Washington man recieves $18,000 bridge toll bill

[kkt]

First, of course, the current gasoline tax is more than sufficient to pay for all the roads we will ever need.  If we would just spend 100% of it on roads, an 0% of it on urban transit schemes.  Roads are infrastructure.  All benefit everyone, event if you never actually use a particular one, as it is a part of the national economic system.  Communal transit schemes, however, only benefit people who use these.  Which is fine.  If you want to ride the subway, ride the subway.  And pay for it.

In urban areas there are really very few places where new freeways could or should be built.  Rail transit via elevated or subway lines are the only option that will fit into existing urban areas, in most cases.  The riders of mass transit benefit car drivers too, by getting more cars off the roads.

81% of the population is in urban areas and they generate 81% of the gas taxes.  They ought to get something for their taxes, not just subsidizing rural area roads.

I doubt that the gas taxes alone would pay for road maintenance and construction even if there was no subsidy of mass transit options.  New construction throughout the country seems to come with tolls.

[J N Winkler]

I doubt that the gas taxes alone would pay for road maintenance and construction even if there was no subsidy of mass transit options.  New construction throughout the country seems to come with tolls.

We are already at the point where the federal gas tax won't pay for upkeep of the highways we have now, absent massive transfers to the HTF from other revenue sources.  And there is still a sizable share of new capacity being built that is not tolled, but is paid for partly from revenue sources that are not road-related, such as sales tax increments.  (The Loop freeways in Phoenix are one case in point.)

The diversions to the Mass Transit Account of the HTF are quite low on a percentage basis.  The set-aside amount is 2.86c/gallon of the 18.4c/gallon gasoline tax and the 24.4c/gallon diesel tax.  Because of this, the percentage amount varies according to the diesel/gasoline consumption mix, but cannot be lower than 11.7% or higher than 15.6%.  From the standpoint of total fuel taxes which expert consensus says have to be tripled (a 200% increase) to meet identified needs for renewal and expansion, this is a pittance.

[NE2]

Don't feed the kook.

[J N Winkler]

Don't feed the kook.

I am only too familiar with his history of drive-by commentary, but I did a search and realized that I hadn't converted the Mass Transit Account set-asides to percentages, so I went ahead and did that.

[PColumbus73]

It's not the 'Mass Transit Fund' that is to blame for the lack of construction funds. It is the states who decide that it's okay to use more of Highway Trust money for non-transportation related projects, such as schools. I support mass transit, I like the idea of high-speed rail that is in use in Europe and Japan. But the states are sucking funds from the gas tax to pay for miscellaneous stuff because they think they can.

[roadman]

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.

What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities?  What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)?  How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone?  How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?

I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.

[NE2]

What about your carsplaining?

[seicer]

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.

What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities?  What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)?  How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone?  How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?

I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.

It doesn't mandate it - it requires that cycling and other modes of transportation be taken into account when designing projects if there is a demonstrated need. It does not mean that every project, such as an interstate widening, requires the inclusion of a bike path.

[roadman]

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.

What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities?  What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)?  How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone?  How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?

I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.

It doesn't mandate it - it requires that cycling and other modes of transportation be taken into account when designing projects if there is a demonstrated need. It does not mean that every project, such as an interstate widening, requires the inclusion of a bike path.

While you are correct about obvious exceptions, like Interstate highway work, my experience has been that the general interpertation of the law is actually "thou shalt make accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians unless one can prove that said accommodations are not feasible to attain".  That is the definition of a mandate.  And I have yet to see a project in Massachusetts, since this law was passed, where inclusion of bicycle facilities was shown to be justified by actual bike counts.

[Pete from Boston]

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.

What about the Massachusetts law that mandates that new construction projects automatically include special accommodations for bicyclists - even if there's no demopnstrated need for said special facilities?  What about the Massachusetts law that states that a driver is automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist while they are making a right turn (and that the fact the cyclist was passing the vehicle on the right is NOT considered a valid defense)?  How about the fact that converting two lanes of general-purpose traffic to one travel lane and one bike lane basically reduces capacity for everyone?  How about the fact that, at least in Massachusetts, drivers cannot leagally encroach on bike lanes, but cyclists have no legal requirement to actually use or stay within those same lanes?

I could give even more examples, but I hope you get the point.

Point taken.  However, to play devil's advocate for a minute, what would you say to people who make the point that motorists have decades of infrastructure designed primarily around their needs, with a comparatively recent and small investment in the same for cyclists?  Granted, there are more people driving than riding as their primary means of transportation, but this can also be attributed in part to a lack of good facilities and conditions for the latter.