N.J. Transit Trains Break Down at Rate Four Times U.S. Average

Sales tax goes to the state and is not dedicated to Roads.  

But yes, it is a shell game in the end.  We should go back to a 40%+ income tax and skip all the use taxes, etc.  

In addition to it being a regressive tax, people with political points-of-view on the right (such as the "freedom caucus"), or civil libertarians concerned with government spying on private citizens, would never go for a project that would create a database of everywhere you have ever gone. That and yet another bureaucracy to support it.

It has a very small constituency, but massive numbers of opponents. So I really think that politically it's stillborn, and there's no reason to even discuss it as a possible solution for anything.

Increased taxes/user fees for roads on their own would be regressive, but not necessarily if paired with something like an expanded EIC. I think it would also have to be paired with increased investment in mass transit to make sense, particularly on the bus network. It'd be a bad idea to simultaneously make driving more expensive without providing support for an alternative.

I depend on NJT to get to and from work every day, and complain about the service and fares as much as anyone, but I got to say, who I feel really sorry for are the folks I see waiting around on some exposed curbside for an NJT bus that might never show up. If my train breaks down, that's an inconvenience - when their bus doesn't show up, for a lot of those folks that's missed work hours with income they can't easily afford to lose.

bramzzoinks said:

Well it depends where you drive. If you drive the Turnpike or GSP you are doing your share to cover the cost of operations. If you cross the Hudson or one of NYC's toll bridges you are covering far more than the cost of the bridge or tunnel you drive on. I have no problem with the Turnpike model.

So you didn't read all of what I wrote or the links.  Hey, I'm used to it.  In NJ "user fees", tolls, gas and auto sales taxes, registration, cover 58.5% of actual costs.  And NJ, despite it's bankrupt funding system, actually ranks 8th higest in portion paid by drivers.  Nationally tolls contribute 8.5% of total costs.  No driver who uses a public road ever covers all of their costs.  Everyone pays some of their taxes to mask it's real cost, encouraging the expansion of what is probably the most negative action we undertake.

PA tolls payvfor maintenance, and but the huge toll hikes were needed to cover overruns on the criminally over budget One WTC project, despite assurances to the contrary.  With the highest crossing tolls in the US, we should expect not only excellent maintenance, which is the case, but construction of needed new transportation facilities (the PA's mission) as well. Like a new commuter rail tunnel, for example. 

So brazz, I'm curious if you still feel transit riders should stop whining and be forced to pay full freight despite the much lower total we all contribute. I see you want drivers to pay more.  As stated, that's about twice what they pay now, with toll road users contributing a little more.  To accomplish this,  are you alright with the Nanny State tracking our travels?

I said that if you drive on the GSP or Turnpike you cover the cost of that road. So your 58.5% is a deflection since it lumps in the non-tolled roads. I would be fine with a high speed easypass on 78 etc.

bramzzoinks said:

I said that if you drive on the GSP or Turnpike you cover the cost of that road. So your 58.5% is a deflection since it lumps in the non-tolled roads. I would be fine with a high speed easypass on 78 etc.

Actually your observation on toll roads in no way addresses the overall issue of drivers paying half of their costs, and since most NJ drivers don't use those roads regularly, they fall into the 58.5% category. Are we just talking I-78, or every expressway?  How will the system work?  Just one toll collection facility at a key point, allowing trucks and motorists to shunpike, or every entrance and exit?  It's hard to put a cost on such a broad electronic toll system, but the $470 million cost of Turnpike and Parkway E-ZPass installation is around $630 million today.  If it's not just one facility, source of that money please. How about those who don't have E-ZPass?   The reality is you can toll every expressway and still not collect enough.  There's a lot more local roads than expressways to maintain.  So you haven't yet said how to cover the total cost of roads, or are you alright with merely tweaking the current Statist market interference.  And just about no one presently supports new tolling, much less toll hikes.  And the tolls on our roads aren't exclusively dedicated to covering their costs.  

http://www.njslom.org/magart_0208_pg58.html

So I respectfully submit it's you sir who are deflecting.  You have yet to address my reply to your unfairly demonizing mass transit riders, or any of the broader issues.  

Adding tolls to 78 will make 22 a lot more crowded. You'd also have to do 24, 80 and 280. Probably 287 as well.

I have said that transponders are my favored solution. There are cashless toll locations that mail bills to those without Ezpass using the license plate. And since phones can work as transponders those from out of state can be required to register, with a hefty ticket if they are stopped and not registered.

Just because something is difficult is no reason to say the costs should be covered by taxpayers. People using them should cover their cost of using the roads and the rails. To some degree, maybe a lot, that cost would be offset by general taxes not needing to be as high.

bramzzoinks said:
And since phones can work as transponders those from out of state can be required to register, with a hefty ticket if they are stopped and not registered.

Enforcement at the point of a gun.  Thought that you were against that.

No one has to drive.

bramzzoinks said:

No one has to drive.

Sure, let's change the entire transportation culture in this country overnight.  That's the ticket!

bramzzoinks said:

I have said that transponders are my favored solution. There are cashless toll locations that mail bills to those without Ezpass using the license plate. And since phones can work as transponders those from out of state can be required to register, with a hefty ticket if they are stopped and not registered.

Just because something is difficult is no reason to say the costs should be covered by taxpayers. People using them should cover their cost of using the roads and the rails. To some degree, maybe a lot, that cost would be offset by general taxes not needing to be as high.

