Things like Uber will also help. They just launched in the north shore, so you can do the mass-transit that is 90% of the journey on the T and get the final 10% to your specific place relatively cheaply. Eventually, technology will mix and it will be even more seemless and easier then driving. Not every trip will be replaced, but the big hub ones should.
Is parking too cheap?
- Thread starter czsz
- Start date
Things like Uber will also help. They just launched in the north shore, so you can do the mass-transit that is 90% of the journey on the T and get the final 10% to your specific place relatively cheaply. Eventually, technology will mix and it will be even more seemless and easier then driving. Not every trip will be replaced, but the big hub ones should.
Speaking of the gas tax indexing -- it's on the ballot this year, remind all your friends and family that if the indexing is repealed then we lose the equivalent of the money to replace Red/Orange line cars. And it's really only a matter of pennies per gallon.
Gas tax, even with the recent hike, is so small as be barely noticeable really. Prices went down since it was passed, IIRC. And the Feds haven't done their part yet.
The market price of oil is what's going to go up, but not necessarily because it's running out (not yet) but because of increased competition from around the world. China's mass motorization, in particular, has only really taken off in the last decade or so and we haven't yet seen how high the price will be once the USA goes on another economic boom.
Speaking of Uber, I see it (and similar apps) as a sneak peak of what driverless cars might be like. It's currently somewhat expensive (well, UberX is pretty cheap compared to taxicabs) but if automation takes over ... that price is going to drop a lot. It will be quite a bit cheaper to use the app instead of going through the trouble of owning a car. It already is ... for some people.
Gas tax, even with the recent hike, is so small as be barely noticeable really. Prices went down since it was passed, IIRC. And the Feds haven't done their part yet.
The market price of oil is what's going to go up, but not necessarily because it's running out (not yet) but because of increased competition from around the world. China's mass motorization, in particular, has only really taken off in the last decade or so and we haven't yet seen how high the price will be once the USA goes on another economic boom.
Speaking of Uber, I see it (and similar apps) as a sneak peak of what driverless cars might be like. It's currently somewhat expensive (well, UberX is pretty cheap compared to taxicabs) but if automation takes over ... that price is going to drop a lot. It will be quite a bit cheaper to use the app instead of going through the trouble of owning a car. It already is ... for some people.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
I'm not even going to try to get in between you two, but ideally you're both right. In a holistic, mile-high view of a transport network, transit will carry the majority of trips in an urban area to enable more compact and efficient development while that 33% of trips - which include freight and parcel vehicles - are able to use the non-transit dedicated road space and parking/dedicated loading zones to conduct their business.
That's really what this discussion boils down to: using data and theory on human behaviours and known externalities to improve the transport network from a holistic perspective to better balance bottlenecks or inefficiencies introduced from prior myopic, mode-specific decisions.
Also, mark your calendars, because Mr. Shoup will be in town for MAPC's 2014 Parking Conference.
Also, a point of facts that I think are exceedingly relevant to this discussion:
- car registrations have dropped by ~14%/50,000 cars in the last 5 years
- population has increased by ~4.8%/30,000 people from 2000-2010 and increased by ~3%/19,000 people from 2010-2012 alone
- the USDOT is HORRIBLE at predicting travel volume trends and this is what most states and agencies use to justify construction of road works and parking volumes
Vehicle miles traveled in trillions as tracked by FHWA’s Travel Volume Trends, compared to projections from the U.S. DOT "Conditions and Performance Report to Congress."
Looks a lot as if the elasticity of driving has finally met the reality of high fuel prices
Add on the basically crappy economy for the past 7 or so years and I'd say -- you can not independently draw any conclusions about American's love of driving
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Au Contraire DigiSG -- assuming the EPA doesn't put a stopper to it -- the same Hydraulic Fracturing aka Fracking which has lifted the US to global leading producer of Natural Gas will by about 2025 make the US, Canada and Mexico into a global oil production regional leader
At some point, the speculative bonus for Middle East Instability will begin to fade away along with OPEC -- the price of oil will then fall to about 1/2 what it has been recently
Unfortunately my views is voting for repealing automatic tying gas tax to inflation. Taxes should get reviewed and used as needed. This includes the gas tax, they should have raised it more than 3 cents and then raise it again when it becomes needed again.
