Subject: Government Driving Restrictions

From: [email-masked] (CVC411)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 09:22:08 -0400

Attention Motorists!

Big Brother is about to tell you what you can drive, how far, and most
important, how much more you’ll have to pay for it!

Did you know that your taxes are paying for a Presidential advisory
committee that is trying to force Americans into smaller cars and to drive
them less.  Even though fewer than two percent of the public buys
high-mileage sub-compacts and most people rely on a motor vehicle for a
variety of reasons, your government wants to change that.  

The Greenhouse Gas Car Dialogue Advisory Committee (known as “Car Talks”)
is due to deliver policy options to the President in late September, but
you have an opportunity now to let your government know what you think of
these policies before the package is put into final form.  Here are some
examples of the policies this committee is considering:

•	Road Use Pricing:  New taxes on motorists and businesses based on
how much they use public streets and highways.

•	Congestion Pricing: additional taxes for use of highways during
peak rush-hours.

•	VMT-Based Registration Fees: registration fees based on Vehicle
Miles Traveled -- how much a particular vehicle is driven.  (The more you
drive, the higher the fee.)

•	Parking Charges: Requiring employers , merchants and other
business owners to charge market prices for all parking they provide.  (No
more free parking at McDonald’s or the supermarket.)

•	Increase CAFE Standards: Raise government fuel economy
requirements for passenger cars to 45 mile per gallon and 34 mpg for
pickups, vans, minivans and sport utility vehicles.  Absent any technology
breakthroughs, the government would be forcing consumers into much
smaller, less safe vehicles with reduced performance.  Most models would
have to come without popular options such as air conditioning and
four-wheel drive.

•	Gas Guzzler “Feebates”:  The government already imposes gas
guzzler taxes on cars with ratings below 22.5 mpg (as high as $7,700 per
car).  The “Feebate Gas Guzzler” scheme would extend those taxes to
popular mid-size vehicles (up to 28 mpg), and then use that money to
subsidize consumers who buy smaller high-mileage cars.  Many popular
models such as the Dodge Intrepid, Ford Taurus, Chevy Lumina and even
entire car lines like Volvo and Audi would be subject to these new gas
guzzler taxes.

•	Higher Gas Taxes: no explanation necessary.

•	Employer Trip Reduction Programs:  Requirement for businesses to
get more of their employees to car pool and or use mass transit.  This is
the same scheme contained in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that
has already been widely rejected by affected metropolitan areas and has
led EPA to back off on enforcing the rule.

•	Mortgage Rate Disincentives:  The further you live from downtown,
the higher your mortgage interest rate.

All of the above policy options are designed to get consumers into
smaller, less safe vehicles and to use them less than they otherwise
would.  One irony is that two highly visible icons of “consumer advocacy”
-- Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen and Clarence Ditlow of the Center for
Auto Safety -- are members of this committee, and have been pushing for
adoption of these anti-motorist policies just as much as the environmental
extremists.  Because they support these anti-consumer policies one should
question who they really represent...certainly not most consumers.  The
next time the media refers to them as “consumer advocates,” you’ll know
better.

One of the most devastating policies in this group is the least understood
by the general public: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. 
CAFE standards were originally enacted to reduce reliance on foreign oil
and save consumers money.  However, history has proven they have done
neither and in fact have cost society dearly.  Government and private
studies show that the vehicle downsizing to improve fuel economy since the
mid-1970’s results in thousands of highway deaths and serious injuries
every year.  The Harvard Injury Control Center concluded that if CAFE
standards were raised to 40 mpg the result would be an additional 1650
deaths and 8500 serious injuries annually.

