It seems rather strange to me that you want to regulate automobile emissions by fiat, rather than by market pricing, but you don’t feel the same way about land use decisions. What is the different? Both create externialities that must be accounted for.

Automobile insurance premiums don’t pay for the complete cost of auto drivers’ carnage, because of the combination of fault laws, uninsured motorists, and a focus on liability. If someone dies, there is no medical expense and therefore no liability.

Drivers who operate polluting vehicles are responsible for the effects of this pollution. It won’t be prevented or mitigated by the planting of trees; automobiles emit deadly particles that cause asthma and cancer as well as contributing to global warming.

As regards noise pollution, anyone who works or lives near a busy street can attest that the noise from private vehicles far exceeds that from public transport vehicles, even though the latter category transports perhaps ten times as many passengers.

Financial to automobile owners include the design, construction, and maintenance of roads, parking garages, street parking, and traffic signals, signage, and other control devices; law enforcement and safety services; zoning that requires attached parking; and the administration and planning for all these services. M. A. Delucchi goes into this question in great detail in his paper, “Do motor-vehicle users in the US pay their way?”. Although a lot of taxes and fees are assessed on drivers, public expense nonetheless exceeds public income in this realm. Note that this analysis does not include the negative externialities discussed earlier.

Car owners pay much much more than transit riders. You want them to pay MORE?

Drivers damage the environment much more than transit users, pedestrians and cyclists. Someone has to pay to clean up that damage.

They can make no-emission vehicles, but the government cant’ find ways to tax it enough so they won’t be mass produced until then.

It’s not just the emissions, or even the waste of precious fuel. It’s the tons and tons of junk that can’t be recycled. It’s the inefficient use of space. It’s the carnage. Even a car that ran on farts and produced pure drinking water would be an environmental disaster.

Isn’t that what insurance is for? When it comes pollution, drivers do not create it, the vehicles do. They can make no-emission vehicles, but the government cant’ find ways to tax it enough so they won’t be mass produced until then. As for noise, Trains and Buses are noisy as well.

What auto subsidies are you thinking of?

Nobody is saying that driving is cheap, but the reality is that in the united states, the government subsidizes driving to the tune of 65 cents per gallon of gas. But that’s not all; drivers create serious negative externalities, including pollution, noise, and deadly crashes. If these were all included in the cost of driving, you can be sure it would be a lot less common than it is.

By the way, it’s true that the subway is extremely cheap, and there’s no good reason not to demand that the maintenance and capital expansion of the system survive on fares alone. But if subway subsidies are to be cut in such a way, then also auto subsidies and externalities must be priced into the cost of driving.

Also, don’t pretend that the Z or W trains are important, they are just redundant subway lines. The Z is useless and the W will be replaced by the Q in Astoria.

Knowing what we know about climate change, peak oil and the countless examples of environmental ruin caused by our nation’s devotion to cars, it’s pathetic transit-rich nyc can not pass this most moderate restriction on automobiles…

I do not support the proposal to toll bridges along the East River. They would not just divide my district. They would divide the entire city. We have better options.

Such as???

They should stand up and unite against the narrow-minded suburban and Outerborough legislators.

We will consider every possible tax except the environmentally sound tax on polluters.

We will tax your payroll, tax your income, tax your retail purchases, but don’t worry about anything, because we won’t tax your driving.

Great how one option for raising revenue is to increase the taxes and fees on rental cars, which presumably would fall mainly on NYers who do not own cars and rely on public transit. Can’t ask for a single dime from car owners!