Yes, this should include other forms of taxes too. But asking to figure out a fair and sustainable tax system in entirety is insanely difficult and not on the table. The question is should gas tax be automatically raised or raised when needed. Despite the legislature ineptness, I want government to raise the money for needed projects, not just have the money and return the money when they don't need it - because they mostly won't.
I put it like this. One time I discussed with my boss about the spending of really expensive office chairs. There wasn't really a need for it. Why did we spent it? Because if they don't, they will cut the budget for next year seeing we didn't need that much. I'm pretty sure that's what would happen with a gas tax tied to inflation. On years they won't need it, they will find ways to spend it. I rather have the legislature be in the position to re-raise when needed than reduce when not needed.
Now, maybe keeping the tying to inflation would mean we would see less calls for more money because they need it for the Red and Orange Line cars. That when funded, we just never think about when things works. Maybe. But I'm leaning either scenario would mean they are going to scream we need money for ______ project no matter tied to inflation or not. It will just become a new normal and thus will need more for future projects.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
^ It should be indexed to inflation as a matter of course, and also reviewed periodically whether the tax rate should increase/decrease separately from inflation.
Unless the periodic review is someone structurally mandated. And the review can structurally be set up that the reviewer would review unbiasedly. I view inflation as a way to force them to review.
Putting a clause to say they have to review if they need the money or not ever 10 years would just be a rubber stamp to keep it. Because like the story I said above: office chairs.
Putting a clause to say they have to review if they need the money or not ever 10 years would just be a rubber stamp to keep it. Because like the story I said above: office chairs.
Disagree, the past 20 years shows that the Commonwealth can't be motivated to do the right thing and keep the excise tax on par with inflation.
Over that twenty year span, the gas tax lost over a third of its purchasing power. Is it any wonder we're in perpetual crisis nowadays when a funding source like that is only worth 66% of what it used to be?
Actually, it might just be easiest if gas was moved to a percentage-based tax instead of a flat value in cents per gallon. Maybe just eliminate the gas excise tax and re-institute the sales tax on gasoline. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
Over that twenty year span, the gas tax lost over a third of its purchasing power. Is it any wonder we're in perpetual crisis nowadays when a funding source like that is only worth 66% of what it used to be?
Actually, it might just be easiest if gas was moved to a percentage-based tax instead of a flat value in cents per gallon. Maybe just eliminate the gas excise tax and re-institute the sales tax on gasoline. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Again, it should be both. It needs to be indexed to inflation so that the initial revenue raised remains the same when accounting for inflation, rather than falling behind, and the rate itself should come up for review every 'x' years.
So you expect the Commonwealth to do the right thing in using the gas tax properly when guaranteed versus when it was not?
Meanwhile, when you look at the budget as a whole, since 2001, the budget has grown from $23b to $39b (massbudget.org). If we use CPI to adjust inflation, it is still equivalent to going $32b to $39b. That gas tax have lost a third of its value, but the state did have gain a hole from that decline.
The loss of value of the gas tax makes a good argument that our transit woes is because of that. But I see too much conflation of that legislature doesn't prioritize to earmark the necessary funds.
I would like to believe tying the gas tax to inflation and heck, for the sake of argument, add more on top would end the perpetual crisis. Say yes to this and soon we'll get GLX, BLX, new trains (and not lemons), some reworked intersections, and whatever project we never seem to be able to fund. That we can start taking for granted of things working. But I suspect even with the funding - even with more funding, we'll still be in crisis.
But you know what I really think would fix this transit crisis realistically? What make the constant crisis narrative go way? Hope and pray we get the Olympics. Because I'm too skeptical of any other way. My last hope was when seeing a Democrat replace a Republican with our supermajority legislature. Aside from Davey's efforts making the best of the little things, the big things have only gotten worse.
And again, while this is not in the cards we can vote on, how we do set up a structure that would get to review every 'x' years? And review it honestly?
Again, "office chairs". The department itself would be incentive to spend to keep justifying its budget and thus rate of tax. Heck, one can easily see spending that way on unnecessary stuff and keep the necessary projects in perpetual crisis to need more money.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
I agree with you, but the way you state it sounds a little funny. Gas (and all energy/fuel) taxes fundamentally must be levied differently from other taxes.
