Denmark it is the stupid car tax that tries to protect the environment by cutting down emissions and its actual effect is people having far older cars in the average than in similar countries, which of course increases emissions
Even if we grant that? Given that a lot of energy goes into the creation of a car, that’s not a straightforward argument. The taxes also reduce car ownership.
Cutting down emissions is also not the only reason to tax cars. Cars provide public costs. Large amounts of space is used up by parking.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/10/danish-180-tax-on-cars-is-rather.html
Wow. I just uncritically accepted when my local friends told me their fleet is old. It sounded logical… also the cars in that town really seemed 5+ years.
Parking is not a good argument because it depends where. My whole point is that ideal policy would be cutting down on cars in big cities but leaving them alone in rural areas where they are far more necessary, there are hardly any parking problems, and so on. This is entirely uncontroversial AFAIK it is generally accepted by urbanism experts that the feasibility of public transport depends on population density and especially on people commuting between well defined residential areas (suburbs) to working areas (downtowns usually, or industrial or commercial parks). Bicycling is more of a downtown thing too, beyond 5km distance it is less ideal. People who live in one small town and work in another one 20km away should drive, at best, car-share. So policies should be location based, such as London style entry taxes / congestion charges or Vienna style no free parking.
On a more meta note, on how to design a policy, in so far that it is possible, they should imitate the logic of the markets, that there should be an emerging, dynamic balance generated by different needs. Jack up the price of parking in every location where you really don’t want cars. Or even reduce parking spaces. Doing it consistently would also cut down on the number of cars, because when people realize everywhere they want to drive to, mostly at work, is expensive, they will get rid of them, which is exactly what I did. However those people who mainly drive to places where parking is free will keep them, and this is a good thing, because it suggests they are sticking to low-density locations and it is a good choice there.
What’s similar countries for you?According to the numbers I find the Danish fleet is a year younger than Sweden, Iceland and Norways fleet (http://www.icenews.is/2010/03/21/nordic-region-cars-among-europe%E2%80%99s-oldest/).
Even if we grant that? Given that a lot of energy goes into the creation of a car, that’s not a straightforward argument. The taxes also reduce car ownership. Cutting down emissions is also not the only reason to tax cars. Cars provide public costs. Large amounts of space is used up by parking. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/10/danish-180-tax-on-cars-is-rather.html
Wow. I just uncritically accepted when my local friends told me their fleet is old. It sounded logical… also the cars in that town really seemed 5+ years.
Parking is not a good argument because it depends where. My whole point is that ideal policy would be cutting down on cars in big cities but leaving them alone in rural areas where they are far more necessary, there are hardly any parking problems, and so on. This is entirely uncontroversial AFAIK it is generally accepted by urbanism experts that the feasibility of public transport depends on population density and especially on people commuting between well defined residential areas (suburbs) to working areas (downtowns usually, or industrial or commercial parks). Bicycling is more of a downtown thing too, beyond 5km distance it is less ideal. People who live in one small town and work in another one 20km away should drive, at best, car-share. So policies should be location based, such as London style entry taxes / congestion charges or Vienna style no free parking.
On a more meta note, on how to design a policy, in so far that it is possible, they should imitate the logic of the markets, that there should be an emerging, dynamic balance generated by different needs. Jack up the price of parking in every location where you really don’t want cars. Or even reduce parking spaces. Doing it consistently would also cut down on the number of cars, because when people realize everywhere they want to drive to, mostly at work, is expensive, they will get rid of them, which is exactly what I did. However those people who mainly drive to places where parking is free will keep them, and this is a good thing, because it suggests they are sticking to low-density locations and it is a good choice there.