• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

California raises gas tax for the first time in 23 years

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
Good. Raise it more.
Most people in the US really have no idea how insanely cheap their gas is compared to the vast majority of the world. Raise the gas tax all over the US and funnel the profits into a proper modern public transit system. Americans won't kick their gas addiction willingly, time for some tough love.
 
H

Hickbilly Deluxe

Banned
sarcastor said:
Well gas is already $2.80-3.30 in the bay area :(

130 billion dollars? How much are we paying workers to repave a fucking street?
Click to expand...

How many state employees does it take to change a light bulb? One to open the box, two to install it, 3 to suprvise, 5 to manage, 3 to sign off on the paperwork, 2 to wave environmental report requests around, 30 to fend off civilians protesting the type of bulb, and 1 tax man for the 600 people taxes to pay for it all.

Now imagine it for a road.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
I've 99% lived using buses, rails, and bikes for the last decade. In America, in three states.

No more excuses.
Click to expand...

That's your choice. Doesn't mean that's better than having a car, I love having a car even when I'm in DC or NYC.

That said, I do agree that we should have more light rails, rapid transit systems, commuter rails, bullet train, and hyperloop (when the tech is there). LA's metro system is pathetic for its size and big metro areas like Houston and Miami leave a lot to be desired. Matter of fact all metropolitan areas in the US with a population over 1 million should have a nice and thorough combination of light rails, rapid transit, and commuter trains, but IMO only 2 are doing a decent job right now, that being DC and NY.
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
That's your choice. Doesn't mean that's better than having a car, I love having a car even when I'm in DC or NYC.

That said, I do agree that we should have more light rails, rapid transit systems, commuter rails, bullet train, and hyperloop (when the tech is there). LA's metro system is pathetic for its size and big metro areas like Houston and Miami leave a lot to be desired. Matter of fact all metropolitan areas in the US with a population over 1 million should have a nice and thorough combination of light rails, rapid transit, and commuter trains, but IMO only 2 are doing a decent job right now, that being DC and NY.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is objectively better and cheaper than having a car.
 
T

titiklabingapat

Member
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
That's your choice. Doesn't mean that's better than having a car, I love having a car even when I'm in DC or NYC.

That said, I do agree that we should have more light rails, rapid transit systems, commuter rails, bullet train, and hyperloop (when the tech is there). LA's metro system is pathetic for its size and big metro areas like Houston and Miami leave a lot to be desired. Matter of fact all metropolitan areas in the US with a population over 1 million should have a nice and thorough combination of light rails, rapid transit, and commuter trains, but IMO only 2 are doing a decent job right now, that being DC and NY.
Click to expand...

It's not just public transit that needs improving though. If you don't change the way we design cities and development then all that train and buses will be for nothing.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
thehypocrite said:
Actually, it is objectively better and cheaper than having a car.
Click to expand...

Cheaper, yes probably. Better, debatable.

titiklabingapat said:
It's not just public transit that needs improving though. If you don't change the way we design cities and development then all that train and buses will be for nothing.
Click to expand...

I guess you mean design cities going forward, but what do you do with all the cities already there, designed as they are?
 
D

devilhawk

Member
As others have mentioned this is only ok if it is actually spent on the roads. Both Democrats and Republicans LOVE moving this type of money to other things.
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
titiklabingapat said:
Would that connection benefit the Central Valley communities as well? The CHSR is more than just a transportation project but an economic one for the state. You are underestimating the economic value of day trippers (business and pleasure) that can be created between the valley and the two major coastal cities. It is literally a backbone for the state.

Dedicated lines to airports are a waste of money anyway.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong, your are correct that monies to spend on public goods is finite and should be spent where the greatest returns can be achieved. Intracity transit has a far greater return for the municipality than any Intercity transit. The bay area and LA still have a lot of, racist, zoning issues to contend with before more viable local transit can exist. Is this really a $100 billion "take your medicine for the central valley? Who is heavily against this waste of money and unlikely to actually use.

And the existing routes between LA and SF just are not that busy, the Intercity parts of I-5 are not near as bad as I-95 and the air space is not as congested as the East Coast, to were the extra capacity of HSR is needed.

So all in all, not only does the North East rule the world, but we are also the only part of the USA capable of supporting profitable HSR. Even though the DC metro is about to death spiral.
 
M

Megawarrior

Member
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
That's your choice. Doesn't mean that's better than having a car, I love having a car even when I'm in DC or NYC.

