Georgia House leaders unveil transportation funding bill (Washington, Between: pre-school, taxation)

[J2201987]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

There's something critical missing from this analysis: The costs of air pollution. And I'm not just talking about carbon dioxide, though that certainly is a thing; I mean locally hazardous pollutants such as nitric oxide. And to a lesser degree, there's a quality of life issue that stems from the fact that electric cars are much, much quieter.

??????

Do you mean "carbon monoxide"?

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by J2201987

??????

Do you mean "carbon monoxide"?

LOL, no, he meant what he said. Cars -- and anything that involves burning a fuel source -- emit carbon dioxide, which contribute to climate change. Car Emissions and Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Carbon monoxide is produced when there isn't enough oxygen in the environment to create carbon dioxide... a running car in a closed garage, for example.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by columbusmetro89

Yeah but the bad thing about this is atlanta will get most of the money for transportation projects. The other cities in georgia hardly won't get anything.Augusta Columbus Macon Savannah are growing cities too may not be a fast as atlanta but were still growing.

I agree that our second-tier metro areas of Columbus, Augusta, Macon, and Savannah should receive their fair share of funding. After all, their combined metro areas have nearly 1.5 million residents in them.

I also accept the fact that metro Atlanta has over 5.5 million residents--nearly four times as many as those other for metro areas combined and more than half of the entire state.

As some have mentioned, the projects that have been overfunded are the sparsely-traveled four-lane highways in the southern portion of our state. Major truck thoroughfares, such as the one between Savannah and Augusta, definitely deserve to have four lanes. Sparsely-traveled highways do not.

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Sorry I had completely missed this post.

Umm.. I'll be honest you're barking up the wrong tree.

We are primarily discussing how we physically pay for the transportation infrastructure we have. The cost of freeways, arterials roads, transit, etc...

They are traditionally paid for out of the gas tax. All cars using them will eventually need to help pay for them. Cars are rapidly getting more fuel efficient and completely AFVs are increasing, yet they still need the physical roads and bridges built to be of any use.

It doesn't matter if you are driving an all electric car or escalade, they still need the roads and bridges built to operate and they should both pay for it.

So no is punishing anyone for being environmentally conscious, there is just a harsh reality we can't let these people completely off the hook for paying for a system they use.

I completely disagree. Again, it is only fair that we consider externalities from different forms of transportation. It is a verifiable fact that exhaust fumes are harmful to nearby residents and workers. Those code-orange smog alerts we get every summer aren't just randomly made-up things, you know.

Natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than gasoline and should be treated as such. And electricity wouldn't cause any pollution at all, were it to come from clean power plants; but even then, they have a very high MPG equivalent. So if it's that important, raise taxes on electricity and natural gas. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by J2201987

??????

Do you mean "carbon monoxide"?

Uh, no, you are up-to-date on your climate science, right? Hopefully you're not one of those climate change deniers...

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

I completely disagree. Again, it is only fair that we consider externalities from different forms of transportation. It is a verifiable fact that exhaust fumes are harmful to nearby residents and workers. Those code-orange smog alerts we get every summer aren't just randomly made-up things, you know.

Natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than gasoline and should be treated as such. And electricity wouldn't cause any pollution at all, were it to come from clean power plants; but even then, they have a very high MPG equivalent. So if it's that important, raise taxes on electricity and natural gas. Problem solved.

If you want to take externalities into account electric cars still need to be taxed to pay for physical infrastructure.

Then gas based cars would be taxed more to pay for those externalities. You would then need to calculate what those externalities are and pay for them accordingly.


What you are putting forth is electric cars shouldn't pay for things they directly use and are not externalities, that is the wrong way of going about it.

It does not matter how clean or not a car is for the environment, none of that factors into how much the actual infrastructure costs.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by columbusmetro89

That's a lie atlanta gets most of the money and look at all the road construction projects going on in atlanta. And then look at the other 2nd tier cities in georgia and there's hardly nothing. Bull crap 85 percent of the money goes to atlanta which I understand why but know matter how wide you widen the roads and interstates in atlanta it's not going to help ease the traffic it will just make it worse. Because it will make the city feel more bigger and urban than it actually is. So atlanta will always have it's traffic issues and there ain't nothing that can be done about it. So it's just a waste of money when the money could be going toward georgia's 2nd tier cities to build our infrastructure.

nice rant kid.

Look, most of Georgia lives in Metro Atlanta, so yes you will see more projects happen int he Atlanta region than a much much smaller metro.

However, we don't take up 85% of the funds. And we do generate more revenue for the state than we get back. That is a fact.

It has been studied before by professionals and not just people bickering online.

The harsh truth is the GDOT has been greatly underfunded for going on close to 3 decades. The whole state has been hurting for funds. State and federal roads through Atlanta are not all in great condition.

Most major arterial road expansions in the Atlanta region are paid for by a combination of local funding through CIDs, TADs, and SPLOST, and county budgets.

In the last decade or two the largest expansion project for transportation has been GRIP. These are almost all corridors outside the Atlanta area. They are mostly in rural areas, and even then most of them are in Central and South Georgia and not North Georgia.

The most expensive of these projects are designed to connect the small metros in the state, so you might want to ask yourself... would you rather the state have connected Columbus to Macon and Augusta or split that money up and spent it inside your metros? There are limited funds and truth is your fair share has been dumped into that program and you're pointing the fingers at us just because we are big.

And to be honest the GRIP program benefits you guys in at least some ways, not us.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

If you want to take externalities into account electric cars still need to be taxed to pay for physical infrastructure.

Then gas based cars would be taxed more to pay for those externalities. You would then need to calculate what those externalities are and pay for them accordingly.


What you are putting forth is electric cars shouldn't pay for things they directly use and are not externalities, that is the wrong way of going about it.

It does not matter how clean or not a car is for the environment, none of that factors into how much the actual infrastructure costs.

No, that is not what I said. I said that everything should be taken into consideration, not just the immediately visible costs. It's like when people erroneously believe that the cost of driving is only a function of how much gas they use. There are many more factors to consider: Periodic maintenance, depreciation of the vehicle's value, and expected health costs, to name a few of the big ones. Again, natural gas and electric vehicles produce fewer oxides of nitrogen per mile traveled, and they deserve to be rewarded for their environmental consciousness in the form of lower costs.

Recall, I didn't say that natural gas and electric vehicles should get a complete pass. But arbitrarily slapping them with a $200/year tax is just silly. And regardless of how much it would raise, which I predict wouldn't be much at all, it does not reflect well on this state. We need to prove that we are adapting to the 21st century, not the 19th.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Recall, I didn't say that natural gas and electric vehicles should get a complete pass. But arbitrarily slapping them with a $200/year tax is just silly. And regardless of how much it would raise, which I predict wouldn't be much at all, it does not reflect well on this state. We need to prove that we are adapting to the 21st century, not the 19th.

But that is exactly what you are arguing, because there is no tax for them to pay for transportation maintenance and improvements in the area.

The value isn't completely arbitrary either. It is based closely to what the average person pays each year in gas taxes.

So yes... taking everything into account... they should help pay for the roads they use.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

But that is exactly what you are arguing, because there is no tax for them to pay for transportation maintenance and improvements in the area.

The value isn't completely arbitrary either. It is based closely to what the average person pays each year in gas taxes.

So yes... taking everything into account... they should help pay for the roads they use.

And they make up for that with their decrease in pollution. It's a wash as far as I'm concerned.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

And they make up for that with their decrease in pollution. It's a wash as far as I'm concerned.

Roads, bridges, and traffic lights still cost money pollution or no pollution...

[J2201987]

Hate to break up the thread but, I HAVE to address this....

Originally Posted by magnetar

LOL, no, he meant what he said. Cars -- and anything that involves burning a fuel source -- emit carbon dioxide, which contribute to climate change. Car Emissions and Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Carbon monoxide is produced when there isn't enough oxygen in the environment to create carbon dioxide... a running car in a closed garage, for example.

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Uh, no, you are up-to-date on your climate science, right? Hopefully you're not one of those climate change deniers...

Difference Between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide | Difference Between | Carbon Monoxide vs Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound commonly known as CO2. It takes the form of a gas when it is at room temperatures. It is a colorless and odorless gas...carbon dioxide is what we exhale in order to breathe in oxygen within our body. It is involved in the process of respiration.Carbon dioxide is important in the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process wherein plants make use of the carbon dioxide in making food. When plants make food, we humans will have food for ourselves. It is also important in the process of respiration. Without carbon dioxide, the process of respiration cannot be completed. For us to breathe in oxygen from the plants, we must give them carbon dioxide in return. Carbon dioxide also plays an important role in our weather and climate.

there is only a minimal difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. They are both colorless and odorless gases. The only difference is that carbon monoxide is made up of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom. It takes the molecular formula of CO. If carbon dioxide is produced by plants and the combustion of organic materials, carbon monoxide is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels such as gas, coal, oil, and wood used in engines, gas fires, open fires, water heaters, and solid fuel appliances such as wood stoves.

^^
Hope this helps, sir, otherwise you are suggesting that humans, animals are plant life are a danger to this planet (which would be as ridiculous as this "climate science" BS).