6 ms·

I can't find that info about funding sources in the urban.org article, or what "sales tax" is generated from specifically. The article does say that HTF is not

I can't find that info about funding sources in the urban.org article, or what "sales tax" is generated from specifically. The article does say that HTF is not fully self-funded. If something comes from general revenues/tax, that means that all taxpayers are paying for it, whether or not they use a car. If this is in fact the case, I don't think it's a bad thing. The problem in that case comes from double standards, where the ground-level understanding of how society operates includes costs incurred by individuals/businesses which effectively disappear into a vacuum rather than being directly paid/passed onto customers, yet is used as evidence of the completely natural and inherent utility of cars over alternatives. For a different doc more directly about who pays for roads, I've found this one useful. Made by a so-so thinktank, but seems well-sourced and rigorous. https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for...

beerandt 7y ago
I don't know that I'd call it a double standard though- a far greater percentage of the population benefits from road transport than subway. Unless it's handheld and it fits in a bag, goods and services are almost exclusively delivered by road vehicle. And even if a messenger is using the subway to deliver a package, it most likely was on a truck at some point before that.
- gracenotes 7y ago
  I think we both agree that cars have some significant utility to them, although having utility doesn't mean that any amount of cost is acceptable. This is my problem with "cars pay for themselves, therefore other forms of transit should pay for themselves", which I have seen evidence against (see linked pdf) and nothing conclusively for. The meaningful discussion to have is what we want to support as a society, like your argument. Trucks on last mile delivery are invaluable for some deliveries, as you mention, but then... why else does any other vehicle need to use most streets? Is it reasonable for someone who orders a truck to pay 33% of the cost of that truck on the road? What about 0%, or 100%? Which is best? In cases where alternatives to trucks or cars are less costly overall in some situation, or additional efficiency can be achieved with batching, how much of that is ignored because of these accidentally created incentives? Not even mentioning the indirect cost to communities (walkability, clean air, autonomy of disabled people). I don't have the answers, but I think these are good questions to be asking. For the specifics of policies, we need to base that on data ofc.
  - Shivetya 7y ago
    Well one thing for sure, internet warriors are always willing to give up cars or have others give them up but the simple reality is that cars and access to them is a requirement for many even in the city environment. simply put, living in town is not financially or socially viable for many and the freedom afforded by auto ownership is not giving the value is vastly underestimated by those who would restrict their use by others. as with most lifestyle conversations it is far easier to score internet points with altruistic comments let alone being part of the clique. about as useful as hashtag diplomacy
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      That's a politically constructed reality, created over decades by deliberate lobbying and political leverage. It's not a simple reality at all.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        It’s not a “politically constructed reality.” It’s a reality constructed reality. Roads offer a relatively cheap and easy way of taking advantage of cheap, plentiful land in the US. There’s definitely subsidies we could get rid of (force property taxes to cover the costs of roads in the suburbs), but even if you did that I suspect most people would still opt to live in cheaper and bigger houses outside the city. (Especially if you got rid of corresponding subsidies in cities.)
        zaroth 7y ago
        > Force property taxes to cover the costs of roads in the suburbs That's what excise taxes are for. For example, in my town, we spend $1.2m on highway maintenance, and $450k in snow removal, while collecting $2.4m in vehicle excise taxes. There is also about $60k in fines income, but it doesn't break down exactly how much of that is vehicular.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    If roads were used ONLY for delivery trucks most would be dirt tracks: trucks would be 4 wheel drive with a winch on front. this would be cheaper than paving roads.

beerandt 7y ago

I don't know that I'd call it a double standard though- a far greater percentage of the population benefits from road transport than subway. Unless it's handheld and it fits in a bag, goods and services are almost exclusively delivered by road vehicle. And even if a messenger is using the subway to deliver a package, it most likely was on a truck at some point before that.

gracenotes 7y ago
I think we both agree that cars have some significant utility to them, although having utility doesn't mean that any amount of cost is acceptable. This is my problem with "cars pay for themselves, therefore other forms of transit should pay for themselves", which I have seen evidence against (see linked pdf) and nothing conclusively for. The meaningful discussion to have is what we want to support as a society, like your argument. Trucks on last mile delivery are invaluable for some deliveries, as you mention, but then... why else does any other vehicle need to use most streets? Is it reasonable for someone who orders a truck to pay 33% of the cost of that truck on the road? What about 0%, or 100%? Which is best? In cases where alternatives to trucks or cars are less costly overall in some situation, or additional efficiency can be achieved with batching, how much of that is ignored because of these accidentally created incentives? Not even mentioning the indirect cost to communities (walkability, clean air, autonomy of disabled people). I don't have the answers, but I think these are good questions to be asking. For the specifics of policies, we need to base that on data ofc.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  Well one thing for sure, internet warriors are always willing to give up cars or have others give them up but the simple reality is that cars and access to them is a requirement for many even in the city environment. simply put, living in town is not financially or socially viable for many and the freedom afforded by auto ownership is not giving the value is vastly underestimated by those who would restrict their use by others. as with most lifestyle conversations it is far easier to score internet points with altruistic comments let alone being part of the clique. about as useful as hashtag diplomacy
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    That's a politically constructed reality, created over decades by deliberate lobbying and political leverage. It's not a simple reality at all.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      It’s not a “politically constructed reality.” It’s a reality constructed reality. Roads offer a relatively cheap and easy way of taking advantage of cheap, plentiful land in the US. There’s definitely subsidies we could get rid of (force property taxes to cover the costs of roads in the suburbs), but even if you did that I suspect most people would still opt to live in cheaper and bigger houses outside the city. (Especially if you got rid of corresponding subsidies in cities.)
      - zaroth 7y ago
        > Force property taxes to cover the costs of roads in the suburbs That's what excise taxes are for. For example, in my town, we spend $1.2m on highway maintenance, and $450k in snow removal, while collecting $2.4m in vehicle excise taxes. There is also about $60k in fines income, but it doesn't break down exactly how much of that is vehicular.
- bluGill 7y ago
  If roads were used ONLY for delivery trucks most would be dirt tracks: trucks would be 4 wheel drive with a winch on front. this would be cheaper than paving roads.