Advocacy & Safety - Anti-motoring

I found this power point (as a pdf) interesting
Reducing Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/events/previousevents/asilomar2005/presentations/Toth.pdf)

Reducing the number of miles driven/gasoline used is very easy but difficult in the political arena. Just make gasoline and highway use more expensive. Personally, I think that everyone else would fall into place since living far from where you work, shop, and so on would become more expensive. People would increase their demand for close-in living ... blah, blah, blah.

But -- anecdotally writing now based on casual observations and inferences from research in other areas -- the political machinery inhibiting higher costs to driving/distance and a change in land-use can ruin such plans.

Anyway ... it doesn't hurt to try.

*** As a side note, there was a discussion in an old thread of yours regarding Robert Moses. I recall that there we also touched on urban planning topics -- there were other forum members more familiar with the subject and its history -- which would be an interesting extension of this presentation.

I get excited when I think about a lot of the stuff being proposed there, things like mixed use development, and compact development.

It is worth mentioning that there is credible research out of USC that says that the average commute time has not actually changed in the last 20 years. (I could not find a link, but its out there) Despite more traffic people are tending to live closer to where they work.

Also to couch obesity as entirely a land use problem I think is false. Nutrition has a lot to do with it, Los Angeles for example despite being the capital of sprawl is a relatively healthy city.

So while I totally, and passionately agree with the conclusions that were made its worth putting some of the evidence in context.

I found this power point (as a pdf) interesting
Reducing Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/events/previousevents/asilomar2005/presentations/Toth.pdf)

That is interesting, very interesting. Thanks for the linky.

While I find this style of development exciting I must admit it's not what I yearn for. I've gotten accustomed to battling suburbia and I think I'm addicted to the adrenaline. If stuff was close by it wouldn't be a 5 mile ride! And what would be the fun in that?!

This was a great presentation. Thanks for posting. I think that people are listening. The price of gas and the time wasted sitting in traffic are huge frustrations. Some of the statistics presented raise an important question. If VMT increases as much as predicted (calculated by the DOE senerio of 2% fuel price increase, inflation 2.8%, and increased time in traffic), to somewhere around 40% growth in VMT in the next 20 years, will we even be able to increase capacity enough to go back to the time we spent in traffic in the 80s? We'd have to double all urban road width and spend trillions. In texas they are going to undertake a 4000 mile toll road system. I hope that the people of texas come to their senses and put an end to that wasteful, idiotic plan. In my city they want to build a road to nowhere. It will cost a billion dollars and will end in an area, where even the road backers admit there will be declining population!

I commute to classes as often as I can, and my neighbor is on the same schedule as me and drives (Fellow student). We generally leave about the same time and it always blows his mind. He'll pass me on the road, but I'll be in class and relaxed and drinking coffee before him every time.Then again, I can take cuts he can't, and don't have the same parking issues.

I work in a beautifully landscaped, but extremely sterile and boring, business park near a small, but busy, airport. I would welcome redevelopment of most of our sprawling one- and two-story business and light industrial parks into transit-connected multipurpose "layer cakes," with commerce and shopping on the lower floor(s), office-based businesses in the middle, and garden penthouse apartments on the upper floors(s). This would permit us to accommodate "smart growth" without destroying residential neighborhoods such as mine, which comprises mostly single-family homes and some attached townhomes, with a prevailing very livable overall average density of 7 units per acre.

I strongly resonate with the complaints about culs-de-sac. If people want dead-end streets to eliminate cut-through traffic, they should at least accommodate pedestrian and bicycle connections. My wife's brother lives on such a cul-de-sac, which is connected to the neighboring cul-de-sac by a short bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly pathway. I can think of only one other such connection in the entire city of 60,000 population.

Also to couch obesity as entirely a land use problem I think is false. Nutrition has a lot to do with it, Los Angeles for example despite being the capital of sprawl is a relatively healthy city.

If my memory is right, there was a guy out of the University of Chicago -- PhD student -- who concluded that with respect to children, that change in diet explains very little of the "obesity epidemic" and that the big predictor was the amount of activity. I thought that his results were not only surprising but empirically robust. That is, the conclusion was based on several data sets and he was quite thorough; he had to be since his conclusions were so unexpected.

I am trying to remember his name ... I recall Fernando Wilson.

Reducing the number of miles driven/gasoline used is very easy but difficult in the political arena. Just make gasoline and highway use more expensive.

With so many municipalities having trouble balancing their budgets and maintaining the roads, now might be a good time to suggest toll roads and HOT lanes. Why should people who don't use the freeways have to help pay for them? Gas taxes alone are too indiscriminate.

With so many municipalities having trouble balancing their budgets and maintaining the roads, now might be a good time to suggest toll roads and HOT lanes. Why should people who don't use the freeways have to help pay for them? Gas taxes alone are too indiscriminate.

Just to be clear, "highway use" would be some sort of toll, congestion toll, and so on. The reason you would use gasoline taxes is that it is easier to collect (at least my reckoning) and if you want people to use less gasoline.

Also to couch obesity as entirely a land use problem I think is false. Nutrition has a lot to do with it, Los Angeles for example despite being the capital of sprawl is a relatively healthy city.

I am going to disagree with this, I have rarely seen a successful dieter that did not have a good dose of exercise. Successful curbing of obesity is dependent on available options for exercise. It could be gyms, parks, trails or bike/walk/mass transit opportunities, the more options the better and all options are a land use/plan issue. There are sections of suburbia in this state where the nearest anything (other then houses) is 10+ miles away.

If my memory is right, there was a guy out of the University of Chicago -- PhD student -- who concluded that with respect to children, that change in diet explains very little of the "obesity epidemic" and that the big predictor was the amount of activity. I thought that his results were not only surprising but empirically robust. That is, the conclusion was based on several data sets and he was quite thorough; he had to be since his conclusions were so unexpected.

I am trying to remember his name ... I recall Fernando Wilson.

I just came accross an article the other day that Philadelphia schools put a "eating better" program into affect. I could not find the more complete article but here is a short one: http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/881217,CST-NWS-fatkids07.article

The basic gist is that with improved diet at schools there were far fewer kids becoming overweight. There was still lots more work to do, but eating better helped a lot. If memory serves similar results were seen when Jamie Oliver helped the schools in the UK switch over to "proper" cooked meals that were well balanced and made with natural ingredients. Students become noticeably healthier, and even acedemic levels went up slightly. Good nutrician = good life.

Happy Cycling,
André

I just came accross an article the other day that Philadelphia schools put a "eating better" program into affect. I could not find the more complete article but here is a short one: http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/881217,CST-NWS-fatkids07.article

The basic gist is that with improved diet at schools there were far fewer kids becoming overweight. There was still lots more work to do, but eating better helped a lot. If memory serves similar results were seen when Jamie Oliver helped the schools in the UK switch over to "proper" cooked meals that were well balanced and made with natural ingredients. Students become noticeably healthier, and even acedemic levels went up slightly. Good nutrician = good life.

Happy Cycling,
André

That is interesting. I should point out that there was a lot of unexplained variation in that dissertation ... say 40-50%.

Reducing the number of miles driven/gasoline used is very easy but difficult in the political arena. Just make gasoline and highway use more expensive. Personally, I think that everyone else would fall into place since living far from where you work, shop, and so on would become more expensive. People would increase their demand for close-in living ... blah, blah, blah.

That would only work if people stopped buying suburban homes and primarily rented one or more transient dwellings, which is utopian and financially difficult in the US. People live where they can afford to buy a satisfactory home, and work where they (plus family members!) happen to find a job/school that year. Most people don't have much choice in where those things happen to be located. Making everything needlessly more expensive and difficult to penalize people who happen to work far from home is just plain mean.

That would only work if people stopped buying suburban homes and primarily rented one or more transient dwellings, which is utopian and financially difficult in the US. People live where they can afford to buy a satisfactory home, and work where they (plus family members!) happen to find a job/school that year. Most people don't have much choice in where those things happen to be located. Making everything needlessly more expensive and difficult to penalize people who happen to work far from home is just plain mean.

People do have choices....it's just that we've chosen to subsidize driving and suburban sprawl.

