Austin is slowly dying from heart disease (Round Rock, Brushy Creek: utilities, taxi)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by rynetwo

Yep.



Austin could take a page out of Phoenix's book. They have more than twice and many people and hardly the traffic.

1. Add more freeway lanes.

2.Expand the surface streets. (most surface streets in Phoenix have three lanes in each direction and a center turn lane.

3. Add a real loop!

And become one of the worst most sprawl-ridden cities in the US in the process. . .er, congrats?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Since Obama wasn't even in office until 2009, I don't think you can blame it on him. It's the fact that the tax wasn't inflation indexed and hasn't increased in 20 years. There's a _structural_ deficit in the program.

Wow. So the guy you voted for wasn't in government in 2008? Didn't vote for the 2008 Highway Act? Because if he did (and he did), then he IS responsible.

And funnily, we agree on the need to raise the federal gas tax. But I am at a loss to see what that has to do with how much of the capital and operating costs of mass transit are paid for by the users.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But since we're on the subject of the state. Gasoline is _exempt_ from sales tax. Which means that at an average price of ~$3.00 /gallon, gasoline sales short-change the general fund ~$.20 /gallon. Any diversions of the gas tax to the general fund only partially make up for this. Which means any claim that the supposed "use tax" of gasoline pays for roads is a complete falsehood.

Wow. Just wow. I suspected you were a collectivist, but now everything belongs to the state, and what we keep is with the permission of the collective? That anything else "short changes" the general fund? Could it possibly be that the Legislature has decided that the per gallon tax is in lieu of sales tax? That it is enough?

And that last sentence is probably the most convoluted, outcome driven piece of logic I've ever seen. Are you saying the state gas tax is a "supposed" use tax? If it isn't, what is it? And if 75% of it doesn't pay for the capital costs of highways, what does it pay for? Since it is a "complete falsehood".

[verybadgnome]

Congestion is annoying and does sometimes require you to change your itinerary but lets keep this in perspective:

"In every city studied, the costs associated with per-person crashes exceeded the costs of congestion."

AAA study finds crashes more costly than congestion


Or in other words it is easier to relate to the day-to-day costs while ignoring the catastrophic costs that may not happen to you.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Wow. Just wow. I suspected you were a collectivist, but now everything belongs to the state, and what we keep is with the permission of the collective?

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Here in Texas, we have decided that the appropriate way to provide for the necessary costs of operating a government is to have a sales tax. That sales tax is then applied equally across the board to every sale (except basic staples like food).

Except for gasoline. That's somehow special, and sales of it are exempt. And yet somehow "driving isn't subsidized".
And that the money raised from the "gasoline tax" on it (don't call it a sales tax) means that "roads pay for themselves".

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

..
You say that like it's something special. Austin cannot annex Flugerville ETJ property nor can Austin's ETJ extend into Plugerville's ETJ Property. Austin cannot annex Round Rock ETJ property, nor can Austin's ETJ extend into Round Rocks's ETJ Property. Dripping Springs cannot annex Austin ETJ property nor can Dripping Spring's ETJ extend into Austin's ETJ property.

That's the _definition_ of ETJ.

It's not something special - it was the motivation for property owners to petition to have their property included in Dripping Springs ETJ. The property owners did so not because they wanted to be subjected to Dripping Springs ETJ but because they wanted protection from annexation into Austin or its ETJ (i.e., as a defensive mechanism against a city that was on a mission to deprive land owners of fundamental property rights through regulatory takings.

By the way, "Flugerville" is spelled "Pflugerville"

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Here in Texas, we have decided that the appropriate way to provide for the necessary costs of operating a government is to have a sales tax. That sales tax is then applied equally across the board to every sale (except basic staples like food).

Except for gasoline. That's somehow special, and sales of it are exempt. And yet somehow "driving isn't subsidized".
And that the money raised from the "gasoline tax" on it (don't call it a sales tax) means that "roads pay for themselves".

So when you don't pay sales tax on you transit fares, are you overcome with guilt because you "short changed" the state?

Besides, like I said, what does this have to do with the absurdly low percentage of capital and operating costs paid by transit users?

Keep on distracting.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

So when you don't pay sales tax on you transit fares, are you overcome with guilt because you "short changed" the state?

It's not a matter of "guilt", its a matter of subsidies. Driving is subsidized.

Transit fares aren't "tangible personal property" anyway, so they wouldn't be subject to sales taxes. If you're really that worried about it though, I'm sure transit riders would all be willing to add 8 cents to each dollar fare if gas had proper sales taxes added to it.

Originally Posted by scm53

Besides, like I said, what does this have to do with the absurdly low percentage of capital and operating costs paid by transit users?

Because drivers also pay an "absurdly low percentage of capital and operating costs".

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But since we're on the subject of the state. Gasoline is _exempt_ from sales tax. Which means that at an average price of ~$3.00 /gallon, gasoline sales short-change the general fund ~$.20 /gallon. Any diversions of the gas tax to the general fund only partially make up for this. Which means any claim that the supposed "use tax" of gasoline pays for roads is a complete falsehood.

I have been posting about the diversion of state & federal gasoline taxes for years here & on other forums. Anywhere from 30% to 40% is diverted into non-road projects annually from what I've read.

Both parties are guilty, and it is a disgrace IMO.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

It's not something special - it was the motivation for property owners to petition to have their property included in Dripping Springs ETJ. The property owners did so not because they wanted to be subjected to Dripping Springs ETJ but because they wanted protection from annexation into Austin or its ETJ (i.e., as a defensive mechanism against a city that was on a mission to deprive land owners of fundamental property rights through regulatory takings.

By the way, "Flugerville" is spelled "Pflugerville"

Not long after we moved up here to Brushy Creek in 1995, our MUD neighborhood voted to move to Round Rock's ETJ, out of Austin's. Thank gawd! We knew Round Rock wasn't going to annex us because of the large capital debt the MUD has voted to take on - $30,000,000 at the time. Of course the CoA isn't shy about running up large debts and wouldn't hesitate to gobble us up. I like living in an unincorporated area - we have excellent utilities, fire & law protection as it is.
Shockingly, the CoA has annexed the Avery Ranch area north & west of Brushy Creek here in Wilco.

Sometime around the late '80s or early '90s, I recall the CoA trying to annex the riverbed of the Colorado all the way up to Marble Falls in order to project its control over all of Lake Travis. Thankfully the Legislature, in a rare lucid moment, smack the greedy CoA down like a grabby petulant brat.