What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

[Bolwerk]

rotten wrote:
> On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
>>>>>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
>>>>>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
>>>>>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
>>>>>> appropriations.
>>>>> User fees as much as possible.
>>>> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
>>>> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
>>>> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
>>>> odometer readings when you register every year. [1]
>>>> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
>>>> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
>>>> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
>>>> goods.
>>>> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
>>>> register their car to avoid paying...
>>> Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
>>> walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
>>> able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.
>> Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
>> but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.
>>
>> I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
>> which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
>> general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
>> to agree to cough up the money up front.
>>
>> When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
>> can see the same effect in many places in life.
>>
>> ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
>> coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.
>>
>> --
>> Dane Buson - [email protected]
>> The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
>> were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
>> -- H. L. Mencken
>
> User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I
> remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of
> the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half
> of the rest.

What are you including in the "cost of roads"? Just maintenance? How
about emergency services? Patrol? Externalities? Only major highways?
What about ancillary routes? Local roads? New construction?

If you pick all of the above, I doubt $7-8 would cover it really.

 

[rotten]

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> rotten wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Pat wrote:
> >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
> >>>>>>> simple enough to me.
> >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
> >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
> >>>>> car" and "want a car".
> >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
> >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
> >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
> >>>>> cabs, etc.
> >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
> >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
> >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
> >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
> >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
> >>>>> scales are very different.
> >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
> >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
> >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
> >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
> >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
> >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
> >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
> >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
> >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
> >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
> >>>> are many who do.
> >>>> -Amy
> >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
> >>> would be redundant. ;-)
> >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
> >> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
>
> >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
> >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
> >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
> >> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
>
> > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
> > else's transportation.
>
> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> appropriations.
>
> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.

> > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>
> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
where more transportation options are available.

 

[George Conklin]

"rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > rotten wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Pat wrote:
> > >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:[email protected]...
> > >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
> > >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car.
Seems
> > >>>>>>> simple enough to me.
> > >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
> > >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need
a
> > >>>>> car" and "want a car".
> > >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture
far
> > >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire
world
> > >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains,
and
> > >>>>> cabs, etc.
> > >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the
beaten
> > >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around
and
> > >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc.,
nearby
> > >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
> > >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> > >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> > >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The
distance
> > >>>>> scales are very different.
> > >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a
car
> > >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to
wait
> > >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
> > >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would
be
> > >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to
decide.
> > >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't
can/should
> > >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide
to
> > >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
> > >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out
why people
> > >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit,
but there
> > >>>> are many who do.
> > >>>> -Amy
> > >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that
that
> > >>> would be redundant. ;-)
> > >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
> > >> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
> >
> > >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan
areas
> > >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone
would
> > >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but
pollutants
> > >> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
> >
> > > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
> > > else's transportation.
> >
> > I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> > transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> > transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> > and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> > appropriations.
> >
> > Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.
>
> The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
> about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
> Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.
>
> > > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> > > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
> >
> > Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
> > any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
> > Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
>
> That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
> somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
> where more transportation options are available.
>

I am not sure that having only one option: the subway, is "choice." You can
use a cab almost anywhere, so that does not count.

 

[Bolwerk]

rotten wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> rotten wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
>>>>>>>>> simple enough to me.
>>>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
>>>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
>>>>>>> car" and "want a car".
>>>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
>>>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
>>>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
>>>>>>> cabs, etc.
>>>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
>>>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
>>>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
>>>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
>>>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
>>>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
>>>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
>>>>>>> scales are very different.
>>>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
>>>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
>>>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
>>>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
>>>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
>>>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
>>>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
>>>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
>>>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
>>>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
>>>>>> are many who do.
>>>>>> -Amy
>>>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
>>>>> would be redundant. ;-)
>>>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
>>>> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
>>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
>>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
>>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
>>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
>>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
>>> else's transportation.
>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
>> appropriations.
>>
>> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.
>
> The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
> about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
> Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.

I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that
something that governments have been doing throughout history should not
be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became
as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with
you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be
extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before.

Also, I would probably disagree that sidewalks are a small matter. It's
like with roads: maintaining one may be a drop in a bucket, but you
multiply them out across a large city or country and you see there's a
massive budget(s?) for maintaining them. Of course, in some cases,
individuals do maintain them, however.

In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for
itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself,
at least not directly.

>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
>> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
>> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
>
> That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
> somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
> where more transportation options are available.

That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing
has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites
by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels
into cities.

They can move, or transit could be built in places where it would be
effective.

 

[Bill]

rotten wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
>> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
>> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
>
> That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
> somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
> where more transportation options are available.
>
Sanity check.
Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs
complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an
apartment in the middle of the city.
That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all
the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream".
Not going to happen.
Bill Baka

 

[George Conklin]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> rotten wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
> >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
> >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
> >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
> >
> > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
> > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
> > where more transportation options are available.
> >
> Sanity check.
> Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs
> complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an
> apartment in the middle of the city.
> That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all
> the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream".
> Not going to happen.
> Bill Baka

If you looked at the New York Times article on second home ownership,
they were suggesting just that, giving the example of a woman who did not
know how to change the battery in her second home's fire alarm because she
did not have her superintendent to call!!! Yes, fear, fear fear of not
having a superintendent to call!!!!!

