Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Highway taxes were originally intended to go into the general fund. A portion was later deposited into a highway trust fund for defense, then later to build out highways. The purpose given to the public today is to fund transportation projects, but since it isn't law politicians are free to use it to build public restrooms in Afghanistan, if they wanted. The taxes would be a great financial resource for building out urban trolley/light rail, metro subways, as well as maintaining highways if the money was invested properly and we, the taxpayers, wouldn't see any added financial cost.
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was founded by the 1956 Highway Revenue Act. Prior to the HTF, funds were directed from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Originally, the fund was dedicated solely to highways. That was changed in 1982.
That isn't the history I read. The tax on gas at the Federal level started in 1932 to balance the budget. Gas taxes go back further at the state level and were used to fund many different things.
This is exactly the model I'm talking about--they have cars, they just don't have to use them for every trip. It's essentially the same system we used to have up until about World War II.
And that is exactly what I would like to see. Even though I like the freedom to drive to where I want, there are many times where I would prefer get on light rail. And, well, I like trolleys, trains and streetcars.
That isn't the history I read. The tax on gas at the Federal level started in 1932 to balance the budget. Gas taxes go back further at the state level and were used to fund many different things.
I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I have done research on it.
Here is one quote from the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration...
"The HTF was created as a user-supported fund. Simply, the revenues of the HTF were intended for financing highways, with the taxes dedicated to the HTF paid by the users of highways."
and one more...
"Another important characteristic of the HTF is that it was set up as a pay-as-you-go fund"
Prior to 1956 and the Highway Trust Fund, taxes on motor fuels and automobile products were in existence, however, they were not linked to funding for highways.
I was always asking my Grandfather questions and one time I asked him why we pay bridge tolls and not road tolls... he then told me all about the Highway Trust Fund and how all users contribute every time they buy fuel, heavy duty tires, trucks, trailers and use fees on Heavy Duty Vehicles...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 02-10-2010 at 12:24 AM..
Ultrarunner, that is just the HTF portion of it, and only a small amount of the gasoline taxes went into the HTF.
It is one of the almost all of the taxes that needs to be restructured as an actual user fee and not as a piggy-bank. That is, to fund transportation projects. That includes highways, airports and public transportation directly. As it is now, most of our taxes go to the general fund which makes it too easy to spend money where politicians see fit. Things like public transportation and education are currently at the bottom of their "fit" list.
One of our many kooky lawmakers thinks Californians have too much free parking. With help from the Sierra Club and other left wing activists he wants to do something about it.
Free parking? Not if one California lawmaker gets his way | Comments Blog | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2010/02/free-parking-not-if-one-state-lawmaker-gets-his-way.html - broken link)
Haven't had time to read through this entire thread yet. But, I will provide a "funny" story about the Westwood neighboorhood of Los Angeles. Visited Westwood on a couple of occassions checking out UCLA for college and later grad school. This was in the late 1990s. Went with my Dad as we both were visiting from central Florida. We were impressed by what felt like a vibrant neighborhood full of shops and things to see and do. But, we were VERY stressed out in trying to find free parking. Every lot/garage seemed to be charging what we thought were absurd rates when all we wanted to do was walk around and possibly grab a bite to eat at a local restaurant. We simply weren't going to pay to park just to eat after we had payed to get to the area in the form of gas and time spent on the road. WE felt inadequate at our inability to park...so we always left the area and dined elsewhere. Even after I moved to L.A. I always avoided Westwood because I simply didn't want the stress of looking for parking or the expense of parking when I was the one that would have taken the time and gas money to drive to that neighborhood in the first place. I never thought much more about it though....until several years later when the L.A. Times ran a large piece about....you guessed it...the decline of Westwood. What was-by far and away-the biggest reason for said decline? Lack of available, free parking! It seems I wasn't the only one that passed on making the trek into an otherwise appealing area to shop/dine because of parking. An entire, vibrant area was hit hard not so much by a bad economy (Westwood's decline started well before our current economic crisis), but because of effed up parking dynamics. Even though there was a sad undertone to the article, I couldn't help but laugh my arse off at the same time. The area we felt inadequate to a degree for our inability/unwillingness to adapt to its parking situation was on the verge of crumbling because people were going elesewhere to shop or dine where they didn't have such effed up parking dynamics.
The moral of the story to businesses: Go ahead, make it a pain in the ass and/or expensive for people to park...so they can spend money in your establishments. Enjoy the *short-term* increase in revenue from parking fees. And then, after people say to heck with it and go elsewhere to shop, cry us all a farking river when your business goes down the drain because of your parking program!!!!
