MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 9 June 2007
Stuck in concrete
It's
the summer driving season, so of course gasoline prices are up again, and of
course drivers are again whining about prices and pointing their finger at
everyone except the real culprits:
themselves.
The
reason for the increase in prices is that America's gluttonous consumption of
gasoline increased by two percent last year, while supply increased by only 0.5
percent because domestic oil refineries are at the limit of their production
capacity. New refineries are not
likely because these complex plants require a ten-year lead time and oil
companies fear that by that time, large supplies of ethanol or other biofuels
will enter the market.
The
pity is that higher gasoline prices would be a good thing for the United
States. Yes, you heard that
correctly: Higher prices would be
a good thing.
Our
$3 gasoline is highly subsidized.
There have been many studies of the "real" cost of gasoline,
including roads, policing, military defense of Middle East oil, free parking,
time lost while stuck in congestion, death, injury, property loss in crashes,
air pollution (causing death, disease, damage), water pollution, noise
pollution, waste disposal (cars, tires, batteries), and less tangible costs
such as the dreams and the hearts that are broken in car crashes. These studies find that, depending on
how many of these "external" factors are included, gasoline should
cost from $4 to $22 more per gallon that it does today. If we add $4 to the cost of gasoline in
America, we get about the $7 per gallon cost in Europe. Requiring drivers to pay something
approaching the real cost of driving is the key reason that transportation in
Europe is so much faster, cheaper, cleaner, and safer than it is here. We have distorted the market by
allowing drivers to exploit our pocketbooks, our health, and our environment,
for free.
As
a solution, nearly every energy expert recommends increased federal gasoline
taxes. I suggest a 50-cent-per-gallon
increase every year for at least the next ten years. Each 50 cent rise brings $70 billion per year in tax
revenues ($700 billion per year after ten years), which could be used to
subsidize low-income people who need cars, reduce income taxes, and build mass
transit. Within a few years,
everyone would be saving transportation money despite the gasoline tax, because
they would not need a second car ($8000 per year), because convenient low-cost
public transportation would be available, and because they could walk or
bicycle to most destinations in the compact cities that would follow from
higher gasoline prices. All of
this happened decades ago in Europe.
But
gasoline taxes make American drivers apoplectic, so our next best bet is
mandated efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. But rational efficiency standards make
General Motors and Ford, and thus also President Bush, apoplectic. Efficiency standards have been stuck
since 1985 at 27.5 miles per gallon for cars. Most Democratic presidential candidates have called for
40-50 mpg by 2014-2017, an easy goal in light of the many 60 mpg hybrids on the
road today.
Either
gasoline taxes or efficiency standards can cure America's oil addiction and
help solve the problems of global warming, congestion, aging infrastructure,
lack of mass transit, and over-reliance on foreign oil. Money now funneled to oil companies and
oil-rich nations will go instead into Americans' pockets.
Our
pro-car and nationalistic biases blind us to the useful solutions percolating
around the rest of the world.
Paris and London are on the road to become walking and bicycling
cities. London's Mayor Ken
Livingstone recently levied an $8 daily toll for private motorists to drive
into central London, and plans to extend this "congestion pricing" to
other parts of the city. The mayor
of Paris narrowed his city's crowded automobile lanes in order to widen bus and
bicycle lanes, and plans to "reconquer the riverside for
pedestrians." The Paris City
Council passed a resolution banning SUVs from city streets, resolving that
"these vehicles are totally irresponsible." A similar ban has been proposed for London, where the mayor
labels SUV owners as "complete idiots."
We
become locked into our mistakes.
In Little Rock, the Metroplan regional transportation authority resolved
to study light-rail options before building interstates beyond six lanes. But Arkansas highway officials have
nixed Metroplan's good intentions by arguing that additional transportation
capacity around Little Rock is needed now, whereas plans for light rail are not
sufficiently developed for this to be a real alternative to more pavement. So for now, the prospect is for widened
interstates and more flyover ramps.
Despite Little Rock's desire for rail, the city's lack of foresight
dooms it to remain stuck in concrete.
Northwest
Arkansas should take a cue from Little Rock's experience. Light rail is a real possibility for
the Northwest Arkansas corridor.
An in-depth feasibility study is needed now, before further discussion
of expanding I-540 to eight lanes and a new "western beltway" to
bypass the I-540 bypass. But
Congressman Boozeman, stating that "the time is not right for commuter rail,"
has not freed up any federal money for the needed study.
We
need to recognize that there is a conflict between the desires of those who
want a wider I-540 and a western bypass of the bypass, and those calling for
light rail. If we allow the
highway projects to go ahead without first carrying out a real light-rail
feasibility study, Northwest Arkansas will remain stuck in concrete.
And
so, indeed, will our nation remain indefinitely stuck if we can't think beyond
the car culture and cheap gasoline.