New at Reason

David Weigel | April 18, 2006

Iraq war mistakes, Congress' long breaks, and gas pump aches -- in the new Reason Express.

Comments

|4.18.06 @ 9:22AM|#

Reason hazing:

OK, new kid. We're going to drink warm Meistebrau.

OK!

And wear a Che T-shirt.

Uh...ok.

And blog the Reason Express every day!

Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

|4.18.06 @ 9:39AM|#

As conflict with Iran pushes the price per barrel to about $70, with the summer driving season awaiting, gas at $4 or even $5 a gallon does not now seem like an impossibility. . . .On top of that, China's economy, the real backbone of the demand side of the oil equation, shows every sign that it will continue to grow at a double-digit rate. In the face of that kind of demand, your basic American SUV driver does not matter.

Luckily, the time I've spent reading posts here at Hit and Run has taught me that thanks to the glory of the free market, there is practically no chance whatsoever that high gas prices could cause economic problems for a car-dependent society like ours. What a relief!

|4.18.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Oil market=free.


HAR HAR HAAAARRRRR!!!

|4.18.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Jennifer,

Don't worry. If the price of gas goes up by $2.00 per gallon, it will just motivate energy companies to invest in new technologies, and consumers to reduce their oil consumption, thereby producing a painless transition to the future.

Now gas taxes of $0.50 per gallon - that would destroy the entire economy. My God, think of the children!

|4.18.06 @ 9:48AM|#

I dunno, Joe. Gas taxes are regressive enough that they seem to get a pretty fair hearing here in Lochner-topia.

MP|4.18.06 @ 9:52AM|#

joe,

The argument against gas taxes as regulatory policy is that they are a central planning tool, and thus are encumbered with all the defects of central planning.

|4.18.06 @ 9:59AM|#

Although there is no chance we'll suffer any economic problems, even if we do there is no chance that things will get bad enough to spur calls from the majority of Americans for government to Do Something About It. Which is why it is also ridiculous to view something like a gas-tax increase or a call to revamp the nation's rail system in an "ounce of prevention better than pound of cure" sort of way.

History has taught us that economic hardships never serve as an opening wedge for a dictatorial government to take power. But even if this were untrue, this is America and, as Sinclair Lewis once said, It Can't Happen Here.

I have not the slightest bit of worry about the future. High gas prices can't hurt us at all.

|4.18.06 @ 10:07AM|#

"History has taught us that economic hardships never serve as an opening wedge for a dictatorial government to take power. "

At the risk of sounding like a total history ignoramus, didn't Germeny's economic hardship serve as an opening wedge for Adolph Hitler?

|4.18.06 @ 10:08AM|#

I have not the slightest bit of worry about the future. High gas prices can't hurt us at all.

Yep. You guys have a long way to go before worrying about high gas.

When we were in the states, we filled up our hire car for about $40 or so (I think). Back in the UK it would have cost $80. Minimum.

I almost wet myself; the stuff was so cheap I wanted to drink it.

|4.18.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Mark,

If America was built like England, high gas prices wouldn't bother us, either.

Unfortunately, America is built like America.

|4.18.06 @ 10:16AM|#

"Unfortunately, America is built like America."

Why does joe hate American geography?

|4.18.06 @ 10:29AM|#

Joe must think that since America is 100 times larger than Britain, we must drive 100 times farther on our daily work commutes.

Jennifer, are you sarcastic, ill-informed, drunk or all three at once? I'm guessing sarcastic, but that's some dense sarcasm.

|4.18.06 @ 10:33AM|#

You guys have it all wrong. It's supply and demand. And the demand is being increased by all the illegal immigrants. So blame them.

|4.18.06 @ 10:41AM|#

It's not the size of the country, but the design of the regional transportation systems, that make gasoline demand much less elastic, and per capita demand much higher, than in Britain.

