What are some alternative means of funding roads/highways?

[kalvado]

I had an idea lately for funding a highway that I was going to make into its own thread, but since this thread exists, I'll put it here.

The idea is to replace the gas tax with a universal tolling system on county, state, and federal roads. With the advent of AET, toll gantries can be now be placed in tighter ROW than older tollbooths, so under this proposal, these would go everywhere. Toll gantries with plate readers would be placed every 5-10 miles (maybe closer together in urban areas) on major routes and would charge only a paltry amount (maybe only 1 or 2 cents or so per 10 miles). As part of registering a car, you would get an account of some sort on a website or app (almost like the EZTag Express system in Houston) where you would have to register your plate. On the account, you would just simply pay the toll amount every month via credit card just as people do with other bills. Shunpiking would be discouraged by putting these toll gantries on all county, state, and federal routes that serve through traffic.

Pros:
- States like Louisiana, Kentucky, and Colorado could easily benefit from such a system near geographic areas that can't be easily crossed (major rivers, mountain ranges, etc.).
- With a more comprehensive tolling system, shunpiking would take more time and effort to find back road alternates, and wouldn't be used as much.
- State DOTs could adjust tolls on routes based on congestion or road conditions to make certain routes more attractive.
- Using this system on city streets would make walking, biking, or using public transport a better option for very short distances.
- Artists could be hired to design toll gantries to look interesting and unique from city to city, breaking up the boredom of long drives.
- With plate readers scattered everywhere, they could capture the plate numbers for cars involved in Silver and Amber Alerts, and send them to local law enforcement.

Cons:
- More government regulation isn't really a good thing.
- The psychology of using tolling rather than a tax doesn't work out. People would feel like they're paying more for the same.
- People would not appreciate change and would likely be opposed to it (such is the case for all good public ideas, it seems).
- Shunpiking would likely be a major issue.
- Constructing all the new toll gantries would definitely cost a pretty penny.

I will admit that there are probably many other bad aspects of this idea in the real world, but it seems interesting on paper.

It would be much easier and cheaper to just capture the miles driven every year when plates are renewed. Vehicle owners could pay it all at once or it could be split into a monthly bill. Drivers might also be required to estimate their yearly mileage in advance much like self-employed workers pay taxes.


The way things are going, your car may be permanently connected to the web in 30 years and road use could be calculated automatically. It would then be deducted from your bank account.

These ideas are draconian. This doesn't mean they won't happen. Something will need to be done as people drive more EVs. I'm just glad I don't have to sell people on how to best do it.

There is no need for any such approach however, we could fully fund all roads with general means funding, rather than just charging vehicle owners. Everyone benefits from the road network, therefore everyone should pay for it. In fact, given the administrative overhead on taxing vehicles, or anything else on a specific level, the best approach would be something like a VAT that provides all funding with a minimum of apparatus.

A bit counterproductive option to lump all money into a single pile. Everyone has their priorities, and roads may be too far down the list. As it is, raiding dedicated funds happen much more often than I would like to see. Opposite happens as well.
Overall, simply paying for service is a bit less confusing way of sharing cost. Costs do trickle down via price of goods and services which require physical transportation (e.g. virtually everything), but with a bit more natural distribution - not bureaucracy controlled one.
(edited for typo)

[hbelkins]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

[HighwayStar]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

[Rothman]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

[Scott5114]

Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.

Eh...I've never been impressed with any of the non-USPS options. The UPS website is far more cumbersome to use than the USPS one, and UPS drivers appear to go out of their way to avoid delivering packages sometimes (I've never gotten one of those "sorry we missed you" stickers from USPS). USPS has also never made me drive to another county to pick up a package from their distribution center.

FedEx I know nothing about, but their rates have scared me off finding out more. I remember dealing with DHL to ship eBay parcels when I was a kid, but I remember looking into them when starting my current business and finding something objectionable about them too (it may have been a continued requirement for the use of paper waybills).

[vdeane]

FedEx I know nothing about, but their rates have scared me off finding out more. I remember dealing with DHL to ship eBay parcels when I was a kid, but I remember looking into them when starting my current business and finding something objectionable about them too (it may have been a continued requirement for the use of paper waybills).

FedEx is even worse.  The only time I've had a package outright lost was "delivered" via FedEx.  I also remember their tracking system leaving a lot to be desired.

[HighwayStar]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

[HighwayStar]

Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.

Eh...I've never been impressed with any of the non-USPS options. The UPS website is far more cumbersome to use than the USPS one, and UPS drivers appear to go out of their way to avoid delivering packages sometimes (I've never gotten one of those "sorry we missed you" stickers from USPS). USPS has also never made me drive to another county to pick up a package from their distribution center.

FedEx I know nothing about, but their rates have scared me off finding out more. I remember dealing with DHL to ship eBay parcels when I was a kid, but I remember looking into them when starting my current business and finding something objectionable about them too (it may have been a continued requirement for the use of paper waybills).

People forget that USPS actually had to improve somewhat once it had competition. DHL, UPS, FedEx benefit us all even if we don't use them by pressuring USPS to compete.

Incidentally, how about a delivery tax to support roads? People ordering packages would be an easy tax to apply, and would offset the increase in truck traffic, etc. 

[Scott5114]

Incidentally, how about a delivery tax to support roads? People ordering packages would be an easy tax to apply, and would offset the increase in truck traffic, etc. 

Kills small business. Amazon/Walmart/others that can afford to offer free shipping can eat the cost of increased shipping prices. Smaller shippers that have to pass the shipping fees along will be at an even worse price disadvantage.

Besides, there's no guarantee that a shipment will even spend the majority of its journey on the road at all. Portions of the journey may go by train or airplane.

Maybe if you limited it to full truckload shipments or LTL freight. But individual parcels are a nonstarter.

[kalvado]

Incidentally, how about a delivery tax to support roads? People ordering packages would be an easy tax to apply, and would offset the increase in truck traffic, etc. 

Kills small business. Amazon/Walmart/others that can afford to offer free shipping can eat the cost of increased shipping prices. Smaller shippers that have to pass the shipping fees along will be at an even worse price disadvantage.

Besides, there's no guarantee that a shipment will even spend the majority of its journey on the road at all. Portions of the journey may go by train or airplane.

Maybe if you limited it to full truckload shipments or LTL freight. But individual parcels are a nonstarter.

I thought there is already some highway use tax for commercial vehicles anyway

[MikieTimT]

Maybe if you limited it to full truckload shipments or LTL freight. But individual parcels are a nonstarter.

That's an industry with a fairly active and powerful lobby.  They fight diesel tax increases tooth and nail for what is predominantly road use taxes on them, so I would expect much the same on another form of taxation on their industry.  They are fairly large reason that the roads wear out at the rate they do as well as well as a fairly large contributor of traffic impedance, so that's why diesel taxes already are much larger than gas taxes.

[HighwayStar]

Incidentally, how about a delivery tax to support roads? People ordering packages would be an easy tax to apply, and would offset the increase in truck traffic, etc. 

Kills small business. Amazon/Walmart/others that can afford to offer free shipping can eat the cost of increased shipping prices. Smaller shippers that have to pass the shipping fees along will be at an even worse price disadvantage.

Besides, there's no guarantee that a shipment will even spend the majority of its journey on the road at all. Portions of the journey may go by train or airplane.

Maybe if you limited it to full truckload shipments or LTL freight. But individual parcels are a nonstarter.

No, it might harm small e-com businesses, but not brick and mortar. Also big companies cannot magically "eat" any cost.

[Rothman]

Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.

Eh...I've never been impressed with any of the non-USPS options. The UPS website is far more cumbersome to use than the USPS one, and UPS drivers appear to go out of their way to avoid delivering packages sometimes (I've never gotten one of those "sorry we missed you" stickers from USPS). USPS has also never made me drive to another county to pick up a package from their distribution center.

FedEx I know nothing about, but their rates have scared me off finding out more. I remember dealing with DHL to ship eBay parcels when I was a kid, but I remember looking into them when starting my current business and finding something objectionable about them too (it may have been a continued requirement for the use of paper waybills).

People forget that USPS actually had to improve somewhat once it had competition. DHL, UPS, FedEx benefit us all even if we don't use them by pressuring USPS to compete.

Incidentally, how about a delivery tax to support roads? People ordering packages would be an easy tax to apply, and would offset the increase in truck traffic, etc.

Just what we need:  Lousy private sector companies doing public work...

