One of the perennial concerns about paying for roads through a vehicle-mile fee rather than a gas tax is protecting privacy. While this can be done using a GPS system, such systems would require a lot of new infrastructure to collect the data.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota have proposed an alternate system that relies on existing cell phone infrastructure and the electronics that have been built into virtually all cars at least since 1996. A device would be added to each car that tallies miles driven and text-messages mileage data when it is within range of the cell phone network.
Initially, auto owners who do not have such devices would continue to pay gas taxes, while those who do would be credited the taxes they pay at the pump. Cell phone networks would allow highway agencies to charge different prices for cars driving in different geographic areas or times of day, but are probably not precise enough to charge a different price for each different road. Eventually, everyone would pay the vehicle-mile charge and we can hope that highway agencies can set rates high enough to end all highway subsidies but not so high that other government agencies start conniving to steal the surplus.
Prosecution in such cases requires a great deal of meticulous analysis by solicitors and viagra prices online accountants. levitra without prescription Indigestion could lead to flatulence which is a bloated feeling due to trapped gases in the stomach or intestine. This component ensures a complete treatment of erectile dysfunction (inability to sustain a satisfactory erection to complete the act buy viagra australia raindogscine.com of sexual intercourse. Studies continue into Adipor1 signalling and the calcium order cheap viagra influx.
While the University of Minnesota system is not perfect, the transition cost would be low and it would lead to a better system of pricing our roads. The main obstacles are political. Congress thinks seriously about highways only once every six years, and even if it had anything more than superficial thoughts, most people agree that it is not going to promote a radical new pricing system this go-around.
So it will be up to the states to implement something, and I suspect only a few of them — perhaps Florida and Texas — are big enough and free enough that they might be able to do something soon. California is mired down in its budget problems, while New York is overly politicized. States like Oregon might be willing to experiment on a small scale, but a large-scale transition might be difficult given their smaller populations.
The Antiplanner’s long-run preference is to have a system that can charge by the road and time of day, which probably means a GPS-based rather than cell-phone based system. But there is no reason why GPS data could not eventually be incorporated into the Minnesota plan. In the meantime, any vehicle-mile system is better than the gas tax system we have today as long as it is not so expensive that it precludes improvements as they become available. Now if only we can find someone with the political will to make it happen.
Antiplanner wrote:
“In the meantime, any vehicle-mile system is better than the gas tax system we have today as long as it is not so expensive that it precludes improvements as they become available. Now if only we can find someone with the political will to make it happen.”
I can’t see the point of a road pricing scheme.
The generalised cost for a car driver can be written simply:
Cost = Cost per mile + cost per minute
So, road pricing increases the cost per mile and therefore sends an anti-congestion message to the car driver. However, that same congestion already sends an anti-congestion message via the cost per minute – and sends a more accurate message too, I think.
The real problem is the USA, like many developed countries, has built everything around the car, including the rules governing the use of roads. Then when too many cars turn up, it is obviously the fault of the car driver (choosing the best item, the car, from a lousy selection) rather than the fault of the politicians that set up the choice in the first place.
It seems that the politicians in the USA are more hard-nosed than those in the UK. Our guys think that they can impose a harsh enough road pricing scheme to get people out of their cars, without making those same people vote against them.
The other argument for road pricing – that soon we will have cars that don’t run on diesel and petrol – ignores the cost of producing cars which are electric or which run on fuel cells. Given that most cars are only rusting away quietly most of the day, I suspect that non-fossil-fuelled drive systems will be seen on transit first, where the vehicle is moving most of the time. The Tesla car, the white hope of the electric mob, was tried out by the UK car show ‘Top gear’. They broke the first one, and the second one ran out of electricity very quickly, much faster than the brochure said. The car was also markedly inferior to a Lotus Elise which cost half as much.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> The Antiplanner’s long-run preference is to have a system that
> can charge by the road and time of day, which probably means
> a GPS-based rather than cell-phone based system. But since there
> is no reason why GPS data could not eventually be incorporated
> into the Minnesota plan. In the meantime, any vehicle-mile system
> is better than the gas tax system we have today as long as it
> is not so expensive that it precludes improvements as they
> become available. Now if only we can find someone with the
> political will to make it happen.