A forty mile commute burns more gas than a three mile commute. Three hundred people on a commuter train burn less petroleum than three hundred people in 294 automobiles.

|4.18.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Let them burn corn syrup!

|4.18.06 @ 10:57AM|#

Wiseass and Emme--

I am either being sarcastic, or repeating more or less verbatim arguments that have been made here before--America is immune to normal economic laws, so there is no chance at all that high gas prices can hurt us in any way, therefore there is no need to consider changing our lifestyles to make them less dependent on huge amounts of gasoline.

Personally, I'd just like to see gas taxes high enough to cover the cost of road maintenance, without any additional subsidies from the government. That alone would make quite a difference.

Joe must think that since America is 100 times larger than Britain, we must drive 100 times farther on our daily work commutes.

I'd be curious to compare, say, the percentage of American living in hypersuburbs and commuting fifty or sixty miles to work each day, versus the percentage of Britons who do so.

|4.18.06 @ 11:07AM|#

I'd be curious to compare, say, the percentage of American living in hypersuburbs and commuting fifty or sixty miles to work each day, versus the percentage of Britons who do so.

By car?

I would have thought it would be way higher in America as a percentage.

No one commutes into the centre of London itself and bare in mind that fifty or sixty miles is a pretty long way for the UK.

I think Bill Bryson says at the beginning of his 'Notes From a Big Country' that the distances Brits will just about consider commuting to take up a once in a lifetime job, an American would gladly drive just to get a great taco.

|4.18.06 @ 11:12AM|#

I am either being sarcastic, or repeating more or less verbatim arguments that have been made here before--America is immune to normal economic laws, so there is no chance at all that high gas prices can hurt us in any way, therefore there is no need to consider changing our lifestyles to make them less dependent on huge amounts of gasoline.

There also exists the possibility that, like Jersey McJones, you are arguing with the "libertarians" in your head, and not necessarily the libertarians that hang out here. I don't know whose posts specifically you're going after in this line of attack. I don't think the argument that "America is immune to normal economic laws" has enjoyed any sort of significant support in this forum and I suspect you're brandishing a crude caricature of something you disagreed with in the past. Maybe I'm wrong and you can provide a cite that proves otherwise.

|4.18.06 @ 11:17AM|#

By car? I would have thought it would be way higher in America as a percentage. No one commutes into the centre of London itself and bare in mind that fifty or sixty miles is a pretty long way for the UK.

That's the point--you guys pay far more than we do for gas, but you don't need to use nearly so much. But with the exception of people who live in places like Manhattan, Americans need cars to get around, and for a variety of reasons, ranging from zoning laws requiring single-family houses to be built at great distances from each other to a near-complete lack of public transport in most places, Americans need a hell of a lot of gas to handle day-to-day living. When gas was relatively cheap, this was merely an annoyance. But if gas gets too expensive, it can and will cause some major economic disruptions.

Or so some people say. Others insist that Americans are absolutely insulated from any possible bad events, and so no matter how expensive gas gets there's absolutely no chance this will hurt us, or even force us to accept a slightly lower standard of living. Nuh-uh. Everything will be fine.

|4.18.06 @ 11:21AM|#

There also exists the possibility that, like Jersey McJones, you are arguing with the "libertarians" in your head, and not necessarily the libertarians that hang out here. I don't know whose posts specifically you're going after in this line of attack. I don't think the argument that "America is immune to normal economic laws" has enjoyed any sort of significant support in this forum and I suspect you're brandishing a crude caricature of something you disagreed with in the past. Maybe I'm wrong and you can provide a cite that proves otherwise.

Check the archives for any thread containing the words "Jennifer" and "Peak Oil." Here, I'll summarize for you:

Anybody who thinks that gas prices will soon get very high, or that high gas prices can cause economic problems for us, is completely nuts. Even if gas gets too expensive, a new invention or discovery will arrive just in the nick of time, like the cavalry in old Western movies, to make sure we're all just fine. So stop worrying, you paranoid statist peak-oil loony, you.

|4.18.06 @ 11:28AM|#

I agree Jennifer.

Which is why it must suck to be a brit AND have to drive a long way to work.

I just tried to find a comparison site for gas consumption through google but the endless possibilites of confusion between gas, natural gas and petrol are too much for me today.

|4.18.06 @ 11:28AM|#

I'd be curious to compare, say, the percentage of American living in hypersuburbs and commuting fifty or sixty miles to work each day, versus the percentage of Britons who do so.

