SamDaBikinMan

I am going to be a hypocrite here and suggest something that is socialist in nature. It does have merit in my opinion however so here we go.....

If the government were to enact a stystem of fuel rationing to the general public what would it hurt? Or would the benefits be prevalent?

Lets say every houshold in America is rationed an annual fuel consumption allowance which under no circumstances can be exceeded. Fuel cards will be available to every member of the workforce (no slackers) on a month to month basis with 12 equal portions of fuel per year. There would be an allowance for recreational use that can be applied for once per year that is fixed per household not per driver.

Benefits:

Promote the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles instead of Vipers and Excursions.

Promote use of public transportation.

Limit our flow of cash to middle eastern ( terrorist countries).

Promote development/purchase of fuel cell/electric/alternative fuel cars.

Promote responsible use of our rationed fuel.

Promote healthier air due to limited use.

Decrease traffic deaths/injuries with limited driving.

Promotes carpooling where mass transit is less available.

Drawbacks:

Can't drive to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail every day.

Limits the ability to drive to the corner store to get a can of soda and a snickers bar.



OK, lets hear what ya got to say..... I have my flame suit on

ngateguy

You know I am not sure that is really a Socialist kind of thing, but that really isn't the issue. it is however very prudent (sorry all you George Sr fans but I sure do love that word) fiscally,and tax wise think of all those tax dollars we would save from not having to build more roads and what not. Why we may even be able to come up with money to educate all the people so they can be informed voters and tax payers as well as a strong sense of pride why maybe then drug abuse would drop as well as assaults murders etc etc. Our defense would become stronger cause we won't be reliant on foreigners for our power which in my book is a very unwise and bad thing. It means we must kiss these people butts or they get all in an uproar and raise our oil prices, or worse yet cut us off completely. Environmentally it would be most awesome maybe Chris L will finally be able to write a post when something isn't burning on his continent (or ours for that mater). It would drive medical cost down since people may actually start to lose weight and fell good about themselves. And heres a big one maybe it will bring back the neighborhood by actually having to go out and interact with people with out the need of a 5 ton metal box between you and them (I think cars actually take away from that community feeling by isolating everybody from each other). People may finally realize that they don't need to beholden(sp) to large corporations to get through their daily lives( auto manufacturers and George W advisers, oops sorry that slipped out I meant to say large oil companies.) Just think of the money people will save by not having to pay for all that gas why they could put it back into the economy and help us speed our way to full economic recovery and lastly we may be able to actually bankrupt those wimpy a$$ chicken s@@t hypocritical terrorists that are mucking up our lives. Well there I go again drifting off into my pretty little world I have dreamed up. Now I do agree with you and would back any effort to have it done but in reality we would put people out of work and the spoiled brat car drivers out there who seem to think they have this God given right to drive would never stand for it. They would cry, whimper, cheat, and by black market fuel maybe even riot and we would all be in the same mess anyway. Education is the best way out of this mess and even with that it takes generations to change people habits. And on a personal note I would miss my daily drive to pick up the mail, and yes that includes Sunday got get the paper you know! You know as an after thought all that I said above sounds sort of like trickle down economics doesn't it?

Raiyn

Fuel ration stickers and the like were done during WWII and was seen as a way to help "our boys". Unfortunatly it won't work today. I can't believe I'm saying this but.... I disagree with the tactic... You'll have people b!tc4ing about their "right" to drive gas hogs when THEY want, to to hell with evreybody else. Oh wait we've got that now... Hmmmm how about making the amount of tax dollars spent subsidizing the oil dealers more obvious to the people by charging the tax at the pump rather than forcing the rest of us who don't drive Escalades and Excursions to pay for their "right" with our tax dollar.

kindbud

yeah. not that it would ever hapeen with our present administration, but i'm all for taxing the crap out of gasoline, the same way they do with cigarettes now in NYC (8 bucks a pack).
i'm also all for raising bridge and tunnel prices here and making them BOTH ways, and nyc resident parking stickers. but what is happening instead? subway/bus fares going from 1.50 a trip to 2 bucks. dang. glad i finally got a bike.

