Should cars be taxed by the mile?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I agreed with you that it basically applies to all infrastructure, and that there is pretty much no such thing as a pure public good.

For me though, the key issue is being non-excludable -- and if we value our "public goods," and see certain ways of doing things as better for society as a whole than other ways of doing things, we should support them with public funds to try to avoid the rival nature of a public good like public transportation infrastructure.

But at the same time, we have to think of our sidewalks and bicycling facilities as being part of the public transportation/public roads network, as well.

Uffda... ???

[Bosco55David]

Is being a driver the American precondition to citizenship, then?

Your precious bike lanes and trails are excludable too then.

[Uffda]

Just doing a quick search finds most articles referencing the roads as bein non-excludable.  I see you trying to justify it by saying you are excluded because you don't have a car BUT you could take a bus/taxi/ride in a friend's car on that road.

[cdub]

This argument is giving me an ice cream headache.  

So no good is public because not everyone in the country can access it absolutely free and right now.  I think we should not invest in California because it costs me money to go there to use the investment.  



Its clear that the auto driving majority have been working the economics theory and texts for a couple hundred years in advance of this argument.  Damn suburbanite fools.

[Big E]

For me, I couldn't give two rat's patoots about excludable, public goods, and all the yadda yadda legal mumbo-jumbo that is completely and totally irrelevant in a rational conversation between sane people (ie, not lawyers or politicians).

All I manage to take from it is "One method of funding is perfectly acceptable if I use it, but socialism if I don't."

[OmahaBen]

Abso-|expletive|-lutely not. You cannot argue that West Dodge Road is a public good.

Yes you can, and it is. Just because you claim otherwise does not make it so.

It is an excludable and rival good. That is, I am excluded if I don't buy into the sytem, and once bought into, your use of the road can absolutely impede my use of the road (congestion, etc.).

A) that is not what excludable means in an economic sense. Excludable means "I want this and you prevent me from having it by buying it/using it first" - it doesn't mean "I choose not to have this, therefore I won't make use of it" - This is the golf course argument all over again.

B) As far as the congestion issue goes, nothing is a "pure" public good, just as there isn't a "pure" market in existence. In terms of the shades of grey we're dealing with, though, roads are clearly more of an imperfect public good than a private one (just like parks, sidewalks, libraries, etc. - all have a capacity limitation of some sort or another, but they are all likewise textbook examples of public goods, too).

[OmahaBen]

For me, I couldn't give two rat's patoots about excludable, public goods, and all the yadda yadda legal mumbo-jumbo that is completely and totally irrelevant in a rational conversation between sane people (ie, not lawyers or politicians).

Economics, not legalese or political double speak. Just FYI. (I also doubt that earning a masters in urban planning makes one an expert of economics, just as I doubt an economics degree makes one an expert in calculus, but Streets can try to make that jump if he wishes).

[omaja]

All I manage to take from it is "One method of funding is perfectly acceptable if I use it, but socialism if I don't."

It is also true that "we should only be funding transit because roads are all wasteful."  Whichever way you spin it, both arguments are asinine to be making.

[S33]

As long as the West Dodge Expressway is open for commercial use, shipping goods, "public transportation" in the form of a bus or cab, emergency response vehicles, and everyone who 'chose' to purchase a car (like Streets), then it is, by definition, a public good.

Calling it exclusionary because some may not have the financial means to own a vehicle is bogus, especially in a city like Omaha.

[Big E]

Economics, not legalese or political double speak.

Fair enough.  I re-read the thread more closely, and it has more to do with a semantics pissing match over economic buzzwords that ultimately are completely irrelevant to the point I'm making, re: whether or not roads and mass transit should be held to different standards.  I'll check out of the thread now.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Man, if only we were all rational people sitting around a table, having a discussion in real life... We'd all waste a lot less time that way.

OmahaBen, you can reject my premise all you want, but your rejecting it doesn't make it not so. Also, you just described "non-rival," not "non-excludable." A limited access freeway like the WDE in this case, fits neither definition.

I'm presenting a new way of thinking about highway infrastructure which has long been construed as a public good, seemingly merely because it is something that is publicly funded.

