The gas tax is inefficient

[phattonez]

To my knowledge most of the various cities in the LA area have high housing prices relative to most of the rest of the US, Do those cities (Fresno for instance) have the restictive zoning issues you mention or just the LA proper. I dont think the metro LA area has much in the restriction of subdivisions, given the amount of suburban sprawl that is metro LA


Either way, the only way housing prices in LA would be as high as they are is because people want to live in LA and are willing to pay high housing prices for it (ie demand)

Many people are moving out of the city because of those prices. Supply hasn't significantly increased for many, many years.

 

[drz-400]

The price of gold in a gold standard is a set number. In the US it was $35 USD per ounce of gold. The gold standard in the US was abandoned in the early 70s because of its large current account deficiet, which was draining the amount of gold the US held ( France being a specific requester of gold in exchange for US dollars). Countries were no longer willing to hold USD as there was to much of them, so they wanted US gold instead. The US would not have been able to purchase gold at $35 USD on the open market at the time and as such abandoned the gold standard

The US needed to revise its exchange rate, however we decided (thankfully) to adopt a floating exchange rate. However, we could have just devalued if we really wanted to keep a commodity backed money. The problem with fixed exchange rates is you have to change them. For a large economy like the US a fixed exchange rate is not practical.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Seriously, it does nothing to address peak usage or demand vs. supply. If you congestion price roads, you get people to use the freeway during off-peak hours more often and you'll know exactly where to build more. With a gas tax, what information do you get besides how far people are driving? Forget the gas tax, just use that to pay for streets. Congestion pricing (or some kind of variant such as adding on an emission fee) is much more efficient.

It infuriates me that this is a sacred cow in politics.

It's not a bad idea.

If high enough, it could encourage companies to drop the peak 9-5 work schedule and adopt a more dynamic schedule.
Alleviating road congestion during peak hours, so no new roads are needed.

 

[imagep]

I don't want private companies to have the power to seize property. I don't think anyone wants private companies to have that right. Anything else?

phatz, I really thing that this is just personal problem that is local to your area. Your ideas are very much formed by your personal obersevations and experiances. Other people, particularlly in other places don't share in your experiance. If you want to do all that in your area then go for it. In my village I dont think that tolls would be efficient. I can understand why you may want them in LA.

 

[phattonez]

phatz, I really thing that this is just personal problem that is local to your area. Your ideas are very much formed by your personal obersevations and experiances. Other people, particularlly in other places don't share in your experiance. If you want to do all that in your area then go for it. In my village I dont think that tolls would be efficient. I can understand why you may want them in LA.

Why would it be any different anywhere else (except for the fact that in places with less demand you'd generally see lower prices)? Tell me, what would be BAD about this idea for your area or any other area?

 

[imagep]

Why would it be any different anywhere else (except for the fact that in places with less demand you'd generally see lower prices)? Tell me, what would be BAD about this idea for your area or any other area?

In my villiage traffic is sometimes an irritation, but never a terrible problem. I can get on I-85 make it to Atlanta in 3 hours or Charlotte in 1:15 hours without ever slowing down below 70. I can take I-26 and make it to Asheville in 45 minutes or Columbia in 90 minutes, again, without ever slowing down below 70. We do have some congestion spots during rush hours, but I make a point to avoid those areas during those times.

A few years ago a lot of people in a neighboring town really pushed for a road that they called "The Southern Connector". The state wouldn't build it because the state determined that there was not enough need to justify it. Ultimately the private coalition who wanted the road worked out a public/private partnership deal with the state and county and created a new corporation to manage the road as a toll road. After the road was finished they allowed free access for the first month to advertise it but no one took the road. Then they started charging the toll and still no one used the road. They started advertising the road on TV and on the radio and no one used the road. The private company filed bankruptcy last month. See Southern Connector Toll Road - Home Page and Greenville Southern Connector headed for bankruptcy - default likely Jan 1 2010 | TOLLROADSnews and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_185_(South_Carolina) and Voting Under the Influence: The Upstate's Southern Connector is in default Greenville SC Southern Connector toller files for bankruptcy « Rail For The Valley

In my area traffic is just not an issue worth having toll booths over. Inefficency of a toll system would be my largest objection.

