- Nov 5, 2013
- Reaction score
OK, so, just to be clear: The argument here is that you think it makes more sense to have the legislature revisit and vote on this annually (along with all the political fun this entails) rather than have the tax simply keep pace with the actual value of money? Is that correct? We're all on the same page?
It's not about the principle of ensuring that the people's representatives have to vote on tax increases. I'd buy that, if that's what chained-CPI actually was. It's not. It's a maintenance of tax levels to adjust to inflation so that taxes stay constant. Not chaining taxes to inflation means that any year where there's inflation, there's a relative tax cut, and any year there's deflation there's a relative tax hike. Nothing principled about that.Yes, the principle of a representative republic is more important than a few potholes.
Not really, it's a demonstrable fact that voters often vote for counter-productive or downright contradictory policies. Doesn't matter if you're on the outs or not. I said the same thing when my political preferences were in power as I do now.The battlecry of the self-perpetuatingly electorally disadvantaged.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard of how dynamic metering has worked out where it has been deployed? Haven't heard or seen any data really on it.Some alternatives to congestion charging, without going back to the gas tax discussion:
- Dynamic market-rate street meter parking 24/7
I like the first two ideas (though, I think there should just be higher meter rates). I do think 93 should be tolled first, though.Some alternatives to congestion charging, without going back to the gas tax discussion:
- Dynamic market-rate street meter parking 24/7
- Commercial property "parking space excise tax" based on distance to transit - the more parking spots you maintain AND the closer to rapid transit you are, the higher an excise tax you pay
- Targeted tolls for targeted improvements - for example, don't necessarily toll 93 into the city but DO toll the Greenway - and use proceeds to fund a surface-level trolley.
Interesting. Most people are aware of legislative gridlock and representatives who are exponentially more concerned with reelection than with governing, but it is rare to find someone who is in favor of such a mess.Yes. See, the 'political fun' that the process entails is the entire point of the system: if elected leaders do things that voters don't like, they get punished. The elected leaders know this, and the voters know it, too. Its a wonderful check and balance that doesn't need any long dissertations on the nature of a bicameral system or federalism or super-majorities or filibusters or anything like that.
In short, the tedium of having to jump through hoops in order to get stuff done is a feature, not a bug.
except gas prices fluctuate wildly, so you can't rely on a percentage. Setting it to automatically rise with inflation solved the issue of the gas tax not keeping up with inflation.Then change the gas tax to x%, not x cents per gallon. Solves your inflation issue and solves the issue that legislators actually vote to increase the tax.
If you think people had a problem with indexing it to inflation, they'll lose their shit over a mileage tax.Would have been nice if the legislature simply voted for a gas tax increase after the inflation measure was shot down, but they are a bit chicken shit so there is some truth to the argument that tying it to inflation was the easy way out for them.
In either case, I can't believe there has been this long discussion on gas tax and nobody has made the simple statement that a gas tax is antiquated and won't be able to fund transportation for much longer as we move to more and more effecient/electric vehicles. So why are we/they even worrying about future gas taxes?
VMT tax is the only way forward.
What I object to on the mileage tax is the version with unnecessary GPS tracking of everyone to figure it all out.If you think people had a problem with indexing it to inflation, they'll lose their shit over a mileage tax.
So when you ask yourself: who'd pay that congestion charge, the answer is somebody who had a special reason for being in the city, and for whom punctuality (and uncongested streets) really matter.The average user is younger than 45 and has a household income of less than $100,000 a year,...
The exit lanes on the right make it look wider than its usual 2HOT + 4.I'm cringing at the number of lanes visible in the headline picture..
The economics are basically identical (the only difference you describe is that HOT lanes are physically new/added, while congestion charges happen to apply to existing lanes (that happen to be in a grid zone, rather than linear)There is a big difference between Lexus lanes and congestion charging.
Congestion charging is based on bringing the car into gridlocked/congested areas of a city at certain times of day, a Lexus lane is a completely different road that is dedicated to keeping the riff raf out so that people that have more money and a reason to get someplace faster can avoid suffering with the wee little people.
The fallacy with paid express lanes is that they don't negatively impact everyone else. But the truth is that they take up resources (at the very least space but also transportation planning time and money) that could otherwise be spent making transportation better for everyone.