To voice your opinion against such policies, you can post a message to the
“Car Talks” section of the Environmental Protection Agency’s TTN BBS at
(919) 541-5742.  You can also Telnet directly at:  ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov

You’ll be prompted to register (at no charge) and then proceed as follows:
-At TTN Main Menu choose “T” for TTN Technical Information Areas
-At TTN Tech Info Areas choose “S” for Greenhouse Gas Car Dialogue
-At Greenhouse Gas Main Menu choose “F” for Car Dialogue Public Messages

If you have any questions regarding this issue please send e-mail to the
Coalition for Vehicle Choice at [email-masked] or [email-masked].  The
Coalition for Vehicle Choice represents nearly 5,500 automotive,
insurance, consumer, farm, recreation, construction, safety, senior, law
enforcement, and other groups working to preserve Americans' access to
safe and affordable cars and light trucks capable of meeting diverse
personal and professional mobility needs.

---

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 11:27:29 -0400

While I'm not a fan of government control in general, I'm going to
make a few comments about this

>how much they use public streets and highways.
Fine, makes sense.  As is everyone pays equally for the roads regardless
of how much they use them.  Wouldn't you feel it was unfair if you
rarely drive, or always use public transportation, but had to pay the
same as someone who drives 30,000 miles a year

>•	Congestion Pricing: additional taxes for use of highways during
Again, OK.  You pay more for long-distance phone calls during peak hours.
You pay more for the Metro during peak hours (at least in DC).  The
only concern here is that employers allow employees to work nontraditional
hours, so they can avoid this if they want.

>drive, the higher the fee.)

Isn't this the same as the Road Use Pricing?  Although the first makes
more sense, as you can put miles on a car on non public roads (but
the first is harder to implement)
>more free parking at McDonald’s or the supermarket.)
A bit abnoxious, especially as the rent that the business pays for that
parking area is already passed on to us, just like all overhead costs.

>have to come without popular options such as air conditioning and
Can't say I like this much.

>entire car lines like Volvo and Audi would be subject to these new gas

Don't like this either
>•	Higher Gas Taxes: no explanation necessary.
Well, as many people have pointed out, we have the lowest gas prices
in the world (just remember, it's cheaper than milk)
But I still don't think they should raise it.  (like I need something
else to make grad school hard to afford)

>led EPA to back off on enforcing the rule.

This is really an unrealistic demand on employers.  It's not really an
employers business how an employee get to work, as long as they get there.
>the higher your mortgage interest rate.

Unfair and arbitrary, especially considering the number of businesses
in the suburbs
>would.  

Well, designed is probably the wrong word.  And there's plenty of
small cars that _don't_ meet these guidelines.  Like most sports cars.
Of course those tend to be fairly safe, though.

My $.02

Kevin Scaldeferri

---

From: [email-masked] (John P. Curcio)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:41:04 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,

>same as someone who drives 30,000 miles a year

Not true.  For every gallon of gasoline one buys, a good amount of the
cost goes to the federal government in the form of excise tax.  The
more one drives, the more one pays.

>in the world (just remember, it's cheaper than milk)

That doesn't make it right....

>else to make grad school hard to afford)

-JPC

-- 
 -<=>- Just say NO! to Budmilloors...   Support your local MICROBREWERY -<=>-
John P. Curcio  [email-masked]  Philips Labs  Briarcliff Manor, NY
   "If nothing beats a Bud, given the choice, I'd take the nothing..."
   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH

---

From: [email-masked] (Bryan Chow)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 19:51:42 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
James Baxter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Those of us who drive cars subsidize those who ride buses so much that if 
>that subsidy was cut off, the buses would go out of business.  What's 
>fair about that?

Because by driving we contribute more to pollution and medical expenses
which people who ride buses have to subsidize too.

-- 
Bryan Chow                  California Institute of Technology [ SCP Lab ]
[email-masked] /           Home: http://www.scp.caltech.edu/~bryan/
World Wide Web      -- Roxy Music: http://www.scp.caltech.edu/~bryan/roxy/
(818) 395-3903        \    Autos: http://www.scp.caltech.edu/~bryan/autos/

---

From: [email-masked] (Lloyd R. Parker)
Date: 24 Jul 1995 10:23:10 -0400

Mr. Fun ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Bryan Chow) wrote:

: >In article <[email-masked]>,
: >James Baxter <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >>Those of us who drive cars subsidize those who ride buses so much that if 
: >>that subsidy was cut off, the buses would go out of business.  What's 
: >>fair about that?

