Love traffic?

This entry was posted on 8/9/2007 3:08 AM and is filed under uncategorized.

                                        


Didn't think so.  Did you know that 52 percent of interstates surrounding major metropolitan areas are congested?  This according to the "16th annual survey by the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonpartisan group" as reported by Joan Gralla for Reuters.

California had the worst traffic jams (83 percent overcrowded); close behind were Minnesota (78 percent) and New Jersey (73 percent).

What a complete waste of time and energy.  Add to this the poor air quality on congested freeways and you have a recipe for stress and poor health.

Then there's the cost -

Do you know how much we spend on roads?  According to the study, the 50 states "spent almost $99 billion on roads in 2005,"  Wow.  And, as we continue driving more, both traffic and the road costs will increase.

What to do?

Make gasoline and other non-renewable transportation fuels more expensive by cutting income taxes and making up the revenue by increasing taxes on non-renewable energy.  People do drive less when fuel cost more.

Not convinced yet? 

Here's more information from a 2005 article by ABC News -

     - Traffic has such an effect on our lives that even non-drivers are impacted by it. Traffic costs us time and money, affects our physical and mental well-being, and has consequences for the environment. 

     - The individual cost of congestion exceeded $900 per driver in 1997, resulting in more than $72 billion in lost wages and wasted fuel.

     - Drivers in one-third of U.S. cities spend more than 40 hours a year (an entire work week) in traffic that is not moving.

  ~    ~    ~

Both congestion and costs are going to escalate.  How bad does it need to get before we say, "I'm not going to take it anymore." ?? 


Lastly, from John Steinbeck in 1961:

     "The new American finds his challenge and his love in the traffic-choked streets, skies nested in smog, choking with the acids of industry, the screech of rubber and houses leashed in against one another while the townlets wither a time and die."

Travels With Charley: In Search of America, pt. 2


Charming.

        

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 8/9/2007 10:19 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  You say:
  
  "What to do?
  
  Make gasoline and other non-renewable transportation fuels more expensive by cutting income taxes and making up the revenue by increasing taxes on non-renewable energy. People do drive less when fuel cost more."
  
  Question: how did "non-renewable" get into a discussion of traffic congestion? Would a cheap RENEWABLE motor fuel reduce traffic congestion?
  
  Or do you just have a conditioned reflex to inject "non-renewable" into every solution, no matter what the problem is?
  
  Note that the current tax bias favors ethanol from US grown corn, (but not from imported ethanol) because it is "renewable". That is, it is made from mining topsoil rather than subsurface coal or oil.
  
  As for "drive less if you pay more" sure. But not politically popular. (Maybe even as unpopular as nuclear
  
  Our Governor want to tax oil company profits, but prohibit the oil companies from adding the cost of the tax to the pump price of gasoline.
  (so where else do oil companies get their revenue?)
  
  And Congress want to impose fuel economy standards on cars, but not raise the gas tax to achieve the same result much more effectively.
  Reply to this
  1. 8/13/2007 12:18 AM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Jim,
     
     Thanks for your comment.  You say -
     "......how did 'non-renewable' get into a discussion of traffic congestion?"
     
     The proposed tax shifting solution is to reduce income taxes and replace the revenue by increasing energy taxes.  I add "non-renewable" because I have a "macro" that randomly includes "non-renewable" in all of my writing (even letters home to Mom).  It just seems to sound better and maybe if we use renewable sources of energy (unlike fossil fuels and nuclear), our grandchildren won't think badly of us.  Frankly, as a result of the path we're on, they'll likely be cursing (and laughing) at us.  Laughing because not having a viable energy policy is foolish.  If you don't care about children, then just think of yourself and your retirement.  Do you want to be paying $8/gallon for gasoline because we used up a lot of the fossil fuels we had WITHOUT developing alternatives?
     
     You say -
     "As for 'drive less if you pay more' sure.  But not politically popular."
     
     What if people pay more at the pump, but get that money back by paying less income taxes (and make significant steps toward solving the 4 biggies in the process)?  Would that be popular/unpopular?
     
     All, please do some informal surveying and share your results.  Minimum of five people asked and please share general thoughts on why people did/didn't agree with tax shifting.
     
     You say -
     "And Congress want to impose fuel economy standards on cars, but not raise the gas tax to achieve the same result much more effectively."
     
     You are so right.  CAFE standards are communism.  Instead change the "rules of the game" via a tax shift similar to patent and anti-trust laws - then, let the market decide.
     
     **************************************
     
     The purpose of this blog is share information on tax shifting and generate discussion so that more see a tax shift as the best way to solve the 4 biggies.  Readership has been growing steadily and is now at 400 views/week!    Thanks!!

     P.S.  - does anyone know Oprah?!

      

     
     Reply to this
• 8/16/2007 9:15 AM Jim Blair wrote:
  You ask:
  
  "What if people pay more at the pump, but get that money back by paying less income taxes (and make significant steps toward solving the 4 biggies in the process)? Would that be popular/unpopular?"
  
  Hi,
  
  It would be popular (supported) by those who drive less than average, but opposed by those who drive more--or think that they do, and/or think they "need" their car. That is, by those who live far from work, have poor or no mass transit alternative, etc.
  
  Since the question was congestion (not climate change or oil addiction), why not tax congestion directly? As London does now and New York City is considering.
  
  For Madison or Dane County, that could mean a time-of-day toll for using the beltline: high from 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM, low or zero at other times.
  
  Downtown parking rates of free for the first hour (to encourage shoppers), but a dollar per hour for each hour after that, and with a $5 surcharge to park before 9 AM. People who work downtown should be using the bus anyway.
  
  If you read the Sunday WSJ, here is the letter I sent to WHAT DO YOU THINK?
  
  EDITOR:
  
  The need for money to fix US bridges and other infrastructure is probably an effective argument for raising the federal gasoline tax. But the two are really not related. The bridges need to be repaired no matter the source of money. And the gasoline tax should be increased, even if the revenue is not earmarked for repairs, but as a way to make cars and trucks pay more or their costs to society and to reduce US oil addiction and CO2 emissions.
  
  Jim Blair
  
  Do you think they will print it next Sunday?
  Reply to this
  1. 8/16/2007 4:36 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:
     

     
     Jim,

     The tax shifting idea is to eventually have all of the costs of specific energy sources (including environmental and our dependence on foreign energy) be included in the energy price that we pay.  Per the first solve4biggies.com post -
     
          "For individuals and families, the shift should be as close to cost-neutral as possible.  Those that pay no income tax or receive a credit would be reimbursed for additional energy taxes in other ways such as a larger credit and/or subsidized transportation."
     
     Individuals/families would of course have the option of making lifestyle changes such as moving closer to where they work in order to pay less tax.
     
     Tax congestion directly? -- good (but separate) question.  Tax shifting is a much broader solution to many problems.  Personally, I believe directly taxing congestion in problem areas is a good idea (but, it should be phased-in and thought needs to be given to handling unintended consequences).
     
     Hope your letter is printed next Sunday.  Among other energy tax increases, higher gasoline taxes are needed for the reasons outlined in this blog.  However, whether the government needs more money is a different question - hence the call for a tax SHIFT.

     Paul

      

     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment