San Francisco Bay Area considering Vehicle Miles Traveled tax

[DismalScientist]

@mstone 26139 wrote:

Well, what I wrote above is that I’d be perfectly happy if gas tax proceeds were used only for cars and not “bike paths” and other “waste” that makes the tea party froth, as long as only the gas tax were used for cars and we can have all the general fund money currently spent on subsidizing cars. If some wacko wants to start ranting about “their” tax money, see their crazy and double down.

Why should “we” have all the general fund money currently spent on subsidizing cars? Hate to tell you, but active cyclists constitute a lot smaller percentage of the population than auto drivers.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 26164 wrote:

Why should “we” have all the general fund money currently spent on subsidizing cars? Hate to tell you, but active cyclists constitute a lot smaller percentage of the population than auto drivers.

1) Chicken and egg.
2) Why should I have to justify being greedy if the other side doesn’t?

[dasgeh]

@mstone 26139 wrote:

If some wacko wants to start ranting about “their” tax money, see their crazy and double down.

Or don’t take the bait and point out that the efficiency of the road system is impacted by far more than the amount and quality of pavement. Good governance looks at “transportation”, i.e. enabling people to move around where they need to go, as a whole. People don’t drive to drive; they drive to get somewhere. In other words, it’s not about the driving, it’s about getting people where they need/want to go comfortably. Cars are great for some trips, but bikes are better for others, trains are better for a different set, planes are better for a different set, etc, etc.

Good governance focuses on developing the systems that provide efficient services to all users, and spreads costs fairly. For certain things, the market does a great job of providing that efficient service at fair cost, and government’s role should be getting out of the market’s way. Transportation is pretty much the opposite of that. Hence why pretty much ALL transportation infrastructure EVERYWHERE in the world are public (toll roads are a drop in the bucket to total transportation infrastructure, and even they are often subsidized by public capital).

[mstone]

Yeah, haters don’t want to hear all that.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 26180 wrote:

Or don’t take the bait and point out that the efficiency of the road system is impacted by far more than the amount and quality of pavement. Good governance looks at “transportation”, i.e. enabling people to move around where they need to go, as a whole. People don’t drive to drive; they drive to get somewhere. In other words, it’s not about the driving, it’s about getting people where they need/want to go comfortably. Cars are great for some trips, but bikes are better for others, trains are better for a different set, planes are better for a different set, etc, etc.

Good governance focuses on developing the systems that provide efficient services to all users, and spreads costs fairly. For certain things, the market does a great job of providing that efficient service at fair cost, and government’s role should be getting out of the market’s way. Transportation is pretty much the opposite of that. Hence why pretty much ALL transportation infrastructure EVERYWHERE in the world are public (toll roads are a drop in the bucket to total transportation infrastructure, and even they are often subsidized by public capital).

An argument that transportation networks, including roads, are a public good, essentially argues that “drivers should be subsidized.” The problem is that everybody uses transportation systems so everyone subsidizes everyone. How much is allocated to roads, bike paths, railroads, airports and mass transit systems becomes a political issue. In a democracy, the greatest subsidy will likely go to the people with the greatest numbers and political power. Don’t be too surprised by the outcome.

[Author]

Posts