3 ms·

My comment had nothing to do with requirements. If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" co

My comment had nothing to do with requirements. If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? I say "where I live" because every car trip I take starts and ends at my front door. I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming.

rtlfe 5y ago
> I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming. The point is that everybody pays the costs whether they drive or not. If the costs were more directly tied to how much each person drives, there would be a lot less driving overall.
AlotOfReading 5y ago
What they mean is that the vehicle-specific costs they incur aren't sufficient to cover the true costs to society, from pollution cleanup to road maintenance. Instead, those funds must be drawn from general sources like income taxes. Once you account for social ills like pollution, the costs end up falling disproportionately on the people who can least afford them and contribute the least to the problem.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Road maintenance is paid for by property taxes. You have to be a home owner to pay property taxes. The costs don't disproportionately fall on those who are least able to afford them, but on those who have the most invested in a local, tangible asset (i.e. homeowners, business owners, landowners, etc.)
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    It is partially but not exclusively paid for by property taxes. It's actually a fairly small share of funding in some cases. The BATIC institute gives the numbers 5% and 1% for highways and transit funding respectively [1]. Moreover, funding is not evenly distributed here. Suburbs tend to have massive road networks and long commutes, but comparatively low property taxes. This creates a shortfall that generally gets made by with sales taxes and general funds. [1] http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/funding/ http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/fun...
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? No, because part of the cost is the fact that pollution in that area affects everyone -- including non-drivers. You're paying part of the cost, yes, but not the whole thing. Imagine if there was some mechanism such that non-drivers inhaled as much pollution as there'd be if there were no cars*, and drivers inhaled as much pollution as is proportional to however much pollution they themselves create (this would vary not just based on a binary do/do not drive, but on how much you drive and how polluting your vehicle is). Then each person would be paying the true cost. A true cost has to be proportional to the damage done, such that changing behavior results in changing cost paid. * leaving aside the impracticality of zero non-electric cars for the moment
AmericanChopper 5y ago
The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You also have to ignore the externalities that the non-car-owners benefit from. If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners (unless they’re living in the woods or something).
- rtlfe 5y ago
  > For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
    - rtlfe 5y ago
      > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
      - 5y ago
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
In addition to the point already made about people who do not drive paying those costs too, you're also missing the externalities that affect others for health related reasons, and not yourself (and others with your good fortune).

rtlfe 5y ago

> I simply can't understand how car users impose "true costs" on everyone else, but not themselves, which is what the GP was claiming. The point is that everybody pays the costs whether they drive or not. If the costs were more directly tied to how much each person drives, there would be a lot less driving overall.

AlotOfReading 5y ago

What they mean is that the vehicle-specific costs they incur aren't sufficient to cover the true costs to society, from pollution cleanup to road maintenance. Instead, those funds must be drawn from general sources like income taxes. Once you account for social ills like pollution, the costs end up falling disproportionately on the people who can least afford them and contribute the least to the problem.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Road maintenance is paid for by property taxes. You have to be a home owner to pay property taxes. The costs don't disproportionately fall on those who are least able to afford them, but on those who have the most invested in a local, tangible asset (i.e. homeowners, business owners, landowners, etc.)
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  It is partially but not exclusively paid for by property taxes. It's actually a fairly small share of funding in some cases. The BATIC institute gives the numbers 5% and 1% for highways and transit funding respectively [1]. Moreover, funding is not evenly distributed here. Suburbs tend to have massive road networks and long commutes, but comparatively low property taxes. This creates a shortfall that generally gets made by with sales taxes and general funds. [1] http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/funding/ http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/fun...

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> If I drive a car, and it causes pollution where I live, then aren't I, as part of society, paying the "true" cost? No, because part of the cost is the fact that pollution in that area affects everyone -- including non-drivers. You're paying part of the cost, yes, but not the whole thing. Imagine if there was some mechanism such that non-drivers inhaled as much pollution as there'd be if there were no cars*, and drivers inhaled as much pollution as is proportional to however much pollution they themselves create (this would vary not just based on a binary do/do not drive, but on how much you drive and how polluting your vehicle is). Then each person would be paying the true cost. A true cost has to be proportional to the damage done, such that changing behavior results in changing cost paid. * leaving aside the impracticality of zero non-electric cars for the moment

AmericanChopper 5y ago

The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You also have to ignore the externalities that the non-car-owners benefit from. If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners (unless they’re living in the woods or something).

rtlfe 5y ago
> For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
  - rtlfe 5y ago
    > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
    - 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

In addition to the point already made about people who do not drive paying those costs too, you're also missing the externalities that affect others for health related reasons, and not yourself (and others with your good fortune).