California Considers Placing A Mileage Tax On Drivers

[LeafByNiggle]

Most fire departments in the US are volunteer departments.

Most are not government agencies as such. Instead, they lie somewhere in the middle of being outright government agencies and being private corporations.

They do receive some government funding, especially grants for certain kinds of equipment or for major purchases like new vehicles or buildings.

But the reality is that most departments are indeed volunteer.
67% of departments are all-volunteer and 70% of individual firefighters are volunteer.

only 9% of departments are all-paid departments and 30% of firefighters are paid employees.

source NFPA report - U.S. fire department profile

These statistics needs some analysis. I think a very relevant figure would be the percentage of the US population that is protected by all-paid fire departments. Why is that interesting and how could these figures deviate significantly from the figures for firefighters? Because volunteer fire departments protect small communities - less than 25,000 people. So you can count up lots of fire departments and you still haven’t protected very many people. I suspect the number of firefighters per person protected is much higher for volunteer firefighters than for paid firefighters. And those communities that they serve tend to be rural, with houses spread out. In such areas it makes economic sense to have a volunteer fire department. In a city, one paid fire department can protect a large enough group of people to justify their salaries. You can’t do that in a rural area. If you tried to define an area large enough to include enough houses to make it worthwhile to hire firefighters, those houses would be so far apart that the fire truck could not get to a fire in time to do any good. Couple that with the decreased risk of fire spreading in rural communities and it just makes economic sense to go that way. That economic calculation just does not work in a city. So it is not a matter of one system being better than another. It is more like different systems are better suited to handle different societal units.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Most fire departments in the US are volunteer departments.

Most are not government agencies as such. Instead, they lie somewhere in the middle of being outright government agencies and being private corporations.

They do receive some government funding, especially grants for certain kinds of equipment or for major purchases like new vehicles or buildings.

But the reality is that most departments are indeed volunteer.
67% of departments are all-volunteer and 70% of individual firefighters are volunteer.

only 9% of departments are all-paid departments and 30% of firefighters are paid employees.

source NFPA report - U.S. fire department profile

These statistics needs some analysis. I think a very relevant figure would be the percentage of the US population that is protected by all-paid fire departments. Why is that interesting and how could these figures deviate significantly from the figures for firefighters? Because volunteer fire departments protect small communities - less than 25,000 people. So you can count up lots of fire departments and you still haven’t protected very many people. I suspect the number of firefighters per person protected is much higher for volunteer firefighters than for paid firefighters. And those communities that they serve tend to be rural, with houses spread out. In such areas it makes economic sense to have a volunteer fire department. In a city, one paid fire department can protect a large enough group of people to justify their salaries. You can’t do that in a rural area. If you tried to define an area large enough to include enough houses to make it worthwhile to hire firefighters, those houses would be so far apart that the fire truck could not get to a fire in time to do any good. Couple that with the decreased risk of fire spreading in rural communities and it just makes economic sense to go that way. That economic calculation just does not work in a city. So it is not a matter of one system being better than another. It is more like different systems are better suited to handle different societal units.

The statistics you are asking about are on the webpage.

I’m not going to re-type everything from the page.

In any case, it answers the rhetorical question

A place in the country where there isn’t some government agency responsible for putting your housefire out?

The answer is yes. Most of the country, geographically if not by population.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The reason for tolls is that governments often simply do not have the money to pay for construction of roads and bridges needed.

Instead, a toll agency is formed and they are authorized to issue bonds to the general public. And the bonds are paid off by the use of toll revenues.

The toll road prepares an annual report and provides an accounting of the use of the toll revenues.

In some cases, the government may try to build a highway but simply run out of money. So after several tries and many years delay, they convert that highway to a toll road, collect the money at one time from an issue of revenue bonds, and get the construction done in one or two years … and it is done.

Consider, for example, the Garden State Parkway: Only 18 miles (29 km) had been constructed by 1950, but taking a cue from the successful New York State Thruway, on April 14, 1952, the New Jersey Legislature created the New Jersey Highway Authority, empowered to construct, operate, and maintain a self-sufficient toll parkway from Paramus to Cape May. The Parkway has been ranked as the busiest toll highway in the country based on the number of toll transactions.[4][5] At roughly 172 miles, the Parkway is the longest highway in the state.

 

[boclucky14]

In my state, our DOT requires local support if they want to build a toll road. Every local meeting and poll ends with people opting for no improvements or delayed improvements if it means a toll, so we don’t have any toll roads.