khuon

This debate was hashed and rehashed on the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups ad nauseum.

https://smlnk.com/?VPNK6ZMO

The problem is that people don't all live in the same type of environment. Rationing could be made workable but it would be a lot more complicated than what was proposed. Certain things about each person would have to be taken into consideration such as population density of their surrounding area, distance from essential services, occupational roles, etc...

mike

After a lot of thought, one realizes that there really is no compelling reason to ration fuel. The market will ration it's consumption naturally.

Back in the 1970's, the big concern was that we would run out of fossil fuels in 30 years. That didn't happen.

There was concern that oil prices would rise and crush the economy. People would be forced to find alternative energy sources and transportation efficiencies. That didn't happen either. In relative terms, fossil fuel prices in the USA are about as cheap as they have ever been in our history. Automobile purchases are made with little regard to fuel efficiency.

I believe that there is one overlooked factor that will have an impact on fossil fuel prices worldwide and that is simple supply and demand. Developing countries are experiencing exponential growth in the use of automobiles and petrol fuel. This demand will surely cause prices to go up if the growth continues at a rate faster than oil mining and refining.

To the environmentalist, higher fuel prices seem like a welcome tool to stimy fossil fuel use. The sad reality is that higher fuel prices will most likely drive the global economy down. Slow ecomonics lead to desparation and 'pragmatism'. This pragmatism usually means loosening of pollution controls resulting in the opposite effect hoped for by environmentalists.

nathank

well, maybe a surprise to some as you as i often support "socialist" ideas... but i judge the idea not just on its political origin...

while in theory it has good intentions... unless there is a critical shortage or crisis like during a war when you need to conserve raw materials, i am generally against rationing.

as some people here have said, it hits people differently and there are all kinds of factors involved.

i don't like the idea of fuel rationing and i think something that uses the market and allows people as much choice as possible is much better. i.e. raising the gas tax with the combination of congestion pricing achieves the same goal but with more freedom. with a much higher gas tax people would be more interested in fuel efficient cars and the auto industry would respond by making more fuel efficient cars.

so my ideal plan would be:
1) raise gas taxes considerably to say $4/gallon - in reality this would be best implemented in say $.25/ year so that people know it is coming and can prepare and make appropriate decisions (i.e. replace the SUV guzzler with a more fuel-efficient alternative when it's time)
2) remove and publicize all currently (mostly hidden) oil, gas and road subsidies so that people realize how much we really spend on auto transportation - including highway patrols, accident infrastructure, military efforts, etc. -- the large group of "anti-taxers" in the US would probably be horrified if they actually knew the extend of the costs
4) raise registration/taxes to be based on amount of pollution - like say the Euro system based on the roughly proportional fuel size -- probably also with some form of tax reductions/credits for extra fuel-efficient or pollution-prevention systems (highly efficient or electric, etc)
5) require auto insurance companies to offer "pay-at-the-pump" insurance so that a) every driver is insured as they have to buy gas to drive and b) drivers save money by driving less
6) implement some program be it subway/rail/bus transit for people who cannot afford to drive under the new system
7) put a larger share of public money into rail than just auto and air infrastructure. actually this would come naturally as rail would become more attractive if driving were more expensive
8) perhaps special allowances and extensions for businesses that depend highly on cheap gas so that they can invest and reposition and successfully transfer to the new system

anyhow, i could go on and list many of the benefits of the above proposal, but i think this post is already long enough

digger

Although a novel idea and MAY be able to work IF much thought is given to it. As already stated, each household would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Let me give you an example with myself and a co-worker:

My coworker lives in town, CAN take a bus and CAN ride a bike, but won't do either (lazy). He lives 11km from work.

I live 40km from work, no public transportation and (in my opinion is too far to ride everyday). When I lived in town, down the street from my co-worker, I rode in summer and car-pooled with him in winter.

