Buttigieg/Secretary of Transportation Thread

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

Interesting little experiment going on here with Mayor Pete running DOT. He continues to hit the interview circuit and is making this Cabinet position more visible then ever before. Will it produce results? I think getting the conversations going in the mainstream can only help. 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Hank Kingsley

[Mole 4333]

A pro-bike stance might make some enemies around here.

[Js1 85574]

2 minutes ago, Mole said:

A pro-bike stance might make some enemies around here.

"A Lime Scooter for everyone who wants it" 

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

Does he have a plan to put a taco truck on every corner?

[UpperWestside 6190]

Being in an area where there are a high amount of motorized bicycles I would ask this of Secretary Buttigieg. If you are going to be on the road using a mode of transportation that has a motor you should have a license plate on it. It is decidedly not fun trying to cross the road when the walk sign is on and seeing one of these motorized bikes not following any traffic laws, at all. I am all for more of this type of transportation (especially because it has greatly aided restaurant to-go order abilities which is good for everyone), but there needs to be some uniform national law on registering these bikes.

I do also support his push for high speed rail. I would gladly ride the rails on a more regular basis if we had the infrastructure to support such an endeavor. I like to fly, but high speed rail needs to be part of the future of this country sooner rather than later.

[henrygandorf 29194]

7 hours ago, Js1 said:

"A Lime Scooter for everyone who wants it" 

the first full day bird scooters were in west hollywood, i almost killed three people.

one on accident, and two on purpose.  

luckily they outlawed them a few weeks later.

[atomheartbevo 89799]

On 2/8/2021 at 11:29 AM, Mole said:

A pro-bike stance might make some enemies around here.

As long as he doesn't start taking highway lanes and turning them into bike lanes, he can talk about bikes all he wants.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This is such a Pete idea. Fucking horrible. 
 

 

[NWBuck 8586]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is such a Pete idea. Fucking horrible. 
 

 

Agreed... A tax on middle and lower SES folks who can't afford to live near their jobs.

[956 Worldwide 34772]

We are going to have to rethink how we fund infrastructure given the changing pace of technology. So much of road infrastructure is funded through a gasoline tax, and we can expect those revenues to crater as fully EV becomes standard and even ICE vehicles that remain will have much better fuel economy.  
 

At first glance, a pay by the mile tax does seem to be pretty equitable.... you use, you pay.  This is basically what a fuel tax is—- the more you drive, the more you fund. What alternative do you see for funding roads as fuel tax revenues dry up? 

Edited March 27, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

the more you drive, the more you fund. What alternative do you see for funding roads as fuel tax revenues dry up? 

Build electric flying cars. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We are going to have to rethink how we fund infrastructure given the changing pace of technology. So much of road infrastructure is funded through a gasoline tax, and we can expect those revenues to crater as fully EV becomes standard and even ICE vehicles that remain will have much better fuel economy.  
 

At first glance, a pay by the mile tax does seem to be pretty equitable.... you use, you pay.  This is basically what a fuel tax is—- the more you drive, the more you fund. What alternative do you see for funding roads as fuel tax revenues dry up? 

That’s a good question and the answer gets harder every day, how do you account for people of means sitting in their homes having everything delivered to them, who are paying neither the gas tax or the mile driven tax but getting the benefit of the infrastructure?  The solution has to be a combination of things, not one thing.  I don’t know what that is though.  

I grew up in a place where 50% or more of the traffic is trucks and ancillary vehicles literally digging up and hauling the earth (gravel, oil, gas) to other places to build more infrastructure.  And tearing up all the roads in the process.  That environmental cost isn’t really accounted for anywhere.  

Edited March 27, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[CooterBrown 18029]

What alternative do you see for funding roads as fuel tax revenues dry up? 

A flat tax per year for every electric vehicle paid at the annual inspection.

[956 Worldwide 34772]

I have to think that delivery costs including fuel taxes are on passed along by retailers to customers, so they are paying at least part of that cost indirectly. I am not sure of any studies done on the environmental and infrastructure impact of online shopping and delivery vice trips to the brick and mortar store.  I’m not at all sure that it might  not be better on both counts.  It’s much more efficient to move people via mass transit and this is basically mass transit for purchases before the last mile or so. 