I know that the traffic in LA can be crazy at times (been there done that), but I think that most of the country is not nearly as bad. If tolls work for LA then great, I have no issue with it.

 

[phattonez]

In my villiage traffic is sometimes an irritation, but never a terrible problem. I can get on I-85 make it to Atlanta in 3 hours or Charlotte in 1:15 hours without ever slowing down below 70. I can take I-26 and make it to Asheville in 45 minutes or Columbia in 90 minutes, again, without ever slowing down below 70. We do have some congestion spots during rush hours, but I make a point to avoid those areas during those times.

Must be nice to have a sufficient road capacity for your area. We don't have that in California.

A few years ago a lot of people in a neighboring town really pushed for a road that they called "The Southern Connector". The state wouldn't build it because the state determined that there was not enough need to justify it. Ultimately the private coalition who wanted the road worked out a public/private partnership deal with the state and county and created a new corporation to manage the road as a toll road. After the road was finished they allowed free access for the first month to advertise it but no one took the road. Then they started charging the toll and still no one used the road. They started advertising the road on TV and on the radio and no one used the road. The private company filed bankruptcy last month. See Southern Connector Toll Road - Home Page and Greenville Southern Connector headed for bankruptcy - default likely Jan 1 2010 | TOLLROADSnews and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_185_(South_Carolina) and Voting Under the Influence: The Upstate's Southern Connector is in default Greenville SC Southern Connector toller files for bankruptcy « Rail For The Valley

I don't see why this is important. Tolling a road doesn't automatically make it successful.

In my area traffic is just not an issue worth having toll booths over. Inefficency of a toll system would be my largest objection.

FasTrak? Electronic tolling?

I know that the traffic in LA can be crazy at times (been there done that), but I think that most of the country is not nearly as bad. If tolls work for LA then great, I have no issue with it.

If it creates no problems and is more efficient then it should be used for the entire country.

 

[imagep]

Must be nice to have a sufficient road capacity for your area. We don't have that in California.



I don't see why this is important. Tolling a road doesn't automatically make it successful.



FasTrak? Electronic tolling?



If it creates no problems and is more efficient then it should be used for the entire country.

Personally I believe in states rights. Every state had the right to have it's own laws and rules and proceedures and government. Thats one of the things that makes the United States great. We are united, but also have a certain degree of autonamy. If California needs toll roads and/or private sector roads then great, do that in California. But don't try to force something that may be needed in California onto South Carolina. Why should WE have toll roads just because YOU that need toll roads? Every state should pretty much do it's own thing, whatever works for that particular location.

By the way, we probably don't have that problem simply because we have more roads. I believe that I once read that SC has more miles of roads per capita than any other state. Maybe if Ca was to spend more money building roads and less on schools and saving the red spotted cockaid wood owl, the traffic system would run a little better (no disrespect to you personally, but I see a LOT on TV about crazy gov spending in Cal).

 

[phattonez]

Personally I believe in states rights. Every state had the right to have it's own laws and rules and proceedures and government. Thats one of the things that makes the United States great. We are united, but also have a certain degree of autonamy. If California needs toll roads and/or private sector roads then great, do that in California. But don't try to force something that may be needed in California onto South Carolina. Why should WE have toll roads just because YOU that need toll roads? Every state should pretty much do it's own thing, whatever works for that particular location.

I'm not forcing anything, we're merely discussing the issue.

By the way, we probably don't have that problem simply because we have more roads. I believe that I once read that SC has more miles of roads per capita than any other state. Maybe if Ca was to spend more money building roads and less on schools and saving the red spotted cockaid wood owl, the traffic system would run a little better (no disrespect to you personally, but I see a LOT on TV about crazy gov spending in Cal).

Yes, the gas tax has been gutted. Nevertheless, want is wrong with this toll road proposal? It gets the most out of the current capacity that you can possibly get.

 

[imagep]

I'm not forcing anything, we're merely discussing the issue.



Yes, the gas tax has been gutted. Nevertheless, want is wrong with this toll road proposal? It gets the most out of the current capacity that you can possibly get.

