On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:58:16 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   > hancock4 wrote   
   > > more hardware ("bots dots"), more lighting, more guardrail,   
   > > headlight screening, noise barriers.   
      
   > Negligible costs.   
      
   On the highway newsgroup, an engineer explained that the cost of new guardrail   
   was expensive to the high cost of steel.  Lots of interstates were built with   
   wide median (medial?) strips which were assumed to be adequate as such to   
   prevent cross    
   collisions.  However, experience has shown that vehicles will cross a wide   
   median to the other side unless there is a physical barrier.  So, one of the   
   improvements is the addition of a guard rail where there was none before.   
      
   On old 1950s roads, the median often consisted of merely a narrow curb.  These   
   too have been replaced with a guardrail.  $$$.   
      
      
      
   > You can't count "more lanes" as a safety improvement that increases the   
   > cost of adding more lanes.   
      
   True, but none the less more lanes are needed and often added, and this   
   usually requires land acquisition and other expenses, such as widening bridges   
   along the way.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Well, by that logic, everyone benefits from everything, and as a social   
   benefit, all those services should be subsidized or even free.   
      
   Indeed, many argue that transit fares should be free as a public service, and   
   all road costs be paid out of general funds.   
      
   But society has recognized that it is best to let the marketplace make such   
   decisions on actual costs, as much as possible.  Public subsidies are applied   
   [supposedly] to encourage services that otherwise would not be provided.   
      
   So, government charges various user fees for its services.  It's not perfect,   
   obviously, but it does encouarge more efficient usage.   
      
   At any event, IMHO, all road costs should be paid out of road taxes and   
   vehicle fees.  These costs would include the many public safety services   
   needed for roads, such as police, fire, and resuce.  You would be shocked at   
   how high such costs are.   
      
      
       
   > 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?   
      
   Well, obviously at some point those vehicles will have to be taxed, just like   
   the vehicles that run on used french-fry oil.  At the present, they're a   
   miniscule part of the total vehicle so it's not an issue yet.  I think they   
   still must find better    
   batteries, but when they do the tax issue will come up.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)