People don't have to move 20 miles out of town to live in 3500 square foot McMansions...they could live in more reasonably sized homes/apartments closer to their jobs.

Unfortunately, here in the US, we have extremely low taxes on gasoline (the federal tax is 18 cents per gallon and hasn't been raised in 20+ years), and we subsidize housing through the mortgage deduction.

How is it that much of the rest of the world manages to work without the Sprawling Suburbia that we have, that results in millions of drivers sitting their Super-Sized Asses in their Super-Sized SUV's going 10 mph in a 60 mph zone each morning and evening?

Are you trying to undermine your own credibility like that on purpose "SSP", or are you simply that far out of touch with reality?

That would only work if people stopped buying suburban homes and primarily rented one or more transient dwellings, which is utopian and financially difficult in the US. People live where they can afford to buy a satisfactory home, and work where they (plus family members!) happen to find a job/school that year. Most people don't have much choice in where those things happen to be located. Making everything needlessly more expensive and difficult to penalize people who happen to work far from home is just plain mean.

IMHO The problem is not with suburbia it is how suburbia is designed. Suburbia with a nice commuter train rocks and reduces VMT. The second problem with Suburbia is people do not want to live near a convenience store, gas station, or a dry cleaners. Some of this breaks down to that it is not that people do not want these things near by, it's that they are ugly with those big parking lots in front, if businesses adopted a less car centric format such as landscaped screened parking and a more readily accessible entrance by bike/walking so they blend in with the neighborhood they would be more readily accepted. So because of car centric designs in businesses they get pushed out along car centric road designs, which yields you really need a car to do anything in suburbia .

The next problem is the lollipop design that dumps all cars into a car sewer to get to all those places they did not want in their neighborhood. As development increases so does problems with the car sewer and congestion is a major problem because no alternatives exist.

Simply by encouraging mixed land use and alternate route selection and mode choice (use other traffic calming methods then dead end streets) even suburbia can help reduce VMT.

Making everything needlessly more expensive and difficult to penalize people who happen to work far from home is just plain mean.

Who wrote that it was needless? If there are externalities with sprawl, driving, congestion, and so on -- I think that there are, but that is a long thread of research -- then you want people to account for these costs.

Judging from the past, people will figure out ways to minimize costs -- sometimes in (unforeseen) perverse ways -- such as car-pooling, telecommuting, changing jobs, and so on. If you think that there are other important considerations -- say environmental damage -- then we want members of society to make efficient decisions that take into account the true cost/damage.

Of course if that doesn't sound pleasant, one should come up with an alternative. Often -- although not always -- these alternatives prove wasteful and ineffective. IMO, this is the result of politics and the complex nature of society/economy are too problematic.

Are you trying to undermine your own credibility like that on purpose "SSP", or are you simply that far out of touch with reality?

Not sure I understand your question.

But, I do know that if gas were say, $7 or $8 per gallon, people would be much less likely to live 25 miles away from their jobs. Or, they would be demanding increased public transit. Or, both.

The average commuter in Atlanta, for instance, drives 66 miles per day. I don't have data for, say, London, but I really doubt that the average Londonite commutes anywhere near that far. Why do you suppose that is?

Not sure I understand your question.

You demonstrated that pretty clearly in your little bit of exaggerated fiction above.

What do you think London has to do with Atlanta? This is the US, not the UK, or Peru for that matter.

Are you trying to undermine your own credibility like that on purpose "SSP", or are you simply that far out of touch with reality?
Both trends are evident in the US, people moving out to the wide open spaces and people choosing denser development to be close to work. I can show you some real nice places in Baltimore just below the $2 million mark that are a great alternative to suburban sprawl.

Reducing the number of miles driven/gasoline used is very easy but difficult in the political arena. Just make gasoline and highway use more expensive. Personally, I think that everyone else would fall into place since living far from where you work, shop, and so on would become more expensive. People would increase their demand for close-in living ... blah, blah, blah.

+1 - just raise the damned gas tax (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/yourmoney/08view.html?ex=1317960000&en=3a74952dac47fe79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)! The federal tax is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, and hasn't been raised since 1993.

Raising it would be a "free market" solution to many problems (VMT, average fuel economy, global warming, even obesity if people started actually (gasp!) walking or riding their bikes to the grocery store). They could call it a "War on Terror Tax", or a "Freedom Tax", or a "Carbon Tax", or whatever.

Unfortunately, neither political party has the balls to propose something like this. So, we'll probably just keep subsidizing SUV's and Hummers, and sucking at the Saudi teat until it runs dry.

You demonstrated that pretty clearly in your little bit of exaggerated fiction above.

What do you think London has to do with Atlanta? This is the US, not the UK, or Peru for that matter.

It was an "apples to apples" comparison...both London and Atlanta are "First World" cities, with an educated citizenry, and first world infrastructure.

And, yet, the citizens of Atlanta drive 66 miles each day...mostly in big cars and trucks, by themselves.

It seems there's something wrong with how we do things here in the good 'ole USA...perhaps we can learn something from other countries in this regard. It's not like we have a monopoly on intelligence (as our current President so often demonstrates).

+1 - just raise the damned gas tax (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/yourmoney/08view.html?ex=1317960000&en=3a74952dac47fe79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)! The federal tax is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, and hasn't been raised since 1993.


I'd like to see you try to sell that to the average working person who'll have to pay it. Oh wait, but you just intend to force it down their naughty throats by force of your clear moral superiority, right?

I'd like to see you try to sell that to the average working person who'll have to pay it. Oh wait, but you just intend to force it down their naughty throats by force of your clear moral superiority, right?

In other words, "nobody likes to pay taxes"...well, duh!

Raising taxes is never easy, but an increase in the gas tax would have many long term benefits for society as a whole.

Would it cause some pain in the short term? Sure.

But, people are rational and will adapt. Instead of driving solo in F-250's and Yukons (like I see every morning), maybe they'ed start carpooling or driving something more fuel efficient. Or, maybe they'ed demand better public transit and use that. Or, maybe they'ed dust off the old bike in their garage and use that.

Gasoline in the US is some of the cheapest in the industrialized world...as a result, our cars (and our asses) are bigger than they need to be.


Oh, and nobody is "naughty"...people are simply making "rational" decisions (e.g., buying big cars, and living 25 miles from their jobs) because our current policies essentially subsidize those behaviors. Changing the gas tax would result in a change in behavior, as people adapt to a different reality.

FWIW, these changes will happen regardless of tax policy...oil is running out, and we'll look back on the age of F-250's, Hummers, and Yukons and 75 mile single occupant commutes, and wonder how anyone could be so wasteful of precious, non-renewable resources.

It was an "apples to apples" comparison...both London and Atlanta are "First World" cities, with an educated citizenry, and first world infrastructure.

That comment is deeply, deeply clueless.

This is a case where raising taxes now will save money later. The thing is that the state taxes need to be set uniformly so that the state portion doesn't unfairly penalize another states' residents or businesses.

All federal tax payers are in effect being "taxed" anyway because of entitlement credits to the oil companies.

I think though that things are changing. The goofy, and somewhat ugly Prius is now cool and even sexy! Of course one of the problems with cool, effecient cars is that they tend to push up the VMT.

One of the best ways to reduce or at least confine VMT to current levels is to abandon increases in capacity! In other words stop building costly roads! No tax needed for that and we'd save 30 billion a year.

I am going to disagree with this, I have rarely seen a successful dieter that did not have a good dose of exercise. Successful curbing of obesity is dependent on available options for exercise. It could be gyms, parks, trails or bike/walk/mass transit opportunities, the more options the better and all options are a land use/plan issue. There are sections of suburbia in this state where the nearest anything (other then houses) is 10+ miles away.

You never see a dieter, no matter how much exercise he/she is getting succeed without a good does of proper nutrition either. I am not saying Land Use has nothing to do with being overweight, certainly when you are talking about aggregates it plays a big roll, maybe more of one than nutrition does, but its not the only factor.

I can tell you from personal experience when I first started bike commuting I actually gained a substantial amount of weight while getting more exercise. It was because I was eating poorly, not because I was driving everywhere. In fact because I needed more energy in the day, I was eating more bad food.