I have repeatedly agreed that there is no such thing as a pure public good -- but we can say that there are purer public goods. A park or a sidewalk, for instance; In almost no circumstance could either of those things be so filled with people to the extent that I couldn't glean my own level of satisfaction just by standing in or on it.

A highway is as much a public good as a "public" park that is only accessible by people who own $500,000+ homes. That kind of thing just doesn't fly under the definition of a public good.

I think part of the fallacy of treating highways as public goods comes from the assumption (partly based in reality for a whole host of reasons) that any self-respecting American ought to have a car, and if they don't, there's just something wrong with them.

If you assume that every citizen is sinking a fourth of their income into car-ownership, then yes, highways are a public good.

I have already said that since, given that these analyses, if played out to their logical extremities, can be applied to virtually all infrastructure, that's where our human ability to gauge and weigh the value of one type of infrastructure against the value of another type of infrastructure comes into play.

you could take a bus/taxi/ride in a friend's car on that road

And if none of those things are available to you, you are excluded. You have to think in terms of just being a person -- a human being -- standing by his- or herself; what can you do, and where can you go?

I take exception with bicycles (and some of you can be petty and call me a hypocrite) because they are so inexpensive to buy, own, and keep up. Indeed, you can do all those things for free with organizations like the Community Bike Shop. Bosco, this gets at your comment. And again, it comes down to policy decisions about which means of transportation are helping us as people and helping our cities, and which ones are hurting us, and hurting our cities.

cdub, these things don't have to be accessible by everyone in the country (indeed, the world) at all times in order to be considered a public good; rather, if you do find yourself in a certain place and time, the point is that you can use the public good available to you without having made any prior investment -- it is impossible to exclude you from benefiting from the good, and someone else's use of the good doesn't "use it up" preventing your use of the good.

[Brad]

Man, if only we were all rational people sitting around a table, having a discussion in real life... We'd all waste a lot less time that way.

Absolutely.  I can't tell you how many "fights" I have seen here on the forum during the day and then seen the exact same people together at the bar the same night getting along and having a good time.  The computer really takes the "human" side out of things.

[Bosco55David]

Fair enough.  I re-read the thread more closely, and it has more to do with a semantics pissing match over economic buzzwords that ultimately are completely irrelevant to the point I'm making, re: whether or not roads and mass transit should be held to different standards.  I'll check out of the thread now.

No, it's about Streets trying to substitute the real world's long standing definition for his own so he can try to make his emotion based points. He likes to fancy himself as a higher thinker but he's really just being annoying.

[omaja]

Bingo.  He needs to be called out on his theoretical nonsense because it has no basis in current reality.

[OmahaBen]

OmahaBen, you can reject my premise all you want, but your rejecting it doesn't make it not so. Also, you just described "non-rival," not "non-excludable."

Fair enough since you seem to want to get to the extreme technical issue even though rivalness and exclusivity go hand-in-hand, but your definition still isn't correct.

Exclusion does not mean that something is open to every possible use, merely that it be equally open to everyone who wishes to use it - a soccer park at Tranquility is still non-exclusive even if it's sole use is for playing soccer. The city can prevent people from playing football or ultimate frisbee on those fields without making it something other than a public good. A bike lane on a road is still non-exclusive even though it is limited to bicycle traffic.

Exclusion still means "can you prevent someone from using this good." Given that the WDE is not a toll road, and is open to the entire general public, then it is not an exclusive item. Joe Schmoe from Kokomoe can use the WDE if he wants to. It is not exclusive under any economic definition of the word.

I'm presenting a new way of thinking about highway infrastructure which has long been construed as a public good, seemingly merely because it is something that is publicly funded.

The source of something has nothing to do with what is or is not a "public good" in the technical sense - it's the use of the good which makes it either private or public. It just happens that most public goods are publicly funded because, wouldn't you know, people like exercising their exclusive control over their own property.

So to the degree you're presenting "a new way of thinking" you're starting from the wrong point.

