True Price Of Operating Private Car Not Reflected

[mirror]

Aren't people getting tired of governments deceiving us, and running away from the problems we are facing?

Reducing taxes is a fix that would delay us from confronting the underlying problem

The problem is our over-consumption of oil. This over-consumption is moving us inexorably toward two very grim scenarios — a world engulfed by global warming and a world running short on oil.

Cars are the cause of a huge part of this over-consumption of oil. We all know the solution — more public transit, greater reliance on trains, more fuel-efficient cars, ultimately cars that run on some other source of energy.

But how do we get there? Obliging consumers to pay the true costs of operating their cars is one way to speed up the transition at this late date. Governments have failed to take the kind of action that could have allowed us to adapt more gradually.

In fact, for years, governments have been doing almost the opposite; they've been encouraging us to stick with the car by heavily subsidizing its operation, providing billions of dollars annually to build and maintain highways, roads, bridges and traffic signals.

In addition, governments spend billions each year dealing with the health and environmental damage caused by cars. The most significant of these — global warming — includes a price tag too big to calculate.

Finally, governments also provide massive subsidies to the oil industry, mostly in the form of tax concessions.

When added together, these true car-related costs exceed what governments collect each year in gasoline taxes, according to John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.

Politicians are keen these days to voice their support for alternative energies and modes of transportation — a message the public is very receptive to — but in practice governments provide far more generous subsidies to the well-entrenched special interests of the oil and auto industries.

If the true costs of operating our cars were reflected at the gas pumps, railways and public transit would suddenly look very attractive.

And if governments went further and actually subsidized these alternatives in really significant ways — think of free subways — they would look more attractive still.

[Toro]

Using US$, the cost of running a car

Buy a new car, $25,000, depreciated over 10 years, recovery value $2,000 = $2,300 a year

Insurance = $700 a year

Fill up once a week @ $30 = $1500 a year

Maintenance = $500

Total = $5,000 a year to run a car.

[B. Max]

Aren't people getting tired of governments deceiving us, and running away from the problems we are facing?

Reducing taxes is a fix that would delay us from confronting the underlying problem

The problem is our over-consumption of oil. This over-consumption is moving us inexorably toward two very grim scenarios — a world engulfed by global warming and a world running short on oil.

Cars are the cause of a huge part of this over-consumption of oil. We all know the solution — more public transit, greater reliance on trains, more fuel-efficient cars, ultimately cars that run on some other source of energy.

But how do we get there? Obliging consumers to pay the true costs of operating their cars is one way to speed up the transition at this late date. Governments have failed to take the kind of action that could have allowed us to adapt more gradually.

In fact, for years, governments have been doing almost the opposite; they've been encouraging us to stick with the car by heavily subsidizing its operation, providing billions of dollars annually to build and maintain highways, roads, bridges and traffic signals.

In addition, governments spend billions each year dealing with the health and environmental damage caused by cars. The most significant of these — global warming — includes a price tag too big to calculate.

Finally, governments also provide massive subsidies to the oil industry, mostly in the form of tax concessions.

When added together, these true car-related costs exceed what governments collect each year in gasoline taxes, according to John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.

Politicians are keen these days to voice their support for alternative energies and modes of transportation — a message the public is very receptive to — but in practice governments provide far more generous subsidies to the well-entrenched special interests of the oil and auto industries.

If the true costs of operating our cars were reflected at the gas pumps, railways and public transit would suddenly look very attractive.

And if governments went further and actually subsidized these alternatives in really significant ways — think of free subways — they would look more attractive still.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pure nonsense. There is nothing more subsidized than public transit with little or no benifit. Governments provide no subsidizes to oil companies what soever.

In fact, for years, governments have been doing almost the opposite; they've been encouraging us to stick with the car by heavily subsidizing its operation, providing billions of dollars annually to build and maintain highways, roads, bridges and traffic signals.

This is exactly what governments job is. Not to herd everyone into what is nothing less than human cattle trucks. People who value their freedom of mobility which has been at the center of building the country are not going to trade it for anything, or hand it over to the government. The true cost of public tranist should be reflected in the price of ticket. At that point it would cease to exist as its true value would be exposed. One has to remeber that government has no money of its own. Only that which they extort from our pockets through gas taxes license plate fees and the like and it should be spent on the roads as was intended. Not to subsidize public transist.

[Riverwind]

This  is exactly what governments job is. Not to herd everyone into what is nothing less than human cattle trucks. People who value their freedom of mobility which has been at the center of building the country are not going to trade it for anything, or hand it over to the government.

In other words, you are in favour of taxpayer funded social programs as a long as they benefit you (roads and bridges to provide personal mobility == social program). Not everyone shares your opinion of public transportation, more importantly, not everyone can afford the cost of running a vehicle required to take advantage of subsidized roadways.

Transit should not be free (because nothing should be free since it encourages abuse), however, it deserves more subsidies than the private automobile.

