Confess! Who here drives an SUV?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact is, non-drivers (like myself) help subsidize the roadways.

While non-riders help subsidize the subways as well.

The reason non-drivers pay for roadways is because they bring greater economic prosperity. Even if you don't use them, you most definetly benefit. For example, I'd wager that most of the food you eat comes from trucks travelling over the interstate highways of this country.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The fact is, non-drivers (like myself) help subsidize the roadways.

While non-riders help subsidize the subways as well.

The reason non-drivers pay for roadways is because they bring greater economic prosperity. Even if you don't use them, you most definetly benefit. For example, I'd wager that most of the food you eat comes from trucks travelling over the interstate highways of this country.

I know it does - but why should I externalize the costs for my food transactions onto others?

(1) Internalize the costs of the roads by only funding them through taxes on only those who use them.

(2) Commerical users (like food shippers) will recoup the expense by passing the tax onto the consumer.

(3) The cost of food will now include the cost of transportation - thereby internalizing the cost of food.

Do you have a problem with this?

[Asher]

Most of the people who are so anti-SUV are probably pretty self-centred. So much so that because they don't need one, no one else does either.

The world would be a such better place if everyone else drove a Toyota Echo or Prius.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Templar
I know it does - but why should I externalize the costs for my food transactions onto others?

(1) Internalize the costs of the roads by only funding them through taxes on only those who use them.

(2) Commerical users (like food shippers) will recoup the expense by passing the tax onto the consumer.

(3) The cost of food will now include the cost of transportation - thereby internalizing the cost of food.

Do you have a problem with this?

Oh, what a bloody brilliant idea -- increase everyone's food (well, not just food, just about everything comes by truck somehow) cost because a tiny minority of people don't use the roads themselves.

Why don't we just eliminate subsidized mass-transit, internalize the cost by making people who want to use it pay for it only?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by rah


Unfortunately I have to drive to the subway/train.
In fact, our company is moving into the city next year. The best train station is right next to our current office location, so I'm going to have to drive to where I used to drive to work. (pay for parking, which i don't have to now) and get on a train for 45 minutes to get into the city. It's going to suck.

And no, I will not drive into the city unless it's for a special reason.

This is exactly why I hated having a car.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Asher
The world would be a such better place if everyone else drove a Toyota Echo or Prius.

Hmmm, there's a new ad campaign for Toyota.

I suppose I'm also self-centered for wanting to ban the discharge of firearms inside the city. After all, why should my desire not to get shot outweigh the desires of some New Year's Eve revelers to shoot their guns in the air?

[SpencerH]

If you actually look at the specs of most SUV's you'll see that they arent any heavier or gas guzzling than other non-compact size vehicles such as minivans or decent size quality cars. Most of them are actually built on 1/4 ton chassis so they're hardly monsters. Yes they're tall, and I agree that it can be a problem to see around them, but so are vans and trucks. Shall we ban them too?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by The Templar
(And poor urban and regional planning is why you don't have passenger rail nearby dv8ed.)

Urban? Um. "Urban" is about 230mi. from here. As far as regional planning...ok. Say you have a fairly widely distributed population (for instance, 145,000 spread over 3400 sq. miles) Please design a passenger rail system which efficiently and cost-effectively meets the transportation requirements of all of these people.

(This, by the way, is Penobscot county, ME, which is the most built-up part of central Maine. If you want more of a challenge, try Aroostook county with 73,000 people in 6700 square miles, most of which is terrain which is not particularly suited for rail service. If you want to try level three, how about Blaine County, MT, pop 6870, area 4226 sq. miles.)

[Asher]

How about Canada.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's level 4. This is kinda like the bridge building game...we start slow, then ramp up from there...

[Jac de Molay]

And there seem to be a lot of people who blame the SUVs for being too big, too bulky, and too dangerous. Well, I blame the little econoboxes for being too small and too lightweight. Is it our fault your car is designed to be light and get 30 mpg, at the cost of having no protection in the event of a crash?

Since when did road travel become a version of the Road Warrior? So now everyone has to buy a truck the size of a Sherman Tank to go to Starbucks and back?

And FYI, it's many of those econoboxes that garner five-star safety ratings, compared to the pitiful safety record of SUV's. Anyone getting smashed by a GMC Leviathan going 80 mph is in a world of hurt, no matter what. Trucks that size aren't meant for highway/high speed travel.

[Japher]

So now everyone has to buy a truck the size of a Sherman Tank to go to Starbucks and back?

Sounds stupid, huh?

How do you think it sounds to hear "everyone should buy a small, disintigrate on impact car?"

To me, it sounds stupid.

[Jac de Molay]

How do you think it sounds to hear "everyone should buy a small, disintigrate on impact car?"

It doesn't sound any better, but at least those trucks should be held to the same standards as smaller cars (with far higher safety ratings). The sky shouldn't be the limit on height and curb weight, just like every other large vehicle on the road.

[Imran Siddiqui]

(1) Internalize the costs of the roads by only funding them through taxes on only those who use them.

(2) Commerical users (like food shippers) will recoup the expense by passing the tax onto the consumer.

(3) The cost of food will now include the cost of transportation - thereby internalizing the cost of food.

Do you have a problem with this?

Yes. Can you imagine the other costs that will arise from this? It means more tolls for one, right? Well, studies have shown that tolls (and the parking stops that result) result in more pollution. They also slow down travel, which will have a somewhat negative effect on the economy.

I'm sure the poor people would love having their food cost more because the government wants to charge more tolls for food carriers.

[The Templar]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes. Can you imagine the other costs that will arise from this? It means more tolls for one, right? Well, studies have shown that tolls (and the parking stops that result) result in more pollution. They also slow down travel, which will have a somewhat negative effect on the economy.

I'm sure the poor people would love having their food cost more because the government wants to charge more tolls for food carriers.

Are you pro-market or not? Markets only function properly (i.e. reflect actual preferences of the actors)when costs are fully internalized. If the cost of food goes up, then there was some externalized cost that was not taken into account.

Tolls? Who said tolls? But now that you mention it - putting a smartpass thing on cars and setting up readers on poles above the road (without stopping traffic or even slowing it) might work.