All I am saying is there is no simple answer. Changing land use patterns will do a lot, and I am passionate about creating more livable, sustainable communities. But I think its false to give people the expectation that just getting out of your car will make you automatically healthier. Sure it helps, but its just one piece to the puzzle, granted one which is also probably a necessary piece.

I get excited when I think about a lot of the stuff being proposed there, things like mixed use development, and compact development.

It is worth mentioning that there is credible research out of USC that says that the average commute time has not actually changed in the last 20 years. (I could not find a link, but its out there) Despite more traffic people are tending to live closer to where they work.

Also to couch obesity as entirely a land use problem I think is false. Nutrition has a lot to do with it, Los Angeles for example despite being the capital of sprawl is a relatively healthy city.

So while I totally, and passionately agree with the conclusions that were made its worth putting some of the evidence in context.

Usually nutritionists say activity is mandatory to maintain weight in a healthy way. Good nutrition is great, but your body just isn't going to crave the right stuff if you don't get some activity. And if you are active enough, for long enough, you'll find your diet naturally improves. You start craving healthier food. That's been my personal experience at least.

I think we can beat ourselves over the head with nutrition all day, and we should. But the big thing is a lack of adult activity! And I think you're right, reorganizing cities isn't the only way to fight this. I think amateur sports leagues would probably be a huge benefit as well.

I'd like to see cities reorganize anyway though. Suburbia is walkable, but only if you really like walking and have plenty of time to spare! Plus you have to deal with the noise from car tires.

You never see a dieter, no matter how much exercise he/she is getting succeed without a good does of proper nutrition either. I am not saying Land Use has nothing to do with being overweight, certainly when you are talking about aggregates it plays a big roll, maybe more of one than nutrition does, but its not the only factor.

Some of the largest concentration of large people I have seen have easer access to a Mickey D's or similar then a park or any other type of facility for exercise. I'm not really disagreeing but I do think there is a circular dependency thing going on.

Years ago I was helping promote a bike facility (a circular race loop) in a park in A county and every single one of the people on the park commission could easily stand to loose 50+ lbs and they seriously did not think a cyclists would want or could do more then 5 miles and since the county already had one 5 mile trail that was all that was needed. They basically fell just short of saying we don't want anyone more fit then ourselves.

I have seen too many examples over the years where the person in charge did not want to see anything that challenged their lifestyle as unhealthy. All you need is the minimum exercise to be healthy so we will erect barriers so the minimum is the maximum people can do. Trying to validate why people need more then the minimum is a hard battle to fight IMO.

I'd like to see you try to sell that to the average working person who'll have to pay it. Oh wait, but you just intend to force it down their naughty throats by force of your clear moral superiority, right?

not to mention raising gas prices will triple the costs of goods what does that mean to you?
the average bike costs around 200$ with this nazi gas tax it would cost around 450$ and up. same goes for parts, last thing i wanna do is live in a city im happy driving 18 miles

Is there a difference in the chance of being the victim of a violent crime in London, and the suburbs of Atlanta? Cost of living might not be the biggest factor causing people to move far from the centers of employment.

I'd like to see you try to sell that to the average working person who'll have to pay it. Oh wait, but you just intend to force it down their naughty throats by force of your clear moral superiority, right?

Nice rhetoric ... donning the clothing of that unassailable moral figure of US culture: The Working Class Stiff. The problem with trying to identify your position with them/us is that the only thing being forced down our throats and into our lungs is the pollution from hundreds of thousands of beemers and mercs. Thanks. I'll take a dose of reality and the chance of not developing a respiratory illness instead.

+1 - just raise the damned gas tax (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/yourmoney/08view.html?ex=1317960000&en=3a74952dac47fe79&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)! The federal tax is currently 18.4 cents per gallon, and hasn't been raised since 1993.

Raising it would be a "free market" solution to many problems (VMT, average fuel economy, global warming, even obesity if people started actually (gasp!) walking or riding their bikes to the grocery store). They could call it a "War on Terror Tax", or a "Freedom Tax", or a "Carbon Tax", or whatever.

