Alarming Transit Statistics and Proposals from the AFL CIO. Auto Tax by mile?

[tufsu1]

Im all for funding the idea of rapid transit, as it will benefit the burbs the most. However, if the tax burden is placed by mileage driven, many in the burbs would move closer to work, killing revenue, and then tanking the funding for rapid transit.

And moving closer to work would be a bad thing?  It would help create the urban environmen most on this site seem to support.

Sure, if VMT went down, then there would be less revenue.....but also less need to widen existing roads and/or build new ones.

As for Jeffrey's comment about legislating behavior, nobody is suggesting that as part of a VMT fee (Big Brother issues aside).....this should lvel the playing field.....because, right now, one could argue that governments have subsidized the suburban lifestyle since WWII. 

[jandar]

Im all for funding the idea of rapid transit, as it will benefit the burbs the most. However, if the tax burden is placed by mileage driven, many in the burbs would move closer to work, killing revenue, and then tanking the funding for rapid transit.

And moving closer to work would be a bad thing? 

For me, no, it would be a good thing.
For the wife, her commute would go up.
So if I lowered my commute from 24 miles each way to 4 miles, give or take, the wife's commute would increase from 5 miles to almost 20. So it wouldn't be saving anything really.

Unfortunately for a city like Jacksonville, many people work in Jacksonville, while living in the surrounding counties. Their spouses work closer to home. So by getting people to move closer, would in turn cause more commutes for the other half.

Its simple though, I would either shield the GPS unit, or break my speedometer to bypass this.

Same thing happened years ago with emission testing. Many people simply "moved" to Clay, St Johns, or Nassau counties.

[JaxNole]

Im all for funding the idea of rapid transit, as it will benefit the burbs the most. However, if the tax burden is placed by mileage driven, many in the burbs would move closer to work, killing revenue, and then tanking the funding for rapid transit.

Catch22. The ones in most need of rapid transit will be taxed the most and would probably respond by finding ways to lower their tax burden.

Is it unreasonable to believe that if those in the suburbs moved closer to employment areas (Downtown, Brooklyn, Southpoint), then property tax revenue would increase?

Could a portion of tax revenue then be allocated to infrastructure needs?

[Charles Hunter]

Some proposals I have seen just require you to report your odometer reading when you renew your auto registration.  Of course, this eliminates the ability to do "congestion" pricing, where rush hour miles in a congested area cost more.  To prevent (OK, limit) scofflaws like jandar, there would have to be a significant penalty for tampering with the equipment - say 10x what a high-mileage driver would rack up.  It is already against the law to tamper with the odometer, but the penalty is negligible.

[Steve]

Im all for funding the idea of rapid transit, as it will benefit the burbs the most. However, if the tax burden is placed by mileage driven, many in the burbs would move closer to work, killing revenue, and then tanking the funding for rapid transit.

If those that lived in the burbs moved closer to town, it would solve MANY of the issues discussed on the site.  The declining revenue from this tax would be like complaining that the money in my wallet is wrinkled.

[jandar]

Funny, I thought I was on the MetroJacksonville website and not UrbanJacksonville.

Regardless of where you live in the METROJACKSONVILLE area, there needs to be rapid transit. My daily commute of 24 miles each way can be done through OP traffic in 40 minutes each way. (no traffic, its a 30 minute drive, 8 miles Blanding, then all highway)

When I worked downtown, it was a 27 mile drive and 40 minutes off of I-10.

Sure, I could live at the beach, or in St Johns County off of CR210, but they also have their commute issues.

What does more damage to the roads? A car going 24 miles in 40 minutes, or a bus going 10 miles in 30 minutes?

Well, I suppose I could live in NYC, and use the fabulous transit system there and still have a 45 minute commute, just not in my car. (walking to subway, ride, walk to bus, ride, walk to office)

Or perhaps I could live in Mandarin and commute downtown. I could take the JTA Express Bus and still take 30 minutes to go 14.1 miles.

