Global Warming, gas taxes, mass transit and the environuts
Here's an inconvenient truth about global warming - it's a lot of hot air. A lot of gasbags like Al Gore blowing smoke about something no one really understands.
Now please don't mistake this criticism. I support a number of steps to improve our environment, and including some (but not all) policies supported by the frenzied environuts who blab about global warming.
So let's get down to it. There are plenty of reasons to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, many of which are more important than global warming. Fossil fuels cause all kinds of pollution, not just carbon dioxide. Our heavy use of fossil fuels enriches terrorists in the Middle East. And heavy consumption combined with growing difficulties with extraction, refining and distribution may cause substantial further price increases leading to radical changes in our economy and society. If you think $3/gallon is bad, get ready because it might go to $10/gallon pretty quick.
What policies make sense?
1. Higher gas taxes. Yes, I want to raise gas taxes. Sounds like political suicide, but then I don't really have much of a political life so there's not much to kill (my regular life, by contrast, is going quite well thank you).
Why higher gas taxes? Because raising gas taxes will discourage consumption of gasoline. It will lower our use of gasoline. We know higher gas taxes work. Europe and Japan have much higher gas taxes than we do, and -- shocking news -- they use less gas than we do.
The environuts all scream and shout for higher "CAFE" (corporate average fuel economy) standards. This is premised on the idiot notion that the car companies can just go "poof" and all of a sudden cars will get better mileage, with no compromise in comfort, performance, etc. I can't tell you how many idiots have said this to me with straight faces. Unfortunately the laws of our State do not allow me to reach out and slap them when they say such nonsense.
Strangely, Europe and Japan do not have CAFE standards, yet their cars on average do get better gas mileage. That's because consumers in Europe want cars that are more fuel-efficient because gas costs $5/gallon there -- because they have higher gas taxes. We can even see this here in the US. Gas prices have gone to $3/gallon, and all of a sudden demand for large SUVs has dropped, while there is a burgeoning market for more efficient cars. Stunning! As a side-note, my mom bought a Honda Civic and it's quite a car.
Another side-note -- manual transmissions are much more common in Japan and Europe. I drive one as well (2002 Audi A4 Avant 1.8tqm). It gets 2 mpg better than the automatic, and drives like it has 50 more horsepower (0-60 time is the same as the V6 with an automatic). I've averaged 26 mpg over the life of the car, and I'm not known for driving in a fuel-efficient manner. You might wonder why the environuts don't want the government to ban automatic transmissions. The answer is that most environuts don't know how to drive a stickshift and don't want to learn. It's so much easier to blame corporations than to do something yourself.
Now, before anyone thinks my call for higher gas taxes means I'm not a fiscal conservative, let's deal with how we do this. The higher gas tax has to be part of a package that lowers income tax at the same time, so the average Joe (or Jane - have to be political correct) breaks even on the deal. But now our intrepid Joe and Jane can reduce their taxes fair and square. All they have to do is use less gas. They can buy a more fuel-efficient car, drive less, or even just drive in a more fuel-efficient manner (going 65 instead of 75 saves a couple miles per gallon, if not more).
I've heard people complain that gas taxes are "regressive" - meaning that they're unfair to the poor because the tax is not proportionate to income. The same liberals do not complain about tobacco taxes, which are far more regressive. But anyway, the gas tax is progressive. As you raise the price of gasoline, poorer people are more sensitive to the price increase and are more likely to change their behavior (use less gas -- that's the idea, remember?). As they change their behavior, they will reduce their taxes. Meanwhile, wealthy people will be less sensitive to the price increase and will decrease their consumption less, so they will end up paying more gas taxes than poorer people.
This leads into the next policy step I support that would lower our consumption of gasoline ...
2. Mass Transit
Mass transit has many benefits. Heavy use of mass transit dramatically reduces our consumption of gasoline. Japan and Europe are, again, great examples of this. It's one thing to discourage consumption by raising taxes or otherwise making life more difficult for drivers, but it also helps a lot to give them an alternative.
I do not propose that we get mass transit by creating more government bureaucracy. That is the path we have often seen in the US, leading to very limited systems that few people ride.
I support a private sector approach. I will use the Capital Region (including much of congressional districts 20 and 21) as an example. Create right-of-way on the interstate highways (starting with I-87 and I-90), set up a project for a high-speed (~80-100 mph) monorail, and invite private sector bids. The requirements would be simple in terms of where the monorail goes (almost entirely along the highways, with not too many stations so you don't slow it down), and with one very important requirement - it has to be free to ride. That doesn't mean the winning company loses money, if you include the right sweeteners. But it's very important because if it's free to ride then people will actually ride it. Mass transit will only work if it's faster and cheaper than driving.
How can we do this? First, the winning bidder gets not only the right to build the rail, but also control over land around the stations with permissive zoning. Now they can make money off of what they can build at and near the stations. Might be a mall around one station or high-density housing around another. At the same time we work out deals with existing businesses that might have a station. Crossgates is a great example. If Crossgates wants to have a station, they have to agree to a 2% sales tax on all transactions within the mall, with that 2% going to the rail. Ditto for Colonie Center and any other malls that might have stations. If 2% of Crossgates transactions goes into the rail line, that's an awful lot of revenue for the train. And of course, with permissive zoning around the stations, Crossgates would be able to grow a lot more if they want to - further increasing revenue for the rail.
What happens if we do this? In the short run, ridership will start small but the free thing will still draw a lot of riders. It would be especially good for long-distance commuters who now drive from places like Amsterdam and Saratoga into Albany, and those are the people who use the most gas so they're the most important ones to get on the rail. Poor people from the inner city would find it far easier to commute to jobs in the suburbs.
Over time, we would see sprawl following the rail instead of the roads. It would rejuvenate places like Amsterdam as places where people can live and still have a reasonable commute. Gradually we would see business and housing move closer to the rail because that's what people will want.
At the same time we could dramatically reduce drunk driving by having one or more stations serve as "nightlife districts", where bars would be concentrated. This would give drunks a solid alternative to driving.
Most important, as more and more people choose the rail over driving, we will use less gasoline. And whether you worry about global warming or you're just generally concerned about fossil fuels, that's a good thing.
Now please don't mistake this criticism. I support a number of steps to improve our environment, and including some (but not all) policies supported by the frenzied environuts who blab about global warming.
So let's get down to it. There are plenty of reasons to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, many of which are more important than global warming. Fossil fuels cause all kinds of pollution, not just carbon dioxide. Our heavy use of fossil fuels enriches terrorists in the Middle East. And heavy consumption combined with growing difficulties with extraction, refining and distribution may cause substantial further price increases leading to radical changes in our economy and society. If you think $3/gallon is bad, get ready because it might go to $10/gallon pretty quick.
What policies make sense?
1. Higher gas taxes. Yes, I want to raise gas taxes. Sounds like political suicide, but then I don't really have much of a political life so there's not much to kill (my regular life, by contrast, is going quite well thank you).
Why higher gas taxes? Because raising gas taxes will discourage consumption of gasoline. It will lower our use of gasoline. We know higher gas taxes work. Europe and Japan have much higher gas taxes than we do, and -- shocking news -- they use less gas than we do.
The environuts all scream and shout for higher "CAFE" (corporate average fuel economy) standards. This is premised on the idiot notion that the car companies can just go "poof" and all of a sudden cars will get better mileage, with no compromise in comfort, performance, etc. I can't tell you how many idiots have said this to me with straight faces. Unfortunately the laws of our State do not allow me to reach out and slap them when they say such nonsense.
Strangely, Europe and Japan do not have CAFE standards, yet their cars on average do get better gas mileage. That's because consumers in Europe want cars that are more fuel-efficient because gas costs $5/gallon there -- because they have higher gas taxes. We can even see this here in the US. Gas prices have gone to $3/gallon, and all of a sudden demand for large SUVs has dropped, while there is a burgeoning market for more efficient cars. Stunning! As a side-note, my mom bought a Honda Civic and it's quite a car.
Another side-note -- manual transmissions are much more common in Japan and Europe. I drive one as well (2002 Audi A4 Avant 1.8tqm). It gets 2 mpg better than the automatic, and drives like it has 50 more horsepower (0-60 time is the same as the V6 with an automatic). I've averaged 26 mpg over the life of the car, and I'm not known for driving in a fuel-efficient manner. You might wonder why the environuts don't want the government to ban automatic transmissions. The answer is that most environuts don't know how to drive a stickshift and don't want to learn. It's so much easier to blame corporations than to do something yourself.
Now, before anyone thinks my call for higher gas taxes means I'm not a fiscal conservative, let's deal with how we do this. The higher gas tax has to be part of a package that lowers income tax at the same time, so the average Joe (or Jane - have to be political correct) breaks even on the deal. But now our intrepid Joe and Jane can reduce their taxes fair and square. All they have to do is use less gas. They can buy a more fuel-efficient car, drive less, or even just drive in a more fuel-efficient manner (going 65 instead of 75 saves a couple miles per gallon, if not more).
I've heard people complain that gas taxes are "regressive" - meaning that they're unfair to the poor because the tax is not proportionate to income. The same liberals do not complain about tobacco taxes, which are far more regressive. But anyway, the gas tax is progressive. As you raise the price of gasoline, poorer people are more sensitive to the price increase and are more likely to change their behavior (use less gas -- that's the idea, remember?). As they change their behavior, they will reduce their taxes. Meanwhile, wealthy people will be less sensitive to the price increase and will decrease their consumption less, so they will end up paying more gas taxes than poorer people.
This leads into the next policy step I support that would lower our consumption of gasoline ...
2. Mass Transit
Mass transit has many benefits. Heavy use of mass transit dramatically reduces our consumption of gasoline. Japan and Europe are, again, great examples of this. It's one thing to discourage consumption by raising taxes or otherwise making life more difficult for drivers, but it also helps a lot to give them an alternative.
I do not propose that we get mass transit by creating more government bureaucracy. That is the path we have often seen in the US, leading to very limited systems that few people ride.
I support a private sector approach. I will use the Capital Region (including much of congressional districts 20 and 21) as an example. Create right-of-way on the interstate highways (starting with I-87 and I-90), set up a project for a high-speed (~80-100 mph) monorail, and invite private sector bids. The requirements would be simple in terms of where the monorail goes (almost entirely along the highways, with not too many stations so you don't slow it down), and with one very important requirement - it has to be free to ride. That doesn't mean the winning company loses money, if you include the right sweeteners. But it's very important because if it's free to ride then people will actually ride it. Mass transit will only work if it's faster and cheaper than driving.
How can we do this? First, the winning bidder gets not only the right to build the rail, but also control over land around the stations with permissive zoning. Now they can make money off of what they can build at and near the stations. Might be a mall around one station or high-density housing around another. At the same time we work out deals with existing businesses that might have a station. Crossgates is a great example. If Crossgates wants to have a station, they have to agree to a 2% sales tax on all transactions within the mall, with that 2% going to the rail. Ditto for Colonie Center and any other malls that might have stations. If 2% of Crossgates transactions goes into the rail line, that's an awful lot of revenue for the train. And of course, with permissive zoning around the stations, Crossgates would be able to grow a lot more if they want to - further increasing revenue for the rail.
What happens if we do this? In the short run, ridership will start small but the free thing will still draw a lot of riders. It would be especially good for long-distance commuters who now drive from places like Amsterdam and Saratoga into Albany, and those are the people who use the most gas so they're the most important ones to get on the rail. Poor people from the inner city would find it far easier to commute to jobs in the suburbs.
Over time, we would see sprawl following the rail instead of the roads. It would rejuvenate places like Amsterdam as places where people can live and still have a reasonable commute. Gradually we would see business and housing move closer to the rail because that's what people will want.
At the same time we could dramatically reduce drunk driving by having one or more stations serve as "nightlife districts", where bars would be concentrated. This would give drunks a solid alternative to driving.
Most important, as more and more people choose the rail over driving, we will use less gasoline. And whether you worry about global warming or you're just generally concerned about fossil fuels, that's a good thing.
posted by Albany Lawyer at 9:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home