So I burn more gas than him per year, if I was given the same ration I would burn it up faster.

Now I do have options, ANOTHER co-worker lives in the same area as I and we car share 2 days a week. I tried to convince her to do more but she wouldn't go for it. IF there was a ration then we would have to increase our car sharing and I could ride in one day per week. That way I could possibly stretch out my ration to last the year.

BUT I am willing to do that, most people are not and might not have the health to ride so far 1 day a week.

As well, my wife has a car but she works drastically differant hours per week (expect Fridays where we drive in together) plus she is involved with a group that meets once per week on weekends which, of course , is in town. We bought her the car in February of 2001 and she already has 22,000km on the thing. She refuses to exercise, hates to sweat, and will obsolutly NOT consider alternate forms of transportation. Don't get me wrong she has a heart of gold, but she sure is lazy and loves the ability to get around when she wants. Without a doubt she would have her years ration of gas burnt in less than 6 months, then I would have to cart her around.

It could work on a case by case basis and IF people where really active in persuing alternate forms. I own a light 4 cyl 2wd pickup, a gas guzzler, but to reduce gas consumption I do the follwoing:
- car share one day per week with a co-worker, she drives Mondays I drive Tuesdays.
- bike ride into work one day per week (summer only) Wednesdays
- drive in with my wife on Fridays (leave truck at home)


Sooo, I have reduced my potential 5 days of driving down to 2 days a week in summer and 3 days in winter.

Anyway, I am getting off the subject, but my point is - it is a good idea, and worth considering, but needs much exploration and thought and cooperation of the public for it to work. The case by case basis my work but cooperation???? I have said it in other posts - people are lazy, I doubt you would get it.

Digger

RiPHRaPH

Americans love their cars way too much to ever let anything stand in their way of a good solo commute.

Taxes only hurt the poor. Independent truck drivers would grind to a halt. Air travel, etc. Oil is a huge part of our GDP . Getting goods and services to the consumer (WE ARE CONSUME-RS)

Do we really want black market oil?

How about a moritorium on fixing the roads?

late

Mike,
putting 'markets' and 'naturally' together tells me you understand neither. Free markets cannot account for the cost of war. They do not make massive infrastructure investments, much less an investment in anticipation of changing energy supply patterns. And they adapt to economic upheaval only after it happens. That, after all, is why the Federal Reserve, to pick just one example, was created. Preventing upheaval is a good idea. In short, using the idea of the marketplace as some sort of magic wand demonstrates that you haven't studied either the history of markets, or what makes them work.

joeprim

Some of you are getting carried away with the benifits. "Solve the drug problem ..."

Anyway woildn't it be easier to just stop subsidizing and let the price rize to it's more natural level. That way we wouldn't need yet another govermental department to print and distribute the tickets.

On the other hand counterfiting the tickets would be a good way to make money!

Joe

late

Rip,
I would suggest you study the issue. Poor roads
raise the cost of driving,by increasing the wear and tear on a car. While a poor person can buy a small car that gets good mileage, they have no control over how badly the roads will tear it up. Indeed, if we handled this as the Europeans do; we would quickly see cars for sale that exceeded 50mpg. Btw, trains are much more energy
efficient than trucks for long distance freight. They are also MUCH safer. The reason you see all those semis is that the roads get more federal money, making them cheaper. If subsidies were equal, you would see a vast amount of freight going over to rail. This would result in fewer highway deaths, less pollution, less congestion on the roads. Lastly, take a look at the real picture as regards petroleum. Wars, oil price shocks, supply interruptions, and huge price increases are all coming. The world's economy has been dependent on oil; that will slowly shift to other energy sources as the price increases, and problems with supply become commonplace. As is the case with any sensible investment, small amounts invested regularly will return a greater yield...then a huge investment when the **** hits the fan.

nathank

YES!