Unfortunately, neither political party has the balls to propose something like this. So, we'll probably just keep subsidizing SUV's and Hummers, and sucking at the Saudi teat until it runs dry.

Looking at the replies here, it is pretty obvious that would be a difficult thing... doing the tax as a percentage however would have the same effect and actually increase as the price of fuel went up. (so further adjustments would not have to be made in the future.)

Now consider the way to gain support for such a tax would be to offer rebates for using alternate transport. A "carrot" to go with the "stick" of the tax for fuel use.

That would only work if people stopped buying suburban homes and primarily rented one or more transient dwellings, which is utopian and financially difficult in the US. People live where they can afford to buy a satisfactory home, and work where they (plus family members!) happen to find a job/school that year. Most people don't have much choice in where those things happen to be located. Making everything needlessly more expensive and difficult to penalize people who happen to work far from home is just plain mean.

Maybe the definition of what constitutes a satisfactory home needs to change. Not everyone actually needs 5000 sq ft and a two-car garage. I live in an 800 sq foot condo, near the center of town. It wasn't too expensive, I'm close to everything I need to be close to, and I actually have more space than I need. Because I live so close, I don't need a car, which frees up money for more important things, like saving for retirement. Even needing a yard should be open to question. I see a lot of really big houses with large-ish yards on my travels in suburbia, yet the vast majority of these yards are completely empty of people virtually all of the time. And it's not like people are using the space to grow vegetables or anything, either; they're just full of bluegrass (that needs to be irrigated in most places) and ornamental shrubbery. Why spend thousands of extra dollars on vehicles and fuel, and hundreds of commuting hours per year, just for the short-lived pleasure of seeing some unmowed grass as you wait for your garage door to open?

Maybe the definition of what constitutes a satisfactory home needs to change. Not everyone actually needs 5000 sq ft and a two-car garage. I live in an 800 sq foot condo, near the center of town. It wasn't too expensive, I'm close to everything I need to be close to, and I actually have more space than I need. Because I live so close, I don't need a car, which frees up money for more important things, like saving for retirement. Even needing a yard should be open to question. I see a lot of really big houses with large-ish yards on my travels in suburbia, yet the vast majority of these yards are completely empty of people virtually all of the time. And it's not like people are using the space to grow vegetables or anything, either; they're just full of bluegrass (that needs to be irrigated in most places) and ornamental shrubbery. Why spend thousands of extra dollars on vehicles and fuel, and hundreds of commuting hours per year, just for the short-lived pleasure of seeing some unmowed grass as you wait for your garage door to open?

condo? overpriced apartment and 0 privacy.

"interesting" that most of the commentary clearly doesn't think about the poor and how they would be effected...

condo? overpriced apartment and 0 privacy.

Have you actually ever lived in a condo? I can sort of agree witih the overpiced apartment part: a condo in town costs more per square foot than a house out in the 'burbs, but the extra cost per square foot is well worth it, overall. You have a better quality of life: less driving, more interesting stuff near to where you live, less of a pain in the a** in general. That's why it's more expensive. The part about lack of privacy is just silly. When I lived in a house in the 'burbs, I had far less privacy than I have now. IMO, the 'burbs are the worst of both worlds: the discontents of the city, with none of its amenities; the inconvenience of the country, with none of its charm.

"interesting" that most of the commentary clearly doesn't think about the poor and how they would be effected...

Somehow, most of the rest of the industrialized world manages to live just fine with gas taxes that are much, much higher than in the US.

They also manage to provide universal health care to their citizens.

Perhaps we could learn something from them.

Somehow, most of the rest of the industrialized world manages to live just fine with gas taxes that are much, much higher than in the US.

They also manage to provide universal health care to their citizens.

Perhaps we could learn something from them.

:D

I'd like to see you try to sell that to the average working person who'll have to pay it.

There are ways to make it more politically feasible. For instance, you can tax people's gasoline consumption but give them a rebate in the amount of tax collected at the end of the year. Sounds crazy to most people, but there is a substitution effect away from gasoline since the marginal price is higher without hurting their economic possibilities.

