Horrors! In response to a declining tax base, the “financially strapped” Washington Metro plans to increase fares, which “puts most of the burden on users.” How awful to think that transit users will actually be asked to pay for a larger share of their transport!
Rushing to financial disaster.
Flickr photo by Willamor Media.
Meanwhile, Atlanta’s Marta is also in dire financial shape and has threatened to cut service by 30 percent. This has led to protests, supposedly by bus riders but in fact organized by transit unions. This is at least in part a Washington Monument strategy by Marta, which would like the state to dedicate some funds to its future operation.
To be fair, the New York Times article points out that Marta is hamstrung by a state law requiring that it dedicate half of the sales taxes it collects to capital improvements, which is what allowed it to build a 48-mile rail system. But it would be better for the state to repeal this requirement than to give it more money to waste.
Also diseases like Parkinsons and other temporal lobe buy canada levitra disorders can cause this dysfunction. Medications are available that control the levels of androgen (male sexual hormone), scalp infections, underlying chronic medical condition, buy viagra generic talk to the doctor beforehand. The cause includes the excessive intake of the impotence medications.Impotence medications are to enhance your sexual life? There are certain ways through which you can take to improve, delay levitra samples or prevent the rise in blood pressure. To help men come out their darkness, Vigrx for men in UK has been made available by Sexual Performance Total. order cheap viagra http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/reviews/
The real problem is that the nation’s transit model is unsustainable. When you rely on volatile sales taxes for your revenue base, as most transit agencies do, you end up an easy victim of economic cycles. Agencies that go heavily into debt to build rail transit compound this problem because they cannot easily reduce their mortgage payments when revenues decline. If sales taxes decline by 10 percent, an agency that must dedicate half its income to the mortgage will be forced to reduce service by 20 percent.
As pro-transit Transportation for America has documented, more than 90 major transit agencies are making major cuts in service. Instead of seeing this as a sign that something is wrong with the tax-and-spend transit model, they see it as evidence that we need to tax-and-spend even more. But that will only put the agencies into an even deeper hole during the next recession.
Nor are there significant economies of scale that will allow transit agencies to do better if they can increase ridership. In 2008, fares covered 23 percent of the operating costs of the average transit agency. In the New York metro area, fares covered 32 percent of operating costs, which is probably the highest in the nation.
Transit is mainly about commuting, which means it is mainly about rush hour. Transit vehicles tend to be full at that time and nearly empty the rest of the day. Increased ridership will also largely come at rush hour, so it requires huge capital investments in new buses and trains. Fares are likely to cover no greater share of the costs of operating those buses and trains than they do now.
The reason why the transit model is unsustainable is that it is run by the government, which means it is run mainly for special interest groups like rail contractors and unions first, and transit riders are relatively unimportant. Ultimately, the solution is privatization. In the short run, the Antiplanner would be happy to see transit run mainly out of user fees rather than taxes.
My Mother told me that when she was a teenager (1940’s) her church group would rent street cars to have parties/fellowship group meetings. She said that it was only “at odd hours” they could do it. I said: “They (streetcars) must have been privately run.”
The idea of increasing fares is an interesting one. A couple of years ago CapMetro considered raising their (IMO) low fare by 50c. I thought this was a great idea. People on the east side of Austin, many of whom are transit dependent and have low household incomes protested in droves.
Transit, particularly bus transit, often serves a portion of the population that is transit dependent. I agree that fares need to fund more of the operation, but I also feel that subsidies for transit dependent, low income and/or disabled populations are justifiable. The problem is that once you have 2 or 3 separate rates for different groups, an agencies administrative cost increase.
I agree that some transit projects are not focused on moving people but rather exist “mainly for special interest groups like rail contractors and unions,” but I don’t agree that transit should run solely off of user fees. Some (not all) subsidies are justifiable.
I don’t think the answer is more subsidy for the transit dependent. It is much better for the taxpayers AND the low income folks to subsidize auto ownership.
Research has shown that automobile ownership is an empowering tool that can have a significantly positive effect on employment, especially for the low-skilled and low-income population. Numerous policy studies have concluded that owning a vehicle is a viable solution to transportation barriers to employment for low-income people. For example, Kerri Sullivan of Portland State University examined the effects of car ownership on employment and wages for adults without a high school diploma in Portland. She found that “Car ownership improved the likelihood of being employed by 80 percent. The effect on average weekly wages was approximately $275, and the effect on weeks worked was approximately 8.5 weeks.â€
In Portland, Tri-Met users pay 20% of the operating costs(by way of the fare box) and none of the capital construction, for the unsustainable, world class transit systeem they demand.