That said, I do agree that we should have more light rails, rapid transit systems, commuter rails, bullet train, and hyperloop (when the tech is there). LA's metro system is pathetic for its size and big metro areas like Houston and Miami leave a lot to be desired. Matter of fact all metropolitan areas in the US with a population over 1 million should have a nice and thorough combination of light rails, rapid transit, and commuter trains, but IMO only 2 are doing a decent job right now, that being DC and NY.
Click to expand...
DC metro made me buy a car sooner than I would have wanted. It is certainly not 'decent'. If other places are worse than DC then good lord...
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
thehypocrite said:
Debatable by which criteria?
Click to expand...

For me, personally, it's not better. I prefer using cars over public transport, by far. Even when I use "public" transport, I'm using cars (uber/lyft) 95% of the time.

What criteria are you using to define that public transport is better?

Megawarrior said:
DC metro made me buy a car sooner than I would have wanted. It is certainly not 'decent'. If other places are worse than DC then good lord...
Click to expand...

That's how bad public transport is in the US. DC is decent by that standard. Boston is lol worthy, ride the green line if you want to have a laugh, Chicago is okayish, but doesn't cover as much as the DC metro, Miami's doesn't even get to Miami beach or nearby cities like Doral and Hialeah lol, Atlanta's also sucks and just go to certain areas, LA is nowhere near big enough for how big the metro area is and its population, but at least they are trying to fix that by expanding it over the next 20-30 years.
 
I

Instro

Member
BobLoblaw said:
Title should've been "Prepare to bend over again Cali-GAF." Ugh. I can understand the importance, but why not tax rich people or businesses more? :
Click to expand...

We just approved keeping taxes higher on rich folks during the last election, I don't think it's fair to increase taxes on that group again to pay for something that benefits everyone.
 
Z

Zophar

Member
Living in the Midwest I am always shocked by how much money is in California. 5.2 billion is literally half our state budget.
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
For me, personally, it's not better. I prefer using cars over public transport, by far. Even when I use "public" transport, I'm using cars (uber/lyft) 95% of the time.

What criteria are you using to define that public transport is better?
Click to expand...
Non private car ownership is better. Less cars, less congestion, less pollution, less personal debt, less traffic accidents, less running cost of transportation (insurance, gas, maintenance, parking costs), less parking annoyances, less driving related tickets, healthier population that actually moves their fat ass instead of taking a car for everything.

So yes, cars suck donkey balls, however people can't objectively judge them anymore and continue to be enamored by one of the biggest waste of resources in human history.
 
E

Enco

Member
Trace said:
Completely and utterly wrong. Good public transport is better in just about every conceivable way than everyone owning cars. Maybe when your definition of public transit is a bus that runs every 30-ish minutes, doesn't go where you want and has nothing but people who haven't washed in a week on it, cars are better.
Click to expand...

Quite a few quotes so I'll just put the last one.

Being in a public vehicle (eg bus/train) means you have to rely on others doing their job well. Most of the time it's late or early. People (as you mention) are also dirty/frustrating to be around. Even if the transport is on time 100% of the time, you still have to put up with all other passengers.

With a car you are in full control of your time and are in complete comfort. Traffic sucks but buses don't magically avoid traffic. I'd rather be stuck in traffic than wait for a bus/train and then sit next to someone eating their dinner.

The only pros to public transport are not worrying about parking and saving money. I say this as someone who currently uses public transport and has been for years (in various cities). When money is no longer an issue I sure as well am ditching pub transport.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
thehypocrite said:
Non private car ownership is better. Less cars, less congestion, less pollution, less personal debt, less traffic accidents, less running cost of transportation (insurance, gas, maintenance, parking costs), less parking annoyances, less driving related tickets, healthier population that actually moves their fat ass instead of taking a car for everything.

So yes, cars suck donkey balls, however people can't objectively judge them anymore and continue to be enamored by one of the biggest waste of resources in human history.
Click to expand...

Less cars, less congestion, I agree. Not sure about pollution as you are still open to non private car ownerships, plus I assume you'd agree that point would be moot if/when all/most cars become electric. Personal debt, running cost of transportation, parking annoyances, driving related tickets are all individual choices, I prefer paying and dealing with all of those to have the convenience of having my car, driving it whenever and wherever I want. Nevermind the fact that I pay for my cars cash and never get in debt because of it. I also go to the gym for 2 hours a day, so I move "my fat ass" there.

