Toll Road America

If we are serious about global climate change we need to relocate people around transportation hubs. It doesn't make sense to have people randomly distributed to where it takes a lot of carbon to move them individually. We need to distribute people efficiently... this can include agricultural areas. If you choose to live away from an efficient transportation network, you should pay for it.

A serious response to climate change is going to require a real change in society. Making it expensive to live away from efficient transportation will help push us in that direction. We can use the revenue raised to build more efficient infrastructure and help people to move.

I am serious when I say I think the cost of gasoline should be much higher. That is the way to cause the significant social change we need.

You have definitely articulated your solution to this serious problem. Yes, I agree that global climate change exist and needs to be addressed. I'm still not on board with your specific solution of raising gas taxes to force people to drive less. What you are proposing may be one solution to this serious problem, but not the only solution. I do respect your point of view.

There are two institutions in the US that give me problems. The first is the gun culture and the second is the car culture.
Weve spent so much on interstates and pissed away opportunities for really good public transport that any remedial planning will be difficult.

The interstate highway system was not designed for private transport. Rather--in the Eisenhower administration--it was seen as a system for transporting troops and logistical support and materials in the event of war. It was not designed with public transport in mind. It's entire purpose, despite the convenience to private transport, had a military origin.

Edit: I had to check, but Ike's name for it was the interstate and defense highway system.

Raising gas taxes is regressive taxation. The working class need that gasoline to get to work with the current system, and can afford it less than the middle class and the wealthy. For those two groups, it would be no more than a minor annoyance, taking an insignificant amount of the their disposable income.

How do you get working class people to move closer to work, or to transportation hubs so that we can have a more efficient transportation system? Most of the problem, I think, is the White middle class, minority workers tend to live in urban areas. I think that is the problem.

Tax policy should more focus on taxing things that are harmful (such as driving) instead of beneficial (such as working). The way to make this more progressive is to offer an allowance to driving for work... but not so much as to not encourage a gradual move away from isolated areas.

It is interesting how much progressive middle class White Americans work to defend the status quo.

I agree there are places where there is no public transportation. There is none in the town I live in and any in towns near me are way too far to even consider walking.

If having a car to get to work is a necessity then it gas tax should be limited. When I travel into the office I do a combination drive and public transportation . .. I honestly have no other option.

Unfortunately car pooling is only possible if you have a 9 to 5 job. How many people really only work 9 to 5. When I go in the office I work more like 8 to 6:30 or 7.

So although a good idea to car pool it isn't really feasible for most peopke.

This is crazy ... this is big brotherish. You are essentially taking away people's freedoms.

Rather than raise gas prices and take away people's freedoms it is more feasible to look towards alternative energy sources...which is currently going on.

Living in urban areas is significantly more expensive for rent or to own a home. This is why in part the working class may need to travel further. That and if you want even a little yard for a family you need to be outside the city.

If you can come up with a solution to own a modest sized home with a small yard in the city that a working class family could afford then you would be able to encourage the working class to eliminate the need for a car.

There was an option but corporate America stole it right out from under y'all, as always, without a whimper from the highly gullible.

Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4

Can you say Patriot Act, US Freedom Act, all reminiscent of Nazi style propaganda to fool the terribly gullible?

I gotta be honest linkat.

I live in a neighborhood of all houses, with yards, and kids. Seldom, and I mean if ever, do I see kids playing in those yards, or adults sitting around in them. It's pretty much an unused, just for show, feature of the house.

In fact, as land prices are skyrocketing, more and more houses are being built vertically, with little or any yard beyond a small strip around the house, with landscaping or small garden. Kids and families go to numerous parks around here, both large and small. There they can enjoy barbeques, splash pads, hike and bike trails, pools and much more. More than a backyard can supply. I've never once heard anyone complain about lack of a yard if they are buying or renovating their home to get more functionality out of unused dirt and grass.

Regarding public transportation options, we need to keep in mind the layout of a city. Austin has a population of about a million. The problem is, it's spread out over many square miles. Not unlike Houston. When they were being developed, subways were not dug, like in NY, Boston, etc. Logistically buses are just not that efficient, due to such large expanses of land.
Boston is 89 square miles, Manhatten is 22, San Francisco 47. Austin covers 270 square miles, Houston is 627 square miles.

Looking at this attached link...https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/

There's a pretty direct correlation between land size and successful public transport.

Meh. You live in the middle of a city, you don't own a car or pay for gas and its taxes. You use relatively cheap public transport but pay through the nose for someplace to live.
You live in a smaller city spread over a larger area, you can find cheaper housing, but need a car and pay the costs, or spend time instead of money trying to navigate a much more convoluted public transport system.

