Did GM kill mass transit?

[bleubird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
I am buy no means a conspiracy nut.
But,the trail does lead to something.

 

[Bronzeage]

In the automotive industry, it's always been accepted as truth and was seen as shrewd business strategy.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Some say trolley cars were dying anyway, but GM bought Detroits streetcars and replaced them with buses. They were found guilty and fined $5k IIRC.

 

[skepticalbip]

All people (and companies are a collection of people) act in their own interest. Of course they try to describe their positions or actions as for the common good however. Dig into the major supporters of rail and you will find manufacturers of train locomotives and/or train cars and other companies associated with rail.

 

[bleubird]

Diesel eclectic is the most efficient way to move stuff.

 

[rjh01]

Are there many places in the world where public intra city transport is profitable? I doubt if there would be many. Even the London underground does not make a profit https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/value-for-money.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are there many places in the world where public intra city transport is profitable? I doubt if there would be many. Even the London underground does not make a profit https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/value-for-money.

As far as I know, most if not all city mass transit is heavily subsidized because riders just wouldn't pay the cost in fares necessary to break even.

 

[Bronzeage]

Are there many places in the world where public intra city transport is profitable? I doubt if there would be many. Even the London underground does not make a profit https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/value-for-money.

As far as I know, most if not all city mass transit is heavily subsidized because riders just wouldn't pay the cost in fares necessary to break even.

If all roads were gated and drivers paid a daily toll for their use, we would find a similar situation with all the rubber tired vehicles. We would quickly discover many roads were not worth the cost of maintenance, or might never be built at all. The effect this would have on property values, property development, and employment, would be from top to bottom of the economy. Mass transit is not profitable based on an asses on seats model, because it is being compared to a system which has never had to pay direct costs.

 

[bilby]

As far as I know, most if not all city mass transit is heavily subsidized because riders just wouldn't pay the cost in fares necessary to break even.

If all roads were gated and drivers paid a daily toll for their use, we would find a similar situation with all the rubber tired vehicles. We would quickly discover many roads were not worth the cost of maintenance, or might never be built at all. The effect this would have on property values, property development, and employment, would be from top to bottom of the economy. Mass transit is not profitable based on an asses on seats model, because it is being compared to a system which has never had to pay direct costs.

Indeed there is a very good argument that the 'user pays' model is unreasonable. It sounds like a good idea to say 'If you want to ride, you have to pay the cost of carrying you', but that idea is founded on the assumption that the passenger is the sole, or even main, beneficiary of his journey; and that assumption is deeply flawed.

If I catch the London Underground as a tourist, then I benefit in getting rapidly from my hotel to whatever landmark I want to visit today. But the people using the roads above my head also benefit, from having one fewer tourist clogging up the roads. And the operators of the museum or gallery or whatever I visit gain by getting my entry fee; and the guy who sells ice-creams there benefits; and so do a whole raft of other people.

If I travel to get to work, then there are still more beneficiaries. My boss benefits by having a workforce who arrive late less often (OK, perhaps not on the London Underground ); his customers benefit from my availability to work to produce the services or products they need.

The beneficiaries of transport infrastructure - whether roads and highways, trains, buses, trams or even cycle paths - are the entire population of the country. And as the benefits are widespread, and very hard to measure, perhaps the best proxy for determining who, overall, benefits the most from the provision of such infrastructure, is to look not at miles travelled for each person, but rather to look at the income he generates personally as a citizen of the nation that provides that infrastructure.

The most effective 'beneficiary pays' model for funding transport may well be to fund it mainly from income (or other forms of) taxation. Charging a nominal fare/toll/fee per passenger, that is less than the cost of transporting him, may be a good idea to preserve the signal about which parts of the network need the most investment. But expecting the passenger to pay in full all the costs of moving him from A to B is to ask him to subsidise the rest of the population. Why should I get to walk uncluttered footpaths for free, because others have courteously chosen to subsidise my elbow room by paying the full cost of making their journey on public transport, and leaving the footpaths less crowded?

