Main USA Today Article Presently

I absolutely agree with you. But, we both know the only thing the states look at is the initial cost to do it "right now". If it's 3x cost of regular concrete, that puts it roughly 6x cost of a simple asphalt repaving job, which is what most of the roads are - at least around here.

I heard, not sure how true, that when they built the Rte 1 highway here, they used some new concrete at the time that was supposed to last a lot longer than it actually did and they had to do some repaving of the road. Again, I never researched nor confirmed all this, and I wouldn't be that surprised if there's no real information about it either.

 

No, no.

The MATERIALS cost is 3x regular concrete, not the overall TOTAL cost.

To give you an idea of what goes into cost estimating roads, review this 155-page cost estimating guide from the Forest Service:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_015406.pdf

Materials costs are a fraction of the overall cost. How much that fraction is depends on the amount of other work is required on a project. Materials cost is NOT a 1:1 ratio of project cost!

For example, say that the materials cost of the paving material amounts to 5% of the overall project cost. Then an increase of 3x the materials cost would mean the overall project would be 110% of the original cost, not 300%!!!

The increase from asphalt to this concrete (6x material cost) would then mean 125% of original estimate--again assuming that materials cost started at 5% of the overall project.

Anyhow, it's clear that more data are required!

 

Percentage of the retail price is indeed a bad idea that has been analysed. What this does is wag the dog of oil spikes, increasing when oil gets more expensive and decreasing when less expensive. An increasing gas tax does the oposite, making oil spikes cause a lower percentage move, and setting a floor. When price spikes happen revenue does decrease, but this is precisely the wrong time to raise taxes.

 

Good point - I still like the idea of automatically indexing the tax - a simple method would be to use a time-averaged price of fuel to set the price. I haven't done a careful analysis, but I would suspect that a 30 day rolling average would take care of spikes. The period to average over, and whether to use a rolling average or fixed periods could easily be tweeked.

 

if the two goals are paying for roadways and discouraging excessive driving then perhaps a $0.05/mile toll charge for the first 5000 miles driven each year and $0.15/mile toll charge for anything over 5000 miles. that's the revenue side.

that would incentive living, schooling, and working within the same community.

for the expense side, since local roads would have the most vehicle miles (wear and tear) they should be allocated all of the $0.05/mile revenues and the highways be allocated the $0.15/mile revenues. this approach would not require any gps tracking of vehicles. the $250 (5000 miles @ $0.05) would be collected with annual registration and the assesment for mileage in excess of 5000 miles could be determined at the annual safety inspection.

 

I thought the activity to be discouraged was burning fuel - and encourage people to use fuel efficient means of transportation.
If you actually want to discourage driving itself, you are contemplating social engineering at a level I am deeply opposed to.
Since there is a rough correlation between GVW (~ road damage) and fuel usage, I still think a tax on fuel is better than a tax on cars.

 

Why discourage burning fuel rather than discourage wasted productivity?

How productive are Americans when they are spending two or more hours a day commuting to work or school?

 

The burning of gasoline has a social cost in both health and using a scarce resource. It includes externalities not included in its price.

The loss in time weather on a comute or a road trip, only has a cost to the individuals in the cars.

In an authoritarian government, I suppose you could charge for the latter, and the US government does coerce some behaviors without social costs but that it finds bad. But if you are trying to govern well and not to control the population to some "moral" or "ethical" standard, you would tax the behavior that harms others.

 

I'm sorry but the loss has a cost for us as a community. That commute time is stolen from raising the next generation and/or producing goods and services.

As a community we have to pay some attention to keeping ourselves competative in a global market place or we will find our jobs exported and our talent expatriating.

 

Your assumption that the time of an individual does not belong to that individual is contrary to the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. As a free individual I am entitled to dispose of my time however I see fit. If, on the other hand, you believe that your time does not belong to you, then you recognize your status as a slave - as the property of the community.

 

Jason, the day that the federal government decided they could pledge your future tax payments to pay interest and principle on the national debt, you became a slave.

 

That was during the revolutionary war. Most of our families were not even considered americans then

But without taking it to fred's house of pancakes, it is much more straightforward to pay for roads and externalities with registration fees and fuel taxes, than to add anouther milage tax and have the government further deciding how we should live. If we are going to get to a mileage tax, breaking it down to 5K miles and reading the odometer during yearly inspections and paying surcharges on registration fees, is much less big brother than forcing us to buy government gps to track our movements so that they can be taxed.

 

Only until April 17th!

 

No at least oregon wants to put gps tracking in your car. You get to keep your obdII
Oregon's GPS Mileage Tax Encourages Bad Habits: Analysis - Popular Mechanics

​