Hi Larry,
I saw those calculations and was impressed that someone had taken the time to
do them. I think most people figure that roads are paid for out of gas taxes,
so showing some major part is property taxes helps shine some light on the
subject.
Did the analysis account for gas and property taxes paid by firms? If 448 is
the overall per capita gasoline consumption for the state, some substantial
chunk of that was by firms. That would lower the contribution from individuals
in comparison with their contribution via property tax.
Just for fun, and to procrastinate on something I'm supposed to be working on,
I looked to see how close the two cars/household scenario is to reality. In
Madison in 2006-8, the average is actually 1.5 vehicles per household (assuming
that the handful of households in the ACS "five or more" bin have an average of
six). For owner-occupants the average is higher, but still under two -- 1.8 --
and for renters it's 1.1.
I'd love to look at the spreadsheets again if you have them handy.
Eric
________________________________
From: Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]>
To: "STRAWSER, Charles" <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Steve Hiniker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 9:40:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP
In 2008, we calculated that the average Madison residential home
paid $307.63 per year in property taxes for roads or 17.07% of the home’s
total tax bill for city services. These calculations were done using a
method to support a Street Utility, whereby all road costs are recovered as
user fees.
If that same home had two cars and used the state per capita
average for gasoline (10.663 barrels or 448 gallons per capita) and two people,
they would pay $150 for car registration and $384 for gasoline taxes.
This would indicate that property taxes are less than one-half
of road expenditures.
I am sure that there are other scenarios that road costs can be
attributed, but this method is closest to the expenditures of individual
Madisonians.
I am rather interested in this subject and would be happy to
review other data to calculate/attribute road costs.
I can provide the spreadsheets used but I don’t think the
bikies server will let an attachment through its portal. (They are public
records.)
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On
Behalf Of STRAWSER, Charles
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Steve Hiniker
Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP
When a developer turns farmland into a subdivision of houses, the
developer is generally responsible for building the local roads (that, is,
generally the roads within the subdivision itself, and sometimes widening the
collector or arterial road that makes the farmland accessible, and valuable, in
the first place, though that is usually limited to “improvements”
i.e. widening, where the collector/arterial intersects with the subdivisions
roads).
Therefore, Larry’s point is valid – development (when
it takes place in a “greenfield” rather than an area that is
already urbanized and has infrastructure) pays for the costs to construct the
smallest roads, and, sometimes, development pays for some part of the cost to
expand the bigger roads adjacent to the new development to accommodate the
increased traffic they induce. But the point bolsters the argument of myself
and others on this list that small facilities for cyclists are a better
investment in the long term than big roads.
Because after the local roads are built, it is the responsibility
of the local municipality to maintain these newly built roads. This is just one
more reason why conventional suburban development in greenfields cost more for
a municipality to service than the revenue it brings in. Studies going all the
way back to the 1970s have born this out again and again. One I recall
estimated that typical sprawl cost $1.25 in municipal services for every $1 in
tax revenue. Of course, the study considered all municipal services (water,
sewer, trash, etc.), not just road maintenance. But road maintenance is
typically the lion’s share of the municipal budget.
But the fact is, we have a mechanism to expand the transportation
infrastructure (and in a manner I would say that mostly benefit’s car
drivers to the detriment of all other road users), but we don’t have a
mechanism to expand the revenue that can be used to maintain the expanding
infrastructure.
Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for us to build smaller
infrastructure that costs less to maintain (Tim’s points about the
maintenance requirements of paths that mostly see 50lb vehicles vs roads that
mostly see 5000 lb vehicles are relevant here) than to continue building larger
infrastructure (even when someone else is paying for a small portion of it)
that we can’t afford to maintain.
chuck
________________________________
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On
Behalf Of Mad City Biker
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:23 PM
To: Larry D. Nelson
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP
Sorry
for dredging up an old thread, but I'm just getting caught up.
Quote
Larry Nelson:"Steve Hiniker doesn’t include the
developer’s contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%."
Could
you please expound on this statement? (in layman's terms please!). Bikers
(myself included) tend to use talking points similar to Hiniker's to justify
our right to use the roads. Are we incorrect in quoting this? Just how do
developers $$$ fit into the equation? Thanks! -MCB
________________________________
From:Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]>
To: burleigh chorus.net <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 5:10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP
The cost to widen a road for bike lanes is greater than just the
proportion of pavement as the road bed has to be widened whereas the existing
road doesn’t require the replacement of the road bed. Also, the
road side ditches have to be excavated beyond their current location and new
turf established. Bridges and storm sewers need to be widened beneath the
roadbed and the storm water culverts for driveways have to be
relocated. I suspect that the County Transportation Engineers have
estimated the costs quite closely and I am not surprised by the cost increase.
Steve Hiniker doesn’t include the developer’s
contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%.
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On
Behalf Of burleigh chorus.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP
Al,
thats great to hear.
Unfortunately, the Town of Middleton is waffling on bike lanes on Old Sauk
Road:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_b3533244-507e-11df-bb09-001cc4c03286.html
Does it really cost 50% more money to add 25% more width to a road?
Anyway, Ivey hits on the real problem here:
"Hiniker says most drivers assume the taxes on gasoline cover the expense
to build and maintain roads. But he notes the state's transportation fund
— which is basically the gas tax combined with vehicle registration fees
— provides only 60 percent of local road funding. The rest falls to
property taxpayers."
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM, <[email protected]>
wrote:
Greetings fellow bikies:
Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk sent out a letter I thought you'd be
interested in. County Highway KP, a favorite route for bicycling in
west/northwestern Dane County, is scheduled for reconstruction. Two
elected officials from the Town of Black Earth expressed interest in
having a bike lane/shoulder included in the construction project. The
County Executive's office agreed to make this addition, and noted a price
tag of $600K.
--
..........
-darin
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
