njkayaker

"Brunt" an appropriate word. They might not pay the most in absolute terms but this means that poor people will experience the worst result of an increase.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...w=1280&bih=687

njkayaker

No one is stating this.

There you go. Most people who say raise gas taxes don't seem to realize that something else also needs to be done at the same time.

Though, it still might be cheaper to subsidize fuel prices!

SBRDude

I know I wasn't clear, but I was referring to the idea of taxing the "hell" out of gas in an effort to discourage driving, which as suggested by the member I was quoting in an earlier post.

Hippiebrian

Actually, though not directlly everyone who says that the poor NEED to be able to afford to drive is saying this.

SBRDude

The word is fine, but the way you used it originally was inaccurate. Your comment is now more accurate.

Also, it would do you well to pay more attention to what you write instead of the pretentious inclusion of google searches as a pretense for distracting your earlier misstatement. Good grief.

AlmostTrick

It was already stated that there would be allowances for the truly needy. Raising the tax on burning oil for basic transportation would allow us to better modulate the price shocks we are subject to now, which hurts everybody starting with the poor.

As the price of oil increases, less money is left to spend in other areas of the economy and those people suffer losses in income and jobs. This blow to the economy reduces demand for oil, allowing prices to drop slightly or hold steady, giving consumers little incentive to make any changes to their oil burning lifestyle, and leaves us in the same fix. Eventually, prices do / will continue to rise, and the cycle repeats. We need a plan to get ourselves off oil!

These price shocks are what hurt us the most, since they deter people from making any changes to the status quo, leaving us quite unprepared for the future without cheap oil. The money taken in could also be used to fund the development of alternatives, and offer incentives for using them, helping us make a smoother transition.

Mithrandir

Every time I point this out to anyone, I get called an idiot. It's amazing how many people firmly believe that we are ENTITLED to our current lifestyle, and that God will never let us run out of oil.

Sigh.

Chris516

Go figure

....and drivers', not just of gas-guzzling SUVs', but all motorized vehicles, call cyclists' elitist. There is something really messed up about that.

I have NEVER driven a car. At first, it was just because of my health. But after finally convincing the state medical board to approve my wanting to take a drivers' test, I did a complete about-face. I scoff at those that are too lazy to go anywhere without driving to their destination.

If the public transportation infrastructure is weak, living near it won't do much good.

njkayaker

Talk about pretentious! Sheesh. What is wrong with you?

njkayaker

As far as I recall, no one actually said there would be any sort of "allowances". The best we got was that they would be able to use whatever public transportation might exist. That is, people were specific about raising gas taxes and quite vague on anything else.

SBRDude

Now, that's funny. Good one.

AlmostTrick

Sure they have, try to keep up boy!

Actually, with a properly implemented program low income drivers would be better off than they are with our present system, where no matter how much fuel costs go up, they get squat.

dahut

You nailed it when you used the word "fluff."
Buffaloans know they will be under snow 3-4 months out of the year. Then there is the mud and muck season to contend with... you don't expect them to actually take bikes seriously, do you?

Mithrandir

Why not? I do. The problem as stated was that gas prices are too high. So we have 8-9 months of cycling weather. One can easily cut 66-75% of their gasoline bill by cycling. Solves the issue of paying too much for gas quite nicely.

njkayaker

Some people didn't at all. People often make the "raise gas taxes" suggestion without any apparent clue that there could be problems doing that. It might be better if they looked a bit deeper.

============

No suggestion that the problem might be more complicated than that.

This is better but it's a similar idea of "just let people suffer" for some indeterminate period (and things will magically improve).

Hippiebrian

Take bikes seriously in the summer, take public transportation seriously in the winter...problem solved.

Poguemahone

meh. In our current political climate, it is far more likely the gas tax will be done away with entirely than raised.

SBRDude

What do you do with the public transportation system in the summer when everyone is riding their bike? Still pay those employees? Still drive those polluting buses around town without passengers?

No Whey

+1

AlmostTrick

Agreed. Short term “solutions” are popular even if the cost to our future well being may be great.

dahut

But you had it right initially - cycling is the Rodney Dangerfield of transportation. What, 1% of commuters are on bikes? Maybe less? Something like that.
Alright, you take it seriously. I get that. But odds are, not enough of the right people do. We'll deal with gas prices in a myriad of ways, or move to anything but cycling. Its gonna be a last resort for Americans.

I know you were being tongue in cheek at the outset, but we pretty much knew the truth.

mnemia

Public transportation and bikes are complementary solutions, not competing ones. Intermodal transit (e.g., bikes on buses or trains, or lots of convenient secure bike parking at train stations) is a great way to greatly extend the range of bikes without having to run public transit lines everywhere. People could bike a mile or less to a transit line from their houses and then bike a similar distance on the other end to their workplace. This would work quite well if public transit systems were more developed in more place in the U.S. And there is no reason people can't bike short distances in the winter, especially with bike infrastructure that is actually maintained well (ie, not just used as a snow storage area when roads are cleared).

genec

Amen to that.

I tried to use our local train system to augment my cycling range a few years ago, only to discover that the last evening train only ran right at 5:30... I typically work until 6:00. Even if I tried to catch the first train to work, and left with the last train, I still could not put in 8 hours, and this wasn't even leaving time for me to bike commute from the office to the station... talk about messed up system. Public transit in the US is really often a joke, so some politician can "check off the box," while driving to their office.

Roughstuff

Much of the elitist reputation is deserved. Just look at how many people here say they want "$10 gas" to discourage driving, usually via gas taxes. As if giving money to the Feds encourages them to spend it more wisely.

We have been in the process or slowly adjusting our transportation matrix for amost 4 decades now..with smaller cars, better fuel efficiency, multimodal shipping; and i don't see this process stopping anytime soon. Our overall energy efficiency has improved as well, such that our energy bill is now a much smaller %age of GDP than it was decades ago. This process will also continue.

mnemia

Agreed. It certainly has to run frequently, at convenient times, and reliably in order for people to see it as a viable alternative. That means that it a) has to have a critical mass of people for whom driving is NOT more convenient, and b) a good chunk of upfront investment before the ticket money starts rolling in. It's sort of like how roads wouldn't be so useful or so utilized if they didn't go everywhere: you have to have a certain critical mass in place before the utility of the system greatly increases. Unfortunately, a lot of U.S. public transit systems aren't treated that way: if they don't immediately make money, they cut back on service, etc, which causes them to become less useful and lose more money, etc. Having lived in Japan and used their train + bike system, what we have here is indeed a joke in comparison.

Americans, I believe, would gladly utilize public transit, if public transit were better, nicer, and more convenient. Especially if the alternative is spending an hour in a freeway traffic jam every day.