But if I want to drive to my original state, I have to pay a mountain of tolls. Doesn’t seem quite fair that New Yorkers can drive all over our roads for free, but I have to pay to use their corrupted system.

My state’s DOT constantly complains about lack of resources and money, but we have one of the best interstate highways in the country, so we’re making ends meet.

The way I see it - there’s better ways to fund roads. Increase existing general taxes, such as sales tax or property tax. My personal favorite would be to set up tolls on the border of the state, but it’d only charge cars that had a LP to a state with tolls; although that might hurt our tourism income.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In any case, it answers the rhetorical question

A place in the country where there isn’t some government agency responsible for putting your housefire out?

I agree. You correctly answered the question you were asked. But a better question would have been “a place with a high population density where there isn’t some government agency responsible for putting out a house file.”

 

[MonteRCMS]

Each state is different. New Jersey is a high tax state and they do not want to increase their existing high tax structure for highways and bridges, particularly if a high percentage of highway users are from out-of-state. New Jersey also, because of rivers, has a lot of long bridges which are not only extremely expensive to build but which also require a tremendous amount of maintenance and repair owing to salt water corrosion, snow plowing and salt spreading.

If your state prefers to tax itself to build roads and bridges, that is a local decision.

 

[FrDavid96]

The reason for tolls is that governments often simply do not have the money to pay for construction of roads and bridges needed.

Instead, a toll agency is formed and they are authorized to issue bonds to the general public. And the bonds are paid off by the use of toll revenues.

The toll road prepares an annual report and provides an accounting of the use of the toll revenues.

In some cases, the government may try to build a highway but simply run out of money. So after several tries and many years delay, they convert that highway to a toll road, collect the money at one time from an issue of revenue bonds, and get the construction done in one or two years … and it is done.

Except for one little thing.

Long after the road has been paid-in-full, the tolls continue. Indeed, they continue to grow.

Garden State Parkway
Rate for Class 1: 2-axle cars, trucks & motorcycles.
Enter at exit NYS Thruway: New York State Thruway at MM 173.
Exit at exit 0S: Cape May: Ocean Drive / Shore Road at MM 0.

Cash: $8.25

That’s about 5 cents per mile driven. That’s quite a lot to pay to use a public roadway that was supposed to be built and paid for decades ago.

https://turnpikeinfo.com/toll-calculator.php?road_name=garden-state-parkway&state=new-jersey&udir=southbound

 

[MonteRCMS]

The Garden State Parkway was built with two lanes in each direction.

Now it has as many as eight lanes in each direction, depending on traffic volumes.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Garden State Parkway was built with two lanes in each direction.

Now it has as many as eight lanes in each direction, depending on traffic volumes.

True. But it still costs 5 cents per mile to drive on it.

That’s quite a lot to charge considering that the tolls add up quickly for people who drive it frequently.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike have been a source of controversy from the Turnpike’s opening in 1958 to the removal of tolls in 1988, and the debate continues today.

Token war with New York City Subway[edit]
There was some controversy in the early 1980s when New York City Subway riders discovered that tokens purchased for use in the Connecticut Turnpike toll booths were of the same size and weight as New York City Subway tokens. Since they cost less than one third as much, they began showing up in subway collection boxes regularly.[7] Connecticut authorities initially agreed to change the size of their tokens,[8] but later reneged, and the problem went unsolved until 1985, when Connecticut discontinued the tolls on its turnpike.[9] At that time, the MTA was paid 17.5 cents for each of more than two million tokens that had been collected during the three-year “token war”.[9]

Abolition of tolls[edit]
After a 1983 truck crash that killed seven people at the Stratford toll plaza, toll opponents pressured the State of Connecticut to remove tolls from the Turnpike in 1985. Three years later, these same opponents successfully lobbied the Connecticut General Assembly to pass legislation abolishing tolls on all of Connecticut’s highways (with the exception of two car ferries across the Connecticut River in Chester and Glastonbury). While the 1983 Stratford accident was cited as the main reason for abolishing tolls in Connecticut, the underlying reason was that federal legislation at that time forbade states with toll roads from using federal funds for road projects. Because the Mianus River Bridge was rebuilt with federal highway funds following its June 1983 collapse, Connecticut was required by Section 113(c) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 to remove tolls from the Turnpike once its construction bonds were paid off.[10]

The debate over tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike did not end in 1988 with the abolition of tolls. Prior to their removal in 1985, the tolls generated over $65 million annually. Since their removal in the late 1980s, Connecticut lawmakers have continuously discussed reinstating tolls, but have balked at bringing tolls back out of concern of having to repay $2.6 billion in federal highway funds that Connecticut received for Turnpike construction projects following the abolition of tolls.

