tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post5064911606514716553..comments2024-03-28T14:02:40.132-04:00Comments on Discovering Urbanism: Which way from here?Daniel Nairnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14127732825472374125noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post-62616520010564648682009-03-24T08:47:00.000-04:002009-03-24T08:47:00.000-04:00Thanks for your reactions. I do agree that a VMT t...Thanks for your reactions. I do agree that a VMT tax is something that is ultimately just and efficient, and doing so on freeways for now is fine, but it would be nice if technological advances allow for something more comprehensive.<BR/><BR/>Maybe what I'm stuck on is how the VMT tax would be interpreted. It could be taken a couple of ways. 1. an approximation of payment for a private service, in which case drivers may view the payment as giving them special rights over other forms of transportation 2. A tax intended for behavior-modification for behaviors that bear excessive social costs. Something like a tax on cigarettes or gambling. No smoker assumes that the high level of taxes is payment for a special service.<BR/><BR/>But really what I'm most concerned about is local roads, and you've all convinced me that fair pricing will benefit here.Daniel Nairnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14127732825472374125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post-69368050581284267792009-03-23T20:48:00.000-04:002009-03-23T20:48:00.000-04:00IMO, VMT taxing is the only truly equitable option...IMO, VMT taxing is the only truly equitable option. Immediately, it will create more diverse local environments, which will naturally localize resources and economies and diversify transportation options. <BR/><BR/>BTW, it is true that freeways are (and should be) limited to vehicular modes, but that doesn't mean you can't do something else with networks and alternate travel options. For private providers, this mean competition, which will impair your network. Plus, there's much we can do with that unused ROW that a private operator will not desire to manage. It should be clearly understood to those of you who don't know what goes into creating a rail transit line: No city in this country will realize a robust transit network without making dedicatory use of freeway ROW. It's not an issue of eminent domain, it is an issue of money (of course, nothing is stopping us from taking land by fiat, but that's what they call round these parts Communism...so g'luck with that one).Eric Orozcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00320742140050171881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post-75275212777567691362009-03-23T12:27:00.000-04:002009-03-23T12:27:00.000-04:00I have just two thoughts. First, most road pricin...I have just two thoughts. First, most road pricing in America takes place on freeways, a type of road that no alternative mode of transportation, other than bus, really wants to be on. So I think your point about throwing in the towel is wrong, freeways are already designed specifically as a vehicle only road. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, road pricing like what London has implemented, encourages alrternative options on surface streets by making driving more expensive, thus making alternatives more competitive and cheaper in a market sense. Congestion pricing can also be an important source of revenue for local governments to use for future alternative transportation projects.CarFree Stupidityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17452960459225854564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post-59685907538742530212009-03-21T06:08:00.000-04:002009-03-21T06:08:00.000-04:00Daniel, another insightful post. No golden bullet...Daniel, another insightful post. No golden bullet in my gun, but I'll fire in anyway. At least in PA, the fact that the PA Turnpike is currently the only tolled road around leads to some distortion in terms of usage; and the fact that we are thinking about leasing it for 75 years just as we are on the precipice of having the technology to spread user fees over more roads means we may be severely hindering our ability to have a comprehensive approach to the very question you pose (since the Commonwealth won't have control over this major thoroughfare).LHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02127870226377459490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post-51770507146682840232009-03-20T22:42:00.000-04:002009-03-20T22:42:00.000-04:00Hey Zed. Thanks for weighing in. I'm glad you did ...Hey Zed. Thanks for weighing in. I'm glad you did bring up the issue of equity, because that is a huge part of this. IMO, if road costs were shifted away from the public and toward the users of the transportation system (aka road pricing) that MIGHT ultimately serve the interest of equity, as long as the funds that are freed up are used in a socially beneficial way.<BR/><BR/>But streets are also the backbone of our public space. I worry that auctioning off their use, whether through toll roads or congestion pricing, to the highest bidder could be really problematic in the long run.Daniel Nairnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14127732825472374125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079297043552042968.post-40213086477742792452009-03-20T21:16:00.000-04:002009-03-20T21:16:00.000-04:00Not to gee the equity horse into the forefront, ag...Not to gee the equity horse into the forefront, again. But, you must ask who pays for the government-subsidized private road and who bears the cost of having the externalities in their backyard.<BR/><BR/>That is, it is disingeneous to allow the government to build roads in a neighborhood that may not choose to have one, nor can afford to utilize the benefits. I suppose the political decision to build the road in the first place has provided a balancing of concerns. But, if privatization arguments of efficiency and saving of limited funds is used in deciding who bears the costs, then it is inequitous.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04841334276866857245noreply@blogger.com