From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 09-Jun-14 09:42, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > 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.  $$$.   
      
   Around here, in urban areas, highways have been built with concrete   
   center barriers for decades; in rural areas, highways were retrofitted   
   with center cable barriers several years ago.  So, that is not a cost of   
   adding lanes as you claim.   
      
   >> You can't count "more lanes" as a safety improvement that increases   
   >> the cost of adding more lanes.   
   >   
   > True, but ...   
      
   No "buts".  We were discussing the cost of adding lanes, and adding   
   lanes is obviously already a cost of adding lanes, not something to   
   _also_ be included in the cost of safety improvements.   
      
   >> 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, and many public services _are_ free or heavily subsidized for   
   exactly that reason.   
      
   > Indeed, many argue that transit fares should be free as a public   
   > service, and all road costs be paid out of general funds.   
      
   ... and transit is heavily subsidized in most places because even those   
   who don't use it get an indirect benefit from others using it and/or   
   even just from the _option_ of using it if their preferred option is not   
   available, e.g. their car is in the shop.   
      
   > 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..   
      
   Do you think the market is going to provide local surface roads if the   
   govt doesn't do so?   
      
   If it weren't for competition from the govt, the market _would_ provide   
   toll highways (and has in some cases), but that depends on the ability   
   to charge users, which isn't really possible with surface roads.   
      
   > At any event, IMHO, all road costs should be paid out of road taxes   
   > and vehicle fees.   
      
   Then you're back to the disconnect between road usage and fuel taxes,   
   especially between the different classes of roads that have vastly   
   different costs and between different classes of cars that have vastly   
   different fuel consumption.   
      
   A fossil fuel tax makes sense for environmental reasons, to encourage   
   people to use hybrids or renewable fuels, but that has nothing to do   
   with roads per se; it applies just as much to other fossil fuel use.   
      
   > These costs would include the many public safety   
   > services needed for roads, such as police, fire, and resuce.   
      
   Traffic enforcement turns a profit.  Fire on highways is rare.  Rescue   
   is fairly common, and at least around here, they bill the rescuee.   
      
   > You would be shocked at how high such costs are.   
      
   I doubt it.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   How are you going to tax them, though?  Put a meter in people's garages   
   and make it illegal to charge them elsewhere?  Tax all electricity, even   
   though most of it doesn't go to cars?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   We do need better batteries for all-electric cars to be viable, but   
   PHEVs, e.g. Chevy Volt, will have a big effect in the shorter term.   
      
   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)