It certainly works well for roads and highways. Why the people who accept this model for roads are so opposed to it for railways I do not know.

 

[skepticalbip]

As far as I know, most if not all city mass transit is heavily subsidized because riders just wouldn't pay the cost in fares necessary to break even.

If all roads were gated and drivers paid a daily toll for their use, we would find a similar situation with all the rubber tired vehicles. We would quickly discover many roads were not worth the cost of maintenance, or might never be built at all. The effect this would have on property values, property development, and employment, would be from top to bottom of the economy. Mass transit is not profitable based on an asses on seats model, because it is being compared to a system which has never had to pay direct costs.

I am not sure that is true. The roads and bridges in my state are paid for by a user pays system and we have some of the best highways in the country. The highway department looks for roads to pave so they can spend all the money so it will not be dug into by other state departments. The bridges are originally set up as toll bridges until enough tolls are collected to pay for the construction and then the toll booths are taken down. As of now there are no toll bridges in the state. Our state constitution earmarks all the state gasoline tax for the highway department, their only source of financing. Of course the gasoline tax is paid by drivers when they fill their auto's tank, people who don't drive and buy gasoline don't pay the tax. Therefore our highways and bridges are all financed by a user pays system.

ETA:
Oops. Sorry, there is one toll bridge in the state. However, it is a privately owned bridge on a privately owned road to a privately owned island and not on a state highway.

 

[ronburgundy]

If all roads were gated and drivers paid a daily toll for their use, we would find a similar situation with all the rubber tired vehicles. We would quickly discover many roads were not worth the cost of maintenance, or might never be built at all. The effect this would have on property values, property development, and employment, would be from top to bottom of the economy. Mass transit is not profitable based on an asses on seats model, because it is being compared to a system which has never had to pay direct costs.

I am not sure that is true. The roads and bridges in my state are paid for by a user pays system and we have some of the best highways in the country. The highway department looks for roads to pave so they can spend all the money so it will not be dug into by other state departments. The bridges are originally set up as toll bridges until enough tolls are collected to pay for the construction and then the toll booths are taken down. As of now there are no toll bridges in the state. Our state constitution earmarks all the state gasoline tax for the highway department, their only source of financing. Of course the gasoline tax is paid by drivers when they fill their auto's tank, people who don't drive and buy gasoline don't pay the tax. Therefore our highways and bridges are all financed by a user pays system.

ETA:
Oops. Sorry, there is one toll bridge in the state. However, it is a privately owned bridge on a privately owned road to a privately owned island and not on a state highway.

Are 100% of the highways and roads in your State paid by gas taxes? If not, then it is not a user pays system. The construction and maintenance costs of all roadways not paid for by gas taxes, directly impacts the amount of $ needed to maintain those roads that are paid by gas taxes.

In addition, any $ from gas taxes used for roads is money from gas taxes that is not used to pay for the environmental costs of the gas, which is another cost that most users of roads do not fully pay for themselves.

 

[Bronzeage]

If all roads were gated and drivers paid a daily toll for their use, we would find a similar situation with all the rubber tired vehicles. We would quickly discover many roads were not worth the cost of maintenance, or might never be built at all. The effect this would have on property values, property development, and employment, would be from top to bottom of the economy. Mass transit is not profitable based on an asses on seats model, because it is being compared to a system which has never had to pay direct costs.

I am not sure that is true. The roads and bridges in my state are paid for by a user pays system and we have some of the best highways in the country. The highway department looks for roads to pave so they can spend all the money so it will not be dug into by other state departments. The bridges are originally set up as toll bridges until enough tolls are collected to pay for the construction and then the toll booths are taken down. As of now there are no toll bridges in the state. Our state constitution earmarks all the state gasoline tax for the highway department, their only source of financing. Of course the gasoline tax is paid by drivers when they fill their auto's tank, people who don't drive and buy gasoline don't pay the tax. Therefore our highways and bridges are all financed by a user pays system.

ETA:
Oops. Sorry, there is one toll bridge in the state. However, it is a privately owned bridge on a privately owned road to a privately owned island and not on a state highway.

Your user pays system is an all access pass. One year's taxes or fees allows a driver unlimited access to all roads, with no distinction between a person who takes a single road to work everyday and the person who drives from one city to another. There is no correlation between specific usage and cost.

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am not sure that is true. The roads and bridges in my state are paid for by a user pays system and we have some of the best highways in the country. The highway department looks for roads to pave so they can spend all the money so it will not be dug into by other state departments. The bridges are originally set up as toll bridges until enough tolls are collected to pay for the construction and then the toll booths are taken down. As of now there are no toll bridges in the state. Our state constitution earmarks all the state gasoline tax for the highway department, their only source of financing. Of course the gasoline tax is paid by drivers when they fill their auto's tank, people who don't drive and buy gasoline don't pay the tax. Therefore our highways and bridges are all financed by a user pays system.

ETA:
Oops. Sorry, there is one toll bridge in the state. However, it is a privately owned bridge on a privately owned road to a privately owned island and not on a state highway.

Your user pays system is an all access pass. One year's taxes or fees allows a driver unlimited access to all roads, with no distinction between a person who takes a single road to work everyday and the person who drives from one city to another. There is no correlation between specific usage and cost.

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system? The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding. I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am not sure that is true. The roads and bridges in my state are paid for by a user pays system and we have some of the best highways in the country. The highway department looks for roads to pave so they can spend all the money so it will not be dug into by other state departments. The bridges are originally set up as toll bridges until enough tolls are collected to pay for the construction and then the toll booths are taken down. As of now there are no toll bridges in the state. Our state constitution earmarks all the state gasoline tax for the highway department, their only source of financing. Of course the gasoline tax is paid by drivers when they fill their auto's tank, people who don't drive and buy gasoline don't pay the tax. Therefore our highways and bridges are all financed by a user pays system.

ETA:
Oops. Sorry, there is one toll bridge in the state. However, it is a privately owned bridge on a privately owned road to a privately owned island and not on a state highway.

Are 100% of the highways and roads in your State paid by gas taxes? If not, then it is not a user pays system. The construction and maintenance costs of all roadways not paid for by gas taxes, directly impacts the amount of $ needed to maintain those roads that are paid by gas taxes.

Absolutely. 100% of construction (including buying the property if required for a new road) and maintenance is paid from the gas tax. And other state departments have been trying to get the state congress to allow them to have some of the funds claiming that the highway department is paving roads that do not need to be paved.

 

[Bronzeage]

Your user pays system is an all access pass. One year's taxes or fees allows a driver unlimited access to all roads, with no distinction between a person who takes a single road to work everyday and the person who drives from one city to another. There is no correlation between specific usage and cost.

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system? The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding. I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

The user pay system works because it identifies a particular segment of the population who is economically dependent on the road infrastructure and extracts a fee. It is not equitable in any sense of the word. Like any other tax system, the cost of collecting the tax must be low enough to mean there is some money left over. Efficiency of collection does not mean the tax burden is shared by the general population.

I am not trying to create an unworkable system and I don't understand why you think I would. What I am saying is, mass transit is expected to pay for itself by user fees alone, and specifically a one use-one fee system. This is not at all similar to the way automotive roads are financed and maintained. Our current one man-four tires system is so successful and ubiquitous because it was never restricted to the limits we have put on mass transit.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system? The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding. I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

The user pay system works because it identifies a particular segment of the population who is economically dependent on the road infrastructure and extracts a fee. It is not equitable in any sense of the word. Like any other tax system, the cost of collecting the tax must be low enough to mean there is some money left over. Efficiency of collection does not mean the tax burden is shared by the general population.

