Our concern should be that non-users subsidize users. All public actions affect the distribution of income. It seems a needless restraint to make every policy fit an income distributional requirement when equity in income distribution can be treated as one single matter through taxes and transfer payments being designed to offset not only what may be deemed to be the undesirable income distribution effects of the market, but of governmental policies as well. The variables in the picture keep changing and with their change there are further feedbacks. Second, it seems reasonable to believe that the increasing recognition of smog and congestion costs must lead to increased pressures to get the motorist out of his automobile.
Incentives politically are likely to be more acceptable than disincentives.
Offers of express buses, para transport systems, etc. meet this requirement, but probably will not be sufficient. An important objective may be not to get the autoist to give up his car, but to drive less or possibly give up his second car. To many economists the best disincentive is a high price for auto travel which will cause the motorist to voluntarily stay out of his car to at least some extent. Ultimately, the important matter may be the voluntary long run relocation of people so as to shorten their distance to work. Third, relocation of people and changed patterns of car use all suggest the desirability of marginal adjustments over time of the transportation system.