[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

Aww, nice try. Take your pick.

How do we pay for America's roads? | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


Do roads pay for themselves? Well, no | Grist

Actually, Highway Builders, Roads Don

If the government would stop taking money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by motor fuel taxes, to finance other projects like mass transit (21% of the fund), bike paths (12% of the fund), etc. then the fund would be in fine shape.
Being only about 59% is now actually going towards highways instead of the full amount, of course there is going to be a shortfall.

[randian]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

If the government would stop taking money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by motor fuel taxes, to finance other projects like mass transit (21% of the fund), bike paths (12% of the fund), etc. then the fund would be in fine shape.

Yep. Don't forget other taxes and payments those articles totally ignore: income taxes on profits of auto sales/parts/services, sales taxes on auto sales/parts/services, excise taxes on tires and oil, licensing and registration fees paid by auto owners, and the lease payments oil companies pay governments for the right to extract crude oil. Autos more than pay for themselves (and a whole lot of other stuff besides) once the entirety of the auto ecosystem is considered.

[Coconut1]

Originally Posted by randian

Why would I want to reduce carrying capacity and destroy perfectly good roads to build mass transit?

Because you're eventually going to have to tear up and gut cities in order to keep up with the continued demand for more road capacity.

Unless of course I missed the memo that the world's population is now actually shrinking.

Originally Posted by randian

Yep. Don't forget other taxes and payments those articles totally ignore: income taxes on profits of auto sales/parts/services, sales taxes on auto sales/parts/services, excise taxes on tires and oil, licensing and registration fees paid by auto owners, and the lease payments oil companies pay governments for the right to extract crude oil. Autos more than pay for themselves (and a whole lot of other stuff besides) once the entirety of the auto ecosystem is considered.

I think you left out the tax breaks big oil gets.

Interesting little break down here:
http://www.transalt.org/files/newsro...s/02gastax.gif

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

I think you left out the tax breaks big oil gets.

Interesting little break down here:
http://www.transalt.org/files/newsro...s/02gastax.gif

What specific tax breaks does Big Oil get that other businesses don't? Any business that requires research, investment in infrastructure etc. can generally deduct those expenses at the end of the year, oil or otherwise.

[randian]

Originally Posted by Coconut1

Because you're eventually going to have to tear up and gut cities in order to keep up with the continued demand for more road capacity.

Easier, cheaper, and less disruptive to expand. When you demand everybody live in the same central area, as is the current fetish, it just screws up traffic because they're all using the same roads. Distributing traffic is much better than trying to build wider roads.

Trains are far more expensive and less flexible than roads + cars. Trains are a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Human habitation covers something like 2% of North America's land mass. The environmentalist notion that we're "paving over the world" is bogus.

[EndersDrift]

Originally Posted by randian

Easier, cheaper, and less disruptive to expand. When you demand everybody live in the same central area, as is the current fetish, it just screws up traffic because they're all using the same roads. Distributing traffic is much better than trying to build wider roads.

Trains are far more expensive and less flexible than roads + cars. Trains are a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Human habitation covers something like 2% of North America's land mass. The environmentalist notion that we're "paving over the world" is bogus.

This is false in every possible way. Go look up Exurbanism and Edge Cities. A strong centralized downtown core is vastly superior to smaller distributions of commercial zones.

[randian]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

This is false in every possible way. Go look up Exurbanism and Edge Cities. A strong centralized downtown core is vastly superior to smaller distributions of commercial zones.

I know what exurbs and edge cities are. "Vastly superior" is a matter of taste. A city should grow according to what its inhabitants want, not what some urban planner wants. Decentralization and not being packed in apartment blocks like sardines are what people want.

[EndersDrift]

Originally Posted by randian

I know what exurbs and edge cities are. "Vastly superior" is a matter of taste. A city should grow according to what its inhabitants want, not what some urban planner wants. Decentralization and not being packed in apartment blocks like sardines are what people want.

Next time you're about to have surgery remember to tell the Surgeon what to do, you know best.

[randian]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

Next time you're about to have surgery remember to tell the Surgeon what to do, you know best.

Anybody who thinks themselves smart enough to know more about what's best for a land market than the market itself is an arrogant fool. The central planning fallacy applies everywhere, not just national markets.

[Coconut1]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

What specific tax breaks does Big Oil get that other businesses don't? Any business that requires research, investment in infrastructure etc. can generally deduct those expenses at the end of the year, oil or otherwise.

Big Oil's $4B tax break in doubt as Obama, Boehner tangle - Apr. 26, 2011

Originally Posted by randian

Easier, cheaper, and less disruptive to expand. When you demand everybody live in the same central area, as is the current fetish, it just screws up traffic because they're all using the same roads. Distributing traffic is much better than trying to build wider roads.

Trains are far more expensive and less flexible than roads + cars. Trains are a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Human habitation covers something like 2% of North America's land mass. The environmentalist notion that we're "paving over the world" is bogus.

Originally Posted by randian

I know what exurbs and edge cities are. "Vastly superior" is a matter of taste. A city should grow according to what its inhabitants want, not what some urban planner wants. Decentralization and not being packed in apartment blocks like sardines are what people want.

Originally Posted by randian

Anybody who thinks themselves smart enough to know more about what's best for a land market than the market itself is an arrogant fool. The central planning fallacy applies everywhere, not just national markets.

OK, LOL! Have a good day.