What you describe as desirable is how most taxes work. Income taxes and sales taxes are naturally indexed to inflation by taxing a rate (percentage) of a value which follows inflation by definition (prices and wages). The tax rates get adjusted on a generational timescale.
Gas taxes are different because gas (and all energy energy sources) is not subject to normal inflation. The price of gas fluctuates rapidly in both directions and is set by global supply and demand for the commodity while the rents and wages for the petroleum industry is more or less set by inflation. That is why the gas tax is a fixed amount per gallon rather than a percentage of the price - only a portion of the price is subject to normal inflation. You can't see your tax revenues plummet just because the Saudis opened up the spigot, right?
The rub is, the things the gas tax pays for like road maintenance are more or less subject to normal inflation. That is why the gas tax amount should at least be indexed with inflation. If they were really smart, the gas tax levied by the state would be indexed with the cost of road maintenance and road building in the state, which may exceed or lag inflation. Since there are many factors that effect how much the state actually spends on roads, the inflation rate gives a safe cushion for annual increases in the tax, while on a longer term scale they need to periodically evaluate the tax and make gross changes.
Yes, indexing gas tax on yearly rise and fall of costs to things the money goes to is more fair than just tying just to inflation. It would incentivize them to spend more on building or maintaining infrastructure to keep the budget up, but that might be a good thing.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
^ Thanks for a more articulate explanation. I agree.
Commuting Boston Student
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 1
The gas tax is actually the worst possible mechanism for funding anything other than driving.
You see, gas tax revenue goes down as fewer people drive. This means that when you're like Rhode Island and you fund your mass transit network out of the gas tax, your mass transit will be punished for doing its job and taking cars off the road through decreased revenue.
Instead of chasing gas tax revenue to fund anything other than roads, we should be relying on stable sources of funding that won't go down if transit use goes up.
You know, like land taxes.
You see, gas tax revenue goes down as fewer people drive. This means that when you're like Rhode Island and you fund your mass transit network out of the gas tax, your mass transit will be punished for doing its job and taking cars off the road through decreased revenue.
Instead of chasing gas tax revenue to fund anything other than roads, we should be relying on stable sources of funding that won't go down if transit use goes up.
You know, like land taxes.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
+1
It's one of the better tax reform ideas out there that's never discussed.
It's one of the better tax reform ideas out there that's never discussed.
High fuel prices and the bad economy are two big drivers of this nationally. Walmart has suffered and Dollar Stores have benefitted from this trend because consumers simply can't afford to get to the nearest Walmart.
Locally-- state deregulation of the insurance market made it much more expensive to insure a car registered in/around boston. I got into a very minor accident with someone that lives in Somerville but has their car registered in Burlington at their parents house.
Plenty of other people that move here from out of state never legally register their cars here because of the cost. They have off-street parking, so they never get tickets anyways-- just take a walk through any off-street lot and at least 10% of the cars won't even have Mass plates. It's that way with the overnight parkers at my parking garage at work, my parking lot at home, and any parking lot.
As it's already been pointed out, the economy sucks. When I was in HS 10 years ago, gas was $1.50 and it was possible to get a used car for $500. The going wage was $8-$10 for a grocery store kind of job. Now? That beater of a car costs $2,500 and gas is $3.50. The amount of time required to work to get a functioning car drive/maintain it is significantly higher than it used to be-- while low-skill wages have stagnated and teenage unemployment is at an all time high.
And-- student loan debt has prevented young adults from ever getting to the point of being able to move out of an apartment which has the effect of restricting supply and pushing prices up in the Boston area.
Bonus chart on used car pricing going back to 2009.
http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/
You know, there has been a lot of articles about Millenials not buying cars. The speculation goes all over the places. Including changing values or "not find cars cool" or etc. Buy one thing that is pretty hard to ignore. Is a lot of us are in debt, a lot in debt. If many of us have 10k or more in loans while the last generation didn't. Yeah, it does make sense that it mean some of us are not buying cars. As much as some places like to think we just have different values, it hard to ignore that math have to be forcing some people's hand.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
^ True, but economics can do a lot to change people's values too.