--- Joerg <nulldev at web.de> wrote:
> We are actually interested in getting substantial
> positive changes enacted,
> aren´t we? If so, creating boondoggles isn´t the way
> to go.
> I have no idea, however, how one could justify
> opposition to gasoline taxes
> and yet manage to be taken seriously. There are
[WS:] I generally agree with your comment, but I would also like to make a distinction between general and targeted response. Gasoline tax is a general response - i.e it affects everyone equally, whether one lives in Manhattan or North Dakota. User fee is time and place specific, it affects only people who meet specific conditions i.e. drive at specific palces and specific time.
I do not think that generalized measure, such as gasoline tax would be particularly useful in places like North Dakota. Due to its low population density, any alternative to individual auto there would most likely be a waste of resources. What is more, such a generalized measure would not be as effective in relieving congestion in places like Manhattan, because it would not differentiate between places and times of driving.
The opponents of user fees on this list (Jordan & James, LLC:) ) do so more for philosophical and emotional than utilitarian reasons. It is hard to argue that most people do not respond to prices and be taken seriously. Moreover, the purported inefficiency or surveillance potential of toll collection is simply a red herring. People waste more time waiting in supermarket lines than in toll lanes, and far more sensitive information is being collected with little or no regulation each time one swipes a credit card than when one drives through an EZ pass gate.
The scare scenarios deployed by J&J are simply canards covering up the lack of better arguments. Virtually any technology can be used more or less efficiently and creates a surveillance potential. Should we also abandon the use of mobile phones and credit cards because of their hefty user fees - which are regressive and fatten profits of telecom companies - or their potential for surveillance via embedded GPS chips?
It is possible to think of an effcient GPS based car tracking technology that registers the presence of specific vehicles in zones (city areas, highways, etc.) carrying congestion fees, and charging the owner's account in the same way way EZ Pass does. such technoloogy is less invasive than GPS tracking devices embedded in all new mobile phones or, for tham matter, data bases compiled by credit card companies on individual credit card uses.
To summarize - gasoline tax may be an effective measure for generating revenues for road maintenance in general, but it is less effective in relieving congestion that is time and place specific. It is possible to implement car tracking technology that is both effcient and intrusive than other tracking technologies (mobile phones, credit cards) already used without any criticim in everyday life.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com