I am not trying to create an unworkable system and I don't understand why you think I would. What I am saying is, mass transit is expected to pay for itself by user fees alone, and specifically a one use-one fee system. This is not at all similar to the way automotive roads are financed and maintained. Our current one man-four tires system is so successful and ubiquitous because it was never restricted to the limits we have put on mass transit.

This is all word games and accounting. There is absolutely no economic difference in having the gas tax go into the general treasury along with income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. then congress allotting that amount from the general treasury to the highway department as its budget and earmarking the tax to the highway department. Money if fungible. The only difference is that in the first case people can claim that the general public finances the roads and in the second case people can claim that the users finance the roads. The main thing that dedicating the gas tax to the highway department does is avoid the budget battles in the state congress.

However if the money is followed, it is a good demonstration that people using highways are not free riders. - - - ETA: Unless they are driving a prius

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system? The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding. I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

The user pay system works because it identifies a particular segment of the population who is economically dependent on the road infrastructure and extracts a fee. It is not equitable in any sense of the word. Like any other tax system, the cost of collecting the tax must be low enough to mean there is some money left over. Efficiency of collection does not mean the tax burden is shared by the general population.

I am not trying to create an unworkable system and I don't understand why you think I would. What I am saying is, mass transit is expected to pay for itself by user fees alone, and specifically a one use-one fee system. This is not at all similar to the way automotive roads are financed and maintained. Our current one man-four tires system is so successful and ubiquitous because it was never restricted to the limits we have put on mass transit.

This is all word games and accounting. There is absolutely no economic difference in having the gas tax go into the general treasury along with income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. then congress allotting that amount from the general treasury to the highway department as its budget and earmarking the tax to the highway department. Money if fungible. The only difference is that in the first case people can claim that the general public finances the roads and in the second case people can claim that the users finance the roads. The main thing that dedicating the gas tax to the highway department does is avoid the budget battles in the state congress.

However if the money is followed, it is a good demonstration that people using highways are not free riders.

Of course it's word games and accounting. What else would it be?

The main reason to have a gas tax is that it is efficient to collect. It is an easily identified commodity which cannot be made at home, a problem which has always plagued alcohol taxes.

 

[bilby]

Your user pays system is an all access pass. One year's taxes or fees allows a driver unlimited access to all roads, with no distinction between a person who takes a single road to work everyday and the person who drives from one city to another. There is no correlation between specific usage and cost.

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system?

Because they benefit from the infrastructure even if they don't use it themselves.

If I live in a small village, and can walk to work, to the store, and to the bar, then I might choose not to own a car. If I live in a big city with good public transport and high costs for parking spots, equally I might choose not to own a car.

But in either case, I benefit from the existence of roads; they bring in the food I eat; and the goods I sell; and the customers who buy those goods. I may be better off without a car, but I would not be better off if nobody had a car because there were no roads on which to drive.

Every citizen benefits from the existence of infrastructure, whether or not they are direct users of that infrastructure.

The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding.

Politics is not a law of nature. The fact that you have an inefficient government is not a reason to change the way roads are funded; it is a reason to change the way government operates.

I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

Poor government is a bad thing. But there is nothing so useless as doing, with great efficiency, that which should not be done at all. If the problem with road funding is that the best option is rendered ineffective by government, it is better to change the government than to accept a less good funding model. If you can't change the government, you should at least recognise that the optimum funding model under the current system is not a universal optimum.

 

[bilby]

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system? The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding. I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

The user pay system works because it identifies a particular segment of the population who is economically dependent on the road infrastructure and extracts a fee. It is not equitable in any sense of the word. Like any other tax system, the cost of collecting the tax must be low enough to mean there is some money left over. Efficiency of collection does not mean the tax burden is shared by the general population.

