Should we as a society require car drivers to pay an extra tax to drive into our most congested cities?

Question

I have been to Los Angeles and Atlanta and almost every car has one person in it. Shouldn't these people be required to ride the trains and buses?The air in these cities is so dirty.

Answer 1

As an Urban Planner, I find it interesting people equate congested roads, one person in a SUV, and damaging the environment as a freedom. What did one person say about the question, "you sound like a commie?" People don't want to pay higher taxes, but people you need to understand, you're subsidizing this inefficient, suburb life. When a subdivision is built on an old farm 20 miles out of the city, who pays for the road, sewage, police and fire protection, the new school, school bus routes, trash pickup, etc. etc. etc.???? The tax payer, or should I say the members within the greater US Society! For you people who actually believe the Constitution gives you "absolute freedom," let me clue you in on something..... IT DOESN'T! We still live in a SOCIETY, and believe it or not we have a responsibility to our neighbors. Because of this, there are times when we may have to give something up we like in order to benefit the society at large. When people in Atlanta decide, "I'm going to live 2 hours away from my job, and I don't want more taxes so the hell with mass-transit, and I'm gonna buy a Hummer," why is my responsibility to honor those decisions? I think it's a great idea penalize people for DECIDING to live far out of the city, and drive in alone. Do a little bit of research on how much congestion costs the US. The Department of Transportation has all this information. It costs the taxpayers of this country BILLIONS OF DOLLARS per year! People who say "if we try to reduce traffic, we're going to hurt the poor," are not interested in the poor. They are interested in continuing their own driving habits. If they were interested in the poor, they would want to get rid of the wasted money involved with the current transportation network, and create programs to actually help the poor. That's my rant. I suppose I should join the masses and chant "Keep on drving America!!!"

Answer 2

It sounds like an awesome idea, but there need to be alot of factors taken into consideration. There must be a good public transportation system in place so that people who can't afford to pay the tax can still commute to work to make a living. A better bet would be to have parking permits mandatory for parking on city streets, or in city garages. Out-of-towners shouldn't have to pay for the roads of a town they are just driving through once. Offer discounts for people who are carpooling at the toll-booths, or extend the carpool lane idea to include carpool parking spots (I don't know how that will work). I don't see why we as a society think that everyone has to own their own car and be in their own little bubble as they drive. If you're worried about pollution, then have SUV dealers/drivers/etc pay for special (more expensive) plates, with money going towards the environment or road repair.

Answer 3

Yes, this has already been answered to death, but I was also going to say that many European and Asian cities have done this and it is working wonderfully. Traffic is down, the cities are more livable, no more congestion, and they are able to invest more into public transportation.
I strongly agree with the person who wondered why we equate "freedom" with our so called "right" to drive a filthy, limited resource gobbling vehicle?
If that is a "freedom" then what about the flip side of the coin. What about my "right" and "freedom" to breath clean air, and not have acre after acre of forest paved over so everyone can sit in thier "own" car, polluting the air, congesting the roads, and engaging in anti-social behavior instead of utilizing higher taxes and fees to fund a public transportation system which is much more efficient and better for the "public" good?
People always wonder why we are such an energy hog and that if everyone lived like Americans do, we'd need 6 planets just to sustain that lifestyle. The reason everyone else is so "efficient" is because they are paying sometimes upwards of $10/ gallon for fuel! If they had the cheap fuel we're so used to, they'd be driving around in vehicles with engines big enough to power a bus by themselves too! They'd also have 16 lane supe highways clogged with traffic barely moving....that's progress?
Our so called "freedoms" have gotten us so addicted to oil, that it's affecting our entire economy now, while the Europeans have been used to high gas prices for years, so their fluctuations arent as severe, and they still have a remarkably resilient economy, while ours is intrinsically tied to the price of oil.
I strongly agree with more of a "user" based fee system of making those who "choose" to drive into congested areas pay more.
Thanks for letting me answer your question.

Answer 4

Instead of taxing people who drive they should build and establish more reliable public transportation systems like New York. I live in Miami and if you don't have a car expect to be late to everything because the buses are unreliable and the tri-rail system is to far off from where i live that i need a car to drive to it so maybe more reliable public transportation will curb peoples urges to buy cars and drive.

Answer 5

Some large cities have already used this method to reduce vehicle congestion in their central areas. London and Singapore are two good examples. Both of those cities have well developed mass transit systems as alternates.

Answer 6

I dont know about a tax, but some kind of a toll, maybe paid on a monthly basis.. This should apply only if ther is an alternate route, that will not take drivers too far out of their way
and consuming unnececery amounts of gas.

Answer 7

Drivers do pay extra for the luxury of driving-we pay insurance, license, registration, taxes and tickets. Don't forget parking in these places is a premium so lots can charge a fortune for the privilege of having a spot for your car and they are under no obligation to assure its safety.

Answer 8

The consumer should not be held liable.

The average person does not have the disposable income to pay for the fact that big business squats on the technology that could help save the environment.

Answer 9

basically 17% of scientists are atheists; interior the final inhabitants it is even smaller (PEW 2009). so which you're basically coping with an phantasm - atheist 'puffer fish' pretending to be a bigger section than they are. comparable with the LGBT lot. statistics is your chum, do a splash diagnosis and neglect proper to the media.

Answer 10

No i dont think so. Its not just the congested cities drivers that are causing pollution. Every where drivers are doing that so it would be unfair.