Got it.  Mass transit made unaffordable to anyone then shutdown, eliminating access to education (primary and up) and employment for the carless, who then shouldn't expect any crippling work discouraging statist assistance.  Also cut the state off from the City's higher salaries and specialized jobs except for those with the money and time to drive. Exponentially increase demand for road construction then paid for by all drivers.

Establish cashless tolling on a statewide basis, requiring data collection system on a scale never imagined, at a cost easily in the billions.  Let government track everywhere we drive and pay an enormous sum to give them that privilege.  

All this is a state with $2 billion in unfunded yearly highway repairs.  If I missed any way this isn't the reality of your plan, do tell.

For those looking at more eqitable ways to cover costs, I agree taxes and tolls are inherently regressive.  PVW you named my suggestion of ensuring the EITC takes such costs into account.  Of course Christie has double tax hiked the state's poorest residents, with soaring bus fares, service cuts, and slashing the EITC.  Residents of nearby cities regularly trek an hour or more each way to suburban employment, so are disproportionately harmed by transit cutbacks.  Manny more ride the bus, with NJ Transit's bus ridership 80% higher than rail.

System maintenance and infrastructure improvements by their nature require dedicated long term funding.  Depending on the whims of politicians to provide adequate money from every year is a losing proposition. That's exactly why Gov. Kean developed the TTF which was to be pay as you go only. It's easy in retrospect to predict the craven cowardice on the part of our leaders to be honest about the need to keep up with inflation and increased demand.   

Another great example is the NY Subway.  It only recovered from years of neglect in the 70s with billions in dedicated state funding and a special sales tax.  With the end of these sources and passing capital costs to riders, the TA was unable to keep up with needed repairs, adequately plan, or undertake expansions.  Recently state support has returned, though not at prior levels. But unlike our state, NY has $15 billion in transit expansion underway, cementing its market advantage over states spending nothing.

The doomsday you fantasize is not at all what would happen.  Users would adjust to paying the cost of what they use.  Just as they do with everything else.

bramzzoinks said:

The doomsday you fantasize is not at all what would happen.  Users would adjust to paying the cost of what they use.  Just as they do with everything else.

But for what? What's the real gain after all this disruption? All I see is that a few dollars that used to be charged to X in taxes is now being charged to X in user fees. 

 
Huge disruption, enormous costs, minimal if any savings to most people, less privacy, more opportunities for fraud. And just to fit it into an ideological pigeonhole?

I don't see that the tradeoff is worth it.

There are huge benefits to pay for what you use rather than putting everything into a general bucket. People can decide what they want to spend money on. And the things left that government spends money on becomes more transparent (which the left would hate).

bramzzoinks said:

There are huge benefits to pay for what you use rather than putting everything into a general bucket. People can decide what they want to spend money on. And the things left that government spends money on becomes more transparent (which the left would hate).

But all of those tolls would in fact go into a general fund, for road work state-wide. There's no gain in transparency, it's just a different line in the same old state budget.

We already pay for what we use -- I pay for gas, insurance, registration, inspection, a car loan, repairs. Tolls where applicable. I don't see how moving the gas tax over to my toll budget does anything "huge."

But I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Define the huge benefits. Quantify them, in dollar terms.

No. I am talking about roads as a separate entity apart from the government. So the tolls would not go into the general fund.

bramzzoinks said:

There are huge benefits to pay for what you use rather than putting everything into a general bucket. People can decide what they want to spend money on. And the things left that government spends money on becomes more transparent (which the left would hate).

The above is easily one of the dumbest comments ever posted on MOL.  

It is just too moronic to argue or even try to explain to bramzz.... 

Bramzzzz- would you do this for every government service?  only pay for the fire dept or police dept if you use/need them?  how about side streets?  special tolls for the homeowners?  How about street lights - I don't go out when it is dark, so I really don't want to pay for them.  I carry my own gun, so let's skip my share of the police. 

Transparent - most BS word used when complaining about government.  Every line in the budget shows the expense.  At every level of government.  You might feel they cost too much, but saying it would be more transparent is BS.  

@mikescott, you are correct. I was going to ask another question, but seriously what's the point? 

tom said:

@mikescott, you are correct. I was going to ask another question, but seriously what's the point? 

Now you're getting it.  That said, if the "roads [were] a separate entity from the government," who would make the decisions about building new roads as well as how to maintain and improve the existing ones.

Who makes the decision about what buildings to build? Developers interfacing with government.

bramzzoinks said:

Who makes the decision about what buildings to build? Developers interfacing with government.

In large part based on existing infrastructure, such as... roads.

bramzzoinks said:

Who makes the decision about what buildings to build? Developers interfacing with government.

So, now you're saying that the roads should not only be tolled, but should be sold off to private interests.

I would not be opposed.

Well, lets just see of the road in front of your house Bramzz... and let's see how that works out for you.  my bid is for $1.00.  

mikescott said:

Well, lets just see of the road in front of your house Bramzz... and let's see how that works out for you.  my bid is for $1.00.  

It's not generating enough revenue so we'll have to close it.

dave23 said:

mikescott said:

Well, lets just see of the road in front of your house Bramzz... and let's see how that works out for you.  my bid is for $1.00.  

It's not generating enough revenue so we'll have to close it.

Which proves the idiocy of the entire concept. 

well we can just charge user fees.  let's see, one user for annual maintenance (snow plowing, cleaning debris, pothole repairs, etc), well, let's just round up in case we have a big snow storm.  I think $5,000/year would be fair to charge Bramzz.. if not enough, then we can shut down the road.