The moral of the story to businesses: Go ahead, make it a pain in the ass and/or expensive for people to park...so they can spend money in your establishments. Enjoy the *short-term* increase in revenue from parking fees. And then, after people say to heck with it and go elsewhere to shop, cry us all a farking river when your business goes down the drain because of your parking program!!!!
Exactly. Restaurants are going to be hardest hit since we all know we should be eating at home more anyway. Having to pay to park would be just one more discouragement to dining out. As for retail stores, well, I'm sure Amazon loves this bill.
So what? People who don't want to drive cares have been "punished" ever since the advent of massive surburban sprawl development at the end of World War 2.
There are few or no mass transit options for people. Some places don't even have sidewalks.
We drive more and more and people keep living farther and farther away from the center of things (what center?) And then we wonder why we're stressed out, stuck in traffic, fat, at the mercy of unstable and often hostile oil producing countries, and have astronomical health care bills to boot.
EVERYTHING is designed around the needs of autos instead of human scale needs, and I, for one, am sick to death of it.
That's fine. BUT, that requires a further change in urban planning and an upgrade in public transportation opportunities. NOT simply punishing people who are trying to exist in our car-dominated society.
As a non-driver, I certainly WOULD rather have to pay for parking when I need it rather than have it bundled into the cost of my groceries or into the costs of building developments. "Free parking" isn't free, and it's not a right. It's a subsidy that comes with a hidden cost. The focus on zoning and car requirements and the building in of fees hurts everyone, including small businesses.
If people want a guaranteed free parking space at home, for example, then why should they assume that they can use their public street as free storage for their car? That should not be considered a right.
A key problem here is we're not going to see a reduction in prices at previously stated merchants if a "pay-as-you-go" parking program were enacted. The parking fee just gets tacked onto the existing price of goods.
And any money the government collects for street parking is certain to be wasted just as the money they already collect is lol.
Haven't had time to read through this entire thread yet. But, I will provide a "funny" story about the Westwood neighboorhood of Los Angeles. Visited Westwood on a couple of occassions checking out UCLA for college and later grad school. This was in the late 1990s. Went with my Dad as we both were visiting from central Florida. We were impressed by what felt like a vibrant neighborhood full of shops and things to see and do. But, we were VERY stressed out in trying to find free parking. Every lot/garage seemed to be charging what we thought were absurd rates when all we wanted to do was walk around and possibly grab a bite to eat at a local restaurant. We simply weren't going to pay to park just to eat after we had payed to get to the area in the form of gas and time spent on the road. WE felt inadequate at our inability to park...so we always left the area and dined elsewhere. Even after I moved to L.A. I always avoided Westwood because I simply didn't want the stress of looking for parking or the expense of parking when I was the one that would have taken the time and gas money to drive to that neighborhood in the first place. I never thought much more about it though....until several years later when the L.A. Times ran a large piece about....you guessed it...the decline of Westwood. What was-by far and away-the biggest reason for said decline? Lack of available, free parking! It seems I wasn't the only one that passed on making the trek into an otherwise appealing area to shop/dine because of parking. An entire, vibrant area was hit hard not so much by a bad economy (Westwood's decline started well before our current economic crisis), but because of effed up parking dynamics. Even though there was a sad undertone to the article, I couldn't help but laugh my arse off at the same time. The area we felt inadequate to a degree for our inability/unwillingness to adapt to its parking situation was on the verge of crumbling because people were going elesewhere to shop or dine where they didn't have such effed up parking dynamics.
The moral of the story to businesses: Go ahead, make it a pain in the ass and/or expensive for people to park...so they can spend money in your establishments. Enjoy the *short-term* increase in revenue from parking fees. And then, after people say to heck with it and go elsewhere to shop, cry us all a farking river when your business goes down the drain because of your parking program!!!!
The book the High Price of Free Parking specifically compares Westwood and Old Pasadena, and traces Old Pasadena's revitalization and Westwood's decline to issues relating to parking. I don't remember the details, but the author does not point to lack of free parking as the problem; I think the problem was the poor management of meters and parking garages. He compared it to Old Pasadena (where parking isn't free, either, although the first 1 1/2 hours are free) and argued that Pasadena's much better parking management allowed the area to revitalize. The author (Donald Shoup of UCLA) was very much NOT in favor of free parking in a neighborhood like Westwood. He argues for paid parking, but paid parking done right. Free parking can end up killing a neighborhood like Westwood, not saving it.
In Old Pasadena, for example, the parking money went back into the business district and paid for all sorts of perks that helped to make it an increasingly enjoyable place to visit. Nice benches, clean and safe streets, landscaping, etc. That all made it increasingly worth paying a couple of bucks to park there. And for those who want to run in and out of a store for a quick errand, the correct pricing of meters encourages turnover. (I think in Westwood the money went to the city, maybe into the general fund, and didn't directly come back to directly improve the business district)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
