--- James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The truth is that for those for whom motoring is a
> necessity, the cost is a
> secondary consideration unless it becomes wholly
> prohibitive. Increased
> taxes or charges just get factored in, and once
> normalised forgotten.
>
[WS:] You have a point here, which BTW I acknowledged in my earlier posting on the subject when I was talking about non-utilitarian motives (such as sense of security or status symbol).
But it can be counter-argued that the price has not been set high enough. For example, very heavy fines and penalties for drunk driving do reduce (but not eliminate) drinking and driving. One can argue that such penalties are regressive, unfairly penalize people who have no alternative modes of transportation, not 100% effective and so on - but it is diffciult to argue that their severity does not act as behavior modification.
In other words, the issue is not whether cost modifies behavior, but how high that cost must be. An $8 toll may not sway too many people, but a $50 toll probably will. I would probably pay $8 to visit my friends in Lower East Side, but a $50 toll would make Amtrak (at the ridiculously expensive $200+ round trip) a more cost effective alternative (considering gas, other tolls, parking wear and tear on the car and time). The question thus is how high a price we as society want to put on congestion-free cities or carbon emission reduction.
I am reasonably certain, however, that $50 toll would simply not fly in this country for political reasons. As it turned out, even $8 was too much to swallow. One of the most obnoxious aspects of US politics is using the political process to either avoid paying the cost of public goods altogether or shifting that cost on the least politically influential groups. This is why car use is subsidized by general taxes, while transit - used mainly by less affluent population groups face idiotic requirements to cover substantial shares of its operating budget from fares.
With that in mind, I indeed agree with you and Jordan that taxing cars is a lousy way of reducing congestion or carbon emissions - but for political rathr than techncial or economic reasons. Any attempt to "internalize" the cost of driving or to earmark substantial outlays for development of transit infrastructure will likely meet stiff political and public opposition and it will be DOA each time someone proposes it. The fate of the NYC initiative is but one example.
So the sad reality is that the car dominated status quo will continue unchanged in the forseable future. You will see some half-assed attempts to add bits and pieces to the existing transit infrastructure (cf. Baltimore's "red line" being studied to death for the past twenty or so years http://www.baltimoreregiontransitplan.com/) to placate environmentalists or urban poor, but the bulk of spending (90%+) will go to highways. Any attempt to increase the cost of driving will be soundly defeated at the polls. What is more, when the gas price hits $5 or so, there will likely be a congressional effort to subsidize fuel costs - and that measure will likely pass if Democrats control the WH.
So to reiterate, congestion/user fees are a lousy way of eliminating congestion and reduce carbon emissions - because they will most likely be defeated by the political process in the US.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com