schlimm UlrichHere in Canada rural populations are decreasing...look at Thunder Bay..Sudbury..North Bay...as people move out you have fewer locals to support services. I think market forces have been causing that trend for a long time. Has the mining and smelting around Sudbury shrunk? I remember flying over that area years ago on a flight abroad and was struck by the clear area around Sudbury.
UlrichHere in Canada rural populations are decreasing...look at Thunder Bay..Sudbury..North Bay...as people move out you have fewer locals to support services.
I think market forces have been causing that trend for a long time. Has the mining and smelting around Sudbury shrunk? I remember flying over that area years ago on a flight abroad and was struck by the clear area around Sudbury.
I'm not sure how the mine is doing although from the news I get..not too well at all. There will always be mining and lumber towns as long as there is a need for raw resources... so small towns won't completely vanish although living in a small town will become more expensive..thereby accerating the move to urban centers for most who don't need to live there. This is probably good news for railroads as moves between large urban centers works well. Here in Canada we rely more heavily on rail for that reason.. very little trucking between Ontario nad western Canada for example becuase the rail connections are quite good and trucks can't touch the rates.
jeaton schlimm BucyrusWhat I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars. If so, why not simply raise the tax per gallon to make up for the shortfall? Or if you don't want to add a burden on truckers, etc., then adjust rates so there is a differential between commercial vehicles and private. It is an interesting idea and the technology is there, but at what price? The numbers I have seen indicate that there are about 250 million registered vehicles on the road. If it only cost $100 to equip each vehicle to record the mileage, that is a total bill of $25 billion for that part alone. In addition, I am sure that the cost of the equipment and people to set up the process and then collect and disburse the tax would add $ billions. The goal of setting up a user fee schedule to reflect the actual cost burden of a given vehicle on the road it uses is laudable, but it is certainly going to cause some shift in the tax burden. There will be winners and losers. Perhaps the total amount collected will be no greater than present revenues from gas taxes, but do you really think you can convince the person who winds up paying more for the new highway tax that he has not been subject to a tax increase?
schlimm BucyrusWhat I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars. If so, why not simply raise the tax per gallon to make up for the shortfall? Or if you don't want to add a burden on truckers, etc., then adjust rates so there is a differential between commercial vehicles and private.
BucyrusWhat I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars.
If so, why not simply raise the tax per gallon to make up for the shortfall? Or if you don't want to add a burden on truckers, etc., then adjust rates so there is a differential between commercial vehicles and private.
It is an interesting idea and the technology is there, but at what price? The numbers I have seen indicate that there are about 250 million registered vehicles on the road. If it only cost $100 to equip each vehicle to record the mileage, that is a total bill of $25 billion for that part alone. In addition, I am sure that the cost of the equipment and people to set up the process and then collect and disburse the tax would add $ billions.
The goal of setting up a user fee schedule to reflect the actual cost burden of a given vehicle on the road it uses is laudable, but it is certainly going to cause some shift in the tax burden. There will be winners and losers. Perhaps the total amount collected will be no greater than present revenues from gas taxes, but do you really think you can convince the person who winds up paying more for the new highway tax that he has not been subject to a tax increase?
It will cost a lot of money, but it will compensate by saving money previously spent on traffic law enforcement and traffic court.
It will also save money in replacing costly LRT and other transit systems. The traffic management potential of this new system will make private automobiles on roadways into the new mass transit system. In the irony of all ironies, roads and cars will become the new mass transit. The roads and cars will remain the same, but the driving habits and road usage will change. It will make rail and buses obsolete except for people who are unable to drive. And for that limited purpose, rail and bus may be overkill. Rail certainly would be overkill.
Even though this is being put forth as merely a different way of collecting the tax, I would not be surprised if it does increase the tax. The level of micro management that this new system would provide will probably lead to a whole new dimension of behavioral pricing.
It will, no doubt, indeed be used to encourage fuel conservation, leading to less driving. Conservation pricing will make every mile you drive cost more than the previous mile. Then it will increase the fare to cover the fixed cost of the system bureaucracy as fee collection drops from conservation.
OK - but if we do what Ulrich suggests - then what do we do about the people who perform and manage the vital economic activiites that just have to occur in the rural areas, almost by definition - like farming ? You know - growing and harvesting our food ? Do they become just a terrestial version of an outpost on the Moon - mere colonists who tend to and subsist off the land ? Except that we'd have to pay them quite a bit more to compensate them for their remote and isolated, lonely, and more expensive and difficult lifestyle, lack of amenities, long travel times, etc. It may come to that, though - many other traditionally rural activities are either gone - such as lumbering - or relocated or concentrated into smaller areas - such a mining or cattle-raising, etc.
- Paul North.
BucyrusIt will also save money in replacing costly LRT and other transit systems. The traffic management potential of this new system will make private automobiles on roadways into the new mass transit system. In the irony of all ironies, roads and cars will become the new mass transit. The roads and cars will remain the same, but the driving habits and road usage will change. It will make rail and buses obsolete except for people who are unable to drive. And for that limited purpose, rail and bus may be overkill. Rail certainly would be overkill.
That does not sound feasible or desirable. If there were no transit, given expected growth in population, have you considered how many more traffic lanes would be needed? And what about people who work, but would have a hard time affording the sort of vehicles that would be used? Are you suggesting that the cost of giving and collecting on traffic tickets equals $25+ bil. plus the fines generated by the traffic courts?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
UlrichPopulation centralization planning should be on any agenda to reduce global warming also. Encourage people to move to the cities...save the environment..cut taxes..a win win win all 'round..
It may work on paper, although I wonder about infrastructure even then. The larger the city the more infrastructure and its maintenence ends up costing. Expenses will always trump in these climates. The cities up north that you mention may benefit from just being the main commercial areas around there---and their size is not hug either---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm greyhoundsoltmanndgreyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man. Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear? Of course when Smith wrote that, the only way a user fee could be charged was the method used for 100's of years - tolls - on roads and rivers. There was no fuel to tax other than oats and hay. Once fuel-burning vehicles were developed for the roads, it became (and remains) much easier to simply tax the fuel.
greyhoundsoltmanndgreyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man. Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?
oltmanndgreyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man. Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?
greyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man.
Of course when Smith wrote that, the only way a user fee could be charged was the method used for 100's of years - tolls - on roads and rivers. There was no fuel to tax other than oats and hay. Once fuel-burning vehicles were developed for the roads, it became (and remains) much easier to simply tax the fuel.
Oh, Beelzebub!
I've never seen anyone miss the point more completely. Just because you say it's "easier" to "simply tax the fuel." doesn't mean that we're not GREATLY HARMED by the fact that the dang government relies on fuel taxes.
Let me try to explain again. A toll is directly related to the use of a specific road. (If you think about it, which you obviously have not done, railroads are basically similar to Smith's private canal system.. You might try thinking of JB Hunt paying the BNSF to move a container. The difference between doing that and using a canal boat is not significant.)
Conversely, a fuel tax in no way relates to the use of a specific road. A housewife using local public streets to bring home food pays the same fuel tax as a trucker using a limited access Interstate.. Now, why does this matter?
It matters because the local road network is a "common use" facility that is necessary for life. Again, such a network is necessary for public safety serivices to function, utility crews to do their repair work, mail to be delivered, and that housewife to bring home the food. It's fitting to use a "common" tax for a "common" good, such as local roads. That would be your fuel tax used to support local roads.
A limited access Interstate is a different road. It's an avenue of commerce. As such, it should properly be supoorted by the commerce it carries. Fuel taxes can not do this because they can not be linked back to any specific road. What fuel taxes do is create a "Pot 'O Money" for politicians to play with. And thy tend to waste the "Pot". (For reference see the "Earmarks" in the just passed "Defense Appropirations Bill", the Illinois State Government, whatever.)
You could also read the actual words in "Wealth of Nations". Try pages 916-924 of the Bantam Classic edition. They speak to the subject and are relavent to railroading today.
Tolls on Interstate Highways directly link benifits to costs and optimize economic outcome. Fuel taxes do not do that. It's obvious than you can not, or refuse to, understand that benefits and costs should be linked to produce the greatest posible economic benifits for a nation.
I did get a chuckle out of the "Hay Tax" thing. It's nonsense, but funny.
greyhoundsA limited access Interstate is a different road. It's an avenue of commerce. As such, it should properly be supoorted by the commerce it carries.
Many Interstates have state and U.S. routes paralleling them. What would prevent trucks from using these roads? Am I wrong in thinking these roads fall into the "common use" category?.
James
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.