From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicycle Paths
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 00:52:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug19.214108.27381@adobe.com> byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer) writes:
>Oh, it's certainly not something as simple as 'those who
>don't drive pay for those who do'.  It's a matter of
>distance.  Someone who drives 5000 mi/yr contributes
>about the same amount as someone who drives 30000 mi/yr.
>Yet the latter is costing the system (in terms of damage,
>etc) four times as much.

I'm having trouble relating the real uses of roads to
your comparing milage. The roads _have_ to be there. The
highway system benefits _everyone_. The movement of goods and
services and the increase in the standard of living can be 
directly related to the growth of the highway system.

Automobiles are almost _free_ users of the system. Take for instance
the MacArthur Freeway here in Oakland. Trucks are banned on it
and the wear and tear on the system is almost imperceptable except
when the occassional heavy truck drives over a section and the concrete 
tearing up. If city roads weren't always being torn up and badly
patched over, there wouldn't be the rough spots that start the
damage from autos. And our bicycling would certainly be the better
for it.
>
>Sure, but some 'use' the roads far less than others.
>And if road use was priced at what it actually cost, it
>would diminish greatly.

And if it did diminish greatly that would be the signal of a 
falling economy.
>
>Well, I don't eat meat - so those trucks don't drive for
>me :-)
>
>Tom, I'm *not* advocating a reduction in the highway
>system.  *Or* a forced reduction in automobile usage.
>I think diamond lanes are ridiculous.

The point is that what you are suggesting will do that.
Oh, I agree that theoretically we should pay as we go for 
all governmental goods and services. But that isn't the
way things have developed. Now adding gas taxes is _just_
that -- adding taxes. There would never be any commensurate
reduction in any other area.

>I don't completely rely on the highway transportation
>system.  I really could get along without it - I cycle
>to the store, I buy locally grown fruits and vegetables
>and locally made pasta.  Maybe not as efficiently or as
>easily, maybe more.  How do I know when the costs of the
>system are completely hidden from me, and I receive no
>monetary benefit from my reduced usage?

Ahh, but you don't rely on local goods and services. I
suggest that you look at everything you use on a daily basis.
How did you get the keyboard you are typing at? Did the tooth 
fairy bring it on her wings? :-)

>And instead of increasing reliance on the highways,
>technology tends to decrease it.  Video conferencing,
>telecommuting, etc.  If the costs of driving were obtained
>through direct taxes, the incentive for such applications
>of technology becomes even greater.

There is a very simple test of this suggestion Scott,
is there more traffic on the road today than last year at this time?
Yes? Then why is that? I suggest that people are using the roads
more because they feel the need. You are suggesting that your
needs should reflect those of others. I don't think that
is a very good indication of the way things are.

I admit that there is a very poor connection in the taxpayers mind
about what he is paying and what he is getting. But making that
connection clearer won't necessarily change anything. And we know
how the government works. If you give them a tax they will
take it and return little or nothing for it.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles