Caltrans Pilot Study for Pay-by-the-Mile Fee rather than Gas Tax

[Sub-Urbanite]

It's really none of the government's business how much you drive or where you drive.

It, uh, actually is, since the government owns the roads and chooses to allow you to drive on them.

[US 41]

I hear these arguments about how unfair it is to toll interstates because then low income people won't be able to afford to use them. But then the same people think that raising the gas tax or charging a mileage tax is more fair. How is that? At least with my alternative the low income people have a choice whether or not to use tolled interstates. I am low income and I avoid toll roads when I travel and quite frankly I travel a lot. I can also guarantee you that my 1.25 Ton Dodge Neon isn't tearing up the roads as much as a 35 Ton semi truck. Where do semis drive most of the time? On Interstates. Which roads need fixed the most and are the most expensive to upkeep? Interstates. Which roads should be tolled? Interstates. Guess what if semis start tearing up the 2 lane parallel roads then who cares. It is way cheaper to fix 2 lane roads than 4 lane interstates. Guess what? The semis will still mostly use the tolled interstates, just like they do in states that already have tollways, because they have somewhere they've got to be.

[vdeane]

At least with my alternative the low income people have a choice whether or not to use tolled interstates.

And that's why it's often considered unfair - it essentially segregates traffic by socioeconomic status, and I don't see anyone even trying to pretend that these roads are "separate but equal".

[mcarling]

And that's why it's often considered unfair - it essentially segregates traffic by socioeconomic status, and I don't see anyone even trying to pretend that these roads are "separate but equal".

"Separate but equal" is the doctrine the US Supreme Court introduced in Plessy v Ferguson that was overturned by Brown v Board of Education.  It was based on race, not socioeconomic status.  There has never been any prohibition against discrimination based on socioeconomic status.  The income tax, the public defender laws, and most other rules defining how we interact with government, all discriminate based on socioeconomic status.  If there were a law restricting interstates to drivers of particular races, that would be an example of the "separate but equal" doctrine that has been illegal since 1954.

[vdeane]

Just because the Supreme Court only described the segregation laws using "separate but equal" does not mean that the phrase can't be used to describe every other kind of segregation, de jure or de facto.  Tolling the interstates would have the EFFECT of diverting lower income people to surface streets, regardless of whether this diversion would be "required" or not.

[mcarling]

Just because the Supreme Court only described the segregation laws using "separate but equal" does not mean that the phrase can't be used to describe every other kind of segregation, de jure or de facto.  Tolling the interstates would have the EFFECT of diverting lower income people to surface streets, regardless of whether this diversion would be "required" or not.

If that means that the people who are paying for the Interstates have less traffic to suffer, then good.  People should be free to make economic choices with their own money, not with other people's money.

[Rothman]

Just because the Supreme Court only described the segregation laws using "separate but equal" does not mean that the phrase can't be used to describe every other kind of segregation, de jure or de facto.  Tolling the interstates would have the EFFECT of diverting lower income people to surface streets, regardless of whether this diversion would be "required" or not.

If that means that the people who are paying for the Interstates have less traffic to suffer, then good.  People should be free to make economic choices with their own money, not with other people's money.

Ah, but all of our money has already been sunk into the interstates.  So, now you're keeping me from using the Interstate by adding a surcharge to me using it, even though I've been paying taxes that have gone to support their construction and maintenance so far.

The "less traffic" benefit is far too close to an argument of "getting the riff-raff out."

[US 41]

Nobody is keeping you from doing anything. You'd just have to pay to use the interstates and that money would be used to help maintain the interstate. The interstates may be paid for, but they do require a lot of upkeep and that costs money. I don't hear complaints about toll roads in states that have had them for 50 plus years (that were long ago paid for) so there's no reason states that don't currently toll their interstates can't.

[jfs1988]

What about Safety Inspections added to the Emission Inspections? There are a lot of states that do both.

[Rothman]

Nobody is keeping you from doing anything. You'd just have to pay to use the interstates and that money would be used to help maintain the interstate. The interstates may be paid for, but they do require a lot of upkeep and that costs money. I don't hear complaints about toll roads in states that have had them for 50 plus years (that were long ago paid for) so there's no reason states that don't currently toll their interstates can't.

I've complained on here before that our mishmash of tax-funded and toll-funded transportation facilities is a chaotic mess.  My position has been to either tax me or toll me, but not both. 

I'm also not saying that they can't do it; I'm saying they shouldn't.