I am sure I am in a small minority, but I think the low income folks would be better off if transit fares were increased. Many low income people own cars, which reveals that transportation is worth several thousand dollars a year. The transit-dependent folks should pay at least half that amount for the less-convenient transit, and more if they live in an area where transit is more convenient than a car.
Why are they better off? Because government services that attract money get taken care of. For those that are transit-dependent, improvements in schedule and service are very valuable. Improvement in ac/heat and security on transit can significantly improve their lives. Increase of their costs from, say 10% of what it is worth to 25% of what it is worth, is a significant improvement.
Others can probably say that government politics, both internal and public, make my proposition unfeasible. I will not contest those comments. But I think the general rule that government services that attracts revenue gets taken care of is a good one.
johngalt: Good points, all. As a Portland resident, I have filled out numerous applications that asked if I had reliable transportation or made it a precondition for employment.
Borealis,
The main problem I see with your proposition is, how do you sell it? I was for the fair increase in Austin for precisely the reasons you mention. But those who depend on transit, tend to only see the $$$ and not the big picture. Any suggestions?
I also like J Galt’s idea. For people that can feasibly own and operate a car, I see no reason not to help them out so they can enjoy the freedoms offered by the personal auto. But there are many people who ride the bus who cannot drive themselves, due to physical or cognitive impairment. I’m assuming the antiplanner solution is some sort of accessible taxi service??? Regardless, subsidies will be required to make it work.
John Galt:“For example, Kerri Sullivan of Portland State University examined the effects of car ownership on employment and wages for adults without a high school diploma in Portland. She found that “Car ownership improved the likelihood of being employed by 80 percent. The effect on average weekly wages was approximately $275, and the effect on weeks worked was approximately 8.5 weeks.—
ws: This is more of a product of our automobile oriented landscape rather than the product that cars are best for employability. Do you think someone has a better chance of employability by driving and owning a car in, say NYC proper? No, they wouldn’t actually which makes the crux of your argument false.
It’s a self full-filling prophecy.
The second issue is, if cars are better for employment for poor people, why do so few poor people own and operate a car and rely on transit instead? Obviously, even after massive subsidies, market manipulation and land-use orientation skewed towards the automobile; many indigent people still cannot afford to own/operate a car.
Just think, ws, of the teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing if we can’t come up with a suitable replacement for cheap energy soon, and gas becomes 5-6-7.00/gallon.
o How will the small-minority react when folks wonder where their transportation options are? Will they decry people’s choice of less fraydum of auto-mo-tring?
o Will these folks looking for options turn frowning faces on the narrow-minded who foolishly argued for fewer options, even though the writing was on the wall?
DS
I am with WS concerning this supposed study. I would need to see the study, but I think the study may show that a high percentage of those who own cars happen to be employed and have a high school diploma, but not that going out and buying a car will raise the chances of someone getting a job. Why would it? Because it expands the distance and mobility you can commute? As WS points out, it seems counter-intuitive for urban citizens. An unlimited metro card in New York City costs $89 per month for access to all services. There simply are not a lot of great car options that can include insurance, maintenance, gas, purchase price and interest for under $100 a month. For plenty of people (myself included) autos are simply a needless amenity that would only force one to pay more for a home so that it has a garage or access to parking.
The second issue is, if cars are better for employment for poor people, why do so few poor people own and operate a car and rely on transit instead?
Many poor people don’t own a car, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t rely heavily on private vehicles for travel, or conversely, that they rely heavily on public transit. Evidence from the 2001 NHTS suggests that urban residents with incomes of less than $20K per use private vehicles for nearly 76 percent of their trips (30% as single-occupant trips, 46% as drivers or passengers in HOV trips). The corresponding figure for public transit is less than 5 percent.
Citing New York in your example doesn’t make John’s statement categorically false. In that case, the poor are responding the same way most other travelers do to costly and inconvenient private vehicle travel. Regardless of what we might we think, the preferences of the poor toward travel are not so different from our own. They just face different resource constraints. Public policy has unfortunately done little to address those constraints. Nor is it a matter of “auto-oriented landscapes”. It doesn’t matter whether it is Portland or Toronto or Western Europe, the trends are quite consistent.