[Rothman]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

[HighwayStar]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

No, I know exactly what they mean, this is straight out of Econ 101.
One is not a subset of the other. Let me give you some examples.
A good/service is "rival" when the consumption of one person of the good/service trades off with the consumption of someone else. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is rival, if I eat it, you can't.
A good/service is "excludeable" when the consumption of one person can be differentially prevented or allowed relative to another. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is excludable, if you give the cashier $1.59 you will receive one, and if I do not, then I won't get one.
The four classes of goods are determined by their rivalry and excludability. Public goods must be both non-rival and non-excludable. Natural monopoly goods must be non-rival but excludable. Common goods must be non-excludable but rival. And finally private goods are both rival and excludable.
Cable TV is a natural monopoly good, you can exclude people from it, but there is no rivalry in the sense that if you recive the signal I can't.
Fish in an ocean without property rights are a common good. A fish I catch cannot be caught by you, but neither of us can exclude the other from fishing.
Notice that the imposition of property rights can make a common good a private one.

we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other
Assumption not in evidence. To what degree? With what speed? At who's expense? Etc. No, communication, in the form of letters, is rival and excludable, a textbook private good. Certainly we may wish some communication, just as we wish a long list of things, but that does not change its nature as a good, nor give a bright line as to how much should be provided.
a clear public benefit
That is not relevant, the definition of "public good" has nothing to do with it being a benefit to the public.
each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods
No, that there are 4 classes of goods is well established and taught in every Econ 101 class. It is not really an area of significant research at this point.

The government may always choose to provision goods which are private, monopoly, common, or public, but in doing so it does not change the nature of any of them.

[hotdogPi]

Regarding your most recent post: how does this even support your initial argument about how billboards on highway ROW are a good idea? I'm not seeing the connection.

[HighwayStar]

Regarding your most recent post: how does this even support your initial argument about how billboards on highway ROW are a good idea? I'm not seeing the connection.

Its largely just context so we can properly understand what is, and is not, a public good.

I think every proposal on this thread must be considered in two worlds, one with fiat and one without.

With fiat it is possible to discuss the actual merits of the proposals.

Without fiat its largely a matter of discussing if enough political pressure/faction fusing could be done to pass the legislation.

[paulthemapguy]

With fiat it is possible to discuss the actual merits of the proposals.

Without fiat its largely a matter of discussing if enough political pressure/faction fusing could be done to pass the legislation.

I drive a Hyundai

[HighwayStar]

With fiat it is possible to discuss the actual merits of the proposals.

Without fiat its largely a matter of discussing if enough political pressure/faction fusing could be done to pass the legislation.

I drive a Hyundai

I'm sorry 

[Rothman]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

No, I know exactly what they mean, this is straight out of Econ 101.
One is not a subset of the other. Let me give you some examples.
A good/service is "rival" when the consumption of one person of the good/service trades off with the consumption of someone else. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is rival, if I eat it, you can't.
A good/service is "excludeable" when the consumption of one person can be differentially prevented or allowed relative to another. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is excludable, if you give the cashier $1.59 you will receive one, and if I do not, then I won't get one.
The four classes of goods are determined by their rivalry and excludability. Public goods must be both non-rival and non-excludable. Natural monopoly goods must be non-rival but excludable. Common goods must be non-excludable but rival. And finally private goods are both rival and excludable.
Cable TV is a natural monopoly good, you can exclude people from it, but there is no rivalry in the sense that if you recive the signal I can't.
Fish in an ocean without property rights are a common good. A fish I catch cannot be caught by you, but neither of us can exclude the other from fishing.
Notice that the imposition of property rights can make a common good a private one.

we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other
Assumption not in evidence. To what degree? With what speed? At who's expense? Etc. No, communication, in the form of letters, is rival and excludable, a textbook private good. Certainly we may wish some communication, just as we wish a long list of things, but that does not change its nature as a good, nor give a bright line as to how much should be provided.
a clear public benefit
That is not relevant, the definition of "public good" has nothing to do with it being a benefit to the public.
each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods
No, that there are 4 classes of goods is well established and taught in every Econ 101 class. It is not really an area of significant research at this point.

The government may always choose to provision goods which are private, monopoly, common, or public, but in doing so it does not change the nature of any of them.

Your Econ 101 is very muddled and confused compared to the classes I took.  And, your inclusion of verbose irrelevance is quite telling.

You are simply wrong about the same concepts being taught in every Econ 101 class, your ability to parrot Wikipedia notwithstanding.

Communication is a service, not a good.  Envelopes are certainly a private good, but the delivery service itself?  Nah.  It should be treated as a public good.  This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.  We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.