actually that's almost exactly what i was suggesting - making users pay the actual costs of driving and letting the market decide (with maybe i little extra increase to include indirect costs like military action that are not so visible but still current costs of driving)

nathank

right on! i just wish more people would see it that way. regardless of whether it last 12 or 25 years, oil is not the energy source of the future world economy... we can start preparing now or the US can experience massive economic crisis in a few years when oil prices soar and we have no alternative energy or transit options and all business and transportation is centered around the gas-powered auto.

i also agree about the freight train/truck subsidies... iam always annoyed at the terminology: in the US it's an "investment" in road infrastructure and a "subsidy" in the train infrastructre...

late

Hi Nathan,
I just noticed an earlier post you made. It occurred to me that it would make an easy way to discuss sensible policy.
1)Gas tax increases- a modest increas of 2 or 3 cents a year will take longer to work. But it will
make the transistion a lot less painful. And it will actually do a better job in the long run. While it will take decades to even catch up with
the other developed countries, it create market incentives for effciency and the development of alternative energy sourcres that Europe lacks.
2)Removal of subsidies- this is not really practical. A look at the history of transportation policy would tell you why. American and England have both tried reducing the subsidy for rail; and the result has not been pretty. There is good reason to suspect a termination of government involvement would have a highly negative impact on the economy.
4)yes, a differential tax would work. The politics of it are sticky, Americans whine too much. If a few grand of the cost of their Monstro SUV went to lower the cost of a 50mpg Rabbit; you would hear plenty of whining.
5) Not familiar with pump insurance. Any idea where I could learn more about it?
--I like many of the ideas, getting them turned into law isn't going to be easy.

nathank

late had posted a question about what i meant about actual costs, but it looks like he changed his post, but here is amy clarification anyhow

actually, i mean an approximation of the actual cost, so yes, i mean paying for roads, free parking, military action, highway patrol, traffic control, emergency road-side assistance, etc.

since this is difficult to determine exactly as many are indirect costs, i think users should pay something above just the direct costs of driving. currently users pay way LESS than just the direct costs of driving (roads, parking, etc)

nathank

this is a good point and you're right to a large degree. if i remember right i said "removal and awareness" or something to that extent with the "awareness" being the most important part. Americans just do not realize how much it really costs to drive. they think it costs what you pay at the pump - or maybe a little more when you factor in insurance -- but the government costs are MUCH larger. just the awareness would help public opinion sway public policy.

nathank

well, i'm not sure where the original idea came from but i heard a reference to something like it somewhere a few years ago and came up with my own plan... no idea who else has simliar plans, but mine is something like:

instead or in addition to the current type of basically flat-rate insuarance where you pay x/month to insure yourself and your vehicle regardless of how much you drive (with maybe discounts if you live close to work or whatever) where a driver who drives 2,000 miles a year has to pay the same as one who drives 45,000/year, insurance comanies offer pay-at-the-pump insurance.

basically it would work like so:
1) in order to get gas a driver needs a card issued by an insurance agency
2) in the event that a driver does not have an account or his account has expired, he can purchase insurance on the spot (for a higher rate of course) --- this would be either run by the government or more likely a private insurer with a guarantee of coverage (almost all states already have such legislation for "expensive" driver)
3) in order to get discounts, most customers sign up with an insurance provider and probably pay a basic monthly fee for the account. whatever the market comes up with - like the cell phone market with plans and what not
4) the customer then receives an account number and card which he uses at the pump to fill up.
5) when filling up, the insurance fee is calculated as a percentage of the amount of gas purchased

the strengths of the insurance-at-the-pump plan are:
1) all drivers insured - that all drivers are at all times insured which is a goal that states currently find VERY difficult to implement and there are thousands if not millions of uninsured drivers on the road
2) encourage less driving - i.e. excessive, unecessary driving drivers would save money by driving less by also saving on their insurance bills -- thus, an individual, personal incentive to drive less
3) more "fair" insurance risks ARE obviously proportional to miles driven, so makes more sense for both the customer and the insurer. sure, some drivers have fewer claims driving 40000 miles than others driving 2000 miles, but the same driver driver 20 times as much will statistically have 20 times the claims/costs.

as an analogy: it's basically as if there were only 1 option for cell phones - flat fee or no phone - and in that were the case, many people who currently have cell phones would a) not b/c they only use them for emergencies and wouldn't want to pay a full flat-fee and b) talk more as anyone knows that when you've already paid, why not do a little more?

