Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint
The gas tax is not a use fee--the motorist pays the tax once at the pump and can then use any of our many hundreds of miles of paved roadways however many times the driver wishes. A user fee would be paid every time the service or infrastructure was used, like the way transit riders pay each time someone drives them somewhere. And again, federal and state gas taxes don't pay for our city roads. I pay for them. You pay for them. The general fund is the source of funding for automobile infrastructure in San Francisco, just as it is paying for 78% of the money annually expended on public transit.
Meanwhile, pedestrians--a full 10% of our daily commuters--pay no user fees or extra taxes to enjoy our ubiquitous and well-maintained sidewalk network...
|
I think we've seen this argument to it's conclusion - but I feel compelled to point out two things about the above. The gasoline tax may as well be a use tax as you describe because of the obvious fact that vehicles only achieve a finite number of miles per gallon, somewhere between 15 and 50. nobody is filling up with a gallon of gas, paying their $1 in tax, and driving 500 miles.
Secondly, the well-maintained sidewalk network you speak of exists for multiple purposes. Without it, private property could not be accessed safely from the public right of way. For this reason, as you probably know, property owners (and not the city) are in theory responsible for maintaining it. Although better streets goes a long way to addressing it, it wasn't designed as a transportation system and pedestrian commuters - like myself - deal with it's inadequacies every day.
I have nothing against law abiding cyclists. We should get more people out of their cars and into their feet and muni and bikes. My enthusiasm for the plans to do the latter is heavily colored by 1) the actual transportation studies (there are many, done for many projects and plans) which detail the impact to other modes, 2) the cost forced upon other parties by the political strength of the cycling community, and 3) my experience as a pedestrian who has had an order of magnitude more run-ins with cyclists breaking the law than drivers.
Clearly we see this from a different perspective. I have more to say on the topic except that I'm sure if you asked San Franciscans whether the city should spend more money on pedestrian safety (or health inspections, or libraries, or parks....) than it does, 66% (or a lot more) of people would say yes.