[HighwayStar]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

No, I know exactly what they mean, this is straight out of Econ 101.
One is not a subset of the other. Let me give you some examples.
A good/service is "rival" when the consumption of one person of the good/service trades off with the consumption of someone else. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is rival, if I eat it, you can't.
A good/service is "excludeable" when the consumption of one person can be differentially prevented or allowed relative to another. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is excludable, if you give the cashier $1.59 you will receive one, and if I do not, then I won't get one.
The four classes of goods are determined by their rivalry and excludability. Public goods must be both non-rival and non-excludable. Natural monopoly goods must be non-rival but excludable. Common goods must be non-excludable but rival. And finally private goods are both rival and excludable.
Cable TV is a natural monopoly good, you can exclude people from it, but there is no rivalry in the sense that if you recive the signal I can't.
Fish in an ocean without property rights are a common good. A fish I catch cannot be caught by you, but neither of us can exclude the other from fishing.
Notice that the imposition of property rights can make a common good a private one.

we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other
Assumption not in evidence. To what degree? With what speed? At who's expense? Etc. No, communication, in the form of letters, is rival and excludable, a textbook private good. Certainly we may wish some communication, just as we wish a long list of things, but that does not change its nature as a good, nor give a bright line as to how much should be provided.
a clear public benefit
That is not relevant, the definition of "public good" has nothing to do with it being a benefit to the public.
each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods
No, that there are 4 classes of goods is well established and taught in every Econ 101 class. It is not really an area of significant research at this point.

The government may always choose to provision goods which are private, monopoly, common, or public, but in doing so it does not change the nature of any of them.

Your Econ 101 is very muddled and confused compared to the classes I took.  And, your inclusion of verbose irrelevance is quite telling.

You are simply wrong about the same concepts being taught in every Econ 101 class, your ability to parrot Wikipedia notwithstanding.

Communication is a service, not a good.  Envelopes are certainly a private good, but the delivery service itself?  Nah.  It should be treated as a public good.  This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.  We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.

Not sure where you took your econ 101 classes, but they have some explaining to do.
Nor am I "parroting" Wikipedia, this is all just recall of the course I took (and got an A+ in mind you).

Rather than writing good/service every time I use the term good, which is frequently done when talking about the public/private/monopoly/common nature of goods/services as the discussion is not necessarily about whether they can be transported for consumption or not. Or to put it the way one professor I once had did, a good is the opposite of a bad, ie. in this context good refers to goods and services collectively. However your definition of the communication as a service is perfectly correct.

This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.

This logic has a subtle error in it. Let me clear this up.
If you send a letter, that letter trades off with available capacity in the system. Its not that I can't send a letter as well, but that our letters are rival in their use of the capacity. To make the point more clear, if I send 100 letters, and you want to send 100 letters, they won't both fit in the same delivery bag on the same day, etc. Or to put it another way, you buying a McDouble does not stop me from buying one, but we both can't eat the same burger, I have to have a different one. My letter needs its own allocation of capacity separate from yours (however small the marginal capacity required for 1 letter may be).

We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.
What you want something to be has nothing to do with the actual nature of the good/service. You wanting everyone to be able to send letters does not make it non-excludable, we are perfectly capable of preventing some people from sending them regardless of whether we invoke that ability or not (and indeed, we do exactly that, ever tried sending a letter without postage?). Making it non-rival is physically impossible.

Postal service is a private good. National defense is an actual example of a public good.

[HighwayStar]

In the spirit of hopefully stearing this back on course, I would like to estimate the revenue opportunity if we had service plazas on the entire interstate system as originally intended. Doing this with advertising was fairly easy, but not sure how to estimate the service plaza revenue.

[Rothman]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

No, I know exactly what they mean, this is straight out of Econ 101.
One is not a subset of the other. Let me give you some examples.
A good/service is "rival" when the consumption of one person of the good/service trades off with the consumption of someone else. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is rival, if I eat it, you can't.
A good/service is "excludeable" when the consumption of one person can be differentially prevented or allowed relative to another. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is excludable, if you give the cashier $1.59 you will receive one, and if I do not, then I won't get one.
The four classes of goods are determined by their rivalry and excludability. Public goods must be both non-rival and non-excludable. Natural monopoly goods must be non-rival but excludable. Common goods must be non-excludable but rival. And finally private goods are both rival and excludable.
Cable TV is a natural monopoly good, you can exclude people from it, but there is no rivalry in the sense that if you recive the signal I can't.
Fish in an ocean without property rights are a common good. A fish I catch cannot be caught by you, but neither of us can exclude the other from fishing.
Notice that the imposition of property rights can make a common good a private one.

