tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1614760608725061478.post8496588963902993590..comments2023-07-18T06:01:05.816-07:00Comments on Transportation Problems and Policy: The Full Costs of Transportation: A Case for Picking and ChoosingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1614760608725061478.post-15552987739646557332013-04-29T13:50:29.729-07:002013-04-29T13:50:29.729-07:00I agree that it'd be morally shaky. As much as...I agree that it'd be morally shaky. As much as I'm a huge proponent of making gasoline more expensive to discourage people from purchasing it, the costs of that endeavor fall on the wrong people: those who are most dependent on it without the resources to pursue alternatives. <br /><br />The costs should fall on the commercial/industrial sector as they are the ones that responsible for the majority of traffic on the road (employees driving to work). But how do you impose a surcharge on huge companies as a way of discouraging gasoline consumption? Some companies have found ways to incentivize their employees into commuting alternatively (Pfizer, Google, etc.), but many powerful and wealthy companies would rather just pay the surcharge than deal with the complication of providing resources to employees to make it a more accessible option.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04170407691193216811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1614760608725061478.post-73866816873602346612013-04-26T10:47:38.960-07:002013-04-26T10:47:38.960-07:00Two good points, Haley! Black definitely doesn'...Two good points, Haley! Black definitely doesn't speak for everyone in the field. To your first point, environmental economics has developed some powerful tools to measure the option and non-use value of undeveloped land. So, even if we leave out non-human, "intrinsic" value, we can and should consider best estimates of land we consider using for transportation. Your implicit point that perhaps we shouldn't stop at just human values is well taken, even if the odds of a more holistic consideration of costs isn't likely anytime soon.<br /><br />Can you imagine a fuel surcharge to fund certain defense spending? Economically sensible--those who ultimately benefit would bear the costs, but politically and maybe even morally shaky. The costs might be substantial though. I've seen estimates of up to $10B/yr or $0.30/gal for defense spending tied to domestic oil consumption. Other studies have found additional impacts on the economy from oil price volatility in the same ballpark.<br /><br />Dr. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06125931144101907191noreply@blogger.com