"interesting" that most of the commentary clearly doesn't think about the poor and how they would be effected...

Of course there has also been an omission of how the present system of subsidizing road transportation and protecting the property rights of the affluent -- in my opinion -- affects the poor. One simple idea is that cars (and gasoline) are expensive. Alternatives might alleviate the need for a car -- or fewer number of cars -- such that the poor experience a positive wealth effect.

Somehow, most of the rest of the industrialized world manages to live just fine with gas taxes that are much, much higher than in the US.

They also manage to provide universal health care to their citizens.

Perhaps we could learn something from them.

+1

"interesting" that most of the commentary clearly doesn't think about the poor and how they would be effected...

The "poor" are the ones without cars, the ones with cars seriously need to learn to drive smarter.

...doing the tax as a percentage however would have the same effect ...
Thanks for brining up changing the gas tax to a percentage. I think it is sort of ironically funny that the raise in gas prices cause people to drive less causing a deficit in funds so the Feds want to raid the mass transit funds to build more roads so people can drive more... because they are driving less. It seems to me that we really need to stabilize the funding.

It was an "apples to apples" comparison...both London and Atlanta are "First World" cities, with an educated citizenry, and first world infrastructure.

And, yet, the citizens of Atlanta drive 66 miles each day...mostly in big cars and trucks, by themselves.

It seems there's something wrong with how we do things here in the good 'ole USA...perhaps we can learn something from other countries in this regard. It's not like we have a monopoly on intelligence (as our current President so often demonstrates).

It's certainly easy to say something is wrong with the United States and in this case you'd probably be correct. However, Suburban sprawl has taken several generations to come into being. Large blocks of the population already have homes in the country and the highway infrastructure on which to get to and from work. How do you propose to move all of those people back into the urban areas. If you simply move up the costs to force tham back, you will certainly crash the economy. Where would people like me recover the equity that we have invested in our country homes? How would we afford to buy new living accomodations in the city? Who would buy my home at any price if moving back to the city was all anyone wanted? Its nice to be able to say........just do this and this and all will be well, but you are planning on reversing decades of momentum.

Corrective action is going to take a little more than simple slogans. Just sayn.

It's certainly easy to say something is wrong with the United States and in this case you'd probably be correct. However, Suburban sprawl has taken several generations to come into being. Large blocks of the population already have homes in the country and the highway infrastructure on which to get to and from work. How do you propose to move all of those people back into the urban areas. If you simply move up the costs to force tham back, you will certainly crash the economy. Where would people like me recover the equity that we have invested in our country homes? How would we afford to buy new living accomodations in the city? Who would buy my home at any price if moving back to the city was all anyone wanted? Its nice to be able to say........just do this and this and all will be well, but you are planning on reversing decades of momentum.

Corrective action is going to take a little more than simple slogans. Just sayn.

Most proponents of raising the gas tax are putting forward plans to raise it incrementally over a number of years (e.g., 30 cents per gallon, each year for 10 years).

This would allow for market forces to come into play to adjust to the altered costs of transportation.

It would not "crash the economy". It would, over time, force people to change...but, that's the point.

I doubt that the desire for a "suburban lot with a white picket fence" would go away anytime soon. But, instead of commuting to their jobs in Yukons or F-250's, people might decide to make do with Civics or Camrys. Or, they might carpool, or take public transit, or (gasp!) ride their bikes.

re: "Where would people like me recover the equity that we have invested in our country homes?"

You've made a very large economic bet, assuming that energy costs will always be cheap enough to allow people to live "out in the country". Unfortunately, in the real world it always costs more to live out in the country (both your costs, and the costs to society in terms of infrastructure and carbon footprints).

With rising fuel prices, it's quite likely that demand will shrink for "country homes"...especially those large McMansions that cost so much more to heat and cool. In that case, you might not recover your equity...but, that's the way the ball bounces in a free market. There are winners and losers, and no guarantees of success.

Most proponents of raising the gas tax are putting forward plans to raise it incrementally over a number of years (e.g., 30 cents per gallon, each year for 10 years).

This would allow for market forces to come into play to adjust to the altered costs of transportation.

