Okay, here's an idea I dreamed up while waiting in traffic on the way home today. I haven't noodled it much, but here it is anyway...

Paul Harvey is known to say something to the effect of, "Self governance without self discipline is doomed to fail." Another way to say that priviledge demands responsibility. So, in the spirit of Paul's message (and I'll frame this for the US but should work in any country):

Senario:
The federal government determines the per capita fuel consumption for a base set of years. Say, average 2001-2005. It then compares each year's per capita consumption with the base year average. For each percentage point that per capita consumption increases in a given year over the base, congress tacks on an additional 10 cent per gallon gasoline tax for the following year. For each 1 percent decrease, congress knocks a dime off the existing tax. People could help to reduce the tax by driving less, driving more efficiently, driving more efficient vehicles. Don't like the idea of raising taxes on gasoline for those who can't already afford gas? Then conserve, and help their gas bills to come down, along with yours. Might actually create a little road rage if someone is driving too fast or otherwise inefficiently. "You're costing me money, you #?%?!#!! Wouldn't that be a switch? If we are actually able to reduce to the point where the current gas tax is eliminated, consider a tax subsidy.

In addition, set a federal speed limit. Then, every 5 years compare the previous 5 years' average consumption to the base years' average. For every1% reduction from the base, raise the speed limit by 1 mph. For every 1% decrease, lower the speed limit 1 mph (to a minimum of 45 mph).

Okay, a little hairbrained maybe, and maybe the percentages would need massaging, but at least it gives a clear consequence for our actions.

 

Toast; let me congratulate you for a VERY SMART and CLEVER idea.

Unfortunately, way too clever for our politicians.

I can already imagine Congress attaching all sorts of unrelated pork to the bill, oil and automotive lobbyists running up and down the House cajoling representatives, a fat group of industry's CEOs denouncing it as socialist and un-American, and finally the President refusing to sign it based on partisan differences.

 

Hang on, for every 1% reduction and then for every decrease? Aren't reduction and decrease the same? Are you saying we'd be trying to get them to raise or lower the speed limit? Because if you're saying a decreased consumption would get them to raise the limit, wouldn't that (generally) increase consumption a bit nationwide, as mpg drops at higher speeds? Then it would be harder to decrease it the next year, or we'd be stuck in a cycle... not that people really can read 1 mpg on many speedometers these days anyway, but assuming your theory was enacted...

I like the tax idea, though. There's nothing like a little peer pressure to solve social problems, and creating a big enough incentive sure does produce peer pressure. I'm picturing truck companies making most of the difference, at first- new on-the-job policies and training and upgrading fleets, not to mention advertising campaigns... sigh. a happy dream.

 

Well, yes, you're right that we would realistically have to make any speed limit changes in 5 mph increments. And the idea of the increased limit if consumption decreases would be as a reward. If we wanted to squander the gains by just driving faster with the higher limit, then we'd have to pay the price in another 5 years. Just because the speed limit is 75, doesn't mean any of us have to drive that fast, right? But if auto manufacturers build even more efficient cars down the road, then we could cut ourselves some slack... Well, okay - maybe it needs some more thought....

Fernando, I understand what you are saying about the difficulty of this, or any bill, making it through Congress and being able to recognize the original bill in the approved one. Is that what we've deteriorated to as a country - allowing our government to be run by puppets of lobbyists? I fear we have, and we really need to do some work at the polls, going back to Paul Harvey's sentiment....

 

Interesting - I have the same issue. I can think of two effective ways of improving traffic congestion. Mass transit and educating drivers. Building bigger roads won't correct the fact that people in large numbers are stupid. Mass transit allows you to control them, if you can get them onboard. And educating them only works if they listen.

For my 35 mile one-way daily commute I adhere to the policy that merging traffic has the right-of-way, and I move to the left lane to give them room. After all, the lane they are in is finite. If they come to a complete stop or are forced to slow to merge it will cause reproductions, even accidents, until the quantity of cars reduces - usually several hours.

How about instead of changing the speed limit and hurting everyone they more appropriately target the individuals who are rapidly depleting our supplies? The Gas Guzzler Tax is rather old and could stand a powerful revision. I may be incorrect (often am) but I believe SUVs are considered trucks and from the site, "The gas guzzler tax applies only to cars (not trucks) and is collected by the IRS." So perhaps they need to be included. Also, the chart lists the taxing system. In my blatantly non-humble opinion the scale should start at 30mpg and all the values should be doubled.

But probably the biggest impacts for our roads would be better enforced laws (speeding, tail gating, reckless merging ...). Drivers are entirely too aggressive and erratic with their driving. In a 70 MPH zone that I drive every day speeds range from 55 to 90 mph and drivers are weaving in and out of each other with rapid acceleration and deceleration. If the 'fast lane' were to maintain 75mph and the 'slow lane' to maintain 65mph with sufficient gaps between cars the fuel economy of the group would increase tens of percentage points. Probably significantly more than the difference between a hybrid and non-hybrid versions of the same car.

And while I'm on my podium I would like to state that I am for more strict driver's licensing. Make Driver's Education a required high school course where students drive in all conditions, from 20mph neighborhood to 70mph interstate with complicated merging, various parking lots, and various street parking. Additionally retesting drivers for hearing, sight, and driving awareness every few years (2 to 5).

 

Mass Transit is never going to be effective in Southern California at least because of urban sprawl, everything is extremely spread out -- as a result, an effective mass transit is essentially impossible, as people aren't travelling to some central location, but to lots of places that are very spread apart from each other.

Also, building more roads woudl not mean simply adding lanes to the freeway, though in many places, that is necessary (such as places with outright gridlock 6 hours a day), in the town where I live, there are a lot of simple surface streets that if only a mile of 6-lane (3 each way) road were built, it would dramatically improve freeway traffic, surface street traffic, and cut 5-10 minutes off the drives for thousands of people. The reason this isn't done? They want to force the hand of the peopel to allow a toll-highway to go through, by intentionally not finihsing key surface streets.There should be actions to stop this sort of manipulation from higher levels in goverment.