I have repeatedly agreed that there is no such thing as a pure public good -- but we can say that there are purer public goods. A park or a sidewalk, for instance; In almost no circumstance could either of those things be so filled with people to the extent that I couldn't glean my own level of satisfaction just by standing in or on it.

Unless that park is a municipal golf course...

Seriously, on the scale of public goods from 1-10, with 1 being a private residence and 10 being the air we breathe, the WDE is probably a 9.5 and Memorial park is about a 9.9 on that scale.  I don't think you're going to get real far arguing that a 9.5 should not be treated as a public good.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Ben, you're right, this is like the golf course debate all over -- and no one is going to win. I believe we've each played our ideologies out as far as they will go.

I agree with some of what you said, and I disagree with some of what you said. I can leave it at that for now (I have to, I have two final exams to study for that I take in two hours).

[Bosco55David]

Ben, you're right, this is like the golf course debate all over -- and no one is going to win. I believe we've each played our ideologies out as far as they will go.

You've already lost this battle because it's you, not Ben, that is standing on the opposite side of reality.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Oh, alright Bosco. Thanks for that.

[mrdwhsr]

So using this method if a streatcar system is built it will be built and operated based on those that use it correct?

We could compute mileage on public transit using GPS. Where do you want the micro-chip implant? Forehead or hand? (Just kidding - but it is technologically feasible).

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Here's an interesting study/proposal that advocates a "pay as you drive" (PAYD) pricing structure through insurance, not taxes.

It would create an incentive to drive less because your insurance premiums would go down the less you drive.

http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/publ ... urance.pdf

[mrdwhsr]

I'd sign up for that insurance plan, but I wonder how many others would since the trend is more mileage not less. But I don't see how that fits in with the "Should cars be taxed by the mile?" topic.

I thought the purpose of the proposal to tax by the mile was to replace the road-use tax at the gasoline pump since it looks like the future of the automobile is alternative fuels - electric, natural-gas, hydrogen fuel-cell?

Would the insurance companies collect the premium + a road use fee that they pass on to DOT and NDOR?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

No, you're right. This PAYD insurance would not address the road funding issue. Combined with a VMT tax, that would create a strong incentive to drive less in addition to creating a much more just and efficient means of funding highway maintenance.

[Swift]

Of course this is all very theoretical, but I love a good theoretical debate as much as the next trolling internet nerd *derp derp*...

So we can all agree that the West Dodge Expressway is open to anyone who wants to use it. There's no guard that jumps out in the middle of the road to prevent you from using it. We can all agree on that, right? So in that way, it is non-excludable.

But can we also agree to properly utilize the West Dodge Expressway you need to be driving a car? Sure theoretically Gabriel could rollerblade down the left lane, but practically speaking the WDE is completely unsafe for any form of pedestrian transportation. If you're going to be using the West Dodge Expressway, you need to do it in a car.

And further, I'm sure we can all agree (because it's one of the first examples in any economics book) that a car is by definition an Excludable and Rivalrous object. So while the WDE is not by it self excludable, to properly utilize the WDE you need to be in posession of an object which IS Excludable and Rivalrous, so by extension, the West Dodge Expressway also becomes excludable.

If X is non-excludable, but to use it you need Y which IS excludable, then X also becomes excludeable.

[HuskerDave]

Why on earth would we want to discourage people from driving?

There's no shortage of gasoline.  ... really there isn't... we have at least 200 years of oil reserves at current consumption levels, and more is discovered all the time.

Pollution isn't really a problem.  Global warming is a complete hoax.

When people drive, they are typically going to work, or going to spend money.  Both are good for the economy.

Driving is a good thing.  Let's not discourage it.

[OmahaBen]

Of course this is all very theoretical, but I love a good theoretical debate as much as the next trolling internet nerd *derp derp*...

So we can all agree that the West Dodge Expressway is open to anyone who wants to use it. There's no guard that jumps out in the middle of the road to prevent you from using it. We can all agree on that, right? So in that way, it is non-excludable.

But can we also agree to properly utilize the West Dodge Expressway you need to be driving a car? Sure theoretically Gabriel could rollerblade down the left lane, but practically speaking the WDE is completely unsafe for any form of pedestrian transportation. If you're going to be using the West Dodge Expressway, you need to do it in a car.