There are clear advantages to such a system. I do not have any problem with transitioning to this type of tolling, but pressure
from the anti-auto and anti-highway industries to give mass transit systems “their fair share” of the revenues collected from such
a system is a major concern.
Indeed, some people have promoted this type of tolling as a way to provide a massive and never-ending flood of subsidy dollars to all kinds of transit systems (especially rail transit).
Would such a system mean the gas tax would be dropped?
True irony: a mileage tax would sure do a lot to convince folks about New Urbanism. Why move out to exurbia when you could live in an infill development where you could at least walk to the grocery store, your kid’s school, the park, etc., without tacking on costly miles to your car usage bill? This would be awesome – the mileage tax would be a government control that would encourage “close-in” living, push folks to live in walkable communities, and help curb inexorable exurban sprawl. And it was all proposed by the AP, a true libertarian and the newest NU ally!
Francis King wrote:
> I can’t see the point of a road pricing scheme.
I respectfully disagree.
> The generalised cost for a car driver can be written simply:
>
> Cost = Cost per mile + cost per minute
Even though I agree with your math above, though I would add the cost of [usually] compulsory vehicle liability insurance, which is often hefty.
> So, road pricing increases the cost per mile and therefore sends
> an anti-congestion message to the car driver. However, that
> same congestion already sends an anti-congestion message via
> the cost per minute – and sends a more accurate message too,
> I think.
I disagree. Revealed behavior teaches us that people are generally willing to “pay” the costs of congestion by sitting in congested traffic, though frequently they don’t have a choice of an uncongested route (and note that transit is usually not that much of a choice).
> The real problem is the USA, like many developed countries,
> has built everything around the car, including the rules
> governing the use of roads. Then when too many cars turn up,
> it is obviously the fault of the car driver (choosing the
> best item, the car, from a lousy selection) rather than the
> fault of the politicians that set up the choice in the first
> place.
A few thoughts:
I disagree with the assertion that the United States has “built everything around the car.” In most metropolitan neighborhoods, it is quite possible to get around without one. The flaws in as-built U.S. highways (especially those functionally classified as minor or principal arterials and especially older ones) is that there are no provisions for pedestrians or bike riders, but that is slowly changing as roads are re-built and new ones (slowly) added to the network.
And please consider this paradox – California is usually denounced as being very auto-centric, though I have found that drivers in most of the Golden State tend to be very willing to yield the right-of-way to persons on foot (as the laws there have long required) – and in marked contrast to drivers in the (supposedly) less auto-oriented states of the Northeastern U.S.
Your point about politicians is a good one, for they usually are the decision-makers when it comes to roads and highways and mass transit in democratic nations. Politicians are also usually to blame when expensive rail transit systems are built and fail to achieve forecast ridership – though the pace of construction is frequently so slow that the politicians that approved a rail line have left office before the ribbon-cutting ceremony is held.
Wow, C.P. – you disagree with an assertion and then provide evidence for it anyway. I think “no provisions for pedestrians or bike riders” on most older arterials EQUALS “[building] everything around the car”. No one said we aren’t trying to remedy this, as you yourself mention, but the simple fact remains: the U.S. is extraordinarily autocentric because of 50+ years of autocentric decision making and design.
As for it being “quite possible” to get around without a car in most “metropolitan neighborhoods”, I’d like to know which ones you are referring to. I’ve been to metros all over the USA, and anything I’ve seen that was built in the second half of the 20th Century required a car to get anywhere beyond a house in the same subdivision. Even if there was some store or school within a long walk or bike ride of home, as you yourself cite, the journey would be dangerous.