But, as I have argued before, the best way to deal with mobility for the poor is to offer them cash assistance. Let them decide which bundle of services best meets their needs. Regardless of whether they live in Portland, NYC, or Yuma, they can choose neighborhoods that are more or less “auto-oriented”, and the travel options that go with them.
…but not that going out and buying a car will raise the chances of someone getting a job. Why would it? Because it expands the distance and mobility you can commute?
Yes. Of course. The effect is that it offers access to a larger potential market for their labor. There is plenty of evidence on this. Here is one recent study. You’ll find many others if you dig a little bit.
And the $89 you cite for the metro card is the price, not the cost.
ws wrote:
> This is more of a product of our automobile oriented landscape
> rather than the product that cars are best for employability.
> Do you think someone has a better chance of employability by
> driving and owning a car in, say NYC proper? No, they
> wouldn’t actually which makes the crux of your argument false.
WS, what is the probability that any metropolitan area (excluding the District of Columbia portion of the Washington, D.C. region, where it is literally prohibited by federal law) in the U.S. is going to densify its “downtown” jobs base to be similar to density found on the island of Manhattan?
I assert that the probability of that is pretty close to zero.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> The real problem is that the nation’s transit model is
> unsustainable.
I agree.
> When you rely on volatile sales taxes for your revenue base,
> as most transit agencies do, you end up an easy victim of
> economic cycles.
I know a fair number of U.S. transit properties that are profoundly auto-dependent on motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle registration and sales (“title”) taxes, parking space taxes and parking meter revenues, parking violation fine revenue, and, of course, highway, bridge and tunnel tolls.
> Agencies that go heavily into debt to build rail transit
> compound this problem because they cannot easily reduce
> their mortgage payments when revenues decline. If sales
> taxes decline by 10 percent, an agency that must dedicate
> half its income to the mortgage will be forced to reduce
> service by 20 percent.
Not only that, but the need for “capital” (read: expensive) repairs on rail vehicles and tracks and tunnels is never-ending, and seems to have little relationship to transit patronage.
Just think, ws, of the teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing if we can’t come up with a suitable replacement for cheap energy soon, and gas becomes 5-6-7.00/gallon.
Does this mean you’re dumping your Exxon stock? Seriously though, by the time gas prices reach $6-7 per gallon, the new vehicles entering the market will use much less of it and incomes will be considerably higher than they are now. No need to hit the panic button.
How will the small-minority react when folks wonder where their transportation options are? Will they decry people’s choice of less fraydum of auto-mo-tring?
Which “small minority” are you referring to?
Will these folks looking for options turn frowning faces on the narrow-minded who foolishly argued for fewer options, even though the writing was on the wall?
Probably not. There are many “options” that can be had at fairly low cost. Buses are relatively cheap and quick to deploy, though their operating costs rise along with energy prices, as we saw in 2008. Bikes are cheap enough that most households could buy one if they really wanted to. There are plenty of options out there. Some are just more attractive than others.
“Small minority” = Dan’s incessant use of appeal to the majority.
“subsidize the poor”, Yeah, that’s the answer.
???? Hello!? Look at facts.
Sure, that would be good or nice.
Who should pay?
Why?
Don’t we already?
Well, for Federal income taxation the lower 47% of earners paid nothing; some got a check.)
What’s poor? No cable? Some “poor” have cable, as well as many other amenities, well above “livable”standards”, particularly 50 years ago or many other nations.
Why are there poor in the US? The gov!!!
The gov is making it easy to be poor & taking away business.
More money increases whatever, basic common sense.
The level of poverty was going down, until–the war on poverty.
“Extra money” takes away incentive.
This is not a basic question of a little help.
Gov messes up so much, with their best intentions (ways to get votes).
Housing cost is up because of regs & restrictions. (look up “rent controlâ€)
Poors’ opportunity? Minimum wage jobs don’t require much distance.
In other words, available jobs are very local.
Additionally: HS grad rates are only 80%, while per student spending has doubled (real terms)—laziness has ensued. Unwed programs have increased, drastically among poor (particularly minorities).
