>> Gar makes a great point -- that you've dismissed on-list
>> before -- that without commensurate investment in alternatives,
>> just making it expensive won't keep you from doing it.
>
> I've dismissed it? If I did, I withdraw & apologize. This prob
> is so big that there's No One Answer.
Not 30 minutes ago you said simply that gas prices have to be more expensive than bottled water. You said numerous times that you think you can change people's behavior by changing the price of it. We had a protracted debate (which I do not wish to revisit!) about raising the toll to drive into Manhattan, wherein you swore up and down that it would make people stop doing it.
You've just proved the opposite: even if gas prices were as high as you'd like, you'd still drive. You quoted $300 for the train, $50 for gas. Gas is probably $3.75 at your house and along that route ... so you're saying that if it was $22.50/gal you'd *still* drive, because it would be (ahem) cheaper than the train.
Right? Am I feeling you?
At what price/gallon, with nothing else being different, *would* you take the train(s)?
You've already said that you're willing to sweep the actual cost of driving under the rug; where is the limit?
> By the way, my pal Charlie Komanoff says that gas taxes are
> nowhere near as regressive as people think. I'll write him for
> the details.
In my part of the country, gas taxes are fixed per gallon, so they've been getting less regressive steadily over the last 4 years :-) but the proposals I've seen are all percentages, which are heavily regressive.
Ask your pal Charlie if "not as regressive" is in any way related to "more regressive than other alternatives" ...?
Compare it to, say, the federal income tax. Because that's my alternative proposal: get rid of all taxes at all levels except for income at the federal level and property taxes at the county level.
/jordan