Who's afraid of a Beltway? (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: sales, hotel, homes)

[pman]

that might even free up money to eliminate them in cities as cities deem desirable...or at least mitigate some of their negative externalities

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Commuter tax punishes businesses and puts burden on them, toll puts burden on person in car and promotes mass transit from surrounding communities. Also diverts truck traffic because the parkway is no longer a free path from east to northwest, so trucks either take turnpike or go to 79.

I'd also like to see any expansion of parkway include HOV/tolls to allow bus traffic dedicated inbound/outbound lanes and also allows for federal funding. If traffic moves a little slower (can hardly get much slower anyway), it will adjust people's attitudes to using the roads in the city and encourage an understanding of true infrastructure costs.

I rarely view taxes as a "punishment." I guess if you look at it that way, all taxes are a punishment in some way. They're a necessary evil.

Wouldn't diverting truck traffic be a desirable effect? The trucks that need to get to the city would still use the parkways and the trucks that are just passing through wouldn't bring their congestion and weight to the urban highways. It's not like most truckers stop in the city and do anything to stimulate the economy.

Originally Posted by pman

they are pretty rare and where they do occur (philadelphia, toledo, detroit) it is often not something you want to emulate. it is also a business tax rather than a road fee for use of the road. you'd pay the tax regardless of whether you walked, rode your bike, or drove. there are other benefits to tolling in addition to congestion reduction, enough money for proper road maintenance.

I don't think roads are the only thing the city provides, but I see both yours and Lost_in_translation's points about the side benefits of tolls vs a plain old income tax.

Personally it has always seemed weird and to me that people can work someplace and not pay taxes there. I would feel like a leech if I lived in Bellevue or Swissvale or somewhere and spent loads of time and money in the city. The city provides all these high paying jobs and then groups of people take the money and siphon it off to the suburbs. And it goes both ways; I worked a summer college job in O'Hara Township while living in Oakland and felt that I should have been paying income taxes to O'Hara.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by ferraris

I don't know if they are as rare as you think; I know my hometown Toledo has a commuter tax as well (not that Toledo is some shining example of what to emulate). Sandusky also has one, likely due to the tourism industry around Cedar Point.

Philly's commuter tax is a crushing 3.495%. That's way too high. Pittsburgh could do well with something like New York's "mobility tax" of 0.34% that goes straight to the MTA. A small tax like that going straight to PAT could do a lot towards expanding transit, and indirectly helping alleviate traffic.

PAT is owned by Allegheny County and funded by the state.
Port Authority of Allegheny County - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Everyone in the state is already paying taxes for it.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Katiana

PAT is owned by Allegheny County and funded by the state.
Port Authority of Allegheny County - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Everyone in the state is already paying taxes for it.

It all gets lumped together under transportation infrastructure and Allegheny County winds up subsidizing roads and bridges in rural areas rather than the other way around.

PennDot Sec: Rural Roads Subsidized More Than Mass Transit « CBS Philly

[pman]

Originally Posted by ferraris

...
Personally it has always seemed weird and to me that people can work someplace and not pay taxes there. I would feel like a leech if I lived in Bellevue or Swissvale or somewhere and spent loads of time and money in the city. The city provides all these high paying jobs and then groups of people take the money and siphon it off to the suburbs. And it goes both ways; I worked a summer college job in O'Hara Township while living in Oakland and felt that I should have been paying income taxes to O'Hara.

I think, in the end, the two proposals have very different end goals. If the goal is to reduce traffic on the roads, improve maintenance of those roads and raise capital for improvements (let's face it, not capping highways, not having money to remove them where desirable are costs that are borne by city residents/taxpayers that should be borne by users of the road or the road's owner). In this case riding transit becomes more competitive but it may or may not generate direct tax revenue to support PAT (maybe it should if that's deemed desirable). If you simply want to raise revenue for PAT then a tax might work. for what it's worth the city does not provide the jobs, companies provide the jobs, the city is blessed to still have so many jobs in city limits. if those jobs were in the suburbs they wouldn't have the property tax (where applicable), the payroll tax, the $52 fee, the happy hours, or the lunches. people are entitled to live where they want but perhaps they should pay for the commute to work. I think most people try to avoid tax and feel no compunction that they should be paying tax. the city is small and needs to be concerned with what people will pay to work there.
in the long run I think if you remove veteran's, 279, the crosstown you end up with much more valuable real estate that will provide tax revenue to the city. PAT gets to compete with the real cost of driving (parking plus road maintenance and gas) and city dwellers get improved QOL.

[Craziaskowboi]

I-279 will never be removed in our lifetimes.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

I-279 will never be removed in our lifetimes.

It's already there. At this point wouldn't capping it make more sense than total removal?

[pman]

Originally Posted by ferraris

It's already there. At this point wouldn't capping it make more sense than total removal?

you can't cap all of it nor can you effectively mitigate its negative impacts along its core routing. the only chance one has of removing these destructive highways is when they meet the end of their useful life, rather than rehabilitate then, you remove them. capping can mitigate sections and conceivably be enough. capping shoudl be done both on the north side and the hill and bepaid for by highway users.
just try to imagine downtown and the east end without the barrier (whether it be an overpass or an uncovered gash), it makes a lot more sense. east allegheny also makes a lot more sense without that gash, and the northside riverfront is all cut up by highways. from a city perspective it should be about forcing mitigation or removal, whichever can be achieved, IMO. there is a small proposed cap and no funding for it.

[Craziaskowboi]

The Parkway North is an important highway, like it or not. Eliminating it is not an option.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

The Parkway North is an important highway, like it or not. Eliminating it is not an option.

True. That's also why I'd need a great deal more evidence than I've ever seen presented here or anywhere else before I'd support a new, limited access highway in the area. If it isn't right, it's a mistake you likely can't fix in a human lifetime.