Me too. I think it's going to be higher than you think - after all, we got the idea from them. But it will be less than America, and somewhat more than the Continent.

Of course, the libertarian thinking goes that since everybody wants to live in the burbs, who are we to deny them that wish? The practical result was hundreds of ruined central cities - think Buffalo or Detroit - with a couple exceptions like NYC and SF that are now too expensive for most people who want to live there, because the demand is so high after most other cities were left in shambles.

|4.18.06 @ 11:32AM|#

But with the exception of people who live in places like Manhattan, Americans need cars to get around, and for a variety of reasons, ranging from zoning laws requiring single-family houses to be built at great distances from each other to a near-complete lack of public transport in most places, Americans need a hell of a lot of gas to handle day-to-day living.

Many of these problems can be remedied with the technology we have. For example, I come into the office everyday as required, but there is no functional need for this. My work is basically doable from home.

Furthermore, if all those single family homes become impractical, then I may be able to get back into the residental real estate market (not that I miss that).

I live quite a distance from work, but take public transit for much of the year, in part because Toronto does have a public transit system to be pround of (they just put a sidewalk on my "last mile" so the commute is even friendlier. There is no reason American cities couldn't spend more on transit and get similar service to what Toronto has. Might have to give up the cherished notion of nuking Iran, but ya can't make an omelette . . .

These simple expedients disregard the sci-fi stuff like the electric cars my employer makes.

fyodor|4.18.06 @ 11:32AM|#

Jennifer,

A fool, in avoiding one extreme, will embrace the opposite extreme. (Horace)

From the start of our "peak oil" debate, I've maintained that oil price increases from depleted supplies could certainly affect our pocketbooks.

If anyone here has said "that thanks to the glory of the free market, there is practically no chance whatsoever that high gas prices could cause economic problems," I would say they may be overstating the case, perhaps in response to hysterics on the other side.

I would certainly agree there is little need to worry about some major economic calamity. An extended recession maybe? Maybe.

Of course, I already drive a Honda and commute a mere 8 miles.

MP|4.18.06 @ 11:43AM|#

From the start of our "peak oil" debate, I've maintained that oil price increases from depleted supplies could certainly affect our pocketbooks.

I concur with fyodor. I have a hard time remembering anyone who disavowed the short term consequences of rising energy prices due to increased oil prices. As for long term, I too am on the Ron Bailey "technology and market pressures will make everything managable in the end" bandwagon. But people on that bandwagon don't deny that $100/barrel oil won't cause some short term pain.

MP|4.18.06 @ 11:45AM|#

And BTW, by "short term" I mean 1-2 years.

|4.18.06 @ 11:47AM|#

Check the archives for any thread containing the words "Jennifer" and "Peak Oil." Here, I'll summarize for you:

Having just returned from this thread, I'm going to go with my original characterization: "crude caricature".

|4.18.06 @ 11:49AM|#

"There is no reason American cities couldn't spend more on transit and get similar service to what Toronto has."

Actually, there is. So many of America's metro areas have already been built out with low densities of housing and jobs, and an absence of transit corridors that it would be difficult to retrofit them for transit in an economicaly manner, both from a construction and operations perspective. And then there's the political opposition to the infill development that could make transit economic.

It's what we're going to have to do, but it's going to be hard.

|4.18.06 @ 12:06PM|#

joe,

what kind of retrofitting has to be done for buses? Part of the reason light rail is a boondoggle is because the ridership levels are always lower than what is needed to make it economical. If rail's advantage is a dedicated right of way, that problem has been somewhat alleviated with traffic signal sensors on buses.

Oil prices right now aren't high enough to drive much demand for mass transit in "automobile required" areas. But if prices get to the level where the demand does get high enough for mass transit, are private companies going to be allowed to swoop in and offer service quickly or is it going to be controlled by a public transit committee that needs to conduct a five-year study before they allow anything?

|4.18.06 @ 12:06PM|#

Having just returned from this thread, I'm going to go with my original characterization: "crude caricature".