Nothing is wrong with it - for your area. It sounds like it makes a lot of sense in your area. I'm all for it - in your area. Many cities already have systems for utilizing roads better. Like Washington DC switches the direction of traffic for certain lanes during different times of the day. Florida has toll roads and it seems to work for them. But do you really think that Montana needs toll roads?

 

[phattonez]

I just want you to tell me what the problem would be with Montana getting toll roads because this is the only objection you've brought up and you haven't said why it is a problem.

 

[imagep]

I just want you to tell me what the problem would be with Montana getting toll roads because this is the only objection you've brought up and you haven't said why it is a problem.

I guess no actual "problem" with putting in toll roads in Montana, but why put in something that is not needed. I am sure that lifeguards are a good idea for LA, but just because LA may need some lifeguards doesn't mean that we should have any in Indiana. I'm for LESS government not more. More government generally means less freedom.

I recently saw an episode of the Stossle show where Stossle presented several cities that had actually removed their traffic control systems - and there were less accidents and better traffic flow after removing stoplights and stopsigns. He didn't suggest that was a good idea for every location, but in some places it apparently works.

If you need toll roads in LA then do it. You made a great arguement for them in LA, you succeeded in convincing me that they would be a good thing there, but your good arguement for them in LA is not a good arguement for them in Spartanburg SC.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The US needed to revise its exchange rate, however we decided (thankfully) to adopt a floating exchange rate. However, we could have just devalued if we really wanted to keep a commodity backed money. The problem with fixed exchange rates is you have to change them. For a large economy like the US a fixed exchange rate is not practical.

What you are talking about is typically refered to as monetary inflation. Something that is normally a negative for the economic wellbeing of a nation. It certainly shows that the economic path that it was on was unsustainable. Which does indicate that a long term significant current account deficit is not a healthy thing for an economy

 

[molten_dragon]

A lot of people would to save money.

Do you honestly think very many people would spend so much extra time at work to save a little money? As I said before, this plan doesn't really work, because for the most part in the US, people can't control when they use the roads. At least not to any great extent. When you drive is determined by when you work, and not a lot of people have the option of working flexible hours just to avoid traffic.

There is also the option of moving closer to work or taking the streets.

Moving closer to work is not always an option. And I fail to see how that helps, unless you live so close to your office that you could walk or bike to work rather than drive.

And what exactly do you mean by 'taking the streets'. Isn't that what you're advocating charging money for?

 

[phattonez]

Do you honestly think very many people would spend so much extra time at work to save a little money? As I said before, this plan doesn't really work, because for the most part in the US, people can't control when they use the roads. At least not to any great extent. When you drive is determined by when you work, and not a lot of people have the option of working flexible hours just to avoid traffic.

People wouldn't work more, they would just change the times that they work. Or maybe they wouldn't take those unimportant trips during rush hour. It just encourages more efficient road usage.

Moving closer to work is not always an option. And I fail to see how that helps, unless you live so close to your office that you could walk or bike to work rather than drive.

At least you would face a cheaper commute the closer you are to work.

And what exactly do you mean by 'taking the streets'. Isn't that what you're advocating charging money for?

I'm talking about freeways, not streets. I've clearly said in this thread that I think the gas tax should continue to pay for streets put that a toll system is better for freeways (though I do believe that streets should either eliminate parking or price it at market rates).

 

[phattonez]

I guess no actual "problem" with putting in toll roads in Montana, but why put in something that is not needed. I am sure that lifeguards are a good idea for LA, but just because LA may need some lifeguards doesn't mean that we should have any in Indiana. I'm for LESS government not more. More government generally means less freedom.

You're talking to a libertarian, so please don't use the freedom argument. What I'm proposing is more like the market solution, so I would see it as less government (since it would allow for private entry into the market as well).

It also would help Montana and other places. For instance, where should maintenance crews fill potholes with higher priority? You can't tell without toll roads. Plus toll roads might get you more money to fill those potholes (though I still have a deep distrust of giving government more money since I could see toll money being gutted, which is why I prefer the idea of selling the roads to private companies).

I recently saw an episode of the Stossle show where Stossle presented several cities that had actually removed their traffic control systems - and there were less accidents and better traffic flow after removing stoplights and stopsigns. He didn't suggest that was a good idea for every location, but in some places it apparently works.

