Posted on 01/14/2008 2:00:05 PM PST by decimon
Would you prefer people who don’t use the road to pay taxes to support it?
That is a reasoned observation. I hadn’t realized that. I still don’t know why you seem so pleased with this.
I drive all over California without any added expense. And let me tell you, if you think out of state people are subsidized where you are, you don’t really know what out of state (or even out of nation) subisdy is.
Well, I appreicate your patience. Take care.
Having driven for years in NY, NJ, Penn, and Conn on the toll roads I am immune to concern about tolls. I went through the usual trying of alternative routes and that is fine if you have all day.
Do you have any idea how much money is raised by gasoline taxes? Seriously?
Take a look at every car out there and realize that every time they fill up the state gets fifty cents to a buck or more per gallon. And you probably fill up anywhere from once a week to once every two weeks all year long, and so do they.
We’re talking about many millions of cars filling up week after week after week.
Nobody is asking people who don’t use the highways to pay for them.
I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of the ongoing maintenance costs for a bridge. Regular cleaning and repainting of the metal structure to prevent deterioration, regular X-ray examination of the steel to check for impending structural failure, repaving more frequently and with more expensive methods/materials than land roads due to more extreme temperature swings, etc.
We only have very few toll roads in California. I believe it’s under three, perhaps just one.
Right now they are trying to introduce them because state officials have spent tens of billions of dollars they didn’t have, and they’re desperate.
Will they cut liberal pipe dreams? Hell no. They go for basic services and force toll roads on us.
It’s a massive tax and I am pissed off over it.
I am because I know damn well that in five to ten years, the tolls won’t be enough either. They’ll need more money and the tolls will go up or there will be more toll roads. Or they’ll sell the roads to private concerns for a pot of gold, and we’ll still be paying until the fifth generation for something we owned at one time.
When that isn’t enough they’ll find another way to tax us.
I want to draw the line in the sand now.
We have prop 13 out here, which prevents the state from raising property taxes, or perhaps it’s actually the local tax assessor’s office. At any rate, guess what they came up with. It’s a property tax surcharge, because they can’t raise the taxes.
These jerks are trying to rip folks off again, and again, and again... and we always let them.
In Los Angeles County we pay 8.25% sales taxes. On to of that citizens pay state income tax. On top of that they pay every other tax under the sun that the government can come up with. And not it’s going to be toll roads too, and that doesn’t sit well with me.
Sorry to take it out on everyone else, but for the life of me I do not understand agreeing to more taxes as much as we hate them.
Didn’t they have those costs while they paid off the bridge? They were able to meet those costs and maintain the bridge.
I’ll bet you would be astounded to know how much money the Golden Gate Bridge takes in each year.
Well, I use mass transit a lot myself (daily subway commute in NYC, weekly commutes by train between NYC and Philly areas), and when I’m driving the existence of mass transit significantly reduces traffic delays, not to mention reduce the need for expensive new roads and road expansions. I’m sure there are some specific examples where expenditures are disproportionately on mass transit, but that’s a problem of specifics, not an indictment of the whole concept of toll roads and gas taxes. With skyrocketing property taxes plus huge chunks of income and sales taxes being funnelled into the sorry excuses for public “schools” that I would never dream of putting my future childen in, I can’t get worked up about tolls and gas taxes that provide what is overall a very convenient and effective transportation system, that I use extensively and also benefit from indirectly, via rapid inexpensive delivery of mail and packages to my home and office and of fresh foods to my grocery store.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it.
“Nothing changed, except, of course, we got $4 billion and we don’t have to take care of the road anymore. And some shiny new interstate highways, courtsey of some foreigners’ money.”
Do you really think its that simple? Those foreigners wouldn’t be paying 4 billion unless they thought they were going to make money. Who are they making money from?
They obviously did have maintenance costs while paying off the bridge, and that of course delayed the “paid off” date by quite a bit. The costs would have been somewhat lower when the bridge was relatively new, and both monetary and generalized cost inflation (the latter largely due to excessive government regulation and the now completely out of control tort liability system) would mean substantially higher maintenance costs now. I’m sure you’re right that a significant chunk of the toll revenue is being diverted to pay for mass transit, but I’m also sure that the vast majority of bridge users approve of that, and that there are also a lot of San Francisco area taxpayers who think a great deal more ought to spent on mass transit (given that SF is chock full of impractical wild-eyed enviroweenies).
My general sense is that the use of toll and gas tax revenues are generally in line with what the people paying them want them to be used for. This is such an incredibly better scenario than what we have with funding of public schools, welfare/AFDC/public housing, Medicaid, etc — in which the payers are overwhelmingly not the beneficiaries of the programs and to a great extent also disapprove of the very nature and/or extent of them — that it’s not even on my radar screen of things to worry about, and I don’t think it will be any time soon.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the response.
I looked up some factoids about the bridge.
There are about 39,000,000 trips both directions across the bridge each year. The last few years the bridge has brought in about $89,000,000 dollars.
The cost per trip is $5 general, and $4 easy pass. There is some sort of car pooling free passage as well. Three persons are required for that.
The toll funds cover half the mass transit costs for San Francisco each year. Something else covers another 30% and the city uses federal transportation dollars to fill in the remaining 20% or so.
You raised some interesting points. It was nice to see them mentioned.
Take care.
I think the time for doing it "figuratively" passed long ago.
They think they can run the road better than the state of Indiana. Fine. Indiana wasn't going to earn $4 billion running the road itself; in fact, Indiana was losing money on the toll road.
It's a win-win. Indiana gets $4 billion it wouldn't have otherwise had and a private company gets the opportunity to make some money on the road. If it earns money, great. If it doesn't, I don't really care. Indiana got its money.
Agreed.
” It’s a win-win. Indiana gets $4 billion it wouldn’t have otherwise had and a private company gets the opportunity to make some money on the road. If it earns money, great. If it doesn’t, I don’t really care. Indiana got its money.”
That private company is owned and controlled by foreign interests. That means when they make money it will not be reinvested in America, it will be transferred out of America.
The money it earns will be a tax on the users of that road. Only those users don’t have say in what happens. Further there are usually stipulations on these contracts that prohibit the local governments from building new roads that might compete with the private owned toll road.
So now you are sending your money out of the US and being told by people outside the US where you can build a road.
If they make money, I think you mean to say. The Toll Road lost money when it was run by the state of Indiana. It's anyone's guess whether the new company will operate at a profit. Regardless, though, the company that now runs the Toll Road, Macquarie Infrastructure Group, is a publicly traded company. I can buy stock in it, if I so choose, and its profits will be returned to me.
The money it earns will be a tax on the users of that road. Only those users don’t have say in what happens.
Sure they did. They elected the legislature and the governor that negotiated the deal. The deal includes limits on future rates. They had their say.
Further there are usually stipulations on these contracts that prohibit the local governments from building new roads that might compete with the private owned toll road.
Well, the people of the state of Indiana sure are getting a lot more roads thanks to the deal. You're welcome to check out all the construction projects for the next ten years:
http://www.in.gov/indot/2288.htm
It was a good debate. It’s pretty sad that we have so many huge big-government problems that I can’t afford to put small ones on my radar screen. But I have faith that the Internet in general and FReepers in particular are going to slowly but surely remedy that situation.
Thank you. Let’s hope so. Thanks for the response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.