From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 07-Jun-14 14:13, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > On Friday, June 6, 2014 4:13:41 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >> On average (ignoring bubbles), land values go up at about the rate   
   >> of general inflation.   
   >   
   > Land is finite.  As the population increases, there is more demand   
   > for land, so the price is bid upward.   
      
   ... at about the rate of general inflation.  In fact, increasing land   
   values due to population growth is the root _cause_ of inflation.   
      
   > Even 'old' land, ie brownfields, can be expensive due to steep   
   > clean-up costs for the former industry located there   
      
   If you're referring to pollution, that's Superfund's job.   
      
   If you're only referring to the cost of tearing down old structures,   
   that is already factored into the market value of the property.   
      
   >> Wider lanes and lower grades do increase costs, but that pales in   
   >> comparison to the sharp increase in materials costs.   
   >   
   > It's more than just lanes and grades, it includes better materials,   
      
   Not really.   
      
   > more hardware ("bots dots"), more lighting, more guardrail,   
   > headlight screening, noise barriers.   
      
   Negligible costs.   
      
   > Also, higher traffic volumes require more new lanes.   
      
   You can't count "more lanes" as a safety improvement that increases the   
   cost of adding more lanes.   
      
   >> Local surface roads directly benefit the property owners; just   
   >> _having_ a road is of benefit, regardless of how much they use it.   
   >   
   > Yes, but the benefit varies.  We have neighbors who go out ten times   
   > a day, and neighbors who drive out but once a week.   
      
   OTOH, the latter group benefit from _others_ driving and even from the   
   _potential_ driving they could do.   
      
   For instance, the street in front of my house is useful to me, but I   
   also benefit from the mailman, the pizza delivery guy, the police   
   patrols, the fire department, etc. using it as well.   
      
   > Usage should be charged to those who use it most.   
      
   ... as long as the cost of determining that does not significantly   
   increase the total cost.  For limited-access roads, measuring use is   
   easy; for surface roads, it is not--and measuring _benefit_ is even more   
   difficult.   
      
   >> OTOH, there is such a huge range in fuel economy, especially with   
   >> the advent of plug-in hybrids, that it doesn't have much of a link   
   >> to the usage of roads. Also, it doesn't take into account the   
   >> variation in the costs of different roads.   
   >   
   > This is all true, but have some usage-charge is still better than a   
   > flat rate.  Charges do tend to encourage efficiency.  When gasoline   
   > gets expensive, people seek more efficient vehicles (which is good),   
      
   Efficiency is only good to the extent it helps the environment, and we   
   _should_ have something like a carbon tax to encourage that--without any   
   reference to funding roads.   
      
   > and also plan their driving better to save mileage, which is also   
   > good.   
      
   So your fuel tax encourages someone to buy a plug-in hybrid, which they   
   then drive all over town because it's "free" to use?  And they don't pay   
   for any of the roads they're using?  How does that help?   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)