To really help the poor, as the fucked up system stands—maybe bus passes, w/contingencies on job & interviews—then move or buy a car or pay for a pass. Definitely no payment for kids,; infect mandatory sterilization for those receiving taxpayer extra money. Seems non-linerty, but when you impose on others…
Most regional rail passengers earn above avg.
MJ
I hear ya. I wish I could see more of the study than the abstract, but it does strike me as unsurprising that they chose L.A. for gathering their data. I think we can agree that L.A. is perhaps the most car-centric urban environment in the country. Not only can you not get a job without a car, but you cannot get anywhere. In that case I don’t think it is a question of effort or diligence, merely plausibility. So I am willing to bet there is a strong correlation, but I wish I could see the data and how they went about testing. Just because the two are correlated does not mean that there is causation between them. Naturally, in the suburbs it seems like the case would be stronger. Where mobility is solely dependent on autos it seems clear that they would strongly affect employment. –A trend that may be changing though. I feel like Randal recently mentioned the rising number of people working remotely due to technology. It would be interesting to compare the numbers to more recent, post-recession job activity.
MJ:“Many poor people don’t own a car, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t rely heavily on private vehicles for travel, or conversely, that they rely heavily on public transit. Evidence from the 2001 NHTS suggests that urban residents with incomes of less than $20K per use private vehicles for nearly 76 percent of their trips (30% as single-occupant trips, 46% as drivers or passengers in HOV trips). The corresponding figure for public transit is less than 5 percent.”
ws:Where was this data collected from? I can’t click the top link. I don’t see any study that backs your assertions up. Regardless of income level, journey to work trips for the 2001 study showed that 3.7% of all people took transit. You’re saying the number (of all trips via transit) is only 5% (less than 1% more) amongst the very poorest Americans? I have a very hard time believing that number, unless you can actually cite it directly in the 2001 study.
From the actual 2001 NHTS study:
“It is clear that income affects vehicle ownership and availability. Three out of every four low-income families did not own a vehicle, while one in two families with household income more than $55,000 had more vehicles than licensed drivers in their households.”
(page 33)
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf
So three out of four (families, no less) who don’t own a vehicle at all are somehow taking 30% of trips as single occupants in a car they don’t own? On top of that, those people/families are getting 46% of their other vehicle trips as HOV drivers/passengers via their other poor (presumably) neighbors and friends? That one out of four family that owns a car is quite generous with their car, apparently!
I am reading the actual 2001 study (per the link I provided), and I see no indication of what you’re trying to say.
I’m not trying to argue that vehicle ownership is not beneficial to poor people in terms of employment. I am only arguing it is only so because of our autocentric land use system in the US that dominates most urban areas. On top of that, even with our skewed development patterns in the states; poor families still cannot afford to own/operate an automobile. That right there is a big indication of how we build and live in the US is not very efficient or cost effective.
Correlation: no car –>poor.
Reverse it, whatever.
Figure out your own cause & effect. (You don’t know?)
So get more people to be carless?
Yeah! Increase poverty.
Because job opportunity is reduced.
Sherlocks, lower priced retail is reduced too. Duh!
Yeah!!! Spread the misery & poverty, by reducing personal mobility.
These planners & big gov types cover all bases, equality in less, except for those more equal or in power.
Scott:
I never said anything about decreasing mobility and increasing poverty. I don’t think you’re fostering good discussion on this forum by making asinine posts as you are. In the name of equity, Dan isn’t doing well either.
I am only questioning the “drive more, get more jobs” mantra. It has been proven that VMT per capita does not equate to a better economy.
The highway-only group seems to view mobility in terms of driving more miles for jobs, goods, and services. The more the better. A more pragmatic approach is to allow for options in transportation as well as options to reduce long trips (i.e. bringing the jobs closer, stores closer, etc.).
And I am one of the people who thinks “carless cities” are not feasible or practical, and they do in fact limit mobility. I wish not to impose that on other people, but I also don’t wish to “lock people up” in an auto-dependent society, where their next job is based on their ability to be able to afford to get there or not.
That’s not meritocracy.
Ws,
If you are not aware that people who have cars can get better jobs [& do], then you should read more.
There is not advocacy for highway-only, but for more lanes & for public transit to not take so many taxes.
