Allen writes:
> 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. I think consumption continues to be an issue ... from all I've read, it's going to take a fairly long time to develop non-petroleum sources of energy which are economically and technically feasible in the scale which is needed. Even the most pluralistic approach (wind power here, solar there, hydrogen over there, etc) is going to take a fair amount of time. Conservatiion helps buy us the time we need. > 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? I think there's more elasticity to demand than you credit it. Take a look at SUV sales when gasoline prices spiked earlier this fall. As to whether gas prices are currently a deterrent, I'd agree that Minnesota's current tax level is inadequate. IIRC, it hasn't been increased since the mid-80s. > 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. I suspect that more people would use non-tolled roadways rather than reduce their driving. (And, that may even increase miles driven) > 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 just don't see the logic of turning over a network of highways to some regulated utility and then expecting that middleman to administer and expand the network to meet the public good. Moreover, I think you'd find that there's fairly high bipartisan support for direct public administration of the roadways. There's partisan bickering over the allocation of funds, the mix of transit and highways, etc but none of that would go away with a regulated utility instead of the DOT. And, having an unregulated private entity plan state-wide highway maintenance and construction would sound the death knell for Greater Minnesota. Finally, I'm not comfortable in embracing a paradigm shift simply to get the Tax Evaders League off of the legislature's back. > 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. While we agree that the current gas tax paradigm isn't perfect, it seems the toll system would be less perfect in channeling needed funds to highways (and either directly or indirectly to transit). We already have problems with folks using county roads and local streets in lieu of freeways due to congestion. Add an economic penalty to the mix and I think you'll exacerbate the problem. And, I think you'll have less money to undertake maintenance or expansion with no significant dent in demand. 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.