Continuation of toll debate[edit]
With continual budget woes in Hartford, the idea of reinstating tolls resurfaced in January 2010. State Rep. Tony Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, estimated a $5 toll at Connecticut’s borders could generate $600 million in revenue. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy expressed pessimism that toll revenue would be spent exclusively on infrastructure repairs, but a need to generate additional revenue, paired with decreases in traditional highway funding sources (such as federal aid and gas tax revenue) means the idea could receive serious consideration in the state legislature.

 

[MonteRCMS]

There is an alternative to paying the toll; and that alternative is to drive on non-toll local roads.

BUT, the local roads are burdened with slow speeds, heavy traffic congestion and poor roadway surface condition.

After a few non-toll trips people tend to prefer paying the tolls and zipping along at high speed on roadway surfaces that are high-premium quality roadways.

 

[boclucky14]

I wouldn’t call any of the interstate highways in the Northeast premium. Premium suggests that it’s better quality than the alternative. The Northeast has some of the worst freeways in country, including the tolled ones.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Difference of opinion.

Compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges.

The toll roads are generally of higher quality.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Part of that is just population density. You have a ton of people living in a relatively small area, you’re going to have bad traffic. It is what it is.

 

[Lemuel]

You actually didn’t. You said “well, you’re obligated by morality.”

I didn’t say that. Don’t make stuff up. And you conveniently ignored the rest of the answer.

This sounds a bit like, “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

I suppose it does. But it was just me trying to be polite and letting you know why I would not be around to discuss this for a while. But if it will help, the next time you’re in the Deep South, you can look me up and I’ll show you the goat fencing, let you fish in my pond and treat you to some good old-fashioned Southern hospitality

This seems really important to your sense of self so I’m just going to let you have it.

It is. Thank you for noticing.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m working on improving my own temper in arguments and not getting upset over internet arguments. I had a very long reply typed out and realized it was kind of rude. It’s easy on the internet to forget you’re talking to real people.

I try to think many disagreements in politics are disagreements about the facts of the matter and the best way to accomplish certain goals, and that true moral disagreements are rarer.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Don’t worry about, it, DL. You’re fine. That’s a really good post though.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I didn’t say that. Don’t make stuff up. And you conveniently ignored the rest of the answer.

Obligated by morality and decency. There will always be ways to adjudicate differences. We have a system in place now. It might not be the best, but it’s what we’re stuck with until things change.

I realize I’m not the brightest bear in the woods, but that seems like almost a verbatim copy of what you said. I left out the rest of the answer because, frankly, you were talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you were saying government essentially shouldn’t exist, and then on the other you say that “we have ways to adjudicate differences” that you seem to at least half-heartedly endorse. I can’t reconcile these two thoughts. Either you think things like police and the courts should exist (maybe as a necessary evil) or you don’t, but you can’t have it both ways.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I THINK what your position actually is is “Government is a necessary evil.” Which, hey, no argument here. Like Alexander Hamilton said, "“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

But if it will help, the next time you’re in the Deep South, you can look me up and I’ll show you the goat fencing, let you fish in my pond and treat you to some good old-fashioned Southern hospitality

Sounds good. I’m much less cantankerous offline, and I’d love to let my dog run around with the goats.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not going to re-type everything from the page.

In any case, it answers the rhetorical question

A place in the country where there isn’t some government agency responsible for putting your housefire out? (Vonsalza)

With respect father, whether the “employees” of the fire department are paid is not relevant to the point;

Volunteer fire department are almost always publicly funded either in most part or whole.

I’d go ahead and say “always”, but I’ll leave room for the 0.1% cases out there that folks love to dig up in these situations.

The men work for nothing (except for the older men that administer the whole organization). So that’s true. But they didn’t hold bake-sales to purchase their fire engine or the building they put it in.

Now, some volunteer departments ARE under geared and under funded. Maybe most. But most of what they already have is, generally and mostly, taxpayer funded.

And if they don’t respond to your house fire, the older fellas that stand around telling the volunteers what to do will get called to task for it, because that is what they are responsible for.

 

[FrDavid96]

Volunteer fire department are almost always publicly funded either in most part or whole.

No. Not “almost always.” There are a lot of volunteer departments that receive very little public funding.

But they didn’t hold bake-sales to purchase their fire engine or the building they put it in.

Many of them do exactly that.