You are trying to expand the scope to minimize the impact
I'm doing nothing of the sort.
Well the 9/11 terrorist crews killed 3+K people.
True but irrelevant.
So you try by expanding the scope to include people who don't commute.
I'm doing no such thing.
and they drive a mile to the local business district
that's a commute even if its a short one.
So a 25% rate cut would move almost all of them to the cheaper method.
I'm not sure it would, more importantly where do you get the 25% rate cut?
1 - Why should we care less about non "primary bread winners".
Because they commute at a far less rate.
True but irrelevant. Where talking about commuters, so you have to include the non primary bread winners who do commute.
2 - 14% over an hour is not inconsistent with a 33.2 minute average, or with my statement about 2.8 hours being an extreme outlier.
It is not an outlier when the scope is adjusted to commuters
The scope has been on commuters the whole time, and 2.8 hours is an outlier. Probably less than 1% of people have commutes that long, perhaps even well under 1%.
The federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes bring in more than is spent on the interstate system. Yes its government payments, but its government payments that are a cost to people who drive.
Not so for trucks, especially big semis:
Not for trucks perhaps but overall. (Which means cars and light trucks effectively subsidize trucks)
Also your link show the ratio "of 2000 Federal User Charges to Allocated Costs by Vehicle Class" for trucks, for "Total Single Unit" and "Total Combinations" as .9 so it would seem more like a 10% effective subsidy than the 25% you were talking about.
Also from your link
"but at the most common registered weight for 4-axle single units (80,000 pounds) vehicles pay almost $3,000 less than their share of highway cost responsibility."
Even if you charged them an extra $3000 per year in fees, tolls, and taxes, I don't think it would cause any massive shift to rail. It costs a lot more then $3k a year to own and operate a big rig.
So a 25% rate cut would move almost all of them to the cheaper method.
I'm not so sure it would, in any case where would you get this 25% rate cut?
At $4 a gallon gas, people don't drive a SUV unless they have too.
It will reduce the purchase of new SUVs, esp. new large SUVs.
OTOH if your trying to argue that people will stop driving the current ones I don't really agree.
Look at a Ford Expedition. Its a big SUV over 7000 lbs so its going to use a lot of gas. But its still gets 20mpg on the highway.
edmunds.com
Look at the cost to own figures from Edmunds
edmunds.com
Ignore the gasoline (that's using lower prices than your proposed $4/gal.
So the cost over 5 years is $42,676 not counting gas.
If it drives 12,000 miles a year and gets 20 mpg, that uses up 600 gallons of gasoline. Over 5 years that 3000 gallons of gasoline. At $4 per gallon that's $12,000. Expensive yes, but not a whole lot more than a quarter of the total costs. Maybe the driver drives a little less because of the $4 gas, but its unlikely to make someone who can afford the vehicle drastically cut their driving.
They opt for the 37MPG base engine rather than the sporty bigger 30MPG engine.
I think you exaggerated the effect of this factor. Over the long run the manufacturers will try to make a more powerful engine that will still give the car 37MPG, but people buying sporty cars want the power. |