The flat tax is an idea but you’d want to work it so that it’s basically neutral to a average fuel taxes.  You don’t want to give an incentive to keep ICE technology. And I’m still not convinced that a flat tax is the solution. Why should someone who buys a small electric runabout for short trips around town pay the same rate as someone who is going to be using their Tesla much like a conventional car and stressing the infrastructure? 

[Born to Run 6569]

This is such a Pete idea. Fucking horrible. 
 
 

Yeah this sucks shit. I'm a home builder and all my subs live way on in the exurbs because they can afford it. - Buda, Bastrop, Salado, San Marcos, Lockhart.

They already take it in the ass by having to get up an hour early to beat traffic into West Austin on tollroads that used to be free.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

16 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Yeah this sucks shit. I'm a home builder and all my subs live way on in the exurbs because they can afford it. - Buda, Bastrop, Salado, San Marcos, Lockhart.

They already take it in the ass by having to get up an hour early to beat traffic into West Austin on tollroads that used to be free.
 

Yeah but others take it in the ass because developers don’t pay for the infrastructure beyond their immediate development.

It’s not an easy problem to solve.  

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I have to think that delivery costs including fuel taxes are on passed along by retailers to customers, so they are paying at least part of that cost indirectly. I am not sure of any studies done on the environmental and infrastructure impact of online shopping and delivery vice trips to the brick and mortar store.  I’m not at all sure that it might  not be better on both counts.  It’s much more efficient to move people via mass transit and this is basically mass transit for purchases before the last mile or so. 

The flat tax is an idea but you’d want to work it so that it’s basically neutral to a average fuel taxes.  You don’t want to give an incentive to keep ICE technology. And I’m still not convinced that a flat tax is the solution. Why should someone who buys a small electric runabout for short trips around town pay the same rate as someone who is going to be using their Tesla much like a conventional car and stressing the infrastructure? 

And yes you’re right, delivery costs are partially passed on.  But there are so many externally related indirect costs that aren’t.  Are they taxed on the pollution the delivery causes?  Does the delivery driver get paid full time benefits with health insurance so we aren’t subsidizing him?  We need a complete rebaselining of our tax system.  

[Lechuza 31]

I have a long commute and already pay my taxes on gas. Now, Pothole Pete is gonna double tax me going to work?  I’m sure Pete is ok with me and other hard working Americans taking it up the ass, but I’m sure as hell not. I just keep hanging on the fact that the dems are gonna butcher everything so bad that the Republicans will take back Congress in 2 years and stop this madness. 

[956 Worldwide 34772]

Bottom line is that we are taking in billions less per year in fuel taxes. That’s been a trend thanks to better fuel economy in ICE vehicles alone, and we can expect that trend to continue to accelerate as EVs and hybrids replace ICE only.  But while that’s good for the air, it does nothing to help the highway system. We have MORE traffic on that.  And that’s why our roads are shitty, because state road repair coffers are getting drained. 
 

A mileage tax has a lot of attractive features. You can implement variable rates based on things like congestion, type of road, rural vs. urban, and time of travel. You can implement higher fees for based on weight per axle to account for increased road wear. And it offers a direct, easy to understand incentive to reduce the amount of time you spend on the road.

And while urban planning and housing policies in our country are screwed up, especially a lack of multifamily housing and mass transit, I am also willing to bet that the people who are most against a mileage tax would also scream at the idea of denser housing or taxes to build functioning light rail and bus. None of that helps fix the problem of “we don’t collect enough money to maintain our roads and that problem will get worse.”  And everyone wants good roads, but when the can gets passed around, no one wants to pay— or at least, pay according to how much they use it. 

Saying you need to pay for what you use as well as the externalities created by your exurban lifestyle is not the same as screwing you over. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[RDCanecutter 26473]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Build electric flying cars. 

Put offices on wheels and have them drive to where the workers are.

Instead of calling in sick, you'd have people laying out spike strips.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Build electric flying cars. 

On the way. 

https://in.mashable.com/tech/20288/elon-musk-wants-to-turn-tesla-roadster-into-a-hover-car

 

[gmr548 16616]

We are going to have to rethink how we fund infrastructure given the changing pace of technology. So much of road infrastructure is funded through a gasoline tax, and we can expect those revenues to crater as fully EV becomes standard and even ICE vehicles that remain will have much better fuel economy.  
 