WS,
The link to the pdf is broken. If you would really like to get a copy of the paper, the citation is:
John Pucher and John Renne (2003) “Socio-economics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS”. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, Issue 3 (Summer 2003), pp. 49-77.
The data come from the national sample of the NHTS, limited to urban areas.
You’re saying the number (of all trips via transit) is only 5% (less than 1% more) amongst the very poorest Americans
What the summary of the data says is that of all trips taken by low-income people (income less than $20K), less than 5% are by transit.
The data also suggest that auto ownership not that uncommon, even among poor households. They apparently place a high value on the access it provides. That is why those who do not own a vehicle rely quite heavily on others in their social network who do.
That right there is a big indication of how we build and live in the US is not very efficient or cost effective.
What is “efficient” or “cost-effective”? How would it be defined in this context? The other link I provided showed evidence that over time, Toronto’s urban travel patterns tended to follow the same trends that are observed in most US cities. That is without the policies that are typically cited as causing inefficiency in urban structure in US cities (policies toward home ownership, a large federal presence in financing infrastructure, local zoning regulations, etc.)
The prohibition on private taxis in most areas is a huge problem. The most obvious solution to transit is to enable private car services to charge to take people around town without official taxi licenses.
MJ:“The data also suggest that auto ownership not that uncommon, even among poor households. They apparently place a high value on the access it provides. That is why those who do not own a vehicle rely quite heavily on others in their social network who do.
ws: But that’s not true. Car ownership is uncommon among the poor. The actual 2001 NHTS study shows that 3 out of 4 families do not own a vehicle. Did you read the actual report? Why would I need a summary from another article when I can actually look at the report directly?
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf
MJ:“What is “efficient†or “cost-effectiveâ€? How would it be defined in this context? The other link I provided showed evidence that over time, Toronto’s urban travel patterns tended to follow the same trends that are observed in most US cities. That is without the policies that are typically cited as causing inefficiency in urban structure in US cities (policies toward home ownership, a large federal presence in financing infrastructure, local zoning regulations, etc.)”
ws: Canada is just as guilty as the US with its pro-sprawl policies, but to a lesser extent. I am not sure why you are assuming (just because you read some article) that they do not have such policies in place without even looking at Canada’s policies in the first place.
Yes, Canadian cities have a lot of zoning, parking, minimum lot sizes, massive funding for highways, etc. Where are you getting your information from?
Where are taxis not allowed?
Why would taxis even be used regularly, by the same person?
But that’s not true. Car ownership is uncommon among the poor. The actual 2001 NHTS study shows that 3 out of 4 families do not own a vehicle. Did you read the actual report? Why would I need a summary from another article when I can actually look at the report directly?
Actually, it is true. The lowest income quintile contains many households who are technically below the poverty line. The fact that even 25% of these households own a vehicle suggest that it is a valuable resource. Moreover, the paper suggests that even households that don’t own a vehicle still make significant use of that mode. Some of these people might also be renting or leasing a vehicle, which would not imply ownership. You should read the paper I suggested to see the many differnent ways the data can be stratified and summarized. As I mentioned before, looking at car ownership doesn’t tell you enough, you need to look at how people actually travel.
Also, I used Canada as one example since its urban areas typically have made more concerted efforts than most US cities to constrain growth (see, for example, the chapter in Robert Cervero’s Transit Metropolis book on Ottawa. But why should “massive” (however defined) highway spending be considered a “pro-sprawl” policy, especially if the revenues used to fund that spending are collected from users?
Lastly, claiming that policies are “pro-sprawl” is merely a subjective judgment and says nothing about their efficiency (my original question).
MJ: “Moreover, the paper suggests that even households that don’t own a vehicle still make significant use of that mode… As I mentioned before, looking at car ownership doesn’t tell you enough, you need to look at how people actually travel.”
ws: Define significant? Here is what I know about how people actually travel who don’t own a car:
*No-vehicle households trips (MSAs):
–Areas 250k – 1 million people: Auto (driver or passenger) 51.7%
Alternate (Walk, Transit, Other) 48.3%
–Areas 1 million – 3 million: Auto: 47.9%
Alternate: 52.1%
–Areas 3 million Auto: 23%
Alternate: 77%
*This represents no-vehicle households, of which mostly poor people are apart of.
Source:
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf
(page 56 or page 70 for pdf document).