: >Because by driving we contribute more to pollution and medical expenses
: >which people who ride buses have to subsidize too.

: Nonsense.  Firstly, it's unlikely anyone with a fairly new vehicle polutes
: more then the filthy busses most cities run.  

Actually, except for particulates, diesel engines are very clean.  Very 
few hydrocarbons, CO, NOx.

: As to medical expenses, take a
: look at who's on the bus, most of them are on it cuz they can't afford
: anything else and you can be darn sure they are paying damn little in the way
: of taxes to fix pollution or pay any portion of the communal medical expense.

So now you're down on the poor?

: The bottom line is that every place that has any sizable mass transit is
: subsidied to the tune of at least 50%, many much more, and also that the mass
: transit system move VERY little traffic compared to what's carried in cars.
: Exceptions to this are extremely rare.

Actually, mass transit moves a substantial number of people and therefore 
keeps a substantial number of cars off the roads for the rest of us.  
And, yes, given the income of a lot of mass transit users, if they drove, 
it would be old, unsafe, polluting clunkers.  So in a way, by subsidizing 
mass transit, we're subsidizing clean air even more so.

: The appropriate solution for THIS country is to stop the social engineering
: where you try and force people to do what they clearly don't want to do.
: Instead, it would be far easier and fairer to modify zoning laws to prevent
: cities from getting overcrowed to start with.  Most zoning laws are designed
: to let people with money make lots more while causing the quality of life for
: the average person to decrease.

So you're against gov't forcing people to do things, yet you want the 
gov't to tell people where they can live?

Just go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh.

---

From: [email-masked] (Lloyd R. Parker)
Date: 24 Jul 1995 10:19:27 -0400

Mr. Fun ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri) wrote:

: >While I'm not a fan of government control in general, I'm going to
: >make a few comments about this

: >In article <[email-masked]>, CVC411 <[email-masked]> wrote:

: >>is due to deliver policy options to the President in late September, but
: >>you have an opportunity now to let your government know what you think of
: >>these policies before the package is put into final form.  Here are some
: >>examples of the policies this committee is considering:
: >>
: >>•	Road Use Pricing:  New taxes on motorists and businesses based on
: >>how much they use public streets and highways.
: >>
: >Fine, makes sense.  As is everyone pays equally for the roads regardless
: >of how much they use them.  Wouldn't you feel it was unfair if you
: >rarely drive, or always use public transportation, but had to pay the
: >same as someone who drives 30,000 miles a year

: So why is it OK that VIRTUALLY ALL MASS TRANSIT is heavily subsidized?  The
: BEST systems get nearly 50% of their cost subsidized.  These proposals to make
: the dirivng public pay would be a bit more palitable if the way they ignore
: the mass transit subsidies wasn't ignored in all this.  Currently DRIVERS are
: paying their FULL cost of what goes into the roads PLUS they are subsidizing
: mass transit.  This attempt to further tax them is an outrage.

Your motoring costs are also subsidized.  Georgia, for example, 
appropriates a lot more for roads than what the gas tax provides.  Police 
patrols, signal lights, rest areas, lighting -- all these are paid for by 
taxes.  What Georgia charges for a driver's license doesn't begin to 
cover the cost of testing or even making the license itself.

---

From: [email-masked] (Joao Campelo Fernandes - Aluno Eng. Informatica)
Date: 26 Jul 1995 13:35:53 GMT

Hey, I have one idea.. Why dont you raise your gas price in order to match
the Europeans standarts ?
With fuel at 4.0 $ a gallon I would bet people would start using the bus,
dont you ?
In Europe, cars run an average 10.000 miles per year. How about that for
saving money, fuel, and the environment ?
Just my $0.2

Joao Gomes

---

From: [email-masked] (firebug)
Date: 27 Jul 1995 18:46:35 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>saving money, fuel, and the environment ?

In addition to the fact that you have a public transportation system, the
distances to travel in Europe are much smaller than they are in the US.

---

From: bill horwath <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Jul 1995 02:40:45 GMT

> saving money, fuel, and the environment ?

Keep your $0.2.

Here's a wake up call for ya. Quite a few of use drive because mass
transit does not exist, or takes more than 10 fold more time to get
to our destination.Here in the western suburbs of chicago, the only
to go north or south is by car. So if gas cost $5 a gal, i'd still
have to drive. There's no other choice, 'cept car pools, which are
a poor replacement for mass transit.

---

From: [email-masked] (Hi Ho Silver)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 03:33:46 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mr. Fun) writes:
$Nonsense.  Firstly, it's unlikely anyone with a fairly new vehicle polutes
$more then the filthy busses most cities run.

   Many people don't have particularly new vehicles.  The figures from
CAA lately have said that the average car is five or six years old and
has around 80 000 km on it.  I have no data on how much such a car
would pollute, on average, compared to a new one, but I'd imagine it's
significantly higher.

   Many buses do seem not to be maintained as well as they should.
But does a bus with, say, 50 people on it (not uncommon around here
in rush hour) pollute more than 50 cars with one person in each?
Good question.

   Does anyone have any actual real-world numbers here?
-- 
 ______________________________________________
/  Hi Ho Silver, who likes the idea of having  \  __________________________
\  SNTF and large h00ters in the same package   \/   [email-masked]    \
 \______________________________________________/ ...{!uunet}!bokonon!silver \

---

From: [email-masked] (jd)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 17:43:53 GMT

> which people who ride buses have to subsidize too.

If you own and use your car, you pay plenty for any emission load you
put on others. You, as a car owner/user may indeed be in a situation
that some of your accident-related medical expenses are paid for by
public funds, but exactly this is an excellent argument for government
to get out of health care. As car owners/users we should and we can
take care of ourselves.

Subsidizing users of public transportation with other peoples money
cannot be justified. It's still stealing, and you and I would go to
jail for doing it.

Janos Dohanics
National Motorists Association
Pennsylvania State Chapter Coordinator

---

From: [email-masked] (Lloyd R. Parker)
Date: 31 Jul 1995 10:15:16 -0400

jd ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>
: [email-masked] (Bryan Chow) writes:

: > In article <[email-masked]>,
: > James Baxter <[email-masked]> wrote:
: > >Those of us who drive cars subsidize those who ride buses so much that if 
: > >that subsidy was cut off, the buses would go out of business.  What's 
: > >fair about that?
: > 
: > Because by driving we contribute more to pollution and medical expenses
: > which people who ride buses have to subsidize too.

: If you own and use your car, you pay plenty for any emission load you
: put on others. You, as a car owner/user may indeed be in a situation
: that some of your accident-related medical expenses are paid for by
: public funds, but exactly this is an excellent argument for government
: to get out of health care. As car owners/users we should and we can
: take care of ourselves.

: Subsidizing users of public transportation with other peoples money
: cannot be justified. It's still stealing, and you and I would go to
: jail for doing it.

: Janos Dohanics
: National Motorists Association
: Pennsylvania State Chapter Coordinator

Surely you know your gas taxes don't pay for all the roads, traffic 
lights, street lights, parking spaces, etc., that you as a driver use!  
General taxes also subsidize you.  You subsidize education, the military, 
health care (you pay, directly or indirectly, for uninsured people who 
get free care), food inspection, air travel, police and fire protection, 
etc.  That's not stealing -- that's what a society is formed to do!  
Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."