originally posted by: Phoenix
In another thread bike trails were brought up for some reason and well it is one of the places where the revenue from automobile user fees paid in fuel taxes are used instead of being used to fix or replace existing highway infrastructure. Others used the point that "user" fees are desirable in justifying California's proposal - well OK lets apply that directly to the other posts $15,000,000 upfront dollar cost of bike trails using traditional tolls as an example to pay for and maintain the project.
On a 10 year basis construction and cost to maintain might approach $30,000,000. Lets say there are 1000 hardcore bicycle commuters and the rest are intermittent recreational riders - ok.
Due weather and seasons the 1000 people ride 125 working days in a given year. So that's 250 one way toll trips per individual per year. In 10 years that's 250,000 trips.
$30,000,000 divided by 250,000 trips = $120 per trip or $240 a day of taxpayer subsidy so they can enjoy a free commute on a dedicated trail. If this is the case how about we taxpayers just give you $125 a day to just stay home, by god it'd be cheaper!
Someone please point out how that's really cost effective or just how that kind of money spent this way is in anyway superior to spending the money where it was supposed to go in the first place?
Detractors can put my number to 10,000 riders a day but still its $12 a day - I for one have never ever seen any use of bike trails that even approaches the 1000 a day number so my guess is the subsidy for those folks is even a greater travesty to the taxpayer who wonders just why their government asks for more and more money to fix that which should already have been fixed long ago if the money was appropriately used.
Detractors could say I should use a 30 year bond, well that just exponentially increases maintenance and repair costs.
I am in no way "anti-bicycle" but if you want dedicated roadways then pay for them yourselves through tolls. You need it too for the other 125 days not soaking the taxpayers.
As car ownership rose and wider roads were built, the commuting trend accelerated in North America. This trend towards living away from towns and cities has been termed the urban exodus.
During this time commercial shopping malls were being developed near suburbs to satisfy consumers' needs and their car–dependent lifestyle.
Suburbs in America have a prevalence of usually detached single-family homes.
They are characterized by:
Lower densities than central cities, dominated by single-family homes on small plots of land – anywhere from 0.1 acres and up – surrounded at close quarters by very similar dwellings.
Zoning patterns that separate residential and commercial development, as well as different intensities and densities of development. Daily needs are not within walking distance of most homes.
Subdivisions carved from previously rural land into multiple-home developments built by a single real estate company. These subdivisions are often segregated by minute differences in home value, creating entire communities where family incomes and demographics are almost completely homogeneous..
Shopping malls and strip malls behind large parking lots instead of a classic downtown shopping district.
A road network designed to conform to a hierarchy, including culs-de-sac, leading to larger residential streets, in turn leading to large collector roads, in place of the grid pattern common to most central cities and pre-World War II suburbs.
A greater percentage of one-story administrative buildings than in urban areas.
A greater percentage of whites and lesser percentage of citizens of other ethnic groups than in urban areas. Black suburbanization grew between 1970 and 1980 by 2.6% as a result of central city neighborhoods expanding into older neighborhoods vacated by whites.
Compared to rural areas, suburbs usually have greater population density, higher standards of living, more complex road systems, more franchised stores and restaurants, and less farmland and wildlife.
Millions of motorists will pay more for petrol as a result of next Tuesday's budget.
The ABC understands the Government is poised to change the indexation on the fuel excise.
Former Liberal prime minister John Howard abolished the indexation after introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2001.
Motorists have since paid 38.1 cents per litre in fuel excise, even though the price of fuel has nearly doubled since then.
originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: Fylgje
Have you seen how much California pays their government officials? I saw a chart once with a parks employee making 6 figures! That wasn't even the worst of it. There were so many people in non essential positions making huge sums of cash. I'm looking for the chart now it was on an old post I think.
originally posted by: Pilgrum
How is the govt proposing to administer this 'mileage tax'?
Are 'they' going to recruit an army of odometer checkers or let the driver declare it annually?
Sounds unmanageable to me and will potentially cost as much or more than the taxes collected. 'Winding back' of odometers is likely to become a common lurk once more.