Confess! Who here drives an SUV?

[rah]

One can not live in the suburbs without a car. If I lived in Chicago, one is not really needed, except for going out of town. But it will be a cold day in hell before I move into the city.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you pro-market or not? Markets only function properly (i.e. reflect actual preferences of the actors)when costs are fully internalized.

I believe in as much markets at possible. I also believe that the government (federal, local, etc) should subsidize infrastructure, whether it be roads, rail, or whatever else (I support spending R&D in alternate fuel sources).

This isn't an either or, and has never been one .

Tolls? Who said tolls?

How else do you charge people who ONLY use roads?

[GePap]

Lots of people drive SUVs in Latin America. Though with the quality of some roads, there is a bit more of an excuse.

[GePap]

The only reason most goods are shipped by truck accross the country is becuase the highway system was favored over rail. Rail would be cheaper to use to ship things long distances (you would need trucks to haul things from and to rail areas), but we don't use it.

[:) Smiley]

SUVs sell like hotcakes in Los Angeles, which (1) is the 2nd largest city in the USA (2) never has snow (3) hardly ever has rain either and (4) has the worst air quality in the country.

L.A. is a wonderful example of what happens when individuals choose to externalize whatever they can. It all comes back around big and bad when you've got a few million people.

[Japher]

(1) is the 2nd largest city in the USA (2) never has snow (3) hardly ever has rain either and (4) has the worst air quality in the country.

(5) Has hardly any PT to speak of (6) IS the 2nd largest city in the world (7) Has a huge economy based on services and manufacturing


I'd say cars are needed. SUVs? Seeing as they are the 2nd largest city I wonder what their per capita of SUVs are, saw more motorcycles down there than anywhere else too... heaven to betsy!

LA suks, I was there last weekend, and the traffic is horrible nothing is close by and I think I smelt Fez

Drove right by Northridge...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only reason most goods are shipped by truck accross the country is becuase the highway system was favored over rail.

Also because rail is too expensive. A lot of companies went bankrupt building rail lines. There are plenty of roadways, however, that the federal government does not have to build. They can travel over state lines, county lines, etc, etc. It isn't easy for states and counties to build their own rail networks like it is for them to build roadways.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Tolls? Who said tolls?

How else do you charge people who ONLY use roads?

A special sales tax on cars, registration fees, etc.

I'm not saying roads should not be built out of the public funds (the collective action problem mandates as much). I'm saying the costs should be internalized via taxation on those who use them (incl. indirectly in the case of goods that are shipped via road).

Externalization is one of the prime factors that has propelled the widespead use of personal automobiles in the states. And that's just in terms of roads. Add an environmental surcharge to gas (to reflect the cost of environmental degradation) and the personal auto would become out of the price range most Americans would be willing to pay.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A special sales tax on cars, registration fees, etc.

Then you only tax those that have bought cars and maintain the registration and insurance on them (btw, many of the poorer car drivers do not do the later... ask Albert Speer). It would lead to a more depressed registration and insurance renewal, especially among the class of people you want it increased by. Furthermore, those that borrow cars, and are thus using roads, aren't being taxed for it.

Tolls are really the best way of charging those who only use the roads.

Add an environmental surcharge to gas (to reflect the cost of environmental degradation)

As Adam Smith has posted many times, to accound for 'environmental damage' of cars, it would only amount to about a .50 per gallon charge. There is no way that would price cars out of the range most Americans would be willing to pay.

It seems that plenty of people have fallen for the idea that most pollution comes from automobiles, when the truth is that most pollution comes from factories making goods or heating our homes.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
SUV's suck. If you're in snow, front-wheel is just as good in a tight spot, and better in braking situations.

(mods note: we really need that rolling lol smilie)

[Jac de Molay]

What for? I have years of experience driving in it, and every winter I see SUV's in ditches on my way to work. And a perfect driving record

If you get in a jam or are fishtailing, you point and accelerate. SUV's get better traction in snow, but braking is just the same as cars, and 4wd is useless in iced over conditions.

[Alexander's Horse]

in your opinion

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

A special sales tax on cars, registration fees, etc.

Then you only tax those that have bought cars and maintain the registration and insurance on them (btw, many of the poorer car drivers do not do the later... ask Albert Speer). It would lead to a more depressed registration and insurance renewal, especially among the class of people you want it increased by. Furthermore, those that borrow cars, and are thus using roads, aren't being taxed for it.

Simple confiscate and melt down cars that are driven without registration. That'll solve the problem real quick.

Tolls are really the best way of charging those who only use the roads.

Maybe. Still, if it can be done without queues and stopping, I don't see the problem.

Add an environmental surcharge to gas (to reflect the cost of environmental degradation)

As Adam Smith has posted many times, to accound for 'environmental damage' of cars, it would only amount to about a .50 per gallon charge. There is no way that would price cars out of the range most Americans would be willing to pay.

I haven't seen his figures, but I can tell you he is underestimating. He cannot have included the cost of increased asthema in urban areas, contribution to global warming via CO2 emissions, and noise pollution caused by interstates in wilderness areas.

But hey, source those figures and I'll check into them.

It seems that plenty of people have fallen for the idea that most pollution comes from automobiles, when the truth is that most pollution comes from factories making goods or heating our homes. [/QUOTE]

[Ted Striker]

suvs r gay

[:) Smiley]

Japher, LA has nowhere near the amount of motorcycles that Europe and Asia and Latin America have.

True, factories and powerplants pollute. However, I don't have a factory or powerplant spewing the gunk in front of my front door. You wouldn't allow a refinery next to a school, yet with today's SUV proliferation school parking lots have unhealthy amounts of substances in the air.