Driving Takes Its Toll

NY Times ^ | September 4, 2004 | By OWEN D. GUTFREUND

[Maria S]

"Instead of letting drivers onto our expensive, world-class highway system free, we should charge a fair price by imposing more and higher tolls, and raising gas taxes much higher, permanently."

How's about if we try drilling in Alaska first?

[Lessismore]

How does that relate to funding the cost of road building and maintenance?

[starfish923]

It will all be moot in another 200 years. The last drop of oil (which the Saudis will have) will be gone.

Then, it's on to coal.

The two countries sitting on all the coal?

1. Russia
2. U.S.A.

Until then, we punt and pay.

[Thommas]

we should charge a fair price...

Anytime a writer uses the hoary phrases "fair share," "fair price," "fair burden," etc., its time to hold onto your wallet and check the Marxist credentials of the author...

[Leisler]

As usual with leftist, they lie. He left out the taxes paid by truckers and commercial users. Further, the highways system is partly military, as a network of internal lines of communications. Further no credit is given to the highways in savings of lives and injury, dropping the cost of good and services which would have to be paid or cost more with out them and thus those savings should be attributed to the road system. Typical.

[Kackikat]

Suspicious and unproven.

[billorites]

"check the Marxist credentials of the author..."

I know this guy casually.

His Marxist credentials are impeccable.

[Who dat?]

The Interstate legislation, as enacted in 1956…

Well, it’s probably nitpicking on my part, but I recall it was “The Interstate and Defense Highway Act” or something along those lines.

Not just for John Doe to cruise along for vacationing purposes, but a comprehensive interconnected highway system for transporting troops and equipment, should the need arise.

The states essentially gave up the right-of-way and the feds were to maintain them. No possibility for the state to collect tolls on the interstate system. That’s how it was intended and proposed, as I recall it.

[FreedomPoster]

Another item to add to your list: When it comes to maintenance, commercial trucks cause most of the damage to roadways. Autos and SUVs just don't create much wear and tear. If we want to to create a pay-as-you-go system, this needs to be factored into the equation.

[Lessismore]

The two countries sitting on all the coal?

No, I think that the two countries with the largest coal reserves are the US and China.

[Lessismore]

Further no credit is given to the highways in savings of lives and injury, dropping the cost of good and services which would have to be paid or cost more with out them and thus those savings should be attributed to the road system.

Why would those benefits not also happen for a system where the users paid for the cost of the roads directly through, instead of through taxes?

Is their some particular advantage to taxing the public and government spending on roads?

[Lessismore]

I recall it was “The Interstate and Defense Highway Act” or something along those lines.

True, but was that anything other than the usual political ploy to associate pork barrel spending with a popular cause?

Large numbers of troops and heavy military equipment can be moved by rail, and were during World War II.

An actual invasion of the US by land forces was implausible, given the nuclear arsenal available. Following a nuclear exchange, the system would likely be unusable anyway.

[Pete'sWife]

Owen D. Gutfreund, the author of "20th-Century Sprawl: Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape," is a professor of history and urban studies at Barnard College.

...says it all.

[Psycho_Bunny]

This author is a Idiot, First Class with a Pinhead Cluster.

[Leisler]

Why would those benefits not also happen

The physical benefits happen, more or less, regardless of the method of pay for the roads. In fairness to the highways, the writer failed to full account. Regardless of subject, I just hate it when fair and full accounting of costs and benefits are manipulated for persuasive purposes.

To get even deeper into the 'costs' of these roads is to not so much look at the tax/income finance side as the cost side. Hack politicians with their pay off construction buddies and over priced under performing union workers. Let's accept the notion that only 30 percent of the road cost are covered by user fees. How much do you think the roads are over priced? For instance the Big Dig in Boston started at under 3 billion dollars. Now it is near 15 billion, and falling apart.

Government, the high cost, low quality provider.

Anyways, the core of this article is about how we must pay more, no matter how it is wasted. Not buying it. Let the roads collapse.

"Is their some particular advantage to taxing the public and government spending on roads?"

That is a matter of finance, and not so much cost, although finance cost can exceed the origional cost of anything. One other 'hole' in the authors statement, even if only 30% of the highways is paid for, they are still in use, so he should of factored in the amount of gas tax money that will be taken in over the life time of these roads. Seeing how Roman roads are still used in Italy today, I think the government will get it's money back.

[hripka]

What would work better than putting toll booths up everywhere, would be a tax on IMPORTED oil. That would discourage imports and encourage domestic production.

[starfish923]

What would work better than putting toll booths up everywhere, would be a tax on IMPORTED oil. That would discourage imports and encourage domestic production.

Interesting idea.
Oil isn't really the problem these days. Refineries are.
All the refinieries in the world are working at 100% capacity. There's rarely enough consistent maintenance. Also, refineries are extremely dangerous and blow up on ocassion, even in the safest, most safety conscious refineries.
Bottom line: no one wants to build new ones here. Last new one built, I understand, was 25 years ago. NIMBY. And I can't say that I blame folks.

That leaves FOREIGN refineries. Who elese will build them? WE won't. So, not only is some of our oil foreign, but some of that refining of oil (ours OR theirs) is done in foreign countries.
It's a volatile business making all the different fuels: propane, butane, jet fuel, petroleum products for the megahuge cosmetic business, plastics, etc.

To carry your proposal even farther, we would have to tax ALL petroleum products refined abroad. That would include even the plastic wrapper on your DVD's.

That would co$t. Are Americans willing to pay even more for everything from petroleum products, just because...well, you get my drift.

[RonHolzwarth]

When it comes to maintenance, commercial trucks cause most of the damage to roadways. ,,,If we want to to create a pay-as-you-go system, this needs to be factored into the equation.

The above is true. However, since just about all of the cargo that commercial trucks transport ultimately end up as consumer goods anyway, every American that buys food or any other item is going to pay anyway, except for some items that are transported long haul by rail, and then delivered locally by truck.

I think it is rather obvious that tolls are a rather expensive way to collect funds, at least using today's technology.

So, it is my opinion that the Europeans do have at least one good idea:

Collect the cost of the roads at the fuel pump.

There is another benefit also, that is very unpopular here in America. Since the fuel taxes are so high, the automobiles that most Europeans purchase are extremely fuel efficient. And also, travel by train is very common there, because it is so much cheaper.

[RonHolzwarth]

Germany managed to convert coal to a workable diesel fuel to fight World War II in the 1940s. Has this technology been lost?

And, biofuels are a definite possibility in the future.