But we do subsidise it, heavily- this is a cornerstone of much public policy.
Roads and Highways are subsidized, and IMHO should be. We all need them. Even if we don;t drive, there’s buses, trucking bring food to the grocery stores, police, garbage, fire trucks, etc. Everyone needs to pay taxes to subsidize roads.
Public transportation- buses, trains, light rail, subways- are also subsidized, (even in the EU) sometimes up to 90%. While I disagree sometimes about very heavy subsidies, I agree that some or even significant public subsidy is a Good idea.
Now, Kanicbird does go hwaaay too far. We want the working poor and middle class to take Public transportation, not drive pollution & greenhouse gas spewing cars. But, Kanicbird does make a point, which is why I am willing to subsidise Public Transportation to a considerable extent, and I see you are also, Lemur866.
As one datapoint, when I went to Hilversum once the price of a train ticket from there to Amsterdam was about the same as the cost of a one kilometer cab ride from the station to the hotel.
It’s going to take a big change in mindset to get that sort of pricing happening in the US, even in urban areas where it might work. Perhaps money from a gas tax will help.
To some extent, sure. But biking in moderately non-flat regions is also perfectly possible: that’s what gears are for.
I’ve commuted regularly by bicycle not just in Holland but in India and America too, including the rolling hills of eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Over the years, I’ve heard a number of Americans offer the “we can’t use bikes for transportation because our country’s not flat like Holland” excuse, and I don’t really buy it.
(Not to accuse SmackFu of making an excuse out of it, of course; it was a perfectly legitimate observation. I’m just expanding on the idea in order to pre-empt such arguments.)
Yes, you can never get as much bike use in a hilly country as in a flat one, and in really rugged areas only the very fit people could even attempt to get around by bike. But that doesn’t mean that the US couldn’t be doing a lot better with bike use than it currently is. There’s no intrinsic reason that many short-distance no-luggage trips over gentle terrain in decent weather couldn’t be made, by minimally fit people, on a bicycle instead of in a car.
What holds people back (besides laziness) is the fear of traffic. If we made the necessary investments in bike lanes and bike paths so that bicyclists could actually get where they needed to go without being clipped by cars, many people would actually ride bicycles. Especially if a serious gas tax like the ones being discussed here was actually implemented.
I disagree. It’s distance, not fear or laziness. My commute is 50 miles (OK, I take the train), so bicyling is really out of the question.
The Netherlands has 395 dudes per KM2- over ten times what the USA does. My commute of 80Km would take me 1/3 of the way across your nation. And, it’s not unusual around here. What works for the Netherlands is not a solution for the USA, sorry. Dude, you have a wonderful nation there, but it just plain isn’t the USA, not even close.
Lotsa talk about subsidizing mass transit. Why should folks in rural areas, who haven’t got an icecube in hell’s chance of seeing usable mass transit come to their area, wanna subsidize city folk?
For the same reasons city folk subsidize things like electric service, phones, roads and internet to rural areas that would not be economically feasible to place on the grid if they weren’t subsidized.
I agree with that. Mass transit is a local issue, not a federal issue. Urban cores that need mass transit should pay for it themselves. It’s perfectly reasonable to operate local mass transit at a loss, but the local taxpayers should be the subsiders, not farmers in Nebraska.
Of course, everyone who wants mass transit really wants mass transit for the other guy…let’s get all those cars off the roads so I can drive to work on open freeways.
Initial construction of some of that infrastructure was subsidized by grants in long ago days, but nothing was provided for day-to-day operational costs. Once buildout was complete, user fees (your phone & electric bills) paid all the ongoing costs. In order to make mass transit viable, subsidies must continue thru the entire lifecycle of the infrastructure - that is, rider fares would have to be subsidized in perpetuity to keep the thing operational. There isn’t a single mass transit project currently operational in the United States that is funded entirely by user fees. All of them, are subsidized by some extent, thru some manner of regional or local tax.
In the more recent past, nearly all of the construction for such things as you mention, has been in the form of loans from the USDA’s Rural Utility Service bureau - loans which must be re-paid by the borrower. And the Internet the USDA’s Rural Utility Service (the successor of the REA) is trying to bring to rural America is entirely thru loans. (I’m currently help a client obtain a RUS Broadband Loan for a FTTx network. What a giant pain in the ass that process is - we’ve got almost 1000 hours into just submitting the application and preparing the associated documentation.)
Personally, i tend to think that even though rural residents don’t receive direct benefit from the use of the public transit, everyone benefits from less CO2, NOx, and hydrocarbons put into the air, as What Exit? implied above. Urban consumers should (and do) pay for the majority of the cost of public transit. I would, however, be in favor of a bit more national funding for public transit, which unarguably benefits everyone. (Note: i am an urban resident who doesn’t own a car, so one could claim that i’m biased.)
Strange I have federal charges on my “Suburban” Phone and Cable bills that are earmarked for providing phone and internet service to rural areas. I guess I will need to verify what I recall.
I am also surprised to hear that a sparsely populated state like Wyoming can maintain its electrical grid without federal assistance.
Right. Which is what makes a the gas tax proposed in the OP problematic for funding mass transit.
As for what I think, I believe the market should, and can, be relied upon to find a feasible alternative to a huge gas tax. I’d rather see an oil company raise their prices by say, $.10/gallon and designate that money specifically towards alternative fuels research. I would probably go out of my to buy gas from such a forward thinking supplier. And everybody who claims support for a huge federal gas tax would likely do the same - cynicism aside.
All of which isn’t to say, I wouldn’t support a fairly large increase in the federal tax on a gallon of gas - I would. I think that’s desirable as a disincentive to consumption. One that’s relatively progressive, too. Something on the order of $0.25/gallon seems reasonable with 1/2 the proceeds earmarked for transportation infrastructure improvements which are geared towards traffic efficiency. The other half can go right to the general fund.
No I’m not part of Big Oil but it is my beleif that making cheap energy for the poor goes towards productivity, while handing them a check goes to beer. I see it far better that the poor be able to drive 50, 100, 120 miles per day to make a decent wage and support their family then to just hand over money to them.
I also don’t accept the peak oil theory, I think oil production will continue to expand for generations, unless another fuel is found to take it’s place. Deep reserves will be found and exploited, people will scream PEAK OIL!!! then we will dig deeper and find more. Yes there is only so much oil on the earth at any given moment, but we have barely scratched the surface and oil is being made today by Mother Earth IMHO. While it doesn’t go as far as I would, here is a cite that peak oil is not happening now:
As for public transportation, I would agree with a shift to subdise that where congestion is a issue but realize that it’s not a answer to todays mobile workforce.
Well, duh. No argument there. Did you miss the part where I was advocating bicyle use for short-distance trips?
Dude, I’m as American as you are, as you can see from the information in my location field. I’ve lived in the US most of my life, and I’ve never owned a car (although I’ve had a valid driver’s license since I was 18). (I’m also a chick, btw, although I have no objection to being called “dude”.)
I think my previous post made it quite clear that I recognize that bicycles can’t be as much of a solution in the US as they are in the Netherlands. But that doesn’t mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and scrap the whole concept.
Yes, there are some long commutes in America, but half of all US car trips are less than six miles, and three-quarters of them less than ten miles. It’s absurd to suggest that there’s no role for increased bicycle use in the US because “well, our country’s just like, too big, dude”.
Of course a gasoline tax is going to be regressive, that’s the point!
A wealthier person would be able to pay the tax without nuisance and won’t change his driving habits. But that’s okay becuase there’s relatively few wealthy people. If they keep as they were, but the middle-to-lower classes use less gas, than the change is overwhelmingly trending towards what we’re hoping for.
Remember, this isn’t about the most fair way to raise governmnet funds, but an attempt to force people to change their habits by hitting them in the wallet.
This will hurt the poor, until they and the market develop alternatives. There’s bo way around that. But the goal may be worth it.
That’s a terrible idea. First, it would require an absurd amount of bureaucracy. Every time you moved or changed jobs, the vouchers would have to be updated. Second, it’s ripe for tremendous abuse, and would almost certainly result in a black market. Third, it subsidizes people who live further away from where they work. I don’t get a rent voucher for living in CA instead of Kansas; why should you get a gas voucher for living in the suburbs instead of the city?
True, in fact I wrote a nice long letter supporting Bicycle cars for the train. That’s a “win-win” even over the longer distances here. Bike to the train.
(I generally call everyone “dude”, it’s a strange habit I picked up after living in CA all my life and watching *the Big Lebowski * hwaaaay too many times. ) :smack:
“In America, 100 years is old. In Europe, 100 miles is far.”
Look, this is still just crazy. You want to subsidize productivity, I get that. But you’re not subsidizing productivity, you’re subsidizing gasoline. Period. Full stop. In other words, shoveling money by the bucketful into the Exxon-Mobil. Paying people to commute longer is insane.
If you want to subsidize transport and transport only, then offer below-cost mass transit. Giving away gasoline is crazy. Providing goods to the poor below cost is guaranteed to result in shortages, rationing, corruption, kickbacks, black markets, grey markets, smuggling, and gang members doing drive-by shootings and killing 10 year old schoolgirls on their way to pick up Grandma’s medicine from the corner store. Why do you want to kill 10 year old schoolgirls, Kanicbird? Don’t you have any compassion?
Forget peak oil. You are the only one who brought that up in this thread. National security is a bigger issue. Our foreign oil dependence puts money into the nations that support terrorism. We are now competing for Oil with China & India, not just Europe. Most important to crazy environmentalist like myself is the fact that reducing gas burning will help reduce pollution and reduce asthma suffering. We need to encourage the reduction of gasoline dependence by increase use of E85 cars, Hybrids, Electrics, Hydrogen, Tele-commuting, bike riding, improved Mass transit, and anything else you care to add.
Besides blowing up terrorists and democratizing the middle east I can see no greater use of our tax dollars then to subsidize energy, which increases our productivity and ensures our superpower status.
Ok lets talk enviromentalism, we know that the oil will burn, enviornmentally speaking would you rather that oil be burned in a car in the US or one in China - which one would be most likely to be ‘cleaner’?
Well I see it as we should encourage healthy activities such as walking and bike riding, and we should encourage other forms of energy and fuel - but the poor is the least likely to be able to afford such technology - give them a break. The filthy rich who will be paying $50/gal tax under my plan will be the ones who can afford to research, implement and perfect alternatives.
but it is my beleif that making cheap energy for the poor goes towards productivity, while handing them a check goes to beer. I see it far better that the poor be able to drive 50, 100, 120 miles per day to make a decent wage and support their family then to just hand over money to them.
) :smack: