141–150 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congestion pricing is paid at the point of entry, so the non local cars also pay the fee. In fact, it's easier to collect from them.
But in the article LA residents pay increased Uber and Lyft fares. If this policy were in NYC, the gp is suggesting NYC residents get hit with an additional fine that people who drive from out of state would not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > [San Francisco Supervisor Aaron] Peskin is drafting a measure for the November election that would levy a 3.25% fee on rides with one passenger, and a 1.5% fee on shared rides.
With all the nonsense going on, I’ve actually just got a car in SF. And that’s after 7 years car-free. Cycling is bloody impossible these days, and they got rid of the damned scooters too. Good job, Aaron. You’re a bloody genius. My friends were all car-free too and only a fourth of them are still that way. No kids or anything. It’s just gotten kinda crappy here. I was hoping to hold out for just a little longer but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's misleading -- yes, in the aggregate, gas taxes cover only part of the expenses, but that's not because of personal cars . Damage on the roads -- and thus maintenance costs -- scales with the 4th power of weight per axle. So the damage is virtually all from large trucks, with sedans and SUVs as a rounding error. If you were to apportion out the maintenance cost due to personal cars, they are overpaying.
Exactly this. Of course, if they tax per axle and tonnage combination, it’ll just be passed on to consumers anyhow as most of trucks are distributing goods which directly or indirectly end up in the hands of consumers. However, it would be quite fair to do, I think.
Why not just tax single riders, if congestion is the issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuel tax revenue and other direct user fees like annual registration in California amount to less than 25% of what the state and its cities pay to maintain the roads and streets. Roads are massively subsidized from general revenues. If you are proposing a $5/gallon fuel tax then I completely agree. That would be about equivalent to what other rich countries tax motor fuel and consistent with the state's greenhouse ga…
That's misleading -- yes, in the aggregate, gas taxes cover only part of the expenses, but that's not because of personal cars . Damage on the roads -- and thus maintenance costs -- scales with the 4th power of weight per axle. So the damage is virtually all from large trucks, with sedans and SUVs as a rounding error. If you were to apportion out the maintenance cost due to personal cars, they are overpaying.
[citation needed]
> Uber and Lyft “are using public roads, and the profit is going to their companies,” Phil Washington, Metro’s chief executive, said at a recent meeting. Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, which every Uber and Lyft driver pays. California has gasoline taxes of: * 55.22c per gallon (second only to Pennsylvania) * 18.4c per gallon (federal) * 2.25% sales tax Additionally, taxing only rideshari…
This seems to be a recurring problem. We have all these subsidies and taxes that penalize or prioritize certain kinds of actions instead of charging everything at its true cost. This means the government is forcing a certain kind of solution to the problem rather than charging the problem makers the cost of their problem. A better solution would be to charge all drivers the exact cost to run their cars including all…
Do you penalize users/tax payers who have a lower use and less scaled systems? (e.g. should it cost more to mail my grandmother a letter because her post office is less at scale than mine?)
Do you increase the costs if some of your users leave (and risk even more attrition)?
This has been investigated in depth with schools and local businesses. Gov gives them a sweetheart deal with the hope that they contribute back and as the deal get's less good (and Gov starts ramping taxes to deal with paying infrastructure costs) businesses leave. For me the natural conclusion is the government has to provide some balancing (rain day funds, progressive taxes, ...)
I'm a LA resident. People in this city like to talk about congestion as though they see it as a problem, but they don't actually see it as a problem. Only people in the valley see it as a problem because there are limited choke points into and out of LA proper which keep people from getting to work. LA's limited transportation infrastructure prevents DTLA's homeless from getting to Beverly Hills, Long Beach's gang-re…
And to your point, they absolutely could solve the chokepoint issues with eminent domain, and adding additional arteries, but they choose not to. For people who think a congestion tax will improve traffic, it won't. Congestion taxes work if they can shift behaviors to alternate modes of transportation. If there aren't any alternatives, it's just a levy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to your point, they absolutely could solve the chokepoint issues with eminent domain, and adding additional arteries, but they choose not to. For people who think a congestion tax will improve traffic, it won't. Congestion taxes work if they can shift behaviors to alternate modes of transportation. If there aren't any alternatives, it's just a levy.
> and adding additional arteries Time and time again cities learn this does nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
There are no alternatives to a road system in LA for most residents. If the roads were choked and there was an underutilized subway that I could use, I’d totally get the argument of taxing the road system or capping capacity, so as to push people toward more efficient methods. But, it’s not feesible to build out a subway system in this city that is expansive, so we need to work with what we have- Cars.
Make LA the autonomous car capital of the world. Let’s be the best and first at linking cars together in convoys and shuttling them fast down our massive freeway network.
Let’s build tunnels under the mountain passes to add more connections into Hollywood so people have better access than winding canyon roads.
Let’s build expansive subway networks through south central and downtown to bring cost effective transportation to lower income neighborhoods.
Let’s do a ton. But let’s also build a bunch of roads.
You'd think someone who spends so much time positioning himself as a "progressive" would understand why taxing people who don't own cars is both stupid and unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuel tax revenue and other direct user fees like annual registration in California amount to less than 25% of what the state and its cities pay to maintain the roads and streets. Roads are massively subsidized from general revenues. If you are proposing a $5/gallon fuel tax then I completely agree. That would be about equivalent to what other rich countries tax motor fuel and consistent with the state's greenhouse ga…
That's misleading -- yes, in the aggregate, gas taxes cover only part of the expenses, but that's not because of personal cars . Damage on the roads -- and thus maintenance costs -- scales with the 4th power of weight per axle. So the damage is virtually all from large trucks, with sedans and SUVs as a rounding error. If you were to apportion out the maintenance cost due to personal cars, they are overpaying.
California's crusade on sedans to cut down on pollution is a joke.