The main point of that thread was "there is nothing to worry about." Subplots included "it'll be like when whale-oil supplies ran low" and "it'll be like when we switched from horses to automobiles." Painless, both times. Anyway, prices might get a tad higher, but not enough to actually hurt. If anything, the economy will get better because of all the job opportunities offered up by our nifty new technology. We'll be fine, and only a fool would worry.

|4.18.06 @ 12:15PM|#

Oil prices right now aren't high enough to drive much demand for mass transit in "automobile required" areas

But how could mass transit be feasible in most such areas? For mass transit to work, people have to live and work within easy walking distance of the mass-transit stops. I'm trying to picture how to get any sort of workable mass-transit, be it bus, train or light rail, in a suburb where every house is built on at least two acres of land and commuters have to head off in all directions to their jobs.

My state, Connecticut, has a mass-transit system in the "New York suburbs" part of the state, but even then you've got commuters driving ten or twenty or forty miles to the train station, and the trains lead only to New York or other Connecticut shore towns. You need a private car just to get to the mass transit.

|4.18.06 @ 12:40PM|#

Russ,

If you want the buses to actually be able to provide reasonable transit for people during peak traffic hours, the retrofitting required includes the creation of uninterrupted dedicated bus corridors across already-developed suburban areas. A bus stuck in the same traffic jam as all the single-occupancy cars doesn't do you a whole of good, and traffic sensors aren't going to create clear routes where none exist.

People don't like six-foot wide bike trails near the back yards, imaging 40 foot wide roads with deisel buses on them!

Buses on surface roads are good for a lot, but getting people from outer suburbs to their jobs in major employment centers, or even in the suburbs themselves, isn't their strong point. With both the jobs and the residences to dispersed, it's tough to provide economical transit; we're not talking Point A to Point B, but Point A to Points B-Z, Point B to Points A-Z...

"Part of the reason light rail is a boondoggle is because the ridership levels are always lower than what is needed to make it economical." 90% of peak hour trips into Manhattan are transit trips. Articles of faith aside, people ride transit in large numbers when it provides good service to where they want to go.

"Oil prices right now aren't high enough to drive much demand for mass transit in "automobile required" areas." There will never be demand for mass transit in auto-dependent areas. That's my point. To make transit feasible there, those areas will need to be redesigned to make them accessible by transit.

|4.18.06 @ 12:43PM|#

"Oil prices right now aren't high enough to drive much demand for mass transit in "automobile required" areas"

Actually, many commuter rail Park and Ride stations throughout Eastern Massachusetts fill up by 6:30 or 7:00 AM. People are known to drive from one station to another to find parking for the MBTA. This demonstrates that a dispersed population will demand mass transit to an urban core with lots of jobs.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.18.06 @ 12:45PM|#

The practical result was hundreds of ruined central cities - think Buffalo or Detroit - with a couple exceptions like NYC and SF that are now too expensive for most people who want to live there, because the demand is so high after most other cities were left in shambles.

Bullshit. The ruined central cities were ruined by central planning and the political machines that did the planning. Places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo have MORE services jobs now than they did 30 years ago when they had double the population.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.18.06 @ 12:48PM|#

The main point of that thread was "there is nothing to worry about." Subplots included "it'll be like when whale-oil supplies ran low" and "it'll be like when we switched from horses to automobiles." Painless, both times. Anyway, prices might get a tad higher, but not enough to actually hurt. If anything, the economy will get better because of all the job opportunities offered up by our nifty new technology. We'll be fine, and only a fool would worry.

Your hysteria gets the best of you on this topic every time. Rather than listen to what people like myself, fyodor, and MP say, you charge at the libertarian/market windmills in your head. Every time the word "oil" is mentioned on H&R, Jennifer = Jean Bart

|4.18.06 @ 12:50PM|#

commuters have to head off in all directions to their jobs.

Just like in the city. And suburban school buses.