And further, I'm sure we can all agree (because it's one of the first examples in any economics book) that a car is by definition an Excludable and Rivalrous object. So while the WDE is not by it self excludable, to properly utilize the WDE you need to be in posession of an object which IS Excludable and Rivalrous, so by extension, the West Dodge Expressway also becomes excludable.

If X is non-excludable, but to use it you need Y which IS excludable, then X also becomes excludeable.

Then pretty much anything that is generally considered a public good becomes something else. A library is now excludable because the books themselves are excludable. Access to the judicial system is excludable because the judge has to get paid. The public park is excludable because you have to buy clothes in order to walk around in it.

[Big E]

The public park is excludable because you have to buy clothes in order to walk around in it.

I'm cool with letting that one slide.

[Bosco55David]

Then pretty much anything that is generally considered a public good becomes something else. A library is now excludable because the books themselves are excludable. Access to the judicial system is excludable because the judge has to get paid. The public park is excludable because you have to buy clothes in order to walk around in it.

Quoted for truth.

[Swift]

Then pretty much anything that is generally considered a public good becomes something else. A library is now excludable because the books themselves are excludable. Access to the judicial system is excludable because the judge has to get paid. The public park is excludable because you have to buy clothes in order to walk around in it.

Quoted for truth.

The park is technically true, though the other two aren't.

The books in the library are an excludable object to the library itself, but once the library purchases them, they are non-excludable to the public  (actually, a public library is a good example of Government taking excludable objects and making them non-excludable for the populace). The public library is free for anyone to join.

Also again, the judge is an excludable object to the judicial system itself, but no to the populace as a whole. It's the government's responsibility to pay for the judge, but once they're paid for, his service is free to anyone who can not pay for it ("if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed you..." etc.)

Again, the park is technically true, though only legally and not inherently (you could still use the park with out clothes, were it not illegal to be nude in a park).

But since technicalities are the bastion of lawyers and bulls*itters (...wait, those two are the same thing....), let's break it out into to practicalities: the average cost of a new car for 2005 (the first year I could find quickly Googling) was $27,958* including finance charging, as well as $1579** per year for car insurance (Nebraska average).

The average cost of pants (to use for being in a park) is....I honsetly can't find this info anywhere (though I did have some interesting pages pop up in the Google search ) Compared to cars, clothes are virtually free. You can get a pair of pants at Salvation army for $.50! You'll look butt-ugly, but the park is all yours to frollick!

Let me say this, though, I'm not saying cars should be abolished. And they never will be abolished. For certain types of travel and modes of economic exchange, the automobile is the only practical solution at the time being. And beyond that, there's a certain kind of psychological freedom that comes with a car. As an example, living in New York and not having a car, I've recently been jonsing really hard for a good road trip.

But all this is entirely beside the point.

So using this method if a streatcar system is built it will be built and operated based on those that use it correct?

The whole point of this was that we agree that the West Dodge Expressway, by requiring a car to be utilized properly, is an excludable object not open to every member of the populace, yet it was and remains funded through taxes by every member of the populace.

Meanwhile, a streetcar system which is virtually non-excludeable (requiring only a pair of pants!...ha, there's your Motto for ya: "The Omaha Streetcar System: Requires Pants."), should be funded by the populace, even those who will chose to never ride it, because nothing but choice is preventing them from utilizing it.



*http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/200 ... usat_x.htm
**http://www.carinsurancequotes.com/state ... insurance/

[OmahaBen]

The whole point of this was that we agree that the West Dodge Expressway, by requiring a car to be utilized properly, is an excludable object not open to every member of the populace, yet it was and remains funded through taxes by every member of the populace.

Except we don't all agree to that.

A soccer field is not exclusive simply because a city lets you play soccer on it but not football. Likewise, a roadway is not exclusive simply because it is open to motorized transport but not pedestrians. Exclusion means "do you prevent joe blow from using it." The City of Omaha will not exclude Joe Blow from using the West Dodge Expressway. It is not exclusive under any accepted economic definition of the word.