SallieW

This thread is very encouraging! I'm so glad to see other people who think like I do!

The idea that motorists should pay the true cost of driving should be extended to include the environmental costs of driving as well. While these cannot be quantified as precisely as other costs, they can be estimated. These costs include the environmental impacts of oil extraction, air pollution, and sprawl (enabled by the cheap transportation). So, I'm all for an increase in gas taxes.

I really like the idea of rations though. People have brought up the fact that different people have different needs. Those of us who live within easy biking distance to work could sell our rations to those who live too far or are willing to pay for them for whatever reason. This would "even out" the discrepencies some, and create an incentive for some people to reduce their consumption even more.

SamDaBikinMan

The fact is that driving is a licensed priviledge not a "Right" to all americans. No insult intended to the post . The tax idea has merit but then the rich would just keep on trucking.

HMMMM.... This is a tough issue to decide.

SamDaBikinMan

Lets throw this modification in....

Rations are issued as I described in an earlier post however additional rations can be purchsed directly for exhorbitant cost.

This way even the poorer folks can get a fair amount of fuel and the rich can do what they will BUT have to pay dearly for it. If you can afford a 80K mercedes then 8 dollars per gallon for additional gas should be nothing...

SamDaBikinMan

I like the sound of this approach. It will take care of many problems in one fell swoop.

nathank

well, i fell kind of like Raiyn... as much as i would like the results that would come from such a program, i don't know if i wuld even support such a drastic program (and i am VERY much in favor of reducing auto usage and improving efficiency). and there is no way in H@ll that Americans would support it.

as to the pay-at-the-pump insurance... it seems to me that no one would really loose as high-volume drivers could just buy a flat-rate plan like what they currently have, insurance companies would have more brackets and numbers to so their acturarial estimates so could (presumably) better guage their risks and earn more, and states could lower their costs of insurance enforcement as well as ensure insurance coverage... don't know how to get some such program started - i would assume it would have to begin state-wide like in say California, Vermont, Oregon, New York or Massachusetts...

hayneda

I like a lot of what I'm reading here. But, I'm convinced the only workable scheme is a relatively straightforward approach of significant increases in a NATIONAL (US) gas tax. My reasons are as follows:

1) Its the only solution that I can conceive of that is simple enough to be implemented AND be fair. Using complicated calculations of several "factors" to produce a "fair" rationing system would most likely end up like our tax code.

2) Rationing would have to take into account regional differences as well as occupational differences--folks living in urban/suburb environments vs. rural; and office/plant workers vs. farmers/truckers and other heavy fuel users.

3) People would still have the freedom to choose big SUV-type gas guzzlers if they are willing to pay the fuel costs. They would also still be free to choice to live 40 miles from their job.

4) Poor people would not be penalized--they would of course be highly motivated to purchase fuel efficient vehicles (which are often also the least expensive).

5) A national tax would be required (vs. states) so that it would be applied uniformly. We don't want folks driving 50 miles to the state line to buy gas that 50 cents/gal cheaper.

My two cents,
Dave

willic

To all you good people in the U.S of A.

High FUEL taxes do not curb the use of motor vehicles.
Here in the U.K. we have about the highest taxation on Fuel of any other country in the World (about 70%).
This has no determental affect what so ever on the amount of car use.
Car culture victims will have their fix regardless of whatever they pay at the pumps.
The Brits were also regarded as favourable towards lower powered and mini sized cars, even this trend despite increasing fuel costs has been turned on its head in recent years with the massive increase, as in the U.S. of the SUV type vehicles.