 

[Bill]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Sanity check.
>> Nobody in their right mind is going to give up a house in the burbs
>> complete with a little patch of lawn to move into a shack of an
>> apartment in the middle of the city.
>> That would require selling the weekend boat, lawnmower, cars, and all
>> the things people are now working to have the elusive "American Dream".
>> Not going to happen.
>> Bill Baka
>
> If you looked at the New York Times article on second home ownership,
> they were suggesting just that, giving the example of a woman who did not
> know how to change the battery in her second home's fire alarm because she
> did not have her superintendent to call!!! Yes, fear, fear fear of not
> having a superintendent to call!!!!!
>
>
>
Yes,
I saw that one and could only shake my head. How does someone that
stupid even get the money for a second home? I wonder if she got a flat
tire on her car would she wait for a tow truck to pass by if she was out
of cell phone range?????
Talk about "Dumbing down" America.
Bill Baka

 

[rotten]

On Jun 8, 2:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> rotten wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> rotten wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Pat wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
> >>>>>>>>> simple enough to me.
> >>>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
> >>>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
> >>>>>>> car" and "want a car".
> >>>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
> >>>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
> >>>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
> >>>>>>> cabs, etc.
> >>>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
> >>>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
> >>>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
> >>>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
> >>>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> >>>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> >>>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
> >>>>>>> scales are very different.
> >>>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
> >>>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
> >>>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
> >>>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
> >>>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
> >>>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
> >>>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
> >>>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
> >>>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
> >>>>>> are many who do.
> >>>>>> -Amy
> >>>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
> >>>>> would be redundant. ;-)
> >>>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
> >>>> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
> >>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
> >>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
> >>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
> >>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
> >>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
> >>> else's transportation.
> >> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> >> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> >> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> >> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> >> appropriations.
>
> >> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.
>
> > The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
> > about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
> > Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.
>
> I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that
> something that governments have been doing throughout history should not
> be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became
> as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with
> you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be
> extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before.

It's partially and mostly what we do now.


> In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for
> itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself,
> at least not directly.

Why not? We pretty much do that now as it is.

> >>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> >>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
> >> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
> >> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
> >> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
>
> > That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
> > somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
> > where more transportation options are available.
>
> That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing
> has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites
> by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels
> into cities.

No, it's not giving up, it's letting people make their own choices
about where and how they live. It won't drive up the transportation
costs for suburbanites by leaps and bounds at all. It will barely
raise them at all.

 

[rotten]

On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> rotten wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Pat wrote:
> >>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
> >>>>>>> simple enough to me.
> >>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
> >>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
> >>>>> car" and "want a car".
> >>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
> >>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
> >>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
> >>>>> cabs, etc.
> >>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
> >>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
> >>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
> >>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
> >>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> >>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> >>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
> >>>>> scales are very different.
> >>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
> >>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
> >>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
> >>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
> >>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
> >>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
> >>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
> >>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
> >>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
> >>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
> >>>> are many who do.
> >>>> -Amy
> >>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
> >>> would be redundant. ;-)
> >> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
> >> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
>
> >> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
> >> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
> >> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
> >> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
>
> > I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
> > else's transportation.
>
> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> appropriations.

A gas tax makes a nice user fee. So do tolls. Gas taxes are just
easier to administer.

> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.

The cost of a sidewalk in high traffic areas is minimal. I've never
heard anyone complain about sidewalks.

> > As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
> > air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>
> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.

Air quality has risen since they were implemented, I'd call them
effective. If people only have that option and want more they're going
to have to move, or wait until their local density reaches a point at
which mass transit becomes feasible.

 

[Bolwerk]

rotten wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> rotten wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> rotten wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
>>>>>>>>>>> simple enough to me.
>>>>>>>>>> Simple is as simple does ;-)
>>>>>>>>> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
>>>>>>>>> car" and "want a car".
>>>>>>>>> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
>>>>>>>>> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
>>>>>>>>> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
>>>>>>>>> cabs, etc.
>>>>>>>>> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
>>>>>>>>> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
>>>>>>>>> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
>>>>>>>>> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
>>>>>>>>> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
>>>>>>>>> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
>>>>>>>>> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
>>>>>>>>> scales are very different.
>>>>>>>>> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
>>>>>>>>> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
>>>>>>>>> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
>>>>>>>>> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
>>>>>>>>> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
>>>>>>>>> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
>>>>>>>>> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.
>>>>>>>> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
>>>>>>>> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
>>>>>>>> are many who do.
>>>>>>>> -Amy
>>>>>>> I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
>>>>>>> would be redundant. ;-)
>>>>>> These particular "morons" seem to live in the suburbs primarily, or
>>>>>> suburbanized rural areas anyway.
>>>>>> Funny enough, improving transit systems in cities and metropolitan areas
>>>>>> would probably only benefit rural areas. The energy savings alone would
>>>>>> be remarkable. Smog hurts the health of urban residents, but pollutants
>>>>>> also hurt the environment in rural areas.
>>>>> I live in the city, I just think nobody should subsidize anybody
>>>>> else's transportation.
>>>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
>>>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
>>>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
>>>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
>>>> appropriations.
>>>> Even if you walk, you're probably using a subsidized sidewalk.
>>> The impact that walkers have on the budget is minimal, so I don't care
>>> about them. Are you saying my opinion is that we should tax walkers?
>>> Talk about carrying something to an extreme conclusion.
>> I was just pointing out that it gets kind of hairy to make claims that
>> something that governments have been doing throughout history should not
>> be done (arguably, transportation might be the reason governments became
>> as complex as they did). Not that I even entirely even disagree with
>> you, but the impact of what you're proposing (direct user fees) could be
>> extremely far-reaching, as I and others have mentioned before.
>
> It's partially and mostly what we do now.