At first glance, a pay by the mile tax does seem to be pretty equitable.... you use, you pay.  This is basically what a fuel tax is—- the more you drive, the more you fund. What alternative do you see for funding roads as fuel tax revenues dry up? 

User fees are already woefully inadequate and are very regressive. Infrastructure funding simply should not be tied to user fees.

Subsidizing massive highways and dozens of free parking spaces per vehicle is the least efficient, most expensive, most environmentally destructive, and deadliest way to design a transportation/land use system. There is no good answer to your question because the current approach to land use and transportation is deeply flawed. It can’t be fixed. It needs to be radically transformed.

[RomaVicta 30018]

1 hour ago, Lechuza said:

I have a long commute and already pay my taxes on gas. Now, Pothole Pete is gonna double tax me going to work?  I’m sure Pete is ok with me and other hard working Americans taking it up the ass, but I’m sure as hell not. I just keep hanging on the fact that the dems are gonna butcher everything so bad that the Republicans will take back Congress in 2 years and stop this madness. 

Beleaguered tax payer who thinks every dollar who leaves his pocket is theft. Victim.

20 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Bottom line is that we are taking in billions less per year in fuel taxes. That’s been a trend thanks to better fuel economy in ICE vehicles alone, and we can expect that trend to continue to accelerate as EVs and hybrids replace ICE only.  But while that’s good for the air, it does nothing to help the highway system. We have MORE traffic on that.  And that’s why our roads are shitty, because state road repair coffers are getting drained. 
 

A mileage tax has a lot of attractive features. You can implement variable rates based on things like congestion, type of road, rural vs. urban, and time of travel. You can implement higher fees for based on weight per axle to account for increased road wear. And it offers a direct, easy to understand incentive to reduce the amount of time you spend on the road.

And while urban planning and housing policies in our country are screwed up, especially a lack of multifamily housing and mass transit, I am also willing to bet that the people who are most against a mileage tax would also scream at the idea of denser housing or taxes to build functioning light rail and bus. None of that helps fix the problem of “we don’t collect enough money to maintain our roads and that problem will get worse.”  And everyone wants good roads, but when the can gets passed around, no one wants to pay— or at least, pay according to how much they use it. 

Saying you need to pay for what you use as well as the externalities created by your exurban lifestyle is not the same as screwing you over. 

Person who realizes actions for the common good can happen through government and realizes such things have a cost. Citizen

Reading these posts gives me a clearer vision of what has changed about fiscal conservatives. I think the GOP (not Trumpist) by sloganeering about the failures of goverment and the waste of government (very real concerns) and then pushing their rhetoric to state the total failure of government (hyperbole used to enflame their dwindling masses) ended up abandoning citizenship almost altogether.

Now it's rote dogma.

It's rote dogma that has been focused, by the opinion leaders of the right, on programs for the poor or any nickel not somehow benefitting the constituency they most care about: the super elilte wealthy who fill their trough very generously.

The left can surely be moved to overuse government and spend too much. The value of the right was their consideration of expanding government power and short/long term costs in balance with judging benefit to the country and its people.

They destroyed the fulcrum. They now claim that any spending is bad while ensuring the constituency they most care about contributes less through tax and makes more through subsidy to their various holdings. The great unwashed who vote GOP (again, not Trumpist) are convinced that they benerfit as well from things like estate tax "reform" and safeguards against the horrors of universal healthcare (We already have the best doctors in the world produced by the system we have! No, of course I don't have access to them because they're too expensive! Wut?).

I thank you both for your posts. Placed alongside each other, they proved thought provoking. I don't mean to pigeon hole either of you, particularly Lechuza whom I've not read before.

[RomaVicta 30018]

26 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

On the way. 

https://in.mashable.com/tech/20288/elon-musk-wants-to-turn-tesla-roadster-into-a-hover-car

 

Imagine the drivers you encounter on the highway trying to operate in a 3-D environment. We'll have to have underground tunnels for those not in air so they (we) won't be harmed by crashing electric hover cars.

I suggest personal computerized trebouchets at home and trapeze nets at every destination. Calibrate distance using your smart phone, climb into the cushy hurling seat, whoosh!, plop, you're there with no carbon foot print.

This could be you!