[Shady]

they've been encouraging us to stick with the car by heavily subsidizing its operation, providing billions of dollars annually to build and maintain highways, roads, bridges and traffic signals

The government doesn't heavily subsidize the operations of automobiles, at least not privately. Private citizens pay for their own vehicles, maintenance and insurance the last time I checked. Government does however spend money (other peoples money) to build and maintain highways, roads etc. This is because it's in their best interest to do so. The economy is built on our transportation system and the infastructure that supports it.

[Riverwind]

This is because it's in their best interest to do so.  The economy is built on our transportation system and the infastructure that supports it.

The same rational applies to public transit. The need to move goods around does not require the massive infrastructure which is used to transport people to and from work at peak hours. This could be done much more efficiently with good public transit. Building roads that can handle the volume of traffic required for communters is an example of the gov't paying to support the lifestyle of some people and is not essential for the economy.

[mirror]

Finally, governments also provide massive subsidies to the oil industry, mostly in the form of tax concessions.

Ultimately this is a gigantic subsidy to the to car owners and are part of the true costs of operating a vehicle. That is why the accounting profession and economists are a farce as the real costs are never shown on balance sheets..

[B. Max]

This  is exactly what governments job is. Not to herd everyone into what is nothing less than human cattle trucks. People who value their freedom of mobility which has been at the center of building the country are not going to trade it for anything, or hand it over to the government.

In other words, you are in favour of taxpayer funded social programs as a long as they benefit you (roads and bridges to provide personal mobility == social program). Not everyone shares your opinion of public transportation, more importantly, not everyone can afford the cost of running a vehicle required to take advantage of subsidized roadways.

Transit should not be free (because nothing should be free since it encourages abuse), however, it deserves more subsidies than the private automobile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No i'm in favor of government doing its job. Which is building roads and bridges paid for through the money it now collects to do that. Not running subsidized human cattle cars that take monies away from what it was intended for. Let private business buy build and operate buses and subways and let the cost of a ticket reflect that cost including the cost of building the roads the buses run on.

[Riverwind]

No i'm in favor of government doing its job. Which is building roads and bridges paid for through the money it now collects to do that. Not running subsidized human cattle cars that take monies away from what it was intended for.  Let private business buy build and operate buses and subways and let the cost of a ticket reflect that cost including the cost of building the roads the buses run on.

Why is providing an eloborate network of roads at zero cost to snobbish commuters an example of government 'doing its job'? A gov't that was doing its job would provide a public transportation system that meets the needs of the vast majority of commuters and let the snobs who think public transport is beneath them pay the the true cost of using thier vehicle.

[B. Max]

Finally, governments also provide massive subsidies to the oil industry, mostly in the form of tax concessions.

Ultimately this is a gigantic subsidy to the to car owners and are part of the true costs of operating a vehicle. That is why the accounting profession and economists are a farce as the real costs are never shown on balance sheets..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense, the only thing subsidized are the public cattle liners paid for by private auto owners who have to pay for their ride and someone elses too.

[Toro]

Plus, transportation infrastructure is definite added value which government does pretty well.

It doesn't matter so much if its cars that are subsidized since any form of transportation is going to be subsidized as long as the government is involved, public transportation or whatever.

[Shady]

snobbish commuters

Where did you come up with this premise? Maybe people just want to have the freedom to transport themselves, instead of having to rely on another government program.

[Riverwind]

snobbish commuters

Where did you come up with this premise? Maybe people just want to have the freedom to transport themselves, instead of having to rely on another government program.

I was reponding to B. Max and his description of public transport as 'public cattle liners'.

[B. Max]

No i'm in favor of government doing its job. Which is building roads and bridges paid for through the money it now collects to do that. Not running subsidized human cattle cars that take monies away from what it was intended for.  Let private business buy build and operate buses and subways and let the cost of a ticket reflect that cost including the cost of building the roads the buses run on.

Why is providing an eloborate network of roads at zero cost to snobbish commuters an example of government 'doing its job'? A gov't that was doing its job would provide a public transportation system that meets the needs of the vast majority of commuters and let the snobs who think public transport is beneath them pay the the true cost of using thier vehicle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you slow. People with private vehicles are paying their own ride and someone elses too. There is no such right to a free ride. That is communist thinking.

[Riverwind]

Are you slow. People with private vehicles are paying their own ride and someone elses too. There is no such right to a free ride. That is communist thinking.

The current funding mechanisms do not charge people in their cars to true cost of the infrastructure so drivers are getting a free ride. If you believe that transit riders should pay the full cost of the service then people who drive cars should also pay the full cost. That would require much higher gas taxes and tolls on many roads. If you agree then at least you are consistent in your views, otherwise, you are advocating that relatively poorer transit riders should pay more so relatively rich commuters can drive to work and back.

[B. Max]

Are you slow. People with private vehicles are paying their own ride and someone elses too. There is no such right to a free ride. That is communist thinking.

The current funding mechanisms do not charge people in their cars to true cost of the infrastructure so drivers are getting a free ride. If you believe that transit riders should pay the full cost of the service then people who drive cars should also pay the full cost. That would require much higher gas taxes and tolls on many roads. If you agree then at least you are consistent in your views, otherwise, you are advocating that relatively poorer transit riders should pay more so relatively rich commuters can drive to work and back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong, drivers are already over charged with the feds being the best example. Only and small fraction of the 10 cent a liter gas tax is spent on roads. A tax that they said was going to be spent on roads, and now a tax which they refuse to spend on roads or let anyone else spend on roads. A tax which now must be spent on public transit. To jail with the whole damn works of them and let those that want to be hauled around like human cattle pay for their ride.

[Canuck E Stan]

Don't be so hard on the Feds. After all a lot of tax dollars went to the auto companies in Ontario so they would keep producing there. I believe $500 million in the last go round.So your tax dollars are helping.With gas prices escalating, is anybody going to buy these cars? Sales have been going down and only been revived through those "employee price" campaigns. This whole gas thing is going to make a lot of people think twice about their next vehicle purchase.

As for transit,I believe a lot of people don't like it because of the crowded conditions which Canadians really are not used to.Try standing next to a guy who hacks and coughs all the way to work,or worse yet smells. How about the Terrorist thing? Canadians still love their cars and if that's taken away from them many are going to be awfully upset.I can see the second,third or more cars in a household gotten rid of and people reverting back to a one car family.All this will affect automobile manufacturung in Ontario and that will affect the economy and Ottawa.

[kimmy]

Public transit is publicly subsidized because it is in the public interest to do so.

When you sit in your car, you might feel resentful that your tax dollars are helping pay for the bus of 40 people in the lane next to you. Use your head. Be happy. That's 40 less cars clogging the road you're on. And that's 40 less cars fouling the air you're breathing. Motorists who gripe about subsidizing public transit are too short-sighted to think of how much worse road conditions would be if everybody acted as selfishly as they do.

-k

[B. Max]

Public transit is publicly subsidized because it is in the public interest to do so.

When you sit in your car, you might feel resentful that your tax dollars are helping pay for the bus of 40 people in the lane next to you. Use your head. Be happy.  That's 40 less cars clogging the road you're on. And that's 40 less cars fouling the air you're breathing. Motorists who gripe about subsidizing public transit are too short-sighted to think of how much worse road conditions would be if everybody acted as selfishly as they do.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and even that's not true. Some years ago edmonton had a bus strike and the traffic never moved so well with the buses off the street and out of the road.

[Riverwind]

and even that's not true. Some years ago edmonton had a bus strike and the traffic never moved so well with the buses off the street and out of the road.

A bus strike is a temporary situation where people found alternatives based on the expectation that the buses would start running again soon. Eliminate public transit and you would see society reorganize itself around the new reality and you would see that Kimmy's prediction would come true.

[B. Max]

and even that's not true. Some years ago edmonton had a bus strike and the traffic never moved so well with the buses off the street and out of the road.

A bus strike is a temporary situation where people found alternatives based on the expectation that the buses would start running again soon. Eliminate public transit and you would see society reorganize itself around the new reality and you would see that Kimmy's prediction would come true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt it.

[Riverwind]

I doubt it.

Then you understand nothing about how the transportation system works.

[B. Max]

I doubt it.

Then you understand nothing about how the transportation system works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've worked in the transportation system for thirty years. I expect i know a lot about it than you or maybe even anyone on this board.

[Riverwind]

I've worked in the transportation system for thirty years. I expect i know a lot about it than you or maybe even anyone on this board.

That would depend. Driving one of the those big rollers used to lay asphalt would not make you an authority on the usefulness of public transport. I have read many things over the years that talk about how public transportation works and how it affects city development. I also have experience with countries that have a decent public transportation system (i.e. Japan). A car is a luxery in Japan and drivers pay for the privilege of using one. North american drivers do not pay anywhere near the same costs in terms of gas and road tolls. These higher costs make mass transit economical. For example, it is actually cheaper to take a train from Osaka airport than to take a car.

You would be considered a blithering idiot if you suggested to any Japanese that the roads would be less crowded if they shut down the train system.

[B. Max]

I've worked in the transportation system for thirty years. I expect i know a lot about it than you or maybe even anyone on this board.

That would depend. Driving one of the those big rollers used to lay asphalt would not make you an authority on the usefulness of public transport. I have read many things over the years that talk about how public transportation works and how it affects city development. I also have experience with countries that have a decent public transportation system (i.e. Japan). A car is a luxery in Japan and drivers pay for the privilege of using one. North american drivers do not pay anywhere near the same costs in terms of gas and road tolls. These higher costs make mass transit economical. For example, it is actually cheaper to take a train from Osaka airport than to take a car.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although i also spent a number of years in construction industry, I've never driven an asphalt roller. Japan is not a model country for this topic. Of course, unless you think people should be hauled around in government owned human cattleliners. Most people in this country do not. We believe in individual rights and freedoms and mobility, at least in the west. The east is a different matter.