Additionally, given that the WDE is merely a separation of express lanes from local traffic along Dodge Street, and pedestrians have always been able to utilize the ground-level portion of that street, I challenge your notion that it's only available to cars.

Finally, given that the streetcars will almost assuredly not be completely free, I would think they'd meet the textbook definition of an exclusive good - if you can't afford the fare, you are excluded from using the streetcar.

[Swift]

The whole point of this was that we agree that the West Dodge Expressway, by requiring a car to be utilized properly, is an excludable object not open to every member of the populace, yet it was and remains funded through taxes by every member of the populace.

Except we don't all agree to that.

A soccer field is not exclusive simply because a city lets you play soccer on it but not football. Likewise, a roadway is not exclusive simply because it is open to motorized transport but not pedestrians. Exclusion means "do you prevent joe blow from using it." The City of Omaha will not exclude Joe Blow from using the West Dodge Expressway. It is not exclusive under any accepted economic definition of the word.

It doesn't matter if the city lets everyone use it, it's excludable by categorical definition (a raised highway-esque roadway that requires an automobile to be properly utilized). With out an automobile, there's no practical alternative use for the WDE, and an automobile is an excludable item. If you MUST have an excludable item to use a non-excludable item, then by extension the second item becomes excludable.

[OmahaBen]

With out an automobile, there's no practical alternative use for the WDE, and an automobile is an excludable item. If you MUST have an excludable item to use a non-excludable item, then by extension the second item becomes excludable.

So people can't take the bus, taxis, motorcycle, vespa, carpool, or other similar transportation arrangement? Can't buma  ride off a friend? I have no idea if MAT/Metro/wahtever its called now runs a route that far west (since it goes to Westroads, I'm presuming at least a couple busses go out to boys town/village point/etc.), but assuming they do, doesn't that then negate your premise? Because fare for MAT isn't any more expensive than the cost of pants to walk around a city park.

Regardless, I still take issue with you separating the express lanes from the rest of the street. That's like saying any street downtown is excludable because the center lane is open only to traffic and not pedestrians, who are stuck on the sidewalk and crosswalks.

And I again go back to the soccer field analogy - so long as the city doesn't charge for admission, it is not excludable merely because the city only lets you play soccer on that field rather than football or ultimate frisbee.

[OmahaBen]

Look, it boils down to this:

The commonly accepted definition of excludable is, "The ability to keep people who don't pay for a good from consuming the good.

Since Omaha does not charge a toll, nor can it prevent me, a Des Moines resident, from using the WDE when I'm back in town, it is not an excludable good under any economic definition of the word.

The rest of this is just pointless.

[Swift]

So people can't take the bus, taxis, motorcycle, vespa, carpool, or other similar transportation arrangement? Can't buma  ride off a friend? I have no idea if MAT/Metro/wahtever its called now runs a route that far west (since it goes to Westroads, I'm presuming at least a couple busses go out to boys town/village point/etc.), but assuming they do, doesn't that then negate your premise? Because fare for MAT isn't any more expensive than the cost of pants to walk around a city park.

Regardless, I still take issue with you separating the express lanes from the rest of the street. That's like saying any street downtown is excludable because the center lane is open only to traffic and not pedestrians, who are stuck on the sidewalk and crosswalks.

And I again go back to the soccer field analogy - so long as the city doesn't charge for admission, it is not excludable merely because the city only lets you play soccer on that field rather than football or ultimate frisbee.

Look, it boils down to this:

The commonly accepted definition of excludable is, "The ability to keep people who don't pay for a good from consuming the good.

Since Omaha does not charge a toll, nor can it prevent me, a Des Moines resident, from using the WDE when I'm back in town, it is not an excludable good under any economic definition of the word.

The rest of this is just pointless.

Again, the WDE is not by it self excludable, but since you need an excludable object to properly utilize it, it becomes excludable by extension. Vespas, motorcycles, carpools, generous friends with cars are all excludable objects, so the same rational still applies. There is one bus line (the 92) that runs on the WDE, but it appears to only run for one hour a day (really? only one hour? am I reading the schedule wrong?) during the week, so for that one hour each day, you are correct that both the WDE and the item you need to utilize it are non-excludable.