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

56 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Bottom line is that we are taking in billions less per year in fuel taxes. That’s been a trend thanks to better fuel economy in ICE vehicles alone, and we can expect that trend to continue to accelerate as EVs and hybrids replace ICE only.  But while that’s good for the air, it does nothing to help the highway system. We have MORE traffic on that.  And that’s why our roads are shitty, because state road repair coffers are getting drained. 
 

 

Coffers are getting drained because none of the funding is going toward its intended purpose.  That’s the problem that needs to be solved first. 

[956 Worldwide 34772]

25 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

User fees are already woefully inadequate and are very regressive. Infrastructure funding simply should not be tied to user fees.

Subsidizing massive highways and dozens of free parking spaces per vehicle is the least efficient, most expensive, most environmentally destructive, and deadliest way to design a transportation/land use system. There is no good answer to your question because the current approach to land use and transportation is deeply flawed. It can’t be fixed. It needs to be radically transformed.

I fundamentally agree with your second paragraph. With the first, I am not at all convinced. I think that user fees to fund at the very least maintenance of infrastructure is important.  And if the concern is really their retrogressive nature, there are mechanisms to address that (for example, reduced rates or subsidies to low income drivers that travel by car to work). 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

15 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I fundamentally agree with your second paragraph. With the first, I am not at all convinced. I think that user fees to fund at the very least maintenance of infrastructure is important.  And if the concern is really their retrogressive nature, there are mechanisms to address that (for example, reduced rates or subsidies to low income drivers that travel by car to work). 

Problem is the mechanisms to address that have been systematically dismantled and plundered by the same people who are now trying to deny people the right to vote.  We need a reboot.  

 

 

[Underdog 28773]

On 2/8/2021 at 12:31 PM, Js1 said:

"A Lime Scooter for everyone who wants it" 

Raises hand. 

[mchookem 16386]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Beleaguered tax payer who thinks every dollar who leaves his pocket is theft. Victim. (Lechuza)

...

Person who realizes actions for the common good can happen through government and realizes such things have a cost. Citizen. (956 Worldwide)

this is excellent. it is also going to be our downfall as a country. 

bc we are all living in the same society, whether we want to accept that we're citizens of it or not.

and when roughly half of your society is focused on destroying the mechanism for common good, on 'drowning it in the bathtub'...well, i just don't see how the civilization survives.

but hey, we had a good run lol.

Edited March 27, 2021 by mchookem

[956 Worldwide 34772]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Beleaguered tax payer who thinks every dollar who leaves his pocket is theft. Victim.

Person who realizes actions for the common good can happen through government and realizes such things have a cost. Citizen

Reading these posts gives me a clearer vision of what has changed about fiscal conservatives. I think the GOP (not Trumpist) by sloganeering about the failures of goverment and the waste of government (very real concerns) and then pushing their rhetoric to state the total failure of government (hyperbole used to enflame their dwindling masses) ended up abandoning citizenship almost altogether.

Now it's rote dogma.

It's rote dogma that has been focused, by the opinion leaders of the right, on programs for the poor or any nickel not somehow benefitting the constituency they most care about: the super elilte wealthy who fill their trough very generously.

The left can surely be moved to overuse government and spend too much. The value of the right was their consideration of expanding government power and short/long term costs in balance with judging benefit to the country and its people.

They destroyed the fulcrum. They now claim that any spending is bad while ensuring the constituency they most care about contributes less through tax and makes more through subsidy to their various holdings. The great unwashed who vote GOP (again, not Trumpist) are convinced that they benerfit as well from things like estate tax "reform" and safeguards against the horrors of universal healthcare (We already have the best doctors in the world produced by the system we have! No, of course I don't have access to them because they're too expensive! Wut?).

I thank you both for your posts. Placed alongside each other, they proved thought provoking. I don't mean to pigeon hole either of you, particularly Lechuza whom I've not read before.

This is a good post.  We absolutely need to have a political faction that questions the proper role and expanse of government. But we don’t have that at all.  In fact, we have one faction who would prefer that even legitimate, efficient uses of government be abandoned to a not-really-private sector to do a worse job for more money. And call it “shrinking government.” 

[Fudge Nuggets 19224]

11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is such a Pete idea. Fucking horrible. 
 

 

I bought my car the day after Thanksgiving 2019.  This Thursday the odometer rolled over 4,000 miles.  Bring it on, Pete. You’ll get fuck all from me.

[tantric superman 4667]

6 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

That’s a good question and the answer gets harder every day, how do you account for people of means sitting in their homes having everything delivered to them, who are paying neither the gas tax or the mile driven tax but getting the benefit of the infrastructure?  

Tax the people who deliver by the mile.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

In fact, we have one faction who would prefer that even legitimate, efficient uses of government be abandoned to a not-really-private sector to do a worse job for more money. And call it “shrinking government.” 

I think that is being a bit too generous.  I don't think they even want to "abandon to a more expensive private sector approach"  I think think they truly appear to not give a fuck, and are basically telling those who can't get theirs to fuck off.

Good god, I'd love for the Republicans to be a party that offered an intelligent alternative.  They aren't even offering  a stupid alternative on issues.

[tantric superman 4667]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And if the concern is really their retrogressive nature, there are mechanisms to address that (for example, reduced rates or subsidies to low income drivers that travel by car to work).

Or a simple rebate at the end of the year.  Such rebate approach would also have a positive environmental effects.

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

how do you account for people of means sitting in their homes having everything delivered to them  

we prefer the terms, “people of laze” or “slothmonsters”. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

7 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Good god, I'd love for the Republicans to be a party that offered an intelligent alternative.  They aren't even offering  a stupid alternative on issues.

uh, yeah. “govt is bad and ineffective” is their rallying cry when they’re not in power and their business model when they are. 

[mchookem 16386]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I think that is being a bit too generous.  I don't think they even want to "abandon to a more expensive private sector approach"  I think think they truly appear to not give a fuck, and are basically telling those who can't get theirs to fuck off.

Good god, I'd love for the Republicans to be a party that offered an intelligent alternative.  They aren't even offering  a stupid alternative on issues.

YES. i had some kind of epiphany during the past couple of months, the deep freeze and the vaccination rollout in Texas especially...

there is absolutely a large faction of our citizenry that views life through a lens of 'every man for himself' or 'i got mine, you get yours', etc.

that small town mayor or whoever in Texas, the one that resigned bc of his fb rant about people being lazy and you have to 'take care of yourself!' and 'stop expecting help especially from the government'? as our electric grid shut down and water got cutoff and basic services were failing? he was right in that he was speaking for a significant portion of our country.

it really clarified with the vaccination rollout...i mean, if you personally did not have access to fast technology and equipment, were not technologically astute and comfortable working with it, or have someone in your family or friends ('your people') that could help you...well, so sorry older or poorer person, you're SOL. oh, and also, no more masks! so good luck and may the odds be forever in your favor!

i mean, i just really thought about the impact that had on people that didn't have a macbook or laptop or fast internet or time where they could randomly and for hours at a time F5 looking for appts. and be able to click hereherehereandhere fast enough.

anyway... it's been a bit liberating bc i feel like i at least kind of 'get' where these folks are coming from now...life is a battle, a competition, survival of the fittest (or most privileged or richest or luckiest or whatever). 

i also think that's why the gun culture is so prolific in this country, it all ties in.

in a way it sort of makes sense...we are animals and that's how the animal world operates.

one would hope we (as a species) would have higher aspirations (without the caveat of having to adhere to a specific set of religious beliefs)...that our mere self-awareness and consciousness would elevate us.

but i don't think so. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by mchookem

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

13 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is such a Pete idea. Fucking horrible. 
 

 

Oh look, another sucker getting angry over an out of context 20 second clip. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

5 hours ago, Lechuza said:

I have a long commute and already pay my taxes on gas. Now, Pothole Pete is gonna double tax me going to work?  I’m sure Pete is ok with me and other hard working Americans taking it up the ass, but I’m sure as hell not. I just keep hanging on the fact that the dems are gonna butcher everything so bad that the Republicans will take back Congress in 2 years and stop this madness. 

The VMT discussion is in regards to phasing out the gas tax. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

Pete Buttigieg isn't allowed to discuss ideas for the future or have an open dialogue about infrastructure. Discourse isn't tolerated anymore. 

Carry on. 

 

[RomaVicta 30018]

Biden and that gay guy who is married to another man, not that there's anything wrong with that unless you believe in God, wanted to tax me for driving to see my grandbabies.

Biden put kids in cages worse than President Trump did.

Add latest lie here:_________________________________________

End with: it goes on and on and on.