It would not "crash the economy". It would, over time, force people to change...but, that's the point.

I doubt that the desire for a "suburban lot with a white picket fence" would go away anytime soon. But, instead of commuting to their jobs in Yukons or F-250's, people might decide to make do with Civics or Camrys. Or, they might carpool, or take public transit, or (gasp!) ride their bikes.

re: "Where would people like me recover the equity that we have invested in our country homes?"

You've made a very large economic bet, assuming that energy costs will always be cheap enough to allow people to live "out in the country". Unfortunately, in the real world it always costs more to live out in the country (both your costs, and the costs to society in terms of infrastructure and carbon footprints).

With rising fuel prices, it's quite likely that demand will shrink for "country homes"...especially those large McMansions that cost so much more to heat and cool. In that case, you might not recover your equity...but, that's the way the ball bounces in a free market. There are winners and losers, and no guarantees of success.

Some of didn't move here, we grew up here. The farms our parents ran are no longer viable as the income derived would be slave labor compared to the industrial jobs we now hold. I commute to work in a carpool with my son in a Toyota Yaris (probably the most fuel effecient non hybrid vehicle available). The trip is 33 miles one way on distinctly non bike friendly roads with sub freezing winters. The house is a small ranch of 1300 sq ft (4 occupants). This is not a unique situation, but we are easily written off as "those disgustingly greedy country mcmansion owning SUV or F8000 drivers who clearly need to be reeducated in responsibility by upwards market pressure". We are not an aberation, a large percentage of the population exists in this manner. Sometimes the rhetoric of corrective action just begins to sound like another "5 year plan" to me.

Some of didn't move here, we grew up here. The farms our parents ran are no longer viable as the income derived would be slave labor compared to the industrial jobs we now hold. I commute to work in a carpool with my son in a Toyota Yaris (probably the most fuel effecient non hybrid vehicle available). The trip is 33 miles one way on distinctly non bike friendly roads with sub freezing winters. The house is a small ranch of 1300 sq ft (4 occupants). This is not a unique situation, but we are easily written off as "those disgustingly greedy country mcmansion owning SUV or F8000 drivers who clearly need to be reeducated in responsibility by upwards market pressure". We are not an aberation, a large percentage of the population exists in this manner. Sometimes the rhetoric of corrective action just begins to sound like another "5 year plan" to me.

It is difficult for me to comment on your specific situation (or tell you what someone else means). That is, there are probably a lot of relevant details which make it hard to make concrete statements. It sort of sounds like you live in a more rural area than I conceptualized -- are you in a suburb of a major city? -- and I am unsure whether changes in fuel prices/congestion taxes/tolls would have much effect in that environment with regards to home prices.

Anyway, it also sounds like you are fairly insulated from changes in fuel prices. My back of the envelope calculation: Suppose you work 220 days a year using three gallons of gas -- I added an extra gallon to be conservative -- each of those days at $3/gallon. If prices/taxes increased 33% -- a huge increase -- to $4/gallon your commuting bill would rise from 660 x $3 to 660 x $4 a year or $660/year ($55/month) between two people. By no means is this chump change but it would be considerably worse in a typical SUV or truck. But this is probably close to a lot of cable television bills. Note that tax increases in one area would either be compensated with lower taxes elsewhere or more government provided services. Both of which would decrease the effect of the $55/month tax increase. As I wrote earlier, people will respond in many ways in an effort to become more efficient. Consequently, I would be more than surprised to see any dramatic and sudden changes that are particularly difficult for people. More than likely -- for the simple reason that it takes time for infrastructure to change -- we would probably see something that was more evolutionary than revolutionary.

One would think that people in areas where people drive a lot and are less well off would have already taken similar measures. That is, if one is particular exposed to changes in fuel prices then I would think that most people should have considered that in the past. No guarantees that someone would not get screwed. But that is true with just about any government or societal action, IMO.

Curious ... is there a large population percentage in your situation? I know what the income distribution looks like -- I recall that median household income is something like $50K for the US -- and how it is correlated with geography and area characteristics (rural/urban). Although I am not as certain how gasoline prices vary across geography.