There is no indication that poor people use transit at only 5% and cars for 76% for urban areas as you state. None whatsoever, because even for the smallest of metro areas for no-automobile households, transit represents 10.8% of their travel and auto share represents at maximum about 50%. Going from there, it gets even worse for your numbers. Transit/walk rapidly rises and auto share drops. It is a mathematical conundrum that the 25% of poor households that have access to a car could drop transit’s share or rapidly increase auto’s share to make your numbers look clean. And even so, the poor households that do own a car don’t all use it for every trip, they’re still taking transit and walking.
So if 3 out 4 poor households don’t own a car and autos are not zero-car households’ predominate means of travel as shown by the 2001 study; I feel that it is safe for me to discount your numbers and paper. I will try and find the paper you’re referring to, but you’re contradicting what the actual 2001 NHTS study says, which I feel is dishonest.
MJ:“But why should “massive†(however defined) highway spending be considered a “pro-sprawl†policy, especially if the revenues used to fund that spending are collected from users?”
ws:It’s tough for me to make comments about Canada’s highway finance system, but if it’s anything like ours, it takes highway user fees that were generated @ the city level and gives them to promote distanced highway networks away from the city that promote sprawl. To me, that’s not a true user-fee.
Thanks for the civil debate, btw. I hope to hear your response.
So if 3 out 4 poor households don’t own a car and autos are not zero-car households’ predominate means of travel as shown by the 2001 study; I feel that it is safe for me to discount your numbers and paper.
I think the problem stems from the fact that you’re using auto ownership as a proxy for income, which is really what we’re concerned about. Income and auto ownership are correlated, but one cannot be used as a perfect substitute for the other. That is, you’re asking “what is the distribution of trips given auto ownership?”, whereas I’m asking “what is the distribution of trips given income. This confounded by the fact that in many cities there are people who are voluntarily zero-car households (out of concern for the environmental, desire for a simpler lifestyle, etc.). This effect is more pronounced in places like New York and San Francisco, and may skew the results if that is the basis for the cross-tabulation of the data. There is also the matter of the definition of vehicle “ownership”, a difficult measurement matter to be sure, which I raised in an earlier post.
Further, the paper I cite indicates that when looking at stratification by auto ownership only, the share of auto trips falls to about 1/3 — not that different from the numbers reported in the report you cite. This suggests to me that 1) the effect of non-poor, zero-car households is non-trivial, and 2) the definition of “ownership” is loosely defined (and interpreted by respondents), which probably affects the outcome.
The paper I cited also contains a tabulation of public transit market share (percentage of trips) stratified by both income and city size, which you also refer to. The effect of city size is still there, to some extent. The number is very small for low-income households in cities of less than 1 million (<2%), around 5% for cities 1-3 million, and just over 10% for cities greater than 3 million.
And even so, the poor households that do own a car don’t all use it for every trip, they’re still taking transit and walking.
Sure, among poor, zero-car households, biking and walking account for about 17% of trips. This drops to under 10% for each of the other income quintiles.
ws:It’s tough for me to make comments about Canada’s highway finance system, but if it’s anything like ours, it takes highway user fees that were generated @ the city level and gives them to promote distanced highway networks away from the city that promote sprawl. To me, that’s not a true user-fee.
From what I understand of the Canadian highway finance system, the federal and provincial governments both collect fuel taxes, with the federal government using some of the revenues to make what amount to block grants to provinces and local governments. It’s a bit more decentralized that in the US. There are not the same national-level types of projects (e.g. Interstate system). There is the Trans-Canada Highway and a couple of lesser routes (e.g. Yellowhead Route), but other than that, not much federal involvement.
Most Canadian cities have less balkanization of local governments within urban areas, but still, it is hard to image much of the revenues generated within urban areas going somewhere else, especially considering the absence of a national trust fund-grant type of system. The question of what constitutes a user fee and whether fuel taxes should be considered as such is a matter of degree. I don’t want to get into it too much (this post is already pretty long) here, but I’ll just suggest that at the appropriate jurisdictional level, many roads can be considered a club good, which would offer some guidance as to what type of revenue instrument would be appropriate. The question of which level of jurisdiction is “appropriate” is basically a tradeoff between the degree of free riding and the amount of trips that are made by locals.
Thanks for the civil debate, btw. I hope to hear your response.
Much obliged. I prefer to keep the debate on that level.