http://moderntransit.org/fmt/fmt02.html

Executive Summary

This Plan details the legal and political steps to eliminate
automobile subsidies, and to increase the efficiency of all
transportation modes. It explains how to eliminate direct and indirect
government subsidies, as well as government requirements for
involuntary private subsidies. Included is a version of the plan
written in legal form, as it would appear if it were a city ordinance.
After enactment and evaluation, this would be a prototype for
legislation to make similar changes at the state and county levels.

Automobile expenditures would be shifted from the general taxpayer to
the automobile users. Fares for road usage and parking would be
collected using non-stop, modern fare collection technology. FREEways
would become FAREways. The use of free-market principles will benefit
all transportation modes, including automobiles, and the economy in
general. Sources for Road Financing (page 4) explains economic
effects, and Modern Fare Collection (page 7) gives technical details.
By using congestion pricing, the flow rate of automobiles would be
greatly increased (see graph, below) and congestion eliminated.

The passage of this plan will eliminate requirements for the provision
of parking, assessment districts for traffic mitigation, developer
fees for roads, sales taxes for freeways and roads, and the myriad of
subsidies (outlined in Huge City Subsidies for Autos, Trucks, page
11), which totals more than $4 per gallon of gas sold.

The elimination of laws forcing automobile accommodation and subsidies
will allow land use to be transit/bicycle/pedestrian-oriented. No one
would be forced to build transit-oriented development or to abolish
parking spaces. This plan, if passed, would simply allow the
possibility of transit, bicycle, and people oriented development,
which today is prohibited almost everywhere. We believe that free
market forces will naturally lean toward the types of development that
occurred in the past, when public transit was privately owned and
unsubsidized.

Pollution fees would be charged against air polluters, in amounts
proportional to the pollution they produce.

Both pollution fees and road fares would pay for expenses and negative
effects of the automobile. They should also substitute for general
taxes (especially the sales tax) because, for decades, government
subsidized the automobile and required land use that discourages
transit, pedestrians, and bicycles (e.g., sprawl). The result of this
government-required automobile-oriented development is that
automobiles have an unfair competitive advantage. In order to attract
private enterprise to again provide mass transit, this unfair
advantage needs to be negated by government action to recover a profit
from the automobile and truck transportation industry.

Everyone benefits by a Free Market for Transportation with the
possible exception of oil, automobile, trucking, and highway/road
construction interests (including highway engineers and Caltrans). But
large groups of moneyed interests also benefit, making it easier for
passage. (See Other ways people benefit from the Plan, page 9.)

One of the biggest selling points of the Plan is that it would even
benefit those who insist on continued automobile commuting. This Plan
would eliminate traffic congestion by using congestion pricing to
achieve the optimal vehicle flow rate. At 40 mph, the capacity of a
freeway is double that of stop-and-go, 10 mph traffic, and it takes
1/4 the travel time (see graph, below). This fact, while not widely
known, is repeatedly found in highway engineering studies.

Even non-motorists would benefit by eliminating traffic congestion.
Political pressure for more subsidies for more highway construction
should end by people no longer stuck in traffic.