When considering whether our auto licensing costs are unfair, it makes sense to consider how much your gas would cost you if the price included externalities, costs currently unnacounted for at the pump:

"Seven recent studies calculated external costs of automobile use -- including both direct subsidies and environmental costs. This table shows how much gasoline would cost if its price were raised enough to make drivers pay the full cost of the automobile. " http://www.preservenet.com/ATAutoWelfare.html

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999

Answers

Yeah? And?

Westin

"Any government official who ... lies to the United States Congress will be fired immediately."

TheSen. Al Gore: Seattle Times, June 29, 1987

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

And if you go to this site: http://www.bts.gov/programs/jts/murphy.pdf

You'll get the skinny on just how bogus and internally contradictory these calculations of externalities are. An even better joke is the way that our own Washington DOT has played with the numbers to try to justify increased subsidies for railroad passenger services between Corvallis Ore (Corvallis???) and Vancouver BC. For anyone wanting a good laugh at how much you can torment logic to get your desired result, see:

http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/pacnwrail3.pdf

It's a hoot, and they want to spend $873.5 million of YOUR money (State dollars) to make it happen. Now I personally think that whoever funded THE STUDY should be turned in for waste, fraud, and abuse, but some of you out there may think we need to put that much money into passenger rail service between here and Corvallis. I'm sure that Billy does.

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Craig-

I looked at your site: http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/pacnwrail3.pdf

It IS hilarious. How could anyone say this stuff with a straight face? WSDOT want $800+ MILLION to handle the BURGEONING rali passenger traffic between Corvallis and Seattle? Heck, AMTRAK is losing money hand over fist on that route.

And the cost accounting is great..... even if you believe the numbers (and I don't) and the projections (and I don't), they treat the cost accounting as if the only reason anyone would have an automobile was to transport between the cities on that rail route.

These people have too much time and too little common sense, if this is the kind of product they put out. Yet another reason for me to vote yes on 695, these guys sure don't know how to handle my money, I might as well keep it.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

Craig said if you go read the paper... "You'll get the skinny on just how bogus and internally contradictory these calculations of externalities are. "

Yes, the study disclose the uncertainties in calculating externalities, this does not discount their conclusions that the our autos are subsidized via:

1. Police, fire, ambulance; road construction & maintenance; other local gov't

2. Property taxes lost from land cleared for freeways

3. Parking

4. Air, water, land pollution

5. Noise, vibration damage to structures

6. Global warming

7. Petroleum supply line policing, security, petroleum production subsidies

8. Trade deficit, infrastructure deficit

9. Sprawl, loss of transportation options

10. Uncompensated auto accidents

11. Congestion

Are we immune in washington from the above costs? Are $30 tabs are a step in the right direction?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Billy-

So quantify these. Show me WHO pays and how much. Separate that into voluntary (or user fee) costs and common public costs (generally funded taxes). Let's see if the transit rider is subsidizing the auto driver, or vice versa. Give me some FACTS, not homilies.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.