Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of the subsidies to driving are invisible. Free parking lots for most every business. Drive through windows. Requirements that all housing units provide parking. Even the highway patrol. Tickets don't cover the cost. Cleanup of LUST sites, usually old gas stations.
Unless we go to a purely libertarian society, what constitutes a subsidy will always be cherry-picked to prove the point being argued.
That complaint aside, the idea to stop preaching and start charging is generally a much better way to change behavior. If you want people to stop driving you have to make driving less attractive than the closest alternative.
That complaint aside, the idea to stop preaching and start charging is generally a much better way to change behavior. If you want people to stop driving you have to make driving less attractive than the closest alternative.
The problem with that is in most of the country that's going to mean not just stopping subsidizing it but using it as a HUGE revenue source. I mean, Europe generally does not subsidize the car. Of course what's a subsidy but if you look at a now somewhat dated white paper for the Sacramento area, it figures gas taxes would need to be raised by an additional dollar per gallon to fully fund road costs plus deferred maintenance. That's still pretty cheap fry compared with what most of Europe pays in taxes at the pump. They're mostly paying around $3/gallon in gas taxes versus less than 50 cents (or $1.50 to fully fund roads). And yet they still do a lot of driving. Not as much as us, but a lot. And it's not like that's the only fees they're charging. Typical 4 banger Camry in the UK will in a few months get hit with a 1,200 pound C02 tax when first registered plus another 140 pounds a year.
Of course, we're not the UK. Public transportation is much worse here, and a lot of that has to due with land use so it's not like we can just shake the magic deficit dollars and get the same bang for the buck so in both the long and short term the alternative is going to just be worse.
In other words, go ahead and take the subsidy away here. It won't make all that much of a difference in vehicle usage. It's not like paying an extra gallon in gas taxes is really going to hit me that hard. Even driving 25,000 miles that's just $500 a year. Not nothing but it won't have any effect on my driving. If I need to get to jobs and driving is the best way to do it, I'm going to drive. Now if it was a combination of a more average car that got 25 mpg instead of 50 and $10 additional gas tax per gallon and it hit me for $10,000 I'd have to adjust behavior. I'd have to raise my rates. If my average distance traveled for a job is 50 miles and it cost me an additional $40 (100 miles, 4 gallons of gas), I'm going to need to pass some of that on. Once again, would it really affect my driving? I already charge mileage for anything over 50 miles one-way which is higher than that. I was hoping it would be more effective than it was.
A lot of the subsidies to driving are invisible. Free parking lots for most every business. Drive through windows. Requirements that all housing units provide parking. Even the highway patrol. Tickets don't cover the cost. Cleanup of LUST sites, usually old gas stations.
How is a drive through window a subsidy? Free parking is often paid for happily by the business owner except when there is a parking requirement. It allows customers to come from a greater distance.
Public transit also gets it's own patrols. Tickets are a source of revenue for many cities.
The problem with that is in most of the country that's going to mean not just stopping subsidizing it but using it as a HUGE revenue source. I mean, Europe generally does not subsidize the car. Of course what's a subsidy but if you look at a now somewhat dated white paper for the Sacramento area, it figures gas taxes would need to be raised by an additional dollar per gallon to fully fund road costs plus deferred maintenance. That's still pretty cheap fry compared with what most of Europe pays in taxes at the pump. They're mostly paying around $3/gallon in gas taxes versus less than 50 cents (or $1.50 to fully fund roads). And yet they still do a lot of driving. Not as much as us, but a lot. And it's not like that's the only fees they're charging. Typical 4 banger Camry in the UK will in a few months get hit with a 1,200 pound C02 tax when first registered plus another 140 pounds a year.
Of course, we're not the UK. Public transportation is much worse here, and a lot of that has to due with land use so it's not like we can just shake the magic deficit dollars and get the same bang for the buck so in both the long and short term the alternative is going to just be worse.
In other words, go ahead and take the subsidy away here. It won't make all that much of a difference in vehicle usage. It's not like paying an extra gallon in gas taxes is really going to hit me that hard. Even driving 25,000 miles that's just $500 a year. Not nothing but it won't have any effect on my driving. If I need to get to jobs and driving is the best way to do it, I'm going to drive. Now if it was a combination of a more average car that got 25 mpg instead of 50 and $10 additional gas tax per gallon and it hit me for $10,000 I'd have to adjust behavior. I'd have to raise my rates. If my average distance traveled for a job is 50 miles and it cost me an additional $40 (100 miles, 4 gallons of gas), I'm going to need to pass some of that on. Once again, would it really affect my driving? I already charge mileage for anything over 50 miles one-way which is higher than that. I was hoping it would be more effective than it was.
I didn't mean to imply that making the alternative better was necessarily easy or even a good idea, just that it was more effective than constantly demonizing cars. Raising he cost of driving absolutely will decrease the amount of driving. Maybe not for you, but definitely for the country. It will also be a regressive tax, especially for people who live in rural areas.
How is a drive through window a subsidy? Free parking is often paid for happily by the business owner except when there is a parking requirement. It allows customers to come from a greater distance.
Public transit also gets it's own patrols. Tickets are a source of revenue for many cities.
Drive through windows cost money. Parking costs about $3-5000 a space plus maintenance. Some large employers have set up vanpools partly to save on parking spaces. And while it's easy to rationalize it as a cost of doing business, all customers pay, even those who may be able to walk there.
Of course, if the cost of driving is to increase, alternatives should be provided. Faster transit, direct routes, good equipment is necessary. Presently the policy in many areas is to discourage use of public transit by making it slower and less convenient. This perpetuates the policy. If none of the riders is registered to vote, politicians see no reason to improve it.
Drive through windows cost money. Parking costs about $3-5000 a space plus maintenance. Some large employers have set up vanpools partly to save on parking spaces. And while it's easy to rationalize it as a cost of doing business, all customers pay, even those who may be able to walk there.
Of course, if the cost of driving is to increase, alternatives should be provided. Faster transit, direct routes, good equipment is necessary. Presently the policy in many areas is to discourage use of public transit by making it slower and less convenient. This perpetuates the policy. If none of the riders is registered to vote, politicians see no reason to improve it.
Yes, drive throughs cost money, in the extra land necessary to build them. The rest is minimal. Most restaurants these days have the speakers rather than an employee at a window to take your order. So the owner adds a couple cents (if that) to the price of the items. Or not. Perhaps over time, the extra cost is amortized in increased business. When you start talking about subsidies, you can go all the way down the rabbit hole of what is and isn't a subsidy. This article brings in the old "morality" issue that rocked this forum a while back. I'd suggest leaving that out altogether.
Re: direct transit routes, just what do you mean? The only direct route for me to somewhere is in my car! Transit of necessity has to go the riders are, can't take the most direct route. No one is deliberately making transit slower and less convenient, that's the nature of the beast.
I think it is very fair to at least toll all freeways because they're a premium, luxury product.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