we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other
Assumption not in evidence. To what degree? With what speed? At who's expense? Etc. No, communication, in the form of letters, is rival and excludable, a textbook private good. Certainly we may wish some communication, just as we wish a long list of things, but that does not change its nature as a good, nor give a bright line as to how much should be provided.
a clear public benefit
That is not relevant, the definition of "public good" has nothing to do with it being a benefit to the public.
each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods
No, that there are 4 classes of goods is well established and taught in every Econ 101 class. It is not really an area of significant research at this point.

The government may always choose to provision goods which are private, monopoly, common, or public, but in doing so it does not change the nature of any of them.

Your Econ 101 is very muddled and confused compared to the classes I took.  And, your inclusion of verbose irrelevance is quite telling.

You are simply wrong about the same concepts being taught in every Econ 101 class, your ability to parrot Wikipedia notwithstanding.

Communication is a service, not a good.  Envelopes are certainly a private good, but the delivery service itself?  Nah.  It should be treated as a public good.  This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.  We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.

Not sure where you took your econ 101 classes, but they have some explaining to do.
Nor am I "parroting" Wikipedia, this is all just recall of the course I took (and got an A+ in mind you).

Rather than writing good/service every time I use the term good, which is frequently done when talking about the public/private/monopoly/common nature of goods/services as the discussion is not necessarily about whether they can be transported for consumption or not. Or to put it the way one professor I once had did, a good is the opposite of a bad, ie. in this context good refers to goods and services collectively. However your definition of the communication as a service is perfectly correct.

This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.

This logic has a subtle error in it. Let me clear this up.
If you send a letter, that letter trades off with available capacity in the system. Its not that I can't send a letter as well, but that our letters are rival in their use of the capacity. To make the point more clear, if I send 100 letters, and you want to send 100 letters, they won't both fit in the same delivery bag on the same day, etc. Or to put it another way, you buying a McDouble does not stop me from buying one, but we both can't eat the same burger, I have to have a different one. My letter needs its own allocation of capacity separate from yours (however small the marginal capacity required for 1 letter may be).

We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.
What you want something to be has nothing to do with the actual nature of the good/service. You wanting everyone to be able to send letters does not make it non-excludable, we are perfectly capable of preventing some people from sending them regardless of whether we invoke that ability or not (and indeed, we do exactly that, ever tried sending a letter without postage?). Making it non-rival is physically impossible.

Postal service is a private good. National defense is an actual example of a public good.

The capacity of our postal service can always be expanded, so your idea that letters take up capacity is illusory.

And hey, I got an A in all my econ classes, too (did you just take the one?  Things do get more complicated...).  I think yours was the wrong one. We're just proving my point.

[HighwayStar]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

No, I know exactly what they mean, this is straight out of Econ 101.
One is not a subset of the other. Let me give you some examples.
A good/service is "rival" when the consumption of one person of the good/service trades off with the consumption of someone else. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is rival, if I eat it, you can't.
A good/service is "excludeable" when the consumption of one person can be differentially prevented or allowed relative to another. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is excludable, if you give the cashier $1.59 you will receive one, and if I do not, then I won't get one.
The four classes of goods are determined by their rivalry and excludability. Public goods must be both non-rival and non-excludable. Natural monopoly goods must be non-rival but excludable. Common goods must be non-excludable but rival. And finally private goods are both rival and excludable.
Cable TV is a natural monopoly good, you can exclude people from it, but there is no rivalry in the sense that if you recive the signal I can't.
Fish in an ocean without property rights are a common good. A fish I catch cannot be caught by you, but neither of us can exclude the other from fishing.
Notice that the imposition of property rights can make a common good a private one.

we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other
Assumption not in evidence. To what degree? With what speed? At who's expense? Etc. No, communication, in the form of letters, is rival and excludable, a textbook private good. Certainly we may wish some communication, just as we wish a long list of things, but that does not change its nature as a good, nor give a bright line as to how much should be provided.
a clear public benefit
That is not relevant, the definition of "public good" has nothing to do with it being a benefit to the public.
each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods
No, that there are 4 classes of goods is well established and taught in every Econ 101 class. It is not really an area of significant research at this point.

