As much as I respect Jerome a Paris's diaries, I consider his current diary
Gas prices - what's the right strategy for the Dems?, arguing for high gas prices as a way to solve US energy demand, to be the worse possible approach for Democrats and our country.
Using the European model of high gasoline taxes as a basis for reducing American demand for fuel is a non-starter. There is a world of difference between European cities and American cities that directly relates to transportation.
In this country we have only one major city where public transportation is so well developed that private autos are not needed - New York City (all five burroughs). New York city is the only American city where a person can readily get around anyplace anytime with a combination of subways, els, and busses. Other US cities have public transportation, but living without a car is limiting. Particuarly in surburban areas.
For all the flack SUV owners get from us libruls (full disclosure, I own an Isuzu Rodeo), for surburban dwellers a larger car, van, or SUV, is necessary to haul kids, groceries, cargo, and general "stuff" bewteen home and all the many different places we need to get to every day. Our surburbs are built around the concept of cheap private transportation. Public transportation in the surburbs, if it exists at all, does not generally fit how the average person lives there.
Just about all major European cities have public transportation systems that rival or beat New York city. Ditto for all major Asian cities I've visited. Their subway systems are clean and safe, trains and busses run on time, and all is affordable for the average resident. A private auto is not needed, and the use of small compact cars or motorbikes is generally the most private transport needed to augment public transport.
The options for getting between major American cities or towns are mostly limited to planes, cars, and greyhound busses. Forget trains. Unless you live in the northeast corridor US trains are for sightseeing tourism travel. If you're lucky to have a passenger train stop in your town, chances are the arrival/departure is a once-a-day (or twice a week) event convieniently scheduled for 3AM. But plan on a normal 2 to 4 hour delay. And pay through the nose - for most routes that even have both train and rail service options, flying is cheaper.
Again, contrast our system with Europe and Asian transport. France and Japan compete for the most advanced rail systems anywhere, but every nation has invested in rail systems that are clean, affordable, and run frequently and on time. The intercity bus systems, even in poor asian countries, is a wonder. My last bus trip through rural China treated me to clean modern busses with plush seating, free bottled water and snacks, in-bus movies, and a stewardess to check on passengers. Really. Can Greyhound match this?
In rural America, folks are on their own for public transportation. Sure, some larger towns will have a bus line that runs the main stretch of town, maybe even connects to the adjacent smaller towns. But that is about it. And where do the poorer rural folks live? Outside the town in mobile home communities or isolated housing tracts. They may work in construction jobs or migrant farm jobs, where they commute to different locations on a routine basis. They may work graveyard shifts, where they cannot depend on neighbors to get them to work (unless their neighbors also work that shift).
For these folks, owning a private vehicle is a basis of survival. Without a car, their life becomes a struggle for survival. They need to hitch rides to shop (or else dependent on the nearest convience stop-n-shop which has limited options and is expensive) and are largely unemployable. Can't hold a job if you can't get to work on time. The irony is that maintaining their vehicle is an expense they really cannot afford.
Contrast with European rural areas. Most of the rural areas are clusters of homes and shops, where the residents can walk or bicycle to where they need to go, surounded by farmlands. Yes, there are exceptions, but the exceptions are newer areas built since WWII when people became affluent enough to commonly afford private vehicles. Even many large factory plants built in rural areas sponsor some type of company transport from hub parking areas.
Same for the rural parts of China I've visited. Here, we're talking small villages clustered together around the open markets and services needed, surrounded by farmland where people can walk to and from work while herding their water buffalos and talking on cellphones.
Other factors that minimize the need for private autos in Europe and Asian nations include infrastructure that is bicycle and pedestrian friendly, as opposed to rural areas of the US where a bicyclist is considered a moving target for a beer can thrown from a passing pickup.
We can argue which came first, high gas taxes or infrastructure that minimizes the need for private autos, but that is irrelevant here. The fact remains, the way people live in nations that have high fuel prices supports the reduced need for private transport. The way we currently live mandates the need for privately-owned transportation, and no amount of raising fuel taxes will change this in the short term.
This leads to my argument that the only way to get Americans away from private transportation dependence is:
1. Developing public trasportation systems that really work by getting people where they need to go, when they need to get there, and do it affordably. Then promote these services through education and subsidies.
2. Restructuring communities so people are not dependent on driving long distances to get basic services and supplies.
How do we do this? I don't know. I'm not that smart. So I'll leave it to people smarter than me to design how we do this. I do know that if the Democratic party wants to insure never again having a majority status in any level of government higher than village dog catcher, they need to own the concept of raising fuel taxes.