Yes, I like the PAYD, per-mile, whatever schemes. And I like it that the 4% of the population is pushing them. This will surely get people to drive less. Not sure how it will fund the maintenance on all those road-miles, but hey.
————-
In most metropolitan neighborhoods, it is quite possible to get around without one.
Ha-ha! Good one! You can walk around in a circle until your dog poops, but how many of these heralded & trumpeted neighborhoods are most able to walk somewhere to get milk or bread??
snork
DS
hkelly1 wrote:
> Wow, C.P. – you disagree with an assertion and then provide
> evidence for it anyway. I think “no provisions for
> pedestrians or bike riders†on most older arterials
> EQUALS “[building] everything around the carâ€Â.
Read carefully, please.
Note that I carefully limited my comments about the lack of provision of bike and pedestrian facilities to especially those functionally classified as minor or principal arterials and especially older ones.
[Emphasis mine]
Reason for that? Roads functionally classified as arterial are a small minority of total miles in the U.S. highway network, and most streets in urban and suburban areas are classified lower, and frequently do not need sidewalks or bike paths in order to be bike- and pedestrian-friendly. Those modes, along with the motorized ones, can (and do) safely share the same street pavement.
My wife and I own two homes. One is a townhome in an area planned and constructed during the late-1970’s and early-1980’s obsession with increasing mass transit patronage through densification, and there are sidewalks.
The other one is an area platted in the 1930’s (though our home was built in 1979) with essentially no sidewalks or bike paths, except for the state highway that runs through the area (functional class minor arterial). In some ways it resembles the Antiplanner’s old neighborhood of Oak Grove, which he has written extensively about.
Now which is more friendly to bike riders and pedestrians?
You make the call!
> No one said we aren’t trying to remedy this, as you yourself
> mention, but the simple fact remains: the U.S. is
> extraordinarily autocentric because of 50+ years of
> autocentric decision making and design.
And because the U.S. is a huge country, and there is little tradition of people spending their lives living in apartment buildings, as can be found in some other nations.
C.P Zilliacus wrote:
“I disagree. Revealed behavior teaches us that people are generally willing to “pay†the costs of congestion by sitting in congested traffic, though frequently they don’t have a choice of an uncongested route (and note that transit is usually not that much of a choice).”
So, they’ve paid the costs of congestion. What is the point of an additional tax? People can see the congestion, which happens most days on some road sections, and they’ve got whatever message they’re ever going to get.
Transit often does badly since it is set up run in the existing traffic flow. If people are sat in congestion, they prefer to do this in the comfort of their own car. When the transit runs at full speed past a queue of cars, it’s a different story. Leeds SuperBus is a good example of this. Much of the ‘You can only get this car off me when you prise the steering wheel out of my cold dead fingers’ is not due to the refusal of car drivers to do something different, but rather because car drivers get bullied about their car driving so much that they become defensive.
I don’t mind using tolls to pay for additional roads. In fact, I think it’s a good idea. The car driver gets something for their money. But taxing people again, to pay for congestion that they’ve already paid for, doesn’t make any sense.
I can’t help thinking that if a fraction of the effort being put into road pricing was put into engineering an alternative to the car then everyone, including car drivers, would be better off.
Reason for that? Roads functionally classified as arterial are a small minority of total miles in the U.S. highway network, and most streets in urban and suburban areas are classified lower, and frequently do not need sidewalks or bike paths in order to be bike- and pedestrian-friendly. Those modes, along with the motorized ones, can (and do) safely share the same street pavement.”
Again, you miss the point. To actually get anywhere useful in suburbia, you are inevitably forced onto an arterial highway. To get to the store, to the school, to your job – you must leave your subdivision at some point, and this typically requires an arterial road. Other than pure exercise and visiting a neighbor, being able to walk within your own neighborhood accomplishes nothing in the way of getting things done.