Or I could buy a place downtown or in Riverside, save the commute. Go to work for a company, only to have it lay off 90% of its staff and go look for work again and end up commuting from downtown to the JTB area. Again, causing a commute of 15+ miles.

Too many people here are thinking narrowly that simply moving close to work solves the issue. It doesn't. Many people change jobs. Im happy if you work for the same company for years, but I must have picked the crappiest places, good pay, but get laid off every few years. Sucks to be in IT.

I actually moved to Riverside from Cedar Hills when I worked off of Southpoint Pkwy. Then the company I worked for closed its Jacksonville office and I ended up with a commute of 40 minutes to my next job.

I worked for a company earlier this year that laid off its staff. Worked in the Wachovia bldg. Ended up working for a company out in Mandarin.

So I state again, why move close to work?

[tufsu1]

What does more damage to the roads? A car going 24 miles in 40 minutes, or a bus going 10 miles in 30 minutes?

that's easy....cars....here's why

A full bus carries 40-50 people....and a full car carries 5-7 people....so basically there would be about 8 cars for every bus.

Now I know the argument will be that the buses are rarely full....but neither are cars....the average auto occupancy rate in the Jax. metro area is around 1.3 persons per car....and for work trips, its barely over 1

[Deuce]

Too many people here are thinking narrowly that simply moving close to work solves the issue. It doesn't. Many people change jobs. Im happy if you work for the same company for years, but I must have picked the crappiest places, good pay, but get laid off every few years. Sucks to be in IT.

I hear you! Although I've only been laid off once, I've had a terrible track record of picking crappy employers. The one great one I had, laid me off. I finally solved that issue. When I left my last job, I only took a hard look at employers downtown, and I scored. I've got civil service at JEA so I know I won't be going anywhere for a long time, possibly for the rest of my career.

[JaxNole]

Or I could buy a place downtown or in Riverside, save the commute. Go to work for a company, only to have it lay off 90% of its staff and go look for work again and end up commuting from downtown to the JTB area. Again, causing a commute of 15+ miles.

So I state again, why move close to work?

90%?  I was part of the 80% St. Joe laid off in 2007.  My commute from Riverside was 1.8 miles.  Now my commute to Fidelity is 1.4 miles.  I'm also in IT like you.

I'm one of the lucky ones, in terms of commuting time and distance.

I'd much prefer subsidies to move outlying offices to the core, especially those with night operations (mission-critical monitoring, even call centers).  There's an abundance of office space downtown and rents have been declining.

[Sigma]

"Although mass transit is often touted as more energy efficient than cars, this is not always the case," Chester told newscientist.com.

Chester and Horvath went beyond using tailpipe emissions, which are typically used as the yardstick, as the measure of carbon output. By including the full life cycles of 11 modes of transportation along with the tailpipe emissions, they were able to get a clearer picture of how different choices compare with each other.

This required them to figure in the emissions that are discharged when building the infrastructure that supports the different modes and the maintenance of that infrastructure over its lifetime. Variables such as the energy burned to keep lights and escalators running at train stations, the emissions discharged in the manufacture of cars, planes and trains, and fuel and power distribution were also included in their calculations.

The researchers indeed found that energy-intensive infrastructure operations and maintenance increase the carbon footprint of rail commuting more than they do cars and light trucks, which include SUVs. Their work showed "that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation."

With the full life cycle factored in, public transit still lags behind autos in greenhouse gas output. But when the researchers brought passenger occupancy into the equation, though, a different story emerged. They found that cars and SUVs are often "greener" than the environmentalists' preferred (for everyone else) modes of transportation.

"An SUV (which is one of the worst energy performers) with two passengers is equivalent to a bus with eight passengers," write Chester and Horvath. "Similarly, commuter rail at 34% occupancy (147 passengers) is equivalent to a bus with 13 passengers or a sedan with one passenger."