I saw that episode too. However, our argument has gone like this: I have shown advantages, you haven't shown disadvantages. So then why be against it?

If you need toll roads in LA then do it. You made a great arguement for them in LA, you succeeded in convincing me that they would be a good thing there, but your good arguement for them in LA is not a good arguement for them in Spartanburg SC.

I have to keep pressing you on this: why should it NOT be done in small towns? What is the argument against it? Why would this be a BAD thing for these places?

 

[imagep]

You're talking to a libertarian, so please don't use the freedom argument. What I'm proposing is more like the market solution, so I would see it as less government (since it would allow for private entry into the market as well).

It also would help Montana and other places. For instance, where should maintenance crews fill potholes with higher priority? You can't tell without toll roads. Plus toll roads might get you more money to fill those potholes (though I still have a deep distrust of giving government more money since I could see toll money being gutted, which is why I prefer the idea of selling the roads to private companies).



I saw that episode too. However, our argument has gone like this: I have shown advantages, you haven't shown disadvantages. So then why be against it?



I have to keep pressing you on this: why should it NOT be done in small towns? What is the argument against it? Why would this be a BAD thing for these places?

I have already answered your question, if you don't like my answer then fair enough, but don't pretend like I didn't answer.


By the way, in many places we can know when to fill in a pothole because we can see it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

 

[phattonez]

I have already answered your question, if you don't like my answer then fair enough, but don't pretend like I didn't answer.

You haven't answered my question. You've said that other places don't need it, but I just asked why it would be a BAD thing for those places.

By the way, in many places we can know when to fill in a pothole because we can see it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

When you have more potholes than you have the money to fix, and more cracks in the road and bridges in disrepair, etc., then you might need a rocket scientist, or a price system. That problem of cracks, potholes, and just under-maintained roads is prevalent throughout the country, not just in Los Angeles.

 

[Kushinator]

What you are talking about is typically refered to as monetary inflation. Something that is normally a negative for the economic wellbeing of a nation. It certainly shows that the economic path that it was on was unsustainable. Which does indicate that a long term significant current account deficit is not a healthy thing for an economy

Can you explain the existance of a positive net foreign income with a negative current account?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Can you explain the existance of a positive net foreign income with a negative current account?

Yes,

That is due to past investments in foreign countries earning a higher income then what foreigners earning on their investments, the US did go negative on this for a period of time, a year or so ago, unsure what it is currently. The current account of course does take more things into consideration then just income. Secondly foreigners are investing in low yield T bills or in items that are projected to return capital gains rather then investment income.

Over time with more foreign investment in the US, or with higher interest rates in the US that situation can and willl change

 

[Kushinator]

Yes,

That is due to past investments in foreign countries earning a higher income then what foreigners earning on their investments, the US did go negative on this for a period of time, a year or so ago, unsure what it is currently. The current account of course does take more things into consideration then just income. Secondly foreigners are investing in low yield T bills or in items that are projected to return capital gains rather then investment income.

Over time with more foreign investment in the US, or with higher interest rates in the US that situation can and willl change

The bold is quite correct!!! My point is, even during what would now be considered critical stages (CA exceeding $700 billion in 2005 or 4.5% GDP), NFI was positive (with the US adding more than $5trillion in net foreign debt the last 30 years). How can this be conceivable given your previous analysis unless of course the seriousness is overblown?

Relative rate of change is the crux of this argument.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The bold is quite correct!!! My point is, even during what would now be considered critical stages (CA exceeding $700 billion in 2005 or 4.5% GDP), NFI was positive (with the US adding more than $5trillion in net foreign debt the last 30 years). How can this be conceivable given your previous analysis unless of course the seriousness is overblown?

Relative rate of change is the crux of this argument.

It is concievable due to foreigners buying low yield US investments for more then just economical reasons. Politics play a huge role in those decisions, if they did not you would most likely see NFI be negative for the US rather then positive. Also when the US interest rates do increase, the amount of debt owed to foreigner will result in far higher levels of interest being paid to them

 

[phattonez]

The bold is quite correct!!!

What is this a game show?

 

[Kushinator]

What is this a game show?

You can play too!

 

[phattonez]

You can play too!

I'd rather not make your head any bigger than it already is.