Like I said, it's a choice, and we can agree to disagree and that's fine. My point is, public transport is not objectively better as you implied. It can certainly be seen as subjectively better as it is for you, I'm not debating that point.
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
Less cars, less congestion, I agree. Not sure about pollution as you are still open to non private car ownerships, plus I assume you'd agree that point would be moot if/when all/most cars become electric. Personal debt, running cost of transportation, parking annoyances, driving related tickets are all individual choices, I prefer paying and dealing with all of those to have the convenience of having my car, driving it whenever and wherever I want. Nevermind the fact that I pay for my cars cash and never get in debt because of it. I also go to the gym for 2 hours a day, so I move "my fat ass" there.

Like I said, it's a choice, and we can agree to disagree and that's fine. My point is, public transport is not objectively better as you implied. It can certainly be seen as subjectively better as it is for you, I'm not debating that point.
Click to expand...
Personal choices have opportunity costs. Those are not good personal choices. No matter how much you fool yourself into thinking they are. Also, we aren't talking about you individually, we are talking about car ownership as a whole. So your​ anecdotes are not bringing much to the discussion.
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
thehypocrite said:
Personal choices have opportunity costs. Those are not good personal choices. No matter how much you fool yourself into thinking they are. Also, we aren't talking about you individually, we are talking about car ownership as a whole. So your​ anecdotes are not bringing much to the discussion.
Click to expand...

They are good personal choices for me and you know nothing about my personal life to make that assessment, but thanks anyways.

Like I said, it is not objectively better, but I digress.
 
E

eyeball_kid

Member
Zophar said:
Living in the Midwest I am always shocked by how much money is in California. 5.2 billion is literally half our state budget.
Click to expand...

California has the 6th largest GDP in the world.
Code: 
1	 United States	                17,947,000
         European Union	                16,220,370
2	 China	                        11,007,721
3	 Japan	                         4,123,258
4	 Germany	                 3,357,614
5	 United Kingdom	                 2,849,345
[B]6	 California	                 2,424,033[/B]
7	 France	                         2,421,560
8	 India	                         2,090,706
9	 Italy	                         1,815,757
10	 Brazil	                         1,772,589
11	 Texas	                         1,648,007
12	 Canada	                         1,552,386
13	 New York	                 1,444,406
14	 South Korea	                 1,376,868
15	 Russia	                         1,324,734
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
eyeball_kid said:
California has the 6th largest GDP in the world.
Code: 
1	 United States	                17,947,000
         European Union	                16,220,370
2	 China	                        11,007,721
3	 Japan	                         4,123,258
4	 Germany	                 3,357,614
5	 United Kingdom	                 2,849,345
[B]6	 California	                 2,424,033[/B]
7	 France	                         2,421,560
8	 India	                         2,090,706
9	 Italy	                         1,815,757
10	 Brazil	                         1,772,589
11	 Texas	                         1,648,007
12	 Canada	                         1,552,386
13	 New York	                 1,444,406
14	 South Korea	                 1,376,868
15	 Russia	                         1,324,734
Click to expand...

North East's is bigger, and our population is more productive, and we have more senators! :p
 
H

Hispanic! At the Disco

Member
Me: theyre raising gas taxes
Wife: ugh why dont they just not build that stupid bullet train?
Me: its for road construction
Her: they took money out of their road construction budget for the bullet train!
Me: Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
 
A

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

Banned
thehypocrite said:
Sure, I'm convinced by the overwhelming weight of your evidence.
Click to expand...

Your evidence was also overwhelming to convince me

mugurumakensei said:
For the environment, public transport is objectively better. For government spending, public transport is objectively better. For the average person's budget, it's objectively better.
Click to expand...

I can agree with the former, the latter is up to the individual's personal situation, budget is just part of the whole equation.
 
M

mugurumakensei

Member
AnotherDayAnotherDollar said:
They are good personal choices for me and you know nothing about my personal life to make that assessment, but thanks anyways.

Like I said, it is not objectively better, but I digress.
Click to expand...

For the environment, public transport is objectively better. For government spending, public transport is objectively better. For the average person's budget, it's objectively better.
 
The Horror the horror

The Horror the horror

Banned
Enco said:
Public transport is garbage in every city and country.

Cars >>>>>>>> public transport
Click to expand...

Only way this statement is even remotely true is if you live in a town with a poor public transportation system or you ride during peak hours when the buses/trains are packed. If it's the latter, I suggest you leave the house an hour earlier and the difference will be almost night/day.
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
The Horror the horror said:
Only way this statement is even remotely true is if you live in a town with a poor public transportation system or you ride during peak hours when the buses/trains are packed. If it's the latter, I suggest you leave the house 30-minutes earlier and the difference will be almost night/day.
Click to expand...
If you live in the USA, you have a shitty public transit system that at best is usable for routine commutes.

The people who are arguing that car ownership does not provide better utility for the average individual than relying on public transit are likely in a bubble or outside the USA.

The vast majority of the USA population does not have access to even adequate public transportation. For them it is an absolute last resort.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
StopMakingSense said:
It's meant to reflect road utilization, not be a sales tax on buying gas which would be tied to the waxing and waning of gas prices which would be impossible to budget around.
Click to expand...

i mean, the first part makes sense if that is one's goal, but you can most certainly budget around a percentage tax, and just as easily as you would with a flat fee, given that the flat fee dosh will also vary quite a lot according to consumption, which will be impacted by the waxing and waning of gas prices just the same.

Feel that the tax should be both, fwiw.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
Rail
Click to expand...
Not in a nation this large.

What works in Japan and Europe runs into massive issues in the US because of how f'ing big it is. Our population density is far smaller than most of our contemporaries.
Gallbaro said:
If you live in the USA, you have a shitty public transit system that at best is usable for routine commutes.

The people who are arguing that car ownership does not provide better utility for the average individual than relying on public transit are likely in a bubble or outside the USA.

The vast majority of the USA population does not have access to even adequate public transportation. For them it is an absolute last resort.
Click to expand...
Cosigned.

And not all of these problems are purely political, some are structural.
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
Coriolanus said:
i mean, the first part makes sense if that is one's goal, but you can most certainly budget around a percentage tax, and just as easily as you would with a flat fee, given that the flat fee dosh will also vary quite a lot according to consumption, which will be impacted by the waxing and waning of gas prices just the same.

Feel that the tax should be both, fwiw.
Click to expand...
Less consumption, less driving, less road usage.
 
S

slit

Member
There is no way I would rely on public transportation in my area. It's there but wholly inadequate for my needs. The extra money is completely worth it to me.
 
S

StopMakingSense

Member
Coriolanus said:
i mean, the first part makes sense if that is one's goal, but you can most certainly budget around a percentage tax, and just as easily as you would with a flat fee, given that the flat fee dosh will also vary quite a lot according to consumption, which will be impacted by the waxing and waning of gas prices just the same.

Feel that the tax should be both, fwiw.
Click to expand...

Demand is a lot less elastic than you are hypothesizing.

There is a reason every single state does it this way.
 
D

danm999

Member
Enco said:
Quite a few quotes so I'll just put the last one.

Being in a public vehicle (eg bus/train) means you have to rely on others doing their job well. Most of the time it's late or early. People (as you mention) are also dirty/frustrating to be around. Even if the transport is on time 100% of the time, you still have to put up with all other passengers.

With a car you are in full control of your time and are in complete comfort. Traffic sucks but buses don't magically avoid traffic. I'd rather be stuck in traffic than wait for a bus/train and then sit next to someone eating their dinner.

The only pros to public transport are not worrying about parking and saving money. I say this as someone who currently uses public transport and has been for years (in various cities). When money is no longer an issue I sure as well am ditching pub transport.
Click to expand...

Never heard of a bus lane huh?

Sounds like you're stuck in a bad implementation of public transport and that's soured you on the concept.
 
G

Gallbaro

Banned
StopMakingSense said:
Demand is a lot less elastic than you are hypothesizing.
Click to expand...

Actually, history shows it to be pretty damn elastic. Vehicle miles traveled proves this.


danm999 said:
Never heard of a bus lane huh?

Sounds like you're stuck in a bad implementation of public transport and that's soured you on the concept.
Click to expand...

Where is there a good implementation of public transit in the USA? You are either in a blue state where transit agencies are first and foremost a job center for a reliable voting block. $2 billion dollars per fucking mile!

Or you are in a red state where transit is a last resort option for the exceptionally poor and people who lost their license.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ken Kutaragi is the Greatest 'emperor' Of All Time and remains SIE's only true visionary
Opinion 2 3 4
156
16K
GAF machine replied
Senate Approves Budget Plan That Smooths Path Toward Tax Cut
2
90
10K
Michael F. Assbender replied
  • Locked
LASchoolreport:Proposed CA bill No state taxes for California teachers for a decade.
0
1K
Tripon replied
NYT: Where Anti-Tax Fervor Means ‘All Services Will Cease’
9
2K
Sunster replied
67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump
2
98
10K
GrizzleBoy replied
Top Bottom