I am not trying to create an unworkable system and I don't understand why you think I would. What I am saying is, mass transit is expected to pay for itself by user fees alone, and specifically a one use-one fee system. This is not at all similar to the way automotive roads are financed and maintained. Our current one man-four tires system is so successful and ubiquitous because it was never restricted to the limits we have put on mass transit.

This is all word games and accounting. There is absolutely no economic difference in having the gas tax go into the general treasury along with income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. then congress allotting that amount from the general treasury to the highway department as its budget and earmarking the tax to the highway department. Money if fungible. The only difference is that in the first case people can claim that the general public finances the roads and in the second case people can claim that the users finance the roads. The main thing that dedicating the gas tax to the highway department does is avoid the budget battles in the state congress.

However if the money is followed, it is a good demonstration that people using highways are not free riders. - - - ETA: Unless they are driving a prius

But the people who are NOT using the highway ARE free riders. The CEO of a company based in another state, with stores in your state, is benefiting from your roads, and he doesn't pay for them. If he is based in your state capital, and doesn't own a car, then again, he is a free rider.

Why are the motorists of your state being asked to subsidise this leech?

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, you are right. But then why should there be such a correlation unless you are intentionally attempting to create an unworkable system? What exactly is wrong with a user pays all access system that works? Would you also support a per ride only fare to be paid at each station stop with no yearly rail pass option for rapid transit?

There is a good reason for this. If the costs of any mile of road were born directly by the users, we would not have many roads and what roads we had would carry mostly foot traffic, with the occasional ox cart. A pervasive all weather road system is critical to an economy. It's the essential element of any modern economy. Insightful people recognize the benefits of a road spread far beyond the actual users and understand that roads should be supported by everyone, not just users.

Exactly, that is why an all access user pays system works. Why would requiring people who don't use the highways to bear the burden of paying for them be a better system? The real advantage of the user pays system is that there is no yearly budget battles in the state congress over funding. I haven't been to Pennsylvania for quite a while but the last time I was there the results of these budget battles were obvious. Their highway department obviously had little influence in their congress. The roads were in such poor shape that driving over 40mph on one of their major freeways was dangerous. There was even a large (over 30 feet) section of pavement missing and a deep hole near the Conshohocken exit that had been there so long that it had been named "the Conshohocken bump" by the local radio station in their traffic reports.

The user pay system works because it identifies a particular segment of the population who is economically dependent on the road infrastructure and extracts a fee. It is not equitable in any sense of the word. Like any other tax system, the cost of collecting the tax must be low enough to mean there is some money left over. Efficiency of collection does not mean the tax burden is shared by the general population.

I am not trying to create an unworkable system and I don't understand why you think I would. What I am saying is, mass transit is expected to pay for itself by user fees alone, and specifically a one use-one fee system. This is not at all similar to the way automotive roads are financed and maintained. Our current one man-four tires system is so successful and ubiquitous because it was never restricted to the limits we have put on mass transit.

This is all word games and accounting. There is absolutely no economic difference in having the gas tax go into the general treasury along with income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. then congress allotting that amount from the general treasury to the highway department as its budget and earmarking the tax to the highway department. Money if fungible. The only difference is that in the first case people can claim that the general public finances the roads and in the second case people can claim that the users finance the roads. The main thing that dedicating the gas tax to the highway department does is avoid the budget battles in the state congress.

However if the money is followed, it is a good demonstration that people using highways are not free riders. - - - ETA: Unless they are driving a prius

But the people who are NOT using the highway ARE free riders. The CEO of a company based in another state, with stores in your state, is benefiting from your roads, and he doesn't pay for them. If he is based in your state capital, and doesn't own a car, then again, he is a free rider.

Why are the motorists of your state being asked to subsidise this leech?

Hey, we southern drivers are an amiable bunch. We don't mind sharing our road with guests, even those cheap-assed prius owners are welcome. At least they don't get in our way at the gas pump while we are trying to pay for the expenses of building and maintaining our roads.