It’s clear that you live in areas that obviously had some insight into mixed mode transit, whether because of their age or because of an “obsession” – yet you are now trying to use those examples to defend exurban sprawl which has nothing to do with them. In terms of walkability and sustainability, a townhome development with sidewalks near transit and a 1930’s neighborhood are light years ahead of giant sprawling subdivisions.
“Why move out to exurbia when you could live in an infill development where you could at least walk to the grocery store, your kid’s school, the park, etc., without tacking on costly miles to your car usage bill?” – hkelly1
Why wouldn’t they? Sounds like you’r assuming the mileage tax will make a difference in cost. They’re already paying a a lot in tax and gas. A mileage tax would be a marginal change. A marginal change when that move to suburbia, if they don’t already live there, means that if they don’t live closer to their job, the difference isn’t large. And that’s on top of other costs. An extra $100 a month in transportation is likely to buy you a lot more house than in that infill project.
For example, here in Denver the median housing price in Parker, Colorado is $278,000. For Brighton, it’s $230k. And at that, it’s likely to be 2400 sq ft and 3 bedrooms. $230k in an infill project like Belmar gets you a 1 bedroom, 1,000 sq ft. condo. To get that 2400 sq ft and 3 bedrooms in Denver’s stapleton, you’re looking at $425k. And in both Brighton and Parker you’re just as likely to be living just as to your job as Belmar or Stapleton.
As for the living walking distance to the grocery store, that sounds quant but if you have a family, it’s not very practical unless you want to make a few trips a week so you can carry all those groceries home for your family.
For example, here in Denver the median housing price in Parker, Colorado is $278,000. For Brighton, it’s $230k. And at that, it’s likely to be 2400 sq ft and 3 bedrooms. $230k in an infill project like Belmar gets you a 1 bedroom, 1,000 sq ft. condo. To get that 2400 sq ft and 3 bedrooms in Denver’s stapleton, you’re looking at $425k. And in both Brighton and Parker you’re just as likely to be living just as to your job as Belmar or Stapleton.
As for the living walking distance to the grocery store, that sounds quant but if you have a family, it’s not very practical unless you want to make a few trips a week so you can carry all those groceries home for your family.
1. Trending toward only ~25% of folk having families by ~2030. Such argumentation will be for the minority soon.
2. The price data is interesting, as Ricardian rents are based on WTP. Of course folk are willing to pay much more for proximate services. They are not willing to pay lots of money to live in sh*tty-*ss Brighton or Commerce City. This is why their Ricardian rents are low, not because of gawdawful New Urbanist restrictions on lot size and gummint plannurz made house prices unaffordable or some other looky-*ss Wendell Cox fact-free screed.
Hope this helps.
DS
prk166:“As for the living walking distance to the grocery store, that sounds quant but if you have a family, it’s not very practical unless you want to make a few trips a week so you can carry all those groceries home for your family.”
ws:This argument really is so bunk, it makes me angry every time I hear it made – and it’s made quite often.
1) More trips to the grocery store really just means buying better quality and fresher foods.
2) You assume more trips = more hassle. Tell me, what’s more of a hassle than making an extravaganza of a trip once/twice a week than driving miles away with three whiny kids in tow to a grocery store or bulk store? Sure, one needs to make the auto trips to these stores on occasion – a local store cannot match some items found at Costco – but that sounds absolutely painful to do every week.
3) Who’s to say that 12 year old Billy can’t make a walk down the street to pick up a gallon of milk for mommy? God forbid we give children chores or responsibilities. Put Billy in the typical moonscape of suburbia and he’s reliant upon the automobile and his chauffeur to get things done – no self autonomy, no responsibility, and no socialization in the outside world! Billy’s better off locking himself in his room all day and playing Xbox, anyways.
