oj-

Markets work by conveying price information regarding relative scarcity. You know that. Free market 'ideologues' dislike social engineering schemes put forth by utopian greenies who enjoy running experiments on their fellows. You're surprised by the uptick in mass transport usage with 3.00 a gallon gas or are you just concerned that it occurred with out your meddling?

Concerned that we aren't taking advantage of the obvious.

The rationale for meddling is rarely obvious to most fair-minded folks. The potential for unintended consequences of severing behavior from market prices should be obvious to everyone.

The rationale is multi-fold and manifest:

(1) Taxing consumption rather than income.

(2) Reducing reliance on an unstable fuel source

(3) Reducing the malevolent influence of oil on third world states

(4) Reducing the congestion and lost productivity of the current transport system

(5) Reducing auto emissions

....

Really, USA Today is doing quite a bit of a reach on this. The idea that "doors are dropping" from the weight of many light-rail passengers is silly. I've been on packed light-rail trains in Denver from various sports events, and the doors held up fine.

BTW, there has been no appreciable increase in commuters on my bus trips to work, and I work in metro Denver's most concentrated employment. Hint, OJ: It's not downtown anymore.

We tax consumption rather than income?

Mr. Judd;

Your point (4) is silly and I would expect a significant increase in lost productivity with any substantial switch to mass transit. It would cost us about one hour lost per day to use mass transit. When you compute the vaue of that hour, using a car is cheap even at $3/gallon.

Tom:

That's the model we're transitioning to. Taxing gas consumption more heavily is an easy start.

People will drive up to a certain level of tollerence, which is when the average commute/trip becomes so slow and so annoying, that they'll switch over to available mass transit to lighten the stress level (albeit there will always be a certain group of people who feel either a distaste for mingling with others at close quarters on a daily basis, or who just don't care about the added fuel/toll/parking costs that come with driving all the way into the city).

Of course, the development of highway has created the phenominon of "outer" downtowns in many big cities, located along city loops or at intersections of major highways 5-10 miles away from the outer downtown. To really get people out of their vehicle,s transit systems have to create connections between these outer areas, and not force all travelers into the original downtown before they can transfer to get to their final destination.

AOG:

That's counterfactual. You make the mistake of extrapolating out from the self, a chronic libertarian error.

oj-

Like the transition from the Spanish-American War federal tax on telephones?

John,

We don't even need to build mass transit options to these outer employment centers. In my state of Colorado, it is illegal to charge for carpooling. This law was heavily lobbied into passage by...hold on here...metro Denver's transit authority! Seems the transit authority doesn't like competition for the commuter.

Imagine having to work at Denver Intl Airport, which is 15-20 miles from most lower-income people's residences and paying $80/month for a bus pass while working

oj-

Brad just described a beautiful example of government mismanagement as a consequence of conflicting interests. The state has it's own and when they conflict with the general interest the state wins. Regulating car-pooling! Schmuks!

Tom:

Precisely. You can't micromanage such things effectively, which is the mistake the Left makes. Rather just raise the cost of gasoline and the market will make the necesary adjustments.

Brad:

Sure, make car pool lanes free and hike tolls for fewer occupants.

Tom:

Obviously the modern telephone doppleganger should be taxed.

oj-

What about the state's perceived self-interest? They protect their turf. No surprises there. Social engineering schemes supported through a consumption tax allow one to control things to a degree through private decisions to consume or not. Without amending the constitution to rescind the tax on 'income' we will have both consumption and the other while the vote buying and social engineering schemes will reach nightmarish proportions.

Tom:

Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to establish one tax regime and make it difficult for Congress to tamper with. That would be the single most important CFR in our history.

Commuters will soon tire of the inconvenience of mass transit and return to the comfort of their cars accepting the higher gas prices as just another fact of life.

erp:

Which gives us leeway to keep hiking them until we're getting genuine income tax relief.

OJ,

Higher gas taxes are a subsidy for the speculator. Just try to argue for them when the speculator craps out.

oj. As long as you understand the danger of many people pushed beyond endurance who are driving thousands of pounds of heavy metal and know where you live.

Being serious for a moment, this afternoon, my accountant husband for the first time in his life announced that we would have to curtail our driving as a half tank of gas cost $33. Of course, he knows I have no intention of curtailing my driving, but he has hopes I'll feel guilty about it. I won't.

Yes, you will.

Trust me. I won't.