From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Gas subsidies and taxes (was Re: Bicycle Paths
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 10:40:09 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Tom Kunich writes:

>But they seem to be living in a glass world. Before automobiles most
>people didn't use mass transit. They used single transportation and
>the most common form was the horse. The polution and expense of this
>form of single transportation was also subsidized by society and
>the filth and disease caused by draught animals were well known.

Statistics, please.  Consider that you may be a victim of "living
in the past".  In the modern world, millions of people use mass transit
every day.  Also consider that my form of individual transportation, my
bike, produces no tail-pipe emissions and I personally don't shit on
the road.  I seem to have solved both problems.

[more deleted]

>It is inconceivable that todays population could be sustained without
>the internal combustion engine and the extensive transportation system
>that has been built around it.

That's why we're not talking about eliminating IC engines.  Delivery of
food and goods != individual transportation.  We can totally eliminate
individual transportation without impacting food and goods delivery.
Note that we're not even calling for that;  just a decrease in
individual commutes by forcing motorists to pay the full economic and
social costs of their activity.  AKA a market-based disincentive.

>I am the first one to proclaim that we need to improve the transportation
>system. But it should be done in a manner that isn't going to bring
>economic collapse or social upheaval to accomplish.

Agreed.  An increase of transportation fuels costs phased in over five
to ten years would allow ample time for motorists to reduce their fuel
use, by buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle, reducing their commute
distance, or taking another form of transportation.  Over the same
period of time, auto-crash safety requirements should be put in place
to finally require the manufacturers to build small vehicles that are
as safe as large cars are now.

The extra money should be used to improve existing non-highway roads
(ie. wider lanes, fewer potholes).  This will reduce the maintenance
cost of the vehicles, giving the motorists some return for their money,
and will make the road safer for cyclists.

[electric cars discussion deleted]

>No matter how much _we_ like bicycles, only a vanishingly small
>percentage of the population is going to seriously consider these
>machines as a transportation alternative.

My bike is currently a royal pain in the ass, but a far cleaner and
cheaper solution than a car would be.  People don't consider cycling
now because individual motoring is cheap and more comfortable.  If
cheap is taken out of that equation, people will consider alternatives
(Americans are usually relatively competent decision makers when a
wallet is involved).  Even if most don't, the rest of us get better
roads, less traffic, better bus service, cleaner air, and less urban
sprawl from those who do.

>Mass transit can help, but too many jobs in the developed countries
>are too far flung to make mass transportation a _simple_
>alternative.

Have any statistics that agree?

>In order for any progress to be made it will be necessary to retain a
>good economy so that it can finance necessary changes. Massive tax
>burdens on automobile drivers, no matter how well intentioned, will
>only make matters infinitely worse.

Not if those fees are linked with decreases in income taxes.  Not if
those people use American produced buses and trains.  The car companies
are already downsizing, automating, and relocating.  The vast majority
of oil is imported already.  People are already losing productivity
sitting in traffic jams and driving long distances.  Infinitely worse
than this?

Ken
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles