BB Question of the Day
In what is sure to be a short lived feature here at Blue Bexley, I'll be asking a question that I'd like to see people discuss down in the comments. Previous commenters know that I don't use comment moderation, but I do respectfully request that folks refrain from using the "anonymous" option. Pick a name. Any name. Thanks. Today's question:
Tangentially following up on Brian's frustrated post at Plunderbund...
Are alternative fuels the default solution to our energy problems simply because it is impossible to get Americans to consider alternative modes of transportation?
3 comments:
My preference is to let the free market sort most details out, but there is definitely a role for government leadership at the macro level. I am particularly impressed with Brazil's ability to implement a multi-decade energy independence program. Years ago, Brazil mandated that by a certain date (now long past), every auto filling station had to offer gasoline, ethanol, and diesel. That solved the chicken & egg problem. Then every auto manufacturer was required to make their non-diesel engines run on both gasoline and ethanol.
Consequently, drivers in Brazil can choose either diesel or spark technology, and have a choice of fossil or renewable fuel, depending on the price. The barometer is what the taxi drivers choose for their cabs. When petroleum started getting expensive, they all switched to ethanol.
That story is a little tangiential from your question, but here's the connection: I think Americans will pick alternative transportation choices only when the price of owning and operating a private car gets to be more than alternative forms of transportation.
As was the case in Brazil, I think the government has a leadership role to play. Here are some steps:
a) discourage unmanaged urban sprawl, and start mandating community designs which make public transportation more efficient; b) require the railroads to make their tracks in urban and suburban areas available for trolley usage during peak commuting periods; c) build suburban/urban trolley systems; d) put taxes on gasoline to fund the above.
It would be nice to think that everyone would do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. But is doesn't work that work. Timely and effective leadership is required to keep things working well. Unfortunately, we've had no real leadership in our country at a national level for many years, spanning lots of Presidents and Congresses of both parties.
So we get further and further off course. Many of us see the magnitude of the course correction that is now required, but few have the guts to actually turn the wheel any appreciable degree. To the goal is no closer, and may actually be getting farther away.
As was the case in Brazil, I think the government has a leadership role to play. Here are some steps:
"a) discourage unmanaged urban sprawl, and start mandating community designs which make public transportation more efficient; b) require the railroads to make their tracks in urban and suburban areas available for trolley usage during peak commuting periods; c) build suburban/urban trolley systems; d) put taxes on gasoline to fund the above."
Not exactly what I expected from you, Paul. But pretty close to exactly what I would suggest. The only thing I would like to add is inter-city regional rail (which won't work unless it is done in conjunction with all or most of the things you proposed above).
BTW, you're absolutely right. Unless you can get market forces and your objectives to line up together, you'll never get it done.
Inter-urban rail is also a good idea. In western Europe, as well as the American northeast corridor, the rail-based mass transit system works because people tend to live and work near train/subway stations. But in both cases, there are still people who choose to get in their cars and slug it out trying to get from the suburbs into the city. That's okay. Folks should be able to make a choice whether to use public or private transit based on their individual cost/convenience analysis.
But the government can influence that choice. However, rather than doing that with a new subsidy, I would influence it by ending subsidies so deeply ingrained that we've stopped thinking of them that way.
For example, I would stop spending money adding lanes to the freeways to make auto transportation more convenient. Why is it that New Albany has had two major upgrades to 161? To relieve the overcrowding during rush hour of course (and because there are some big political support $$ coming out of New Albany).
Let them ride COTA I say!
Post a Comment