Should Atlanta do this?

[samiwas1]

Of all the stupid ideas ever posted on this forum, the few I've read in this thread before I wanted to slam my face into my desk top them all. Bravo.

Without going into detail, if you want to charge huge sums to enter the city limits by car, you have to have alternatives ready first. That's why it works in the very few other places that do anything close to what you guys are spouting off about. By suddenly charging $20 a day to enter Atlanta, but not offering up any other viable way to get in, you might as well just shut the city down.

And to note that one of the spearheads of this is the one who cries discrimination all the time.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Some of y'all might right off electronic tolling as not politically possible.

But keep in mind, our current system of funding roads is not mathematically possible to keep up roads.

Change is coming and road users need to pick up their bill.

Okay, but no road usage funds may be used for sidewalks and bike lanes. Sorry. Those must be funded separately by usage fees from walkers and bike riders. And this means that no bikes may use existing car lanes without paying a road usage fee, which of course is separate from the bike lane fee. Sorry, but fair is fair. If you want to play that game, we can play that game. but, we won't, because it'll never happen.

But, is that really the way you want to live? Having every move you make nickel and dimed? Having to decide every few minutes how much the next few minutes will cost base don which direction you go? It honestly sounds freaking miserable, and would likely lead to a mass exodus of population. I know that I would be planning my move the day they announced anything like the ideas that have been proposed in this thread.

[Gulch]

This thread is full of nothing but wannabe transportation planners.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Without going into detail, if you want to charge huge sums to enter the city limits by car, you have to have alternatives ready first. That's why it works in the very few other places that do anything close to what you guys are spouting off about. By suddenly charging $20 a day to enter Atlanta, but not offering up any other viable way to get in, you might as well just shut the city down.

How many times do I have to point out that I've already explained how to do this? How you can use even a conservative amount of the expected revenue to build up substantial additional transit services to be ready in time for when the tolls open?

I explained it RIGHT HERE ->

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Well, treat it like a tax measure to improve any service, right? etc.

Just two pages back.

And to note that one of the spearheads of this is the one who cries discrimination all the time.

Which is why I've done extensive research to ensure that a toll system would not, in actuality, be unfair to the poor:

When considering tolling currently open-access roads, it is fair to question whether or not such a system will adversely affect those who can least afford it. It is fair, and natural to ask if lower-income people be financially hurt by tolling a road they once had open access to.


This, though, starts from the assumption that the current open access to roads is a fair situation for the poor. It is not.


Given the massive priority for personal automobiles on roads, streets start out as unfair for those who are earn so little income that they cannot afford a car. Personal automobiles purchased by those with more wealth clog up the streets to slow transit systems, speed dangerously past anyone trying to bike, and make it hard to walk between destinations by spreading out development behind setbacks and parking lots.


For those who can afford a car, over reliance on cars is still a disadvantage. Both sales-taxes and gas-taxes are regressive funding sources. That is, that they disproportionately harm lower-income people who dedicate larger percentages of their income to paying than higher-income people.


Even for their regressive nature, usage fees do not cover anywhere near the full cost of roads. In 2014, only 39.6% of Georgia’s state & local road spending was covered by tolls, user fees, and user taxes. (Scarboro & Bishop-Henchman, 2017) The shortfalls are paid for by general funds. In Georgia, this primarily means from the state’s sales tax, and its, effectively flat, income tax. Both are regressive. Not only are the poor disproportionately affected by use fees, but also the standard taxing mechanisms.


"Are tolls regressive? According to this and many previous analyses, yes. But for transport policy, whether tolls are regressive fails to fully address the justice and fairness issues that arise in financing road use," writes Brian D. Taylor as the co-author of a joint UCLA and USC study on the fairness of tolls across income classes (Paul, 2008). "Using sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionately favors the more affluent at the expense of the impoverished."


The disparity grows further when considering the actual ability to use these roads. The costs of driving, such as paying for gas, paying licensing fees, and paying for maintenance, are all regressive. A person who can accesses the roads as much as possible see the highest comparative return on their investment. In 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, both the average number of trips, and average length of trips are significantly larger for higher-earning households than for lower earning households, with households in the highest income class making about 30% more trips, and having an average length of those trips over 40% longer than trips by those in the lowest income class (Memmott, 2007).


There are even more negative impacts when considering the environmental externalities associated with an over reliance on automobiles. Air pollution is major environmental risk to health. The lower the levels of air pollution, the better the cardiovascular and respiratory health of the population will be, both long- and short-term (World Health Organization, 2016). Lower-income people have less access to, and less ability to afford treatments for these health problems. Decreasing traffic, and thus emissions, helps to lower those costly medical treatments.


A flat-rate toll would be regressive. Like other pay-to-access public utilities, though, toll roads come with a built-in ability to help reduce the burden on those who can least afford them. That is, a certain amount of toll revenue can be set aside for direct assistance programs, as well as less-expensive alternatives to the tolls. Like we already do with heating, gas, electricity, and public transit, we could identify people who can’t afford the service, and dedicate a portion of the toll’s revenue to ensuring access. In the meantime, reduced traffic would allow transit to operate more effectively, and provide a safer environment for those who travel on foot or bike.

I have zero interest in further disadvantaging the economically disadvantaged, but again the data and economic consensus is that tolling would not do that. Rather, the alternatives funded by the tolls, the change in development patterns, and the reduced traffic would have a net benefit for the poor.