> I think we've been over this N times, but you cannot "change
> their use patterns" without supplying an alternative. You
> can't just unilaterally raise the cost of driving a car in
> order to get people to bend to your will; what you'll
> accomplish is extra hardship on the low end and "simple"
> political anger on the top end.
Indeed, we've been through this many times, but let me reiterate. You need both stick and carrot - if you want to discourage inefficient use of automobile you need to make it more difficult to use it where you do not want them (the so-called planned congestion in urban areas) make the user pay higher prices (time or place specific tolls, etc.) - which the stick. You also need to provide efficient alternatives (e.g. user friendly public transit). Most major European cities provide both, while most American cities (except NYC, maybe Boston, DC, Chicago and ironically Disneyworld) do not provide any efficient alternatives to cars. In Baltimore, public transit is terrible, Philly - so, so, Pittsburgh - bad, SFBA - not so good, some areas better than other, LA - it is a joke, Denver - so so.
Another point - I never said that cars suck - actually many of them are quite nice pieces of engineering, very useful in some circumstances. In fact my wife and I have two: a Saturn and a Prius and we are quite happy with both from the engineering, reliability, and fuel efficiency points of view. What I do NOT like about cars in the US has more to do with politics than engineering. Specifically, it is that somebody - the government, the industry - made a decision for me that I must have one whether I like it or not, because all viable alternatives have been taken away from me. And that is a very expensive choice that someone has made for me. So it is not about cars, but about the lack of choices amidst plenty.
This is precisely the same reason why I hate the health care policy in this country - because only the most expensive and wasteful, I may add, choices have been made available to most people, while the more efficient alternatives have been taken away by government and industry lobbyists. Same with housing, political parties - you get the drift.
Indeed, it is about choice or rather a limited list of "multiple choices" provided to us by the powers that be in this land of freedom and plenty, whereas many of us would rather opt for "none of the above." Alexis deTocqueville foresaw that when he coined the term "tyranny of the majority" to describe the US society in the 1840s.
Wojtek