Or you own your car, buy gas, realize you time has value, so pay a toll to get somewhere faster.

Improve public transport in wide spread cities? Good luck with that. Millions have been spent here, and it's always too little, too late, with the results many time being public transport going where few need to go.

One way or another, you've got to pay to get to where you want to go.

No Linkat, there is no magic. America is a consumer society. Don't mistake that with "freedom".

The United States has about 5% of the worlds population. We consume 25% of its energy. This is because we drive too much, live in houses that are too big and too far from population centers and use too many disposable resources. The reason that we live this way is because this is the way our economy works. Our cost of fuel is very low. Big houses are cheap and kind of expected. And disposable resources are plentiful.

If we are serious about global climate change, we should our culture from this idea that we can use as much energy as we want without any concern for the consequences.

Alternative energy is a good idea. But it isn't the solution to an attitude of unfettered consumption.

A society where people are rewarded for living near transportation hubs is logical. Insisting that the cost of fossil fuels be kept artificially low to maintain an American style of living that is harming the planet is not.

If you take global climate change seriously, and believe that we should act definitively to respond to the threat.... it is hard to imagine how raising the price of gasoline isn't part of that response. If you think there is a solution that doesn't significantly inconvenience middle class Americans (who are a big part of the problem).... you are kidding yourself.

You forgot to mention, Max, that the US military uses more fossil fuels than many countries. All just to help US business steal more wealth from the poor of the planet, not to mention slaughter many of those innocents in the process.

You forgot to mention just how greedy America and Americans are, how their conceit has engendered so much grief and suffering and death for so many hundreds of millions of people around the world from US illegal invasions of sovereign nations.

Just to make it clear. My solution is positive and practical. The cost of using energy, especially fossil fuels, should be increased. Prices of gasoline are far lower than they should be.

There are sensible ways to do this. But they include inconvenience for middle class Americans. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be done (although so far, they aren't).

OMG!

The fact of the matter is those toll roads always serve their communities in terms of reducing congestion, and they always include access roads for the "poor"

This is such bullshit.

Only inane ideologues like edgar think that congested roads that allow the "poor" to equally clog them up with the "rich" are a good thing.

Doesn't the air in your little bubble really stink by now, Finn?

To be honest - in my neighborhood - there are kids and parents out all the time. Kids playing all sorts of games, riding their bikes --- even the older kids high school always out shooting a basketball -there are hoops all over the neighborhood and everyone is invited to use whichever one they want as long as no cars are parked nearby; street hockey and ice hockey - several yards have homemade ice hockey rinks and down the street is a pond used for playing hockey when it freezes over.

Parents and grandparents out working in the yard, walking dogs.

This is part of the reason we bought where we did -- they neighborhood. So it would depend on where you live.

As part of the cost of living in city and giving up your car equates to the same sort value - not even close here. I think in part as you describe - the smaller square miles versus a spread out city. The lower the square miles of a city, the significantly more expensive to live. For example you need about $600k for a 600 square foot condo in Boston. That is about the cheapest you would get to be in the city. It would be tough for us to afford this even without a car - not to mention it would be a tight squeeze to fit my family in it.

Now you could move further out - in a less desirable area still within walking distance to the subway for about the same amount for a condo with double the space. Again not the most affordable but you could deal with it - but not many families would want to live there due to the schools - families that tend to live in these areas and can comfortably afford them tend to have their kids in private schools.

We actually did have a condo previously - because we wanted to be close to the city and still be able to afford it - we could walk to the subway but it was a little over a mile but there was also a shuttle to the subway. Not quite close enough to stores to not have a car. We lived for quite a while with just one car to help save on money. We did end up having our kids go to a private school as when I went to go vote at the local school and hearing the kids swear (you are talking about young elementary kids) and their attitudes and then seeing the ratings on the local school - it was a good thing as friends of ours did end up sending their son to the school and he was bullied and teased. Anyway we did this for quite a while.

We ended up moving further out because of being able to buy something that was more affordable with all perks of being in a neighborhood that kids could play outside. For me it works well as I can work from home several days a week so I am helping the environment!

Actually with technology - this has helped as many people do not need to go in the office as was the case previously.

One note on toll roads - the bonus of not taking the toll road route --- it usually is much more scenic. Of course that only works when you are not in hurry. Upon going to pick up my college daughter - I usually take the non-toll route going to get her as it is a much more beautiful ride than the toll roads - where it is all highway.

And ironically on the subject of this - she is majoring in environmental science - she wants to save our earth.