With so much emphasis placed today on CO2, it's easy to miss the fact that, when it comes to a real pollutant â€" such as sulfur dioxide, thought to be responsible for causing and worsening respiratory and cardiovascular ailments â€" rail fares poorly when compared with cars.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330043149991011&kw=bus

Interesting.  Thoughts?

[tufsu1]

Here's the latest from the USDOT Secretary on VMT

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/07/smart-community-planning-more-transportation-options-lead-to-a-reduced-carbon-emissions.html

[jandar]

Or I could buy a place downtown or in Riverside, save the commute. Go to work for a company, only to have it lay off 90% of its staff and go look for work again and end up commuting from downtown to the JTB area. Again, causing a commute of 15+ miles.

So I state again, why move close to work?

90%?  I was part of the 80% St. Joe laid off in 2007.  My commute from Riverside was 1.8 miles.  Now my commute to Fidelity is 1.4 miles.  I'm also in IT like you.

I'm one of the lucky ones, in terms of commuting time and distance.

I'd much prefer subsidies to move outlying offices to the core, especially those with night operations (mission-critical monitoring, even call centers).  There's an abundance of office space downtown and rents have been declining.

Yeah, 90%. It was a fun job, good co-workers, it bled money badly.
Im actually debating talking to companies in need of call centers to look at locating in Clay County. Many of the people here commute to Jax everyday because of no work. Were there jobs (same in St Johns County) we wouldn't have near the congestion and issues we have.

I like the downtown being a business core, same with JTB/Southside/Phillips. But companies really need to start thinking about building where their employees are, not what the real estate agent shows them first.

I've been in a few places where the company decided to move somewhere simply because the owner wanted it close to his house. One place actually moved, causing a good 2/3rds of the staff to have a farther commute.

[FayeforCure]

Im pretty sure that the idea of taxing car drivers by the mile sounds like a good theory.

But Im a little worried about how they would come up with such a figure?

It seems to imply that there would be some kind of digital tracking.

Which leads to interesting questions.

If someone else is using your car to drive on the highway, does that mean that you will get taxed instead of them?

Is this a good use of GPS tracking services?

Another concern that I have is that it doesn't encourage people to use energy efficient cars. In fact it could be considered a regressive tax if it leads to those driving expensive gas guzzlers paying as much as those traveling in small inexpensive and more efficient economy cars.

[FayeforCure]

The Federal gas tax is a flat rate (not a % like sales tax)....the last time it was raised was 1993

If that's the case, then raise that sucker for starters. 16 years without an increase is a long time.

Right now the Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. That constituted a much lower percentage when we were paying $4 per gallon ( which made us drive less) than when we paid just $1 per gallon back in 1993.

So federal revenues have been declining.

To correct this situation, this is being considered:

Commission recommends federal gas tax increase
A panel created by Congress calls for increasing the tax by 10 cents a gallon and indexing it to inflation -- and for switching by 2020 to a tax on miles driven. Broad resistance is expected.
By Richard Simon
February 27, 2009

Reporting from Washington â€" As Washington struggles to find ways to fund highway improvements, a congressionally created commission on Thursday called for a 10-cent-a-gallon increase in the federal gas tax, while proposing that the country move to a system of charging motorists for how much they drive.

The idea of a tax increase would probably face strong resistance from lawmakers seeking reelection and consumers already reeling in a tough economy. And the Obama administration last week gave a cold shoulder to any mileage-based tax -- which would require placing tracking devices in taxpayers' vehicles, a concept critics decry as an invasion of privacy.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/27/nation/na-gas-tax27

[JaxNole]

I think it would be reasonable to gradually increase the gas tax over the next 5-10 years so that it is indexed to inflation.  Flat rates have their applications; indexing makes more sense in others.

This is not to penalize those who consume more gas, but rather, correct the methodology of collecting revenue for maintaining our transportation infrastructure.