The government may always choose to provision goods which are private, monopoly, common, or public, but in doing so it does not change the nature of any of them.

Your Econ 101 is very muddled and confused compared to the classes I took.  And, your inclusion of verbose irrelevance is quite telling.

You are simply wrong about the same concepts being taught in every Econ 101 class, your ability to parrot Wikipedia notwithstanding.

Communication is a service, not a good.  Envelopes are certainly a private good, but the delivery service itself?  Nah.  It should be treated as a public good.  This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.  We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.

Not sure where you took your econ 101 classes, but they have some explaining to do.
Nor am I "parroting" Wikipedia, this is all just recall of the course I took (and got an A+ in mind you).

Rather than writing good/service every time I use the term good, which is frequently done when talking about the public/private/monopoly/common nature of goods/services as the discussion is not necessarily about whether they can be transported for consumption or not. Or to put it the way one professor I once had did, a good is the opposite of a bad, ie. in this context good refers to goods and services collectively. However your definition of the communication as a service is perfectly correct.

This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.

This logic has a subtle error in it. Let me clear this up.
If you send a letter, that letter trades off with available capacity in the system. Its not that I can't send a letter as well, but that our letters are rival in their use of the capacity. To make the point more clear, if I send 100 letters, and you want to send 100 letters, they won't both fit in the same delivery bag on the same day, etc. Or to put it another way, you buying a McDouble does not stop me from buying one, but we both can't eat the same burger, I have to have a different one. My letter needs its own allocation of capacity separate from yours (however small the marginal capacity required for 1 letter may be).

We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.
What you want something to be has nothing to do with the actual nature of the good/service. You wanting everyone to be able to send letters does not make it non-excludable, we are perfectly capable of preventing some people from sending them regardless of whether we invoke that ability or not (and indeed, we do exactly that, ever tried sending a letter without postage?). Making it non-rival is physically impossible.

Postal service is a private good. National defense is an actual example of a public good.

The capacity of our postal service can always be expanded, so your idea that letters take up capacity is illusory.

And hey, I got an A in all my econ classes, too (did you just take the one?  Things do get more complicated...).  I think yours was the wrong one. We're just proving my point.

The fact that you can expand it does not mean that letters do not take up capacity, that is patently ludicrous.
McDonalds can always build more restaurants, so if you eat one of the hamburgers it does not reduce the total number available?
The concept of rivalry is about a particular unit of something being impossible to "share" not about the ability to make more.

And yes, I took a fair number of econ courses, and in none of them did they suddenly decide that capacity of letter handling is no longer rival, or that hamburgers start to fall out of the sky.
Frankly I don't care how many you took, its obvious that you are not applying the concept correctly.

[Rothman]

Of course, it would also be possible to enact some type of "beautification" law similar to what Johnson saddled us with to remove off highway signs over time, or at least prevent the addition of any more.

Can you imagine the furor if the government passed a law forbidding companies like UPS, FedEx, etc., from operating and competing with the USPS?

No different than the government outlawing all signs off ROW and limiting advertising signs to government-owned property.

No,it is actually very different, your comparison is invalid.
First, postal delivery is clearly in the realm of a private good, it is both excludeable and rival. That is not exactly true of highway advertising.
Second, postal delivery does not have negative externalities of the sort that highway signs do.
Third, the average person would not care in the slightest if the government did this, plenty of people would be unhappy if they were forced to use USPS for everything.
Fourth, the government has already had regulations similar to this in the past to remove signs.
And finally, I said this could be done, not that it was actually integral to the plan. An even better way to accomplish the same would not be to legislate their removal, but simply impose various tax changes to make them less attractive than placing signs in the actual ROW.

Postal service is not clearly a private good, simply because allowing the public to communicate is clearly a public good.

That is not what the definition of a public good is. A public good must be both non-rival, and non-excludable. Postal service is both rival and excludable.

You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean, especially when rivalry is a subset of excludability.

It's not about how the service is distributed currently, but how they should be.  By definition, we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other.  Therefore, communication should be treated in a manner that is non-excludable (health care as well).  Furthermore, we all benefit when communication is handled smoothly -- a clear public benefit.

That all said, each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods (market efficiency as well).  So, just barking about goods/services being excludable or rival or not as if that is an objective measure is absurd when you consider the heft of ongoing debates about how to handle goods/services overall in this country.

