Federal commission recommends 40-cent increase in gas tax

Or you could look at Japan, a country with high-speed bullet trains as a major means of transit. Granted, we're talking about a massive difference in scale, but we could certainly do something like that-the technology is there, but the auto and oil industries are the problem as usual.

 

I don't think that .40 goes far enough. If we went at least a 1.00 we could fund a lot of mass transit projects and also alternative fuel research. $ 4.50 / gal gas would not be a big deal.

 

Trouble is, F_H, all of these changes in how we live are inevitable in any case. Do we want to make them gradually, with a plan in mind that weans us off peak oil? Or do we want to be shooting each other in gas lines in 2023 because we couldn't figure out how to adapt?

We built our entire system - from 1915 forward - on the premise that we'd never run out of oil. Now, unless we change, and fast, we're fucked.

 

jgmacg, I think what we're debating is the ole chicken or the egg.

Do we take the hit now and invest in overhauling the national transportation system? Or do we wait until it's forced?

I'd like to see us make the move now. But if they're going to raise gas prices 40 cents just to fix potholes on the interstates, then I'd have a problem with it.

 

Two points here...
1) You're right on the unreliable and crowded parts when it comes to public transportation. I grew up in New Jersey, where there was a regular bus line. I remember it taking an hour to get to the mall, via a highly circuitous route through the city. Drive the same route in the car, it takes at most half the time. Take the faster route, it takes 15 minutes. If I don't have to spend two hours out of my day choking on diesel exhaust while surrounded by several dozen people, why on earht would I? Even at age 12, being on a city bus reminded me of hell on earth.

2) The problem with this tax proposal, and most tax proposals in general, is that once we build our new roads and bridges and rail lines and mass transit systems, the tax stays with us. And in 20 or 40 or 60 years, this thing gets revisited again.
People might be willing to go along with a temporary tax if there was a promise it was temporary and they get something tangible for it. When they know it's going to sop them for most of their lives, and what they see are three fat construction workers leaning on a barrel for five years along a five-mile stretch of road -- or the tax dollars that were supposed to be funding road construction being diverted to schools or some other budget shortfall, then being told a couple years later they're not paying their fare share of highway taxes -- it's a lot harder to convince them.

 

Per the original story, the tax is a disincentive to driving, and a way to build funding toward covering the shortfall in infrastructure financing. Whether it's for potholes or bullet trains, it's gotta start sometime.

 

But we all know it would go to potholes, not to bullet trains or anything else.

 

I understand your frustration, Inky, honest, but at some point this is on us, not the politicians. We're the government, and the things upon which the American public insists - currently Britney, PS3 and the Baconator - come to pass when the groundswell of support for them grows large and loud enough.

Can you make an argument for better national fuel strategies by telling the electorate it'll keep their kids out of combat in Riyadh and Baku and Qom? Maybe.

At some point America needs to create a viable market for common sense.

 

Well, I am one of those people.

I live in a metro of 200,000. I'd like to be able to take a train to a larger city, instead of having to drive for four hours or spending 24 hours on a Greyhound bus that stops in every Podunk town along the way.

We'll never wipe out the car culture in America, nor would I want to. But I'd like to have an option other than driving or flying when I'm planning a trip.