Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts

Monday, April 18, 2011

Looking Past the Present


It feels like 2008 all over again. Gas prices are on the rise and suddenly everyone is dusting off the bike or the fuel efficient four door. SUV's have gone back out of vogue and in some metro areas, transit use is on the rise. Of course, transit use has not risen nearly as dramatically as it did in 2008; this is a result of continuing high unemployment and massive service cuts as a result of the Great Recession.

I find it fascinating. Many are surprised over the increases in gas prices. This speaks volumes to the reactionary political policies in place regarding transportation, energy and the economy.

High gas prices are a great opportunity. They always stimulate great conversations about "sustainability" and creating a "post petroleum economy". Then, soon enough, prices decline again life returns to the car oriented status quo.

My hope is that this time, it will be different. Uncountable numbers of independent research groups and scientists have voiced concern over our oil addiction. Turmoil in the Middle East, as well as massive structural problems with our national economy, have only fanned the flames, feeding fear of failure. Without any political support for a gas tax increase, we may have major difficulties simply maintaining our existing infrastructure over the following decade, much less building new infrastructure. Just this week, all high speed rail funding for the next year was cut. I have a hard time understanding how long term infrastructure investments suddenly became partisan issues.


However, there are certainly reasons to be optimistic.

This week, thousands of students converged upon Washington, DC for the 2011 Power Shift Conference. This conference was put on by Energy Action Coalition. From the Power Shift website:
Energy Action Coalition is a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement.
Working with hundreds of campus and youth groups, dozens of youth networks, and hundreds of thousands of young people, Energy Action Coalition and its partners have united a burgeoning movement behind winning local victories and coordinating on state, regional, and national levels in the United States and Canada.

This huge group of young people are spending the week training how to communicate with lobbyists, as well as constituents back home in their respective communities. Communication and education are two crucially important gaps that this conference is attempting to address.


Tucson is improving as well. Between Cyclovia, the Living Streets Alliance, Tucson Velo, the Tucson Modern Streetcar, and the University of Arizona, sustainable transportation and awareness is growing.

The pace is too slow. The issue is always funding. Our bike routes are terribly paved; road work money is always prioritized on high capacity automobile routes. I do not think that money for high capacity arterials is bad; far from it. I simply believe that the quality of our bike routes will only improve if there is a dedicated funding source (more on this issue here). Until then, biking as a form of transportation in Tucson, and elsewhere, will continue to be second tier.

Amsterdam has not always been the most bike friendly city in the world. In the 1950's, the streets were choked with automobile traffic so the city decided to pursue a policy of transit and bike oriented transportation policy. That's it. That's all they did. It took years and decades but it started with political action; it was not some random occurrence. The same goes for Portland, OR or Davis, CA. These cities decided that investments in alternative transportation were more beneficial than investments in car dominant infrastructure.

The American people have spoken: there is large demand for walkable urban development. How will the government and the private sector react to this news?

What do you think?

Monday, March 8, 2010

A Gas Tax Solution: Not All Urban Areas Are Created Equal

Let's face it: our infrastructure is broken. As population and road growth increases every year, less and less money is dedicated to essential infrastructure. As a country and people, what should we do? How can the government help?

I have read many articles recently discussing the idea of a gas tax in order to pay for our currently broke infrastructure system. I personally think this is a great idea; after all the gas tax has not risen much since the 1970's and since then, we have added a lot of infrastructure (especially roads) to our national network.

However, a blanket gas tax is so politically unpopular (especially in "tough economic times") that it will probably not happen for a long time, if ever. Therefore, I have a different solution: a gas tax based on zip codes.

The United States is not built in a uniform manner. Therefore, it should not have the same gas tax everywhere. For example, let us compare Manhattan, NYC with rural New Mexico. Both places have the same gas tax. However, virtually all the people who are driving cars in New York City are wealthy; most of the car drivers in rural New Mexico are car dependent and probably middle class or poor.

Based on this analysis, the gas tax should be different in different areas based on car dependency. If the gas tax goes up by 20 cents in NYC, it would hardly impact how people traveled around. If the same amount of taxation was applied to rural New Mexico, it would dramatically affect everyone who lived there on a wide variety of levels.

The gas tax should be raised incrementally based on where people live and work. This may sound complicated, but it can be made easier by the wide usage of zip codes. Zip codes comprise a small enough area that they could be used for this sort of analysis. If you live in an area with no public transportation, low density and low walkability ratings, you would have a small gas tax increase. If you live in an area with good public transportation, you would have a larger increase, and so on.

One of the biggest problems with this would be people traveling outside of their city to find area codes with lower zip codes. This could be countered by the use of credit cards. Since most people use credit cards for gas anyways, the card reader could scan where you live and charge you accordingly. Since this system would be costly and problematic, the easier solution would be to have very little initial difference between prices in the different areas. If a rural area has a 4-5 cent price difference from the urban area, there would not be significant numbers of people traveling to the rural areas for gas.

The advantage of this type of gas tax would be the ability to reward areas with more transit options. The extra tax dollars would go towards enhancing transit and livability in whatever urban area the zip code correlated with.

The most important part of this plan would be development incentives. New development approval would be tied in part to the gas tax in the given zip code. If the gas tax is low, development taxes would be high. If the gas tax is high, the development taxes would be low. It would create an incentive system for creating livable communities. Through this system, gas taxes could be used to make livable and walkable area more livable and walkable, as well as encourage non-livable and non-walkable areas to develop differently.

Though this idea is still a work in progress, I think it has potential to become a blueprint for change. Though I think the gas tax should definitely be raised, this kind of taxation would affect different people differently. Income taxes are applied based on how much is made; let's look at gas taxes based on how much, and where, gas is needed.


Let's Review:

Gas tax increase is a must

Should not be applied the same to everyone

More taxes for people who depend on gas the least

Less taxes for people who depend on gas the most

Taxation based on zip code

Still just a moderate increase for everyone at first