I can only speak for Chicago, but it probably is true in most large metro areas: there are a handful of private bus lines that operate buses to the airports. These are of course express service which is a premium, and the airport probably gets a cut, but they don't seem to be going out of business. For now those lines are basically "parking fee avoidance", but if the price of a 30-mile car trip gets prohibitive, people might pay for a 30-mile bus trip that makes 10-12 stops at popular destinations (like the mall, the park in the middle of a big subdivision, etc).

People smarter than me probably can come up with lots of other ways.

|4.18.06 @ 1:03PM|#

"The ruined central cities were ruined by central planning and the political machines that did the planning." This overstates the case, but TPG is correct that there was far more than rational market behavior at play in the disinvestment that core cities experienced in the mid-to-late 20th century.

Urban Renewal
Urban Highways
Public and Private Sector Redlining
Racist White Flight
GM's American Street Car Company

Russ2000 should look into that last one, as it goes to the notion that urban/regional bus lines on surface streets can replace rail transit.

|4.18.06 @ 1:28PM|#

Your hysteria gets the best of you on this topic every time. Rather than listen to what people like myself, fyodor, and MP say, you charge at the libertarian/market windmills in your head.

And you basically say what--the market will solve the problem? Yes, no doubt it will, but I'm just saying there's probably going to be some pain involved, or at the very least we should consider the possibility that an economy dependent on cheap long-distance transportation of people and goods might not work so well if this transportation ceases to be cheap.

MP said this: I have a hard time remembering anyone who disavowed the short term consequences of rising energy prices due to increased oil prices.

The disagreement between me and the rest of you is that you seem to think that the short-term consequences will be no more than a minor annoyance; maybe those in the poorest levels of society will be hurt, but most of us will be fine. I'm simply suggesting that the consequences might be more unpleasant than you all make them out to be. I think that significant price increases of a vital natural resource will have significant effects.

|4.18.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Here's another fun old thread from the archives.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/08/against_the_sma_1.shtml

|4.18.06 @ 1:41PM|#

Bullshit. The ruined central cities were ruined by central planning and the political machines that did the planning.

There wasn't much central planning going on the 1950s - the time at which the decay really started ramping up. In fact, most of the central planning (such as highways & "urban renewal" - most of which just made the problems worse) was put in place to try to REPAIR the damage caused by the process of "white flight" which was already well underway. The main problem (if you see it as such) is that in a country with as much space as America, and with relatively little historical value placed on anything but the most significant landmarks, we were bound to sprawl & neglect our cities - with or without the government's involvement.

Places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo have MORE services jobs now than they did 30 years ago when they had double the population.

Yeah. So does every other city. Anyway, all of those service jobs are in the malls rather than the many emptied-out shells of buildings left in town.

|4.18.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Actually, many commuter rail Park and Ride stations...

I should have been more specific; I meant from one auto-dependent area to another auto-dependent area which is what Jennifer was alluding to. I think it's pretty obvious people will take a train or bus to the urban core.

the retrofitting required includes the creation of uninterrupted dedicated bus corridors

People bitch about railroads near their homes, too. They'll bitch even more about a whole redesign of their community! And why go through the expense of building a dedicated right of way when the demand won't meet it? And what good does the dedicated right of way do since development patterns change?

There's also a lot of dispute about that GM sabotage of the streetcar business.

If the topic is suburb-to-suburb communting, why is the only solution ever offered the same old-fashioned urban streetcar/light-rail model? I'm not against that model per se, but it's an awful expensive experiment. First try buses, THEN try buses with some dedicated right-of-way, and THEN try dedicated right-of-way with higher passenger volume.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.18.06 @ 1:46PM|#

This overstates the case, but TPG is correct that there was far more than rational market behavior at play in the disinvestment that core cities experienced in the mid-to-late 20th century.

Had cities concentrated on reducing services and most importantly non-serviced based city employees at the same rate that people left, they would have been able to stay competitive in keeping or luring businesses in the central city. Instead, both services and non-service employees grew at almost the same rate the population declined and tax rates soared. Residents and businesses left and steered clear and the issue compounded with each passing year.

Combine this with the two things at the top of Joe's list: Urban Renewal, directed by the people that knew the least about the communities involved; and Urban highways, built to dissect the communities involved and you've got dead inner cities all over the northeast and plains.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.18.06 @ 2:21PM|#

And you basically say what--the market will solve the problem?

Yes, and that it would solve it much faster without the hinderances of federal energy policy. And the bump would be lessened if drilling off of Florida, California and Alaska were allowed.


Yes, no doubt it will, but I'm just saying there's probably going to be some pain involved, or at the very least we should consider the possibility that an economy dependent on cheap long-distance transportation of people and goods might not work so well if this transportation ceases to be cheap.

Who disagrees with you on this?

I'm simply suggesting that the consequences might be more unpleasant than you all make them out to be.

The last time you "simply suggested" this argument, Clinton was in office. More often, you get hysterical and scream about it.

|4.18.06 @ 2:33PM|#

TPG, if you have time to read the thread I linked to, I'd be curious to know what I said was hysterical. It was the others who kept insisting that there was absolutely nothing to worry about.

And also kept getting hysterical, assuming that I was calling for coercive government intervention.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|4.18.06 @ 2:34PM|#

There wasn't much central planning going on the 1950s - the time at which the decay really started ramping up. In fact, most of the central planning (such as highways & "urban renewal" - most of which just made the problems worse) was put in place to try to REPAIR the damage caused by the process of "white flight" which was already well underway. The main problem (if you see it as such) is that in a country with as much space as America, and with relatively little historical value placed on anything but the most significant landmarks, we were bound to sprawl & neglect our cities - with or without the government's involvement.

The natural tendency to seek space/property when flush with cash was exacerbated by cities trying to plan around it and stop it. There are many examples of cities that chose to do the opposite and work with what they had, those cities aren't in the northeast.


Yeah. So does every other city. Anyway, all of those service jobs are in the malls rather than the many emptied-out shells of buildings left in town.

I'm talking about GOVERNMENT SERVICE jobs.

|4.18.06 @ 2:49PM|#

There are many examples of cities that chose to do the opposite and work with what they had, those cities aren't in the northeast.

The most successful cities in the south and west are the ones that are mostly suburban in nature anyway. They are not densely populated and therefore didn't face nearly the same amount of emptying out as the cities of the northeast and midwest. The cities of the south and west didn't do anything more special than possess the good fortune to be located in a sunny climate and be built up mostly after the advent of the automobile era.

|4.18.06 @ 2:50PM|#

There are many examples of cities that chose to do the opposite and work with what they had, those cities aren't in the northeast.

The most successful cities in the south and west are the ones that are mostly suburban in nature anyway. They are not densely populated and therefore didn't face nearly the same amount of emptying out as the cities of the northeast and midwest. The cities of the south and west didn't do anything more special than possess the good fortune to be located in a sunny climate and be built up mostly after the advent of the automobile era.

|4.18.06 @ 4:06PM|#

I'm not sure I buy rhwyun's timeline, but TPG's assertion that American cities in the middle of the 20th century were actively working against auto-dependence and sprawl is a great distance removed from the truth. In fact, most urban renewal schemes were based around an attempt to make the center city more like the then-new suburbs, with large lawns, multi-lane streets, buildings set well back, and segregated uses.

|4.18.06 @ 5:32PM|#

and segregated uses.

aka zoning.

In Chicago the expressways were constructed in the early 1960's. The 2 expressways built prior to that were the Calumet Expressway (which was 95th street southward, basically a suburban area, where I grew up) and the Calumet Skyway which was a toll road that only went as far north as 67th.

The suburbanization of State Street was a 1970's project, and was the brain child of the State Street business community, although it took central planning to actually get it done. Although the malling of the street was a bad idea, it was basically the first time since the end of the war that it looked like ANY money was being put into the area, which at least put the brakes on the decay.

