6 ms·

A number of the comments confuse removing artificial subsidies of driving with applying artificial fees to driving. These are existing artificial subsidies, wh

by Empact 16y ago

A number of the comments confuse removing artificial subsidies of driving with applying artificial fees to driving. These are existing artificial subsidies, which force non-drivers and marginal drivers to pay heavy costs on behalf of drivers: * Drivers don't directly pay for the full cost of roads, e.g. through a gas tax * Minimum parking mandates force non-drivers to include parking for their home * On-street parking is often far cheaper than the market would demand You could ask, what's the problem with these subsidies? They change behavior in a systematic way which leads to bad results (sprawl & congestion). For example, for someone who has access to public transit, the mandatory construction of a personal garage via minimum parking requirements becomes a sunk cost, which I don't have to consider between the two options, whereas a market decision would include that substantial cost in the calculation. You could address the bulk of Cowen & Shoup's points by simply: * Raising the gas tax to cover the cost of road construction and maintenance * Removing the mandatory minimums on parking spaces for new developments * Charging closer to market value for existing meter parking These measures aren't social engineering - they're in support of the idea that the real costs of driving ought to be borne by the driver themselves, and that non-drivers should be unburdened by the imposition of driving costs.

hugh3 16y ago
Drivers don't directly pay for the full cost of roads, e.g. through a gas tax We already pay gas taxes, and car registration fees, and license fees. I'd be interested to hear how the road construction budget compares to the amount of money brought in by these. they're in support of the idea that the real costs of driving ought to be borne by the driver themselves, and that non-drivers should be unburdened by the imposition of driving costs I'm okay with that, as long as we also support the idea that the cost of public schools should be supported entirely by those who send their children to public schools, and the cost of Medicaid is supported entirely by those who benefit from Medicaid. But it seems that social engineers only ever want to implement user-pays solutions for things that rich people use. They think that the costs of services used by rich people should be borne by rich people, and the costs of services used by poor people should also be borne by rich people.
- Empact 16y ago
  > I'd be interested to hear how the road construction budget compares to the amount of money brought in by these. The best I can do to answer that is to point you to a study by the Texas DOT (the original page is down, but it's cited widely, e.g.: http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/Home/17093 http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/Home/17093): > Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon. > This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less. --- > I'm okay with that, as long as we also support the idea that the cost of public schools should be supported entirely by those who send their children to public schools, and the cost of Medicaid is supported entirely by those who benefit from Medicaid. Is the dividing line between drivers and non-drivers really the rich vs. the poor? I bought my first car at 17 for $4k. Plenty of folks of all income levels drive. The problem doesn't have to do with who uses the roads but the fact that the subsidies distort their decision-making such that they use the roads even which it doesn't make economic sense to use them. In a regular, market-based transportation system, you'd use whichever mode fit the circumstances. For example, rather than driving your single-occupant vehicle 3 hours down a crowded (but free!) highway to a neighboring city, you might instead take an inter-city bus or train and then rent a car or use transit at your destination. But only if the actual cost of your share of the roads' cost (collected via electronic tolls and gas taxes) led you to do so. By using markets to inform decisions, like in the case above, we can make more efficient use of our available space & infrastructure and reduce time and fuel wasted in traffic, for example. I want drivers to bear the cost of their infrastructure, just as I want riders of buses, trains and airplanes to do the same. Because when we subsidize any of these, we distort decisions and lead people to over-invest, over-allocate in that direction.

by Empact 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

Drivers don't directly pay for the full cost of roads, e.g. through a gas tax We already pay gas taxes, and car registration fees, and license fees. I'd be interested to hear how the road construction budget compares to the amount of money brought in by these. they're in support of the idea that the real costs of driving ought to be borne by the driver themselves, and that non-drivers should be unburdened by the imposition of driving costs I'm okay with that, as long as we also support the idea that the cost of public schools should be supported entirely by those who send their children to public schools, and the cost of Medicaid is supported entirely by those who benefit from Medicaid. But it seems that social engineers only ever want to implement user-pays solutions for things that rich people use. They think that the costs of services used by rich people should be borne by rich people, and the costs of services used by poor people should also be borne by rich people.

Empact 16y ago
> I'd be interested to hear how the road construction budget compares to the amount of money brought in by these. The best I can do to answer that is to point you to a study by the Texas DOT (the original page is down, but it's cited widely, e.g.: http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/Home/17093 http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/Home/17093): > Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon. > This is just one example, but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less. --- > I'm okay with that, as long as we also support the idea that the cost of public schools should be supported entirely by those who send their children to public schools, and the cost of Medicaid is supported entirely by those who benefit from Medicaid. Is the dividing line between drivers and non-drivers really the rich vs. the poor? I bought my first car at 17 for $4k. Plenty of folks of all income levels drive. The problem doesn't have to do with who uses the roads but the fact that the subsidies distort their decision-making such that they use the roads even which it doesn't make economic sense to use them. In a regular, market-based transportation system, you'd use whichever mode fit the circumstances. For example, rather than driving your single-occupant vehicle 3 hours down a crowded (but free!) highway to a neighboring city, you might instead take an inter-city bus or train and then rent a car or use transit at your destination. But only if the actual cost of your share of the roads' cost (collected via electronic tolls and gas taxes) led you to do so. By using markets to inform decisions, like in the case above, we can make more efficient use of our available space & infrastructure and reduce time and fuel wasted in traffic, for example. I want drivers to bear the cost of their infrastructure, just as I want riders of buses, trains and airplanes to do the same. Because when we subsidize any of these, we distort decisions and lead people to over-invest, over-allocate in that direction.