No, I know exactly what they mean, this is straight out of Econ 101.
One is not a subset of the other. Let me give you some examples.
A good/service is "rival" when the consumption of one person of the good/service trades off with the consumption of someone else. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is rival, if I eat it, you can't.
A good/service is "excludeable" when the consumption of one person can be differentially prevented or allowed relative to another. Example, A McDonald's Hamburger is excludable, if you give the cashier $1.59 you will receive one, and if I do not, then I won't get one.
The four classes of goods are determined by their rivalry and excludability. Public goods must be both non-rival and non-excludable. Natural monopoly goods must be non-rival but excludable. Common goods must be non-excludable but rival. And finally private goods are both rival and excludable.
Cable TV is a natural monopoly good, you can exclude people from it, but there is no rivalry in the sense that if you recive the signal I can't.
Fish in an ocean without property rights are a common good. A fish I catch cannot be caught by you, but neither of us can exclude the other from fishing.
Notice that the imposition of property rights can make a common good a private one.

we want everyone to be able to communicate with each other
Assumption not in evidence. To what degree? With what speed? At who's expense? Etc. No, communication, in the form of letters, is rival and excludable, a textbook private good. Certainly we may wish some communication, just as we wish a long list of things, but that does not change its nature as a good, nor give a bright line as to how much should be provided.
a clear public benefit
That is not relevant, the definition of "public good" has nothing to do with it being a benefit to the public.
each economist out there has a different explanation for public and private goods
No, that there are 4 classes of goods is well established and taught in every Econ 101 class. It is not really an area of significant research at this point.

The government may always choose to provision goods which are private, monopoly, common, or public, but in doing so it does not change the nature of any of them.

Your Econ 101 is very muddled and confused compared to the classes I took.  And, your inclusion of verbose irrelevance is quite telling.

You are simply wrong about the same concepts being taught in every Econ 101 class, your ability to parrot Wikipedia notwithstanding.

Communication is a service, not a good.  Envelopes are certainly a private good, but the delivery service itself?  Nah.  It should be treated as a public good.  This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.  We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.

Not sure where you took your econ 101 classes, but they have some explaining to do.
Nor am I "parroting" Wikipedia, this is all just recall of the course I took (and got an A+ in mind you).

Rather than writing good/service every time I use the term good, which is frequently done when talking about the public/private/monopoly/common nature of goods/services as the discussion is not necessarily about whether they can be transported for consumption or not. Or to put it the way one professor I once had did, a good is the opposite of a bad, ie. in this context good refers to goods and services collectively. However your definition of the communication as a service is perfectly correct.

This idea that if I send a letter means you can't is just silly.

This logic has a subtle error in it. Let me clear this up.
If you send a letter, that letter trades off with available capacity in the system. Its not that I can't send a letter as well, but that our letters are rival in their use of the capacity. To make the point more clear, if I send 100 letters, and you want to send 100 letters, they won't both fit in the same delivery bag on the same day, etc. Or to put it another way, you buying a McDouble does not stop me from buying one, but we both can't eat the same burger, I have to have a different one. My letter needs its own allocation of capacity separate from yours (however small the marginal capacity required for 1 letter may be).

We want everyone to be able to send letters, making the service non-excludable and non-rival and therefore a public service.
What you want something to be has nothing to do with the actual nature of the good/service. You wanting everyone to be able to send letters does not make it non-excludable, we are perfectly capable of preventing some people from sending them regardless of whether we invoke that ability or not (and indeed, we do exactly that, ever tried sending a letter without postage?). Making it non-rival is physically impossible.

Postal service is a private good. National defense is an actual example of a public good.

The capacity of our postal service can always be expanded, so your idea that letters take up capacity is illusory.

And hey, I got an A in all my econ classes, too (did you just take the one?  Things do get more complicated...).  I think yours was the wrong one. We're just proving my point.

The fact that you can expand it does not mean that letters do not take up capacity, that is patently ludicrous.
McDonalds can always build more restaurants, so if you eat one of the hamburgers it does not reduce the total number available?
The concept of rivalry is about a particular unit of something being impossible to "share" not about the ability to make more.

And yes, I took a fair number of econ courses, and in none of them did they suddenly decide that capacity of letter handling is no longer rival, or that hamburgers start to fall out of the sky.
Frankly I don't care how many you took, its obvious that you are not applying the concept correctly.

And you are failing to see the flaw in the concept altogether.