 

I've never liked this movie, but they keep bringing back every eight years.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, mchookem said:

one would hope we (as a species) would have higher aspirations (without the caveat of having to adhere to a specific set of religious beliefs)...that our mere self-awareness and consciousness would elevate us.

but i don't think so. 

Loved your whole post. Rep to you for your thoughts.

The sentence that I clipped above refers to....civilization. Pity the GOP doesn't really believe in it anymore. I'm not having any regret over leaving it behind.

 

 

*I'm going off of the very very basic definition, and the GOP as a noncentralized tribal society.

[washparkhorn 9939]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

I’m from the government and I’m here to help. 

[Born to Run 6569]

Yeah but others take it in the ass because developers don’t pay for the infrastructure beyond their immediate development.
It’s not an easy problem to solve.  
 

No, developers routinely fuck everyone in the ass no lube all the time. It's not unreasonable to develope sustainably, but one can make retireable money in a few years being a POS. That path usually wins out.

I like sleeping well even if I fly coach.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

 

 

19 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We are going to have to rethink how we fund infrastructure given the changing pace of technology. So much of road infrastructure is funded through a gasoline tax, and we can expect those revenues to crater as fully EV becomes standard and even ICE vehicles that remain will have much better fuel economy.  
 

At first glance, a pay by the mile tax does seem to be pretty equitable.... you use, you pay.  This is basically what a fuel tax is—- the more you drive, the more you fund. What alternative do you see for funding roads as fuel tax revenues dry up? 

 

We stop tying certain taxes to certain uses. All taxes go into a pot. All expenditures come out of the same pot.

The purpose of something like a gasoline tax shouldn't really be to raise money. It should be to discourage driving/encourage alternate transportation/encourage EV research and development.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

22 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Agreed... A tax on middle and lower SES folks who can't afford to live near their jobs.

 

14 hours ago, Lechuza said:

I have a long commute and already pay my taxes on gas. Now, Pothole Pete is gonna double tax me going to work?  I’m sure Pete is ok with me and other hard working Americans taking it up the ass, but I’m sure as hell not. I just keep hanging on the fact that the dems are gonna butcher everything so bad that the Republicans will take back Congress in 2 years and stop this madness. 

 

15 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Yeah this sucks shit. I'm a home builder and all my subs live way on in the exurbs because they can afford it. - Buda, Bastrop, Salado, San Marcos, Lockhart.

They already take it in the ass by having to get up an hour early to beat traffic into West Austin on tollroads that used to be free.
 

 

The alternative is to raise the gasoline tax. Then all the rich liberals can cruise around in their Teslas and not have to pay a cent to maintain the roads.

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34772]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

We stop tying certain taxes to certain uses. All taxes go into a pot. All expenditures come out of the same pot.

The purpose of something like a gasoline tax shouldn't really be to raise money. It should be to discourage driving/encourage alternate transportation/encourage EV research and development.

 

I just see that as a bit optimistic about the realities of our political and budgeting process. Fundamentally, infrastructure is an engineering and math question in mufti as a policy question. That goes doubly true when something is actually built. The wear and tear and costs to upkeep are predictable; the only actual question is— do we actually maintain it and who pays? 
 

Subjecting maintenance budgets to the vagaries of the allocation process is a recipe for disaster as it is an iron rule that lawmakers will give precedence to popular projects today at the expense of deferred maintenance tomorrow.  Ideally, the real consequences become apparent after you are out of office.  Even disciplined political leaders who keep infrastructure budgets whole are sorely tempted to cut ribbons instead of buy brooms (I’m looking at you, D.C metro). This phenomenon is completely nonpartisan and has been repeated ad nauseam for as long as we have had taxpayer funded items that require maintenance. 

Direct and indirect user fees are essential to offering a somewhat stable, predictable, revenue stream that engineers and accountants can rely on and make informed, efficient choices.  They have other benefits, too, like encouraging more thoughtful use of these resources and if implemented smartly, effectively passing the cost to the right people.  We should absolutely not rely one hundred percent on them; just like everyone benefits from a good public university even if they don’t attend, we all benefit from a good transportation network and other civil engineering projects even when we don’t directly “use” them.  But the use and benefits absolutely are not distributed evenly, and the Congressional budget process is no way to run a railroad, so to speak. 

 

[Kyle 207]