Here in
the U.S. there’s been a lot of chatter over the past decade about the declining
gas tax revenue and finding alternatives. Now that chatter is getting rather
shrill, touting alternatives limited by cultural quirks like an inherent terror
of raising general taxes, an adoration of anything techno-complex, and a belief
that each travel mode is used by an entirely different species from the others.
Drivers never walk. Bicyclists never drive. And who are those bizarre bus
riders anyway? These sci-fi assumptions force discussions of gas tax
alternatives into far flung realms focused entirely on car drivers.
No need
to recognize that taxing only drivers was wrong from the start and led to all
other modes being shortchanged. Each alternative requires years of meetings,
legions of consultants, and a battery of harassing surveys to even explain the
concept let alone how each would actually work.
Here’s
an article about one recent proposal—taxing car drivers per mile they drive.
Any school kid could come up with the obvious problem with that one. And sure
enough, as you’ll read in the article, decades of surveys have shown that few
people like the idea of big brother tracking them. Duh.
What infuriates
me is that nobody, at least here in the U.S., seems to realize that everyone
should have the right to use every mode of transport. This strikes the same fury
each time I fail to avoid a “debate” over universal health care for our
country. Why are we still discussing this? The United States is the only
developed country without universal health care. Many undeveloped countries
provide it, too.
Basic
rights. The basic right to health care. The basic right to move around as we
choose. These rights should not be questioned or debated or skirted with
preposterous techno wizardry alternatives that focus on one travel mode and only
deflect the obvious solutions.
To me,
the obvious solution for replacing the archaic gas tax is to raise general
taxes for everyone and require that tax money to provide universal
transportation choices for everyone. We’d pay no more, and likely less, than
what we’d pay through that big-brother driving fee because all those
administrative and consultant costs would vanish.
This
would mean that every transportation dollar spent would have to ensure that all
modes are provided for—drivers, bicyclists, wheelchair users, other
pedestrians, even delivery trucks. Lots of compromising would have to occur.
For instance, trucks would no longer be able to enter busy downtowns, but these fabulous cargo bikes
would take their place. Car speeds would have to be reduced, but better
intersection designs that accommodate non-motorized travelers would actually
allow for better traffic flow and shorter travel times even for cars. Public
transit such as busses and trains would move from the fringe to central in
every transportation system. And all travelers, no matter their income level, would have equal provisions for the mode of travel they choose.
Here’s
just one site showing
street transformations that accommodate all users now. Imagine how many
more streets could be changed (or built from the start) like those if all
transportation funds had to be spent this way.
So let’s
stop bickering about the latest techno-wiz-bang gadget for spying on car
mileage and refocus all those ill-spent survey dollars on an across-the-board
tax increase that pays for universal transportation for everyone. Then we can
honestly call our country the “land of the free” – free to choose how we travel
without big brother watching.
What are your thoughts on this universal transportation idea? Please offer them in the
comments section.
Sue
