Good Morning, Good questions. I can see how there are many assumptions that such a change are based on. If I cut them short, it's not because I don't see there being problems with such a fundamental change. It's because this is email and I don't want to be blowhard (which I probably am, anyway). :)
First off, the first problem I question is consumption. Is consumption the problem? There are other some pollution problems associated with production and transportation of oil. But those pale compared to the issues of vehicle emissions. And a fair argument can be put forth that there are other costs to consumption such as the Gulf War and the current war. To be simplistic, those problems go away when the oil goes away. So I am questioning the value of conservation in this instance. If the problem is pollution, which I feel it is 100 times more than consumption, than let's find solutions to address that. For example, let's provide the users of hybrid vehicles with tax breaks (an indirect cost) to make that solution more practical. Or, less politically feasible, partially tie license tab fees to pollution levels. Again, since I don't feel that consumption is the issue, I'm less concerned with incentives to consume less gas. I'm more concerned with directly addressing the issues of pollution, the issues of sprawl, and having those who use the roads paying for what they use. As for the gas tax being a deterrent to driving, has that occurred? I would argue that it hasn't. A certain amount of sprawl has come about due population increases and growing wealth. But I don't see the gas tax as having an affect on that. We all know that the less gas we use, the less gas tax we pay. But what affect has that had on our habits? My assumption is that for the majority of people, getting a clear direct bill that shows the direct correlation between costs and miles driven will have an affect on their habits. More importantly, the current gas tax doesn't cover the cost of those roads. And I suspect to double or triple it, which is what is needed IIRC to reflect the costs of those roads, is not going to happen. I'm also assuming that part of this change would be that government would no longer build and maintain those roads. It would be done by a public regulated utility a la Xcel energy. This would be a big change. The advantage is that it's a private company that needs to cover it's costs. Think of it, when was the last time the Taxpayers League protested a rate hike? Instead of a gas tax, it becomes a fee you pay for a service. I think we can agree that the current gas tax does not come close to covering all the costs. And the political feasibility of it doing so is pretty low. Then again, like other points of such a change, if the political feasibility of a gas tax increase is low, what about that of a huge change like this? I don't mean to toss this out there as some sort of obvious, issue free solution. It's not. For example, even assuming that the technology is low enough in cost, both instillation and ongoing maintenance, it's like only practical to implement on major roadways (US 52, US 169, MN 100, I94, et al). And how does one come up with administering this whole thing? For example, if this is only rolled out for a few roadways in the Twin Cities what about people who live outstate? How can they get where they need to go? It's not that I don't see there being issues to over come. But the current system isn't working well enough. Also, I'm operating on some things that are likely a big shift in thinking. For example, the whole consumption issue. What I do see as problems are paying for roadways, pollution, sprawl, and other similar issues that I feel the gas tax isn't capable of addressing. My main concern is that the dialogue and the discussion for new solutions starts now before it's becomes an even larger issue. -Allen Graetz MPLS -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Mons Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 7:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [TCMetro] Re: Transportation vs. Employment alternatives Allen writes: > As for the miles driven, I think the tech's coming into it's own to make it > practical to turn the roads into toll roads. I'm much more in favor of > having a > direct, immediate (or at least monthly) impact on people's pocket books. > the > gas tax was a decent attempt at this (more miles driven == more gas tax > paid). > But I don't think it reflects the true costs for those miles. I'm puzzled. If the intent is to "reflect the true cost for those miles" then it would seem you would need to have all roads established as toll roads. Wouldn't the administrative costs of establishing sensors, etc for all those roadways be prohibitive? Moreover, the costs of billing, etc and administering the system would be additional overhead that is absent in the current gas tax method. Moreover, the fuel tax system also provides penalties for fuel consumption (and rewards for relative frugality). Under the toll system, this mechanism would be lost. The high-consumption SUV would pay the same freight as the lower-consumption hybrid. Seems counter-productive to me in this day and age. Rick Mons Tanglewood neighborhood of Shoreview _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day. _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day.
