Date:         Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:30:02 -0700
Reply-To:     Robert Fisher <refisher@MCHSI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Robert Fisher <refisher@MCHSI.COM>
Subject:      Re: tolls (was RE: I-90 Freeway help)
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=original

--snip--
>    Actually tolls are a reasonably fair way to pay for roads
> - those who use them pay for them.  As opposed to using general revenue or
> something, in which case people who don't use them still have to pay.
--snip--

I've always had an issue with this idea- everybody 'uses' the roads. I don't
care if you're stuck in an iron lung, you still use the roads in the sense
that all of those things and people that fill your needs and wants use the
roads. They used the roads to get your groceries to the store, they used the
roads to get them from the store to your house, they use the roads to get
your nurses and techs to you, they use the roads to get you to the hospital
when you need it, they used the roads to build your house, they used the
roads to bring your iron lung to your house... you get the point.

In that sense it's inequitable that drivers are primarily burdened with the
costs of maintaining roads via tolls and fuel taxes. I'd bet there are more
non-drivers than most of us would guess there are, particularly as the
population ages, and there are all kinds of activities in which the end user
benefits from the use of the roads whether they were involved with the
driving for that particular thing or not, and regardless of whether they
drive otherwise- one that comes to mind is all of the kids that live on or
near campus while in college and primarily walk to everything three-quarters
of the year. There's a whole microcosm of infrequent or non-drivers whose
activities are of course supported by others driving. Of course for
commercial driving the costs of being on the road are factored into the
costs of goods, so there is some downward distribution, but there's still
going to be a gap there for various reasons.

I was reading an article about how states are bracing for the loss of
revenue due to loss of fuel taxes from alternative energy/fuel vehicles,
reduction in driving habits due to high costs of fuel (which apparently
hasn't happened yet) and a whole list of other related issues. One of the
proposals that many of the states were considering was dropping the fuel tax
altogether and rolling it into the sales tax, the idea being that it would
more fairly spread the burden around and still guarantee revenue flow. They
seemed to figure it would equal out overall in economic terms after the
'sticker shock' effect was absorbed because the rather substantial fuel tax
would be gone. It seemed a little optimistic to me to assume that Joe's
Trucking was automatically going to drop their rates because they were
suddenly 'saving' the fifteen-cents-per-gallon from the repealed state fuel
taxes, but who knows.

This kind of goes along with the argument about 'free' radio and TV... which
are not only not free, but are in fact very much the opposite of free- but
that's a gripe for another day.

Cya,
Robert