For what it's worth, Archie, I'm convinced also.

who. like our host, make more than enough money to not cringe every time they pass a gss station, and are in a position to not have to worry about gas prices.

what we need is an arrogance tax hike --- make it cost a lot more to show contempt for the concerns of working people. Bunch and all these Wharton professor types would take a big chunk out of our national debt if we taxed self-serving pronouncements like this one.

Precisely, Pleeby. And as long as this thread continues, you won't get a response to that question.

Essentially, when you refuse to increase those taxes, then, you are increasing the level of "help" that the government is providing to the society. I know this is a hard concept to understand, Xi Jah, but the money does have to come from somewhere.

Current gas taxes cover only 60% of the cost to our government for building roads and other infrastructure needed to support our automobile system. And that doesn't include myriad other costs: the cost of highway traffic enforcement, the cost of municipal parking, the cost of police investigation of stolen automobiles, the indirect costs to to the health impact of automobile emissions and traffic accidents.

Why is this so hard to understand, db? Of course the lack of interest is related to the lack of will. But the point is that the lack of interest exists because the price of gasoline is artificially reduced due to (1) government influence from politicians who have direct ties to the oil industry, and (2) government support which deflects the true cost of automobile travel from being reflected in the price of gasoline.

Your side seeks to use taxes to force these people to bend to your will.

I don't know exactly who "my side" is, but if I understand your point correctly, you're wrong. I'm not saying that anyone should be "bent to my will." I'm simply saying that government should stop utilizing its resources to favor one option rather than the other. The way our resources are utilized should be adjusted to reflect the disproportionate favor given to private auto travel at the expense of public transportation. Let people who want to travel cars pay an appropriate price for doing so, and take the steps necessary to provide those who don't want to pay the true cost another option - public transportation that is actually a viable option.

And BTW, a public transportation initiative would provide a huge economic stimulus in terms of spending and the provision of jobs. It's time for this country to take a leadership role once again. There's no reason that we don't have the best public transportation system in the world.

No disagreement there.

You think there should be more mass transit and less private driving. Yup

So you thereby engage in the specious argument that drivers are not paying their way. They aren't specious. There is no way that drivers are paying their way. Just. Isn't. Happening. I've stated it numerous times above. The taxes collected don't pay for infrastructure maintenance. Not. Even. Close. And you dismiss the the indirect costs categorically, but I notice that you haven't supported that contention with < b> any substantial argument.

So you thereby engage in the specious argument that drivers are not paying their way. I like driving too. But I don't mind paying for the option. And I'd like to have better public transportation options. And in my experience, the desire to have better options is not exclusive to those who live in urban environments. In my experience (I lived in Appalachia as well as poorer urban neighborhoods), most poorer Americans like to have options for saving money and improving the natural environment. I don't want to make driving beyond the "reach of the average working stiff." I believe that subsidizing auto travel at the cost of offering other options (a non-free market policy, btw), does no one any good, and is a dead end policy that locks us into increased debt, increased destruction to our environment, huge opportunity cost (by not taking the lead on many fronts), and future dependence on foreign oil.

So, db, I guess people would rather find options to driving long distances in their cars? Oh. I thought you were just explaining that in your vast experience of interviewing "working stiffs" on the subject, you determined that people just like driving.

I've got no problem with more telecommunicating - but talk about options that leave behind the working stiff. How's that cashier at Wal-mart going to check people out from home, db? Further, how is that shift going to take place as long as automobile travel is supported through artificially low gas prices?

How are you going to come up with cost-effective and time-effective mass transit to cover a commute from Downingtown to Collegeville?

There is no one size fits all solution. Granted, examples like Europe and Japan don't apply directly since the distances that need to be traveled in this country are greater - but solving that kind of problem, given today's transportation, are not insurmountable. But even if the Downingtown to Collegeville commute problem isn't solved by better public transport, the overall dimensions of the problem are the dramatically changed by providing better transportation to hubs and providing better transportation with urban centers. Again, that isn't happening because the funds/leadership/will don't exist. And that situation will be perpetuated as long as gasoline prices are kept low artificially.

Continuing a system which requires revenue for infrastructure requires taxes. The taxes currently collected are insufficient. That isn't sustainable

The current system requires importation of foreign oil, subjects us to political repercussions such as fighting wars in the ME. Given the trillions we're spending in the ME to fight such a war = not sustainable.

Our current level of automobile use causes unsustainable environmental damage.

The reality of finite reserves makes current trends of demand for oil unsustainable

Granted, funding public transportation is unsustainable in some sense. Public transportation requires government subsidization: prices that would make public transportation revenue neutral would put it out of reach of many. But when you figure the "costs" of the unsustainability of our current dependency on automobile travel and add in the indirect costs of health costs do to auto accidents, law enforcement, etc., it is much, much less sustainable than public transportation

db so kindly explains that the problem with public transportation is that it doesn't address problems such as commuting from one suburb to another suburban community. That scenario, obviously, covers a small percentage of miles traveled; so, the impact of those scenarios is relatively negligible - but saying that is a fixed problem is incredibly short-sighted. The same could have been said about horses being insufficient to address such travel needs. Technology solved that problem. So, that goes back to your point about unintended consequences, legatus. I would disagree with you about the unintended (I presume in your opinion negative) consequence of publicly funded education. Our country build its supremacy through public education. But even if we say that we don't know for sure about the relative unintended consequences of increased funding of public transportation - what we have now ain't sustainable.