They don't want to move people off the local road they want the money from the toll.
Have you ever been in OBX traffic on old 168?
Chesapeake wants OBX traffic off of the local road.
They don't want to move people off the local road they want the money from the toll.
If you want to move people off the local road and on to the expressway, put the toll on the local road!
Really? Do police set speed limits in the US? That's fucked.
Over here, speed limits are set by the government; police merely enforce the limits as gazetted and signposted.
The government sets speed limits with revenue in mind.
Yours does similar things, also--you have a contract with a private party over some toll road (a tunnel, perhaps? I don't recall) that specifically says the state can't do anything that cuts the traffic using it.
Toll roads make no sense at all.
The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.
The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.
Averaging over all new roads in the country, the people who gain most from the infrastructure are those with the highest incomes. So the appropriate way to pay for new roads is through income tax.
You realize how much that'd cost?Don't you love the 100% ass-backwards inducement structure?
If you want to move people off the local road and on to the expressway, put the toll on the local road!
Toll roads make no sense at all.
The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.
The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.
Toll roads make no sense at all.
The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.
The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.
Tolls don't need to and probably rarely do cover the total cost of a road. Thus, all taxpayers do pay for such roads, tolls just vary that payment in the same direction as the benefits vary. The one thing for certain is that users of a road benefit more than non-users. Thus, tolls are by far more reasonable and fair than forcing everyone to pay equally.
The government sets speed limits with revenue in mind.
Yours does similar things, also--you have a contract with a private party over some toll road (a tunnel, perhaps? I don't recall) that specifically says the state can't do anything that cuts the traffic using it.
Not mine - I think you are thinking of the notoriously corrupt New South Wales government's dodgy deal over the Lane Cove Tunnel. There is a reason I chose not to live in NSW.
Still, that's not about speeding fines; they reduced the number of lanes on the alternate route via Epping Road.
So when Akron up'd the speed limit on a major local road from 25 to 35, the did it on a revenue basis? And when Ohio increased the speed limit on the Interstates to 70 from 65, they did so on a revenue basis?The government sets speed limits with revenue in mind.
We don't have enough traffic to justify that. But we do have enough to justify painted crosswalks. Never hear of a cop trying to bag anyone at one, though.