In any case, cities were actively suburbanizing in the 60's and 70's.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html

|4.18.06 @ 6:05PM|#

The discussion here has moved away from the topic decisively, but I'd like to mention one more thing about the idea of a gas tax: taxing undesirable things gives incentive to the government to keep the undesirable things around. That's a bad idea, as it invites the government to use its expanding power to meddle in our lives further and expand its power yet more in order to make sure we keep using whatever thing is being taxed, i.e. whatever thing is supporting the government. At my college, among the vast majority of the population it's taken as Gospel that the government is in bed with "corporations" and so promotes their financial interests above the greater good. Well, those same people tend to like the idea of taxing behaviors they don't like ... which of course puts the government in bed with those industries too.

|4.18.06 @ 7:07PM|#

one more thing about the idea of a gas tax: taxing undesirable things gives incentive to the government to keep the undesirable things around

True, but in this case I think the gas tax should be enough to pay for the roads, which right now receive huge subsidies from the government. One of the many reasons why mass transport hasn't taken off in most places is because private transport is so heavily subsidized. Let all road-maintenance costs come out of gas taxes rather than general funds. Let Northern states pay higher gas taxes than Southern ones, to cover the costs of keeping the roads drivable in snowstorms. Let drivers actually bear the full cost of their driving, and see what happens next.

Ventifact|4.18.06 @ 11:23PM|#

That makes sense, Jennifer. One alternative to taxing gas would be a tax formula based on vehicle weight and annual mileage. The two main benefits would be 1) the costs of maintaining roads would be more fairly recovered from those wearing the roads down faster (heavier cars) (although this correlates fairly well to gas consumption, for now) and 2) the government could continue recovering the cost of road maintainance while having no interest in continuing the use of gasoline instead of better alternatives that will come available.

Then again, as soon as better fuel alternatives catch on, the government will no doubt switch from subsidizing them to taxing them (switch may be the wrong word, denoting too full a role reversal, since our government often does both taxation and subsidy at once to a product, as it indeed already does for gasoline). Still, the government definitely has statist tendencies and although it could switch its tax base when the energy source for cars switches, it doesn't want to bother.

Moreover, the transition period, depending on how rough it is -- will we be slogging through a bad energy crisis, will the environment be crying out for better fuel sources before they are fully economical viable? -- may not be suitable to taxation at levels the government was relying on from gasoline. If the switch from gasoline to some other fuel source (maybe Hydrogen) demanded a 10-year tax-free period for the new fuel source to become established, government officials aren't really going to want that transition period to happen on their watch. They'd rather move up the political ladder and leave the looming energy transition for the next guy to deal with -- and each official in this position will want to leave it for the next guy. Moreover, if roads become dependent on gasoline taxes and then conditions conspire to necessitate a 10-year transition period without fuel taxes, bad government funding shortfalls could eventually ensue when the politicians can no longer stave off the transition for the next guy.

Of course, and especially for many roaming this site, it wouldn't be so terrible to let the government have a shortfall and need to adjust to a smaller tax input.

|4.18.06 @ 11:24PM|#

Of course, taxing based on annual mileage would be very succeptible to cheating.

|4.19.06 @ 4:42AM|#

...I think the gas tax should be enough to pay for the roads, which right now receive huge subsidies from the government.

True, but the tax would have to be based on vehicle weight. You might be surprised how much cheaper highways are if there weren't so many tractor trailers out there.

There'd also be a lot less traffic jams. Where I live, sometimes the highway backs up going home and sometimes it doesn't. Without fail, on the days it backs up, there's lots of tractor trailers around. If it's mostly cars things don't slow down nearly as much.

Get rid of the unions and crap that killed the railroad industry, and we might not have so many tractor trailers on the road today.

One government screw up leads to another.

|4.19.06 @ 9:58AM|#

One of the many reasons why mass transport hasn't taken off in most places is because private transport is so heavily subsidized.

Jen, how exactly is private transport subsidized? The reason I ask is because I used to believe that myself, but when someone asked me I really had no other answer than "gas tax" which really isn't a subsidy. Where I live the gas tax is also used to subsidize public transport.

|4.19.06 @ 12:38PM|#

Russ,

Many (most?) major highway projects these days come from city and state level government. There's fed dollars involved too, but you have to have the local gov't money before you can get the fed money to go with it.

I know, because we badly need an improved highway system where I live. But the voters keep voting it down. Not a cheap proposition.