4) If one wanted to, they could drive to a NU grocery store and do their shopping once a week w/ less trips if they choose to:
Orenco Station Grocery Store
5) #4 won’t happen anyways other than a few isolated situations or extenuating circumstances. Believe it or not, people are not stupid enough to drive to something they can easily walk for, even in America. People are not lazy here, it may be perceived, just humans are beings of convenience. When the so called “convenience store” is zoned out of their neighborhood, their only option is the automobile.
C. P. Zilliacus said: …the anti-auto and anti-highway industries…
THWM: OMG, ROTFLMAO!
I would bet that politician would keep the gas tax along with a mileage tax and only spend 1/3rd the money on roads and the rest on pet projects. The government currently gets plenty of money for roads, it just goes else where.
“1) More trips to the grocery store really just means buying better quality and fresher foods.”
How does this occur because of more trips?
“2) You assume more trips = more hassle. Tell me, what’s more of a hassle than making an extravaganza of a trip once/twice a week than driving miles away with three whiny kids in tow to a grocery store or bulk store? ”
Under that scenario you’re trying to carry those groceries while dealing with those 3 whiny kids X times more often. And each extra trip means more time spent doing nothing more than travelling back and forth. How is that less of a hassle?
Under that scenario you’re trying to carry those groceries while dealing with those 3 whiny kids X times more often.
This premise is…um…premised upon a belief that everyone has kids. And three kids. And three young kids.
That may be the case in your census block, but not in most.
Atomistic quibbling aside, the point is that neighborhoods with walkable grocery stores in general are doing better in this economy – RE values haven’t tanked like the autocentric McSuburb, fewer foreclosures, higher demand…
DS
prk166:“How does this occur because of more trips?”
ws:If you’re doing large amounts of shopping once a week, people tend to buy food that will last longer (i.e. heavily processed, longer lasting items which excludes many fruits and vegetables). If you do shopping a few times a week, this leads to better quality foods being consumed because one is not in the mindset that they need to stock up on food that lasts a long time.
If you take it to the extreme like they do in many countries, you buy the food that day and cook it. The food doesn’t need to withstand time.
prk166:“Under that scenario you’re trying to carry those groceries while dealing with those 3 whiny kids X times more often. And each extra trip means more time spent doing nothing more than travelling back and forth. How is that less of a hassle?”
ws:
1) More trip does not mean you take more trips between your home in one run (i.e. back and forth) – it means you make more trips during a week load. Instead of buying 2 gallons of milk once a week (and wasting a few cups because they go bad), you make two trips once a week.
It would be impractical to walk to a grocery and shuttle groceries back and forth if that is what you’re thinking – which I don’t know why you would. You just spread your grocery shopping (trips) throughout the week. Lots of people do it that way, but you don’t have to…
2) Most “walkable” locations are about 5 minutes away. Not a long time to carry items home. I’d also put money that many parents ditch their kids at home when they drive to the store.
3) Who says you can’t bring your own cart?
4) Who says you can’t drive and live your lifestyle the way you want? The option is available – go ahead and drive 30 seconds for buying your groceries once a week. I showed you a google maps link of a NU grocery store w/ plenty of parking!
5) Who says you can’t walk for some items during the week, and take your car for trips whenyou need to load up on “bulk items” outside of your neighborhood grocery store?
6) Who says you can’t bike?
8) Rollerblade?
9) Skip?
7) Insert any other preconceived mis-notion of mobility and urbanity.
The options are available even in so NU neighborhoods. You’re not banned from anything. Though, most are banned by default in suburbia sprawl.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/11/14/dutch_drivers_to_pay_car_tax_by_kilometer/?rss_id=Boston.com+/+Boston+Globe+–+World+News
Beginning in 2012, drivers of an average passenger car will pay euro0.03 per 1 kilometer (7 US cents per mile). But annual road taxes and purchase tax for new cars will be abolished, reducing the cost of a new car by 25 percent.
The government says nearly six out of 10 drivers will benefit under the system, which shifts the tax burden to people who drive the most and at peak hours. Congestion is expected to be halved and carbon emissions cut 10 percent.