$5 gallon gas, HERE WE COME!

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
whoa...for a second there, i thought dave was back...

where'd he go anyways?

edt: anyone have the link to his banning thread?

 

[Saga]

I really miss Dave keeping up on the Oil and Gas Prices thread. =/

 

[magomago]

2.30 by summer? Its been around 2.30 the whole time here in Cali x_x

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I wonder if the OP realizes that gas at $5 a gallon not only impacts cars, but trucks, trains, ocean freighters, etc.. So the cost of ALL goods and services go up because of high gas prices. HE may be in favor of high gas taxes, but I am not.. and either are a lot of other people who prefer to make their own decisions about transportation and not have the government mandate their choices away.

After all, if its a womans RIGHT to have an abortion.. surely we have a right to determine how we want to travel? Unless we could somehow impose a $5000 per child abortion tax? Maybe then it would be fair.

:roll: Nice red herring trying to introduce abortion into the debate.

The point is that many North Americans do not have a choice in their transportation methods. Even if you wanted to travel using an alternative method to vehicles, you probably couldn't.

Mass transit either doesn't exist, doesn't go where you need to go, or is too slow or infrequent. Traveling by bicycle or walking is impractical because of the large distance involved.

So you are forced to drive. Now, the type of vehicle you drive should be your choice, but it should be taxed relative to the external costs it imposes (pollution, land use, etc.). These costs are different for larger vehicles than for smaller vehicles.

As for other forms of transport, freighters, trucks, trains, planes, etc. do not use the same type of fuel as cars. They also don't use the same filling stations as passenger vehicles. Any kind of taxation would be applied only to passenger vehicles. Vehicles used for business should be taxed differently.

You also have to provide alternatives before you can start removing choices (i.e. build up mass transit first so that people have the option to use it, rather than taxing vehicles without improving transit and leaving people no option but to continue driving, but at increased cost).

People don't use mass transit except in the most congested of cities. For the most part buses run mostly empty on most of their routes because there just is not enough interest in using them. But since you are so pro mass transit - Why not build them, but charge people the actual cost to ride them? Not a $2 charge when taxpayers pick up the other $18 worth of cost. THEN its a real choice..

 

[blackangst1]

$2.30 is friggin cheap gas : /

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: spacejamz
whoa...for a second there, i thought dave was back...

where'd he go anyways?

edt: anyone have the link to his banning thread?

Ever since Oboma got elected and you know. Now that all the problems are solved what do we need dave around for anyway?

Dave who?

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
People don't use mass transit except in the most congested of cities. For the most part buses run mostly empty on most of their routes because there just is not enough interest in using them. But since you are so pro mass transit - Why not build them, but charge people the actual cost to ride them? Not a $2 charge when taxpayers pick up the other $18 worth of cost. THEN its a real choice..

You're correct that buses run mostly empty on too many routes. There is not enough interest in the system because in most places, it sucks. Perhaps the routes are not as effectively planned as they could be? Perhaps light rail systems would be a preferable mode? More rail links between cities?

You need to build the infrastructure first before you can convince people to use it. What better way to create jobs and growth in the current economy?

I don't have a good feel for the actual cost of operating transit, so I don't know if the discrepancy of user-paid revenue vs. subsidies is as dramatic as you suggest. I think a slight increase in fares is justified. But there should be some form of subsidy for transit anyway.

Even if you never ride transit, you still benefit from its operation. More people riding transit means fewer cars on the road. That decreased congestion allows you to drive to your destination faster. Fewer cars means less air pollution, which benefits everyone's health. Fewer cars means fewer collisions, lowering your insurance premiums. It also lowers the number of motor vehicle related injuries and deaths, which add to an overburdened health care system.