Let’s Modernize the Gas Tax!

August 30, 2012 by · 6 Comments
Filed under: Car Stop 

This column and The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation have longed promoted increasing the tax on gasoline. Yes, that can be a conservative position, so long as such an increase is balanced by cuts in other taxes, preferably the income tax. As a member of the National Surface Transportation Commission, Paul Weyrich voted for an increase in the gas tax.

But we have gone past that position to promote a particular kind of gas tax, one that would vary according to the market price of gasoline. The goal would be to create a stable, predictable gas price that would rise slowly over time. Adjustments in the tax could not always cover market fluctuations, but they could do so much of the time. If consumers could know what future gas prices would be, they could take that into account when buying a car.

Now, it appears we found an ally in an unlikely place: car dealers! A piece in the NationalJournal.com (“$1 Gas Tax? One Auto Dealer Says, ‘Yes, Please,’ “) dated August 9, 2012, quotes the owner of an automobile dealership in LA, Mr. Peter Hoffman, as saying, “A lot of our industry has been saying, ‘Put a progressively increasing price on gasoline.’ “

Mr. Hoffman’s reasoning is the same as ours, with the difference that he is looking at it from the standpoint of a car salesman and our perspective is that of car buyers. Both need the same thing: predictability. The National Journal says, “What Hoffman wants most . . . is market certainty – – the ability to plan.”

Car dealers are caught in a whipsaw of fluctuating gas prices. When prices rise, people want small cars that get good gas mileage. So car dealers order lots of them. But then the price of fuel drops and the small cars sit unsold as customers demand SUVs. The dealer orders SUVs but then the price of gas soars again and they don’t sell. He can’t win.

The National Journal says Hoffman and this Center are not alone:

Hoffman is one of a growing number of car dealers who advocate the same solution to the problem: raise the gas tax, enough to create consistent, predictable demand for fuel-efficient cars . . . One way to do this, says automakers, would be to create a new gasoline price floor – – a point below which prices won’t fall.
“it allows the population to plan. It allows automakers to plan. It allows us to plan, “ Hoffman says.

Now all we need are some politicians with the guts to go forward with the idea. How about you, Rep. Ryan?

Tags:

Honest Car Talk

July 16, 2012 by · 7 Comments
Filed under: Car Stop 

The August, 2012 issue of Motor Trend has a somewhat surprising article, “is the automobile over?” The piece reports what has been reported elsewhere, namely that young people are showing a remarkable decrease in the desires to own a car and even to drive. Based on a Frontier Group study, “Transportation and the New Generation” by Benjamin Davis and Tony Dutzik, the article notes that

The share of 14-to 34-year olds without a driver’s license was 26% in 2010, up from 21% in 2000. . . The same age group walked to more destinations in ’09 than in ’01, and the distance it traveled by public transit increased 40 percent.

The interesting thing about this article is less the information than the tone. Motor Trend is a magazine for car enthusiasts. (Why do I subscribe to it, and to Car and Driver? I find cars interesting. I just don’t want to be forced to drive everywhere for lack of a comfortable, pleasant alternative). But the article does not wail and moan over young people’s move away from cars to other modes of transportation. Instead of concluding with a discussion of how to win Generation Y back to dependence on automobiles, it ends with the following paragraph:

We need a pretty frank and clear debate about what our transportation priorities are,” he (Dutzik) concludes. If Generation Y has its say, cars and new highways won’t be a big part of that priority.

Motor Trend appears to do what you might not expect a car mag to do, namely take a realistic approach. I am sure it knows that cars are not going to disappear. Car enthusiasts have no reason to panic. Rather, the question is whether we will have alternatives to cars, alternatives people actually want to use, including walking in neighborhoods built to traditional designs, cycling, streetcars and passenger trains. Generation Y is saying yes.

Isn’t it interesting that even a car magazine can be more balanced in its approach to transportation than the libertarian transit critics, who for all their talk of “freedom,” want to maintain a choiceless dependence on automobiles.

Mr. Lind serves as Director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation

Tags:

FRA Blows it Again on Car Safety

May 7, 2012 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Car Stop 

For decades, FRA safety rules for railroad passenger cars have unnecessarily raised the cost of U.S. equipment. By specifying buffer strength requirements that differ substantially from those in Europe, it has ruled out much European equipment out of the U.S. market and forced expensive changes on that sold here. The U.S. is a very small market for rail passenger vehicles, and when small markets have unique requirements, per-unit costs go through the roof. The more expensive rail equipment is, the less we can buy and the fewer passenger trains, light rail cars and streetcars we can ride.

An article in the May issue of Trains magazine, “Crash Course in Passenger Safety,” by Steven M. Sweeney, indicates the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is about to perpetuate its mistakes through another generation of rail vehicles. The article quotes FRA’s acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer, Robert Lauby, as saying of forthcoming FRA requirements, call it “European Standards – – plus . . . we’re taking [European] work and trying to improve it.”

That is exactly what we cannot afford to do. As soon as we “improve” on European standards, we again make most European equipment illegal in the U.S. market. Once more, European manufacturers will have to re-design their products to sell them here, and manufacture very small batches for U.S. rail operations. The cost of each passenger car, light rail vehicle or streetcar will go through the roof. That means some otherwise viable projects won’t get built, or won’t have enough equipment to meet passenger loads and provide frequent service.

Here we run into a classic problem with government regulation: the FRA safety folks will pay no price for their bad decision. What is it to them if equipment prices go up unnecessarily? The price difference doesn’t come out of their budget. If some projects don’t get built, that doesn’t hurt them. Their answer is the answer of bureaucrats everywhere: “It’s not my job, sir.”

Because the American passenger rail equipment market is so small, we are beggars. Beggars can’t be choosers. If we want affordable prices, we have to buy standard designs that are built in large numbers for other, larger markets. This isn’t wheel-rail interface science. It could not be more obvious.

Let me suggest Mr. Lauby “correct the record” and say, “What I meant to say was that the FRA will adopt European standards. No plus, just straight. What is safe enough for Swedes and Germans and Brits is safe enough for Americans too. And we can afford to buy more, because avoiding unique requirements will keep the cost down.”

Mr. Lind serves as Director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation

Tags:

« Previous Page — Next Page »