Traffic reduction tax has plenty of benefits
During the first OPEC oil boycott a Southern California radio station reported that a major hospital had delayed the opening of its new emergency room; it wouldn't be effectively utilized due to decreased need. One can't help wondering how many lives were "saved" during the boycott. Soon enough America was back to our profligate ways and doubtlessly the emergency room was thriving.
It's hardly surprising that "Cash for Clunkers" ran out of cash. It's been touted as a "success," but let's be honest, it was a government giveaway to special interests such as the car manufactures, the United Auto Workers, new car dealerships and highway builders. It started with a lurch and then petered out.
In the future, "Cash for Clunkers" should be made an ongoing, regular program, funded by a Traffic Reduction Tax (federal and/or state), paid at the pump.
The TRT comes very close to being a perfect tax program: Those who pay it would directly benefit from it almost immediately. The net effect would be to reduce traffic and make driving more efficient and pleasurable. Those who didn't have to drive personally owned vehicles would not be burdened. More importantly, huge funds would be raised provided the rate was high enough. Dependence on overseas fuel would be reduced thereby lowering its pump price, partially offsetting the TRT.
Collected at the pump, the funds accrued would be dispersed in ways to encourage people to leave their cars behind. Also the TRT itself would provide financial incentive to drive less and to operate more safely and efficiently. Fuel-efficient and electric privately owned vehicles (POVs) would become more cost effective. (Full disclosure: This writer owns a number of stocks in ZAP, a California-based electric car company.)
The funds accrued would be used to develop measurable traffic reduction programs such as serious bus and trolley service.
Funds would go to bridge and highway upgrades, an electric "refueling grid" and installation of solar panels, thereby providing "green" jobs. Arguably, decisions about efficient land use, including encouraging local agriculture, might deserve support. Downtown walking and bicycle paths and other people-friendly facilities could be subsidized.
Commissions would have to be established to monitor programs to assure that expenditures were consistent with TRT goals. The commission's decisions would need to be transparent and above board; furthermore it must allow citizens and "interests" a means of effectively challenging decisions before a neutral party, based on whether the expenditure supports or obviates the goal of less vehicular traffic on the road.
The TRT tax, itself, will push down gasoline consumption: alternate forms of transportation would have to be made available. TRT funds could help assure that inter-city bus and trolley serves would be comfortable, reliable and very nearly free. Ideally, owning and operating POVs should become the purview of the "well off."
Tax refunds have to provided to rural residents.
The benefits would be fewer people killed in automobile collisions and crashes, slower depletion of resources, more effective land use, job creation, revitalized cities and cleaner air. What could be better?
Gerald Sutliff of Bakersfield is retired from a career in labor relations.
