a net mobility increase for a given congestion equilibrium. I suppose at some point we could have so much mobility being provided by bicycles that we experience significant congestion (I say we, as in the USA, as opposed to places like Amsterdam that have the lovely problem of bicycle congestion today). That said, I'm not sure I'd ever be a huge fan of pricing bicycle travel the same way I'd price car travel. I guess I'd argue that bicycling is something between a really, really low cost means of providing mobility that benefits society as a whole, and a straight-up virtue good. I'd call bicycling a virtue good in that, the more of it a bicyclist does, the better their health, which has even more positive externalities for society as a whole.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    >At present, bicyclists mostly represent a mode shift away from driving, which represents a net mobility increase for a given congestion equilibrium. I challenge that, bicyclists who do things like run red lights seem to increase congestion.
    - photojosh 9y ago
      Are you seriously arguing that people switching from driving to cycling increases congestion? In the face of every bit of research, ever? Although, once I got past face-palming, I could read your comment as charitably as possible and interpret that what you're saying is "bicyclists who do things like run red lights seem to increase congestion [over bicyclists who don't.]", but I think that's a stretch. I did find one counter-point, this study [0], but it's key to note that it's a simulation for a non-existent scenario, and IMHO it would be stupid to have a 10% proportion of bicycles and not have appropriate infrastructure. [0]: http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/real-talk-bikes-cant-reduce-congestion-without-bike-lanes/ http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/real-talk-bikes-cant-reduce-c...

sbov 9y ago

At least on the federal level, considering the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993, it does a pretty good job at covering the costs of roads. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/

peatmoss 9y ago
That link is only showing the state of the gas tax fund, and shows none of the transfers from the general fund to prop up shortfalls. Second, local roads (i.e. the majority) are mostly funded through the general fund of municipalities. Here's an overview of how laughably short gas taxes fall when it comes to paying for the roads: http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

alexanderstears 9y ago

I agree that road users should pay for the roads but fuel tax isn't the right way to do it. First, bicyclists make use of the roads so there should be a congestion free. Second, diesel taxes are aimed at trucks but also ensnare diesel cars which don't wear the road more than an equivalent passenger car so we need a vehicle specific paradigm. This is probably the appropriate way to price in scarcity - most motorcycles consume more fuel than most hybrids but motorcycles should wear the road less.

peatmoss 9y ago
Oh yes, totally, the fuel tax is the wrong mechanism. I also agree that congestion is the key. Congestion isn't a constant throughout the day, yet fuel taxes are. If we want to maximize our investment in all those roads, we should have higher pricing when that resource is most scarce. At present, bicyclists mostly represent a mode shift away from driving, which represents a net mobility increase for a given congestion equilibrium. I suppose at some point we could have so much mobility being provided by bicycles that we experience significant congestion (I say we, as in the USA, as opposed to places like Amsterdam that have the lovely problem of bicycle congestion today). That said, I'm not sure I'd ever be a huge fan of pricing bicycle travel the same way I'd price car travel. I guess I'd argue that bicycling is something between a really, really low cost means of providing mobility that benefits society as a whole, and a straight-up virtue good. I'd call bicycling a virtue good in that, the more of it a bicyclist does, the better their health, which has even more positive externalities for society as a whole.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  >At present, bicyclists mostly represent a mode shift away from driving, which represents a net mobility increase for a given congestion equilibrium. I challenge that, bicyclists who do things like run red lights seem to increase congestion.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    Are you seriously arguing that people switching from driving to cycling increases congestion? In the face of every bit of research, ever? Although, once I got past face-palming, I could read your comment as charitably as possible and interpret that what you're saying is "bicyclists who do things like run red lights seem to increase congestion [over bicyclists who don't.]", but I think that's a stretch. I did find one counter-point, this study [0], but it's key to note that it's a simulation for a non-existent scenario, and IMHO it would be stupid to have a 10% proportion of bicycles and not have appropriate infrastructure. [0]: http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/real-talk-bikes-cant-reduce-congestion-without-bike-lanes/ http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/real-talk-bikes-cant-reduce-c...