And I separate the WDE from a downtown street or any other street because those other streets are able to safely be used by other less-excludable objects--bicyclists, or a parade for example. The WDE is not safe for bicyclists and since there is no pedestrian access to the WDE, there would be no point in having a parade on it.

But again, my point is not that the WDE is terrible and should be torn down (I actually quite like the East Bound view from the WDE, and it it definitely saves some time during rush hour traffic, assuming there is no accident), the whole point is that the West Dodge Expressway, by requiring a car to be utilized properly, is an excludable object not open to every member of the populace, yet it was and remains funded through taxes by every member of the populace.

Meanwhile, a streetcar system which is virtually non-excludeable, should be funded by the populace, even those who will chose to never ride it, because nothing but choice is preventing them from utilizing it.

My whole point is that, when arguing in the realm of Public Good, you can't argue for public funding of a semi-excludable object (the WDE) while arguing against it for a non-excludeable object (a street car). I mean, obviously you CAN argue that, but what I'm trying to say is there is a logical disconnect inherent in that argument.

[Big E]

The WDE is not safe for bicyclists and since there is no pedestrian access to the WDE, there would be no point in having a parade on it.

I think a parade on the WDE would be freaking awesome, especially if a few thousand people didn't tell the proper authorities before they did it.

Flash mob, anyone?  

[omaja]

My whole point is that, when arguing in the realm of Public Good, you can't argue for public funding of a semi-excludable object (the WDE) while arguing against it for a non-excludeable object (a street car). I mean, obviously you CAN argue that, but what I'm trying to say is there is a logical disconnect inherent in that argument.

Has anyone even been trying to make that argument?

[mrdwhsr]

My whole point is that, when arguing in the realm of Public Good, you can't argue for public funding of a semi-excludable object (the WDE) while arguing against it for a non-excludeable object (a street car). I mean, obviously you CAN argue that, but what I'm trying to say is there is a logical disconnect inherent in that argument.

Has anyone even been trying to make that argument?

Pretty much all you have to do on any forum is mention streetcar and someone (not every one) will oppose it because it has to be 'subsidized'. Guess we're still  

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Why on earth would we want to discourage people from driving?

There's no shortage of gasoline.  ... really there isn't... we have at least 200 years of oil reserves at current consumption levels, and more is discovered all the time.

Pollution isn't really a problem.  Global warming is a complete hoax.

When people drive, they are typically going to work, or going to spend money.  Both are good for the economy.

Driving is a good thing.  Let's not discourage it.

You. Have. To be kidding.

You just pulled every single one of those words right out of your |expletive|.

[HuskerDave]

Why on earth would we want to discourage people from driving?

There's no shortage of gasoline.  ... really there isn't... we have at least 200 years of oil reserves at current consumption levels, and more is discovered all the time.

Pollution isn't really a problem.  Global warming is a complete hoax.

When people drive, they are typically going to work, or going to spend money.  Both are good for the economy.

Driving is a good thing.  Let's not discourage it.

You. Have. To be kidding.

You just pulled every single one of those words right out of your |expletive|.

Absolutely not!  I am completely serious, and I stand by it.  I realize of course, that you're a disciple of the church of Al Gore; so you'll never stray from the UN's dogma on "global warming."

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Actually I don't really care for Al Gore.

But you're right, what could the United Nations possibly know that you don't? Right?

Read this book, and then let me know if you think cars and driving are "a good thing." Seriously, you should read it. It's extremely readable. You'd probably finish it in a week or less. Actually, if you promise to read it, I'll give you my copy and pay to ship it to you.

[HuskerDave]

Actually I don't really care for Al Gore.

But you're right, what could the United Nations possibly know that you don't? Right?

Read this book, and then let me know if you think cars and driving are "a good thing." Seriously, you should read it. It's extremely readable. You'd probably finish it in a week or less. Actually, if you promise to read it, I'll give you my copy and pay to ship it to you.

Sorry, I do not permit crazy people to assign me homework.