Partially, yeah.

>> In any case, I expect you might be able to get a busy highway to pay for
>> itself. I doubt you could get the whole road system to pay for itself,
>> at least not directly.
>
> Why not? We pretty much do that now as it is.

A well-maintained local road sometimes only gets a few cars a day. I
rather doubt those could pay for themselves directly under any
circumstances.

>>>>> As for pollution, mandating pollution controls on cars can clean up
>>>>> air quality without affecting anybody's transportation options.
>>>> Pollution controls on cars have thus far proven only so effective. In
>>>> any case, people often have only one option: private automobiles.
>>>> Expanding transit system might give many people at least two options.
>>> That's right, and if they want another choice, they can move to
>>> somewhere that doesn't require automobiles, like into a city center
>>> where more transportation options are available.
>> That sounds like giving up to me. On top of that, what you're proposing
>> has the potential to drive up the transportation costs for suburbanites
>> by leaps and bounds. It might force people of certain income levels
>> into cities.
>
> No, it's not giving up, it's letting people make their own choices
> about where and how they live. It won't drive up the transportation
> costs for suburbanites by leaps and bounds at all. It will barely
> raise them at all.

Wait, so, let's say that that direct user fees covering the entire cost
of a trip raises the price of gasoline by a dollar per gallon (probably
a low estimate). That sounds like a pretty big hit, especially for the
people most likely to drive needlessly large cars.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Do you understand what I'm talking about though? I'm just talking about a
tax on gasoline to pay for roads. It doesn't pay "per road" or anything like
that. It's just a big general fund to pay for roads. It's not a perfect
"user fee" but it's better than a general fund IMO.

 

[Bolwerk]

Joe the Aroma wrote:
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Do you understand what I'm talking about though? I'm just talking about a
> tax on gasoline to pay for roads. It doesn't pay "per road" or anything like
> that. It's just a big general fund to pay for roads. It's not a perfect
> "user fee" but it's better than a general fund IMO.

I know you're not talking about a "per road" user fee (which would be
more like a toll, or graded toll anyway). I was under the impression
that you thought that a user fee could pay for 100% of the system
without shifting the financial burden so radically.

It's just that the most optimistic estimates I've heard for the current
user fee system is that they cover something like 60% of highway traffic
(this isn't counting the huge part of the system that isn't highway
traffic).

In any case, I like your idea, I just don't really think it's feasible
politically, much less practically.

 

[rotten]

On Jun 9, 10:01 pm, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe the Aromawrote:
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > Do you understand what I'm talking about though? I'm just talking about a
> > tax on gasoline to pay for roads. It doesn't pay "per road" or anything like
> > that. It's just a big general fund to pay for roads. It's not a perfect
> > "user fee" but it's better than a general fund IMO.
>
> I know you're not talking about a "per road" user fee (which would be
> more like a toll, or graded toll anyway). I was under the impression
> that you thought that a user fee could pay for 100% of the system
> without shifting the financial burden so radically.
>
> It's just that the most optimistic estimates I've heard for the current
> user fee system is that they cover something like 60% of highway traffic
> (this isn't counting the huge part of the system that isn't highway
> traffic).
>
> In any case, I like your idea, I just don't really think it's feasible
> politically, much less practically.

The data I saw... was that gas taxes cover roughly 50-60% of fees for
roads, while excise taxes and tolls cover another 20% or so.

 

[rotten]

On Jun 8, 9:50 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> rotten wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> In rec.bicycles.misc rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> I don't know what it means for "nobody" to "subsidize anybody else's
> >>>>>> transportation." Depending where you live and if you drive, your
> >>>>>> transportation is probably subsidized by all kinds of people, places,
> >>>>>> and funding schemes, ranging from gas taxes to direct federal
> >>>>>> appropriations.
> >>>>> User fees as much as possible.
> >>>> So, you're talking about $7-13 a gallon gas? Or perhaps every road will
> >>>> become a toll road? Of course we could also install a GPS box and tax
> >>>> you for miles driven. Alternately we could charge people based on
> >>>> odometer readings when you register every year. [1]
> >>>> I also look forward to the Sneaker Tax. Of course this will have to be
> >>>> built into the cost of the shoes. Perhaps we'll call it something like
> >>>> Very Appreciable Travel and tack it onto the cost of all travel related
> >>>> goods.
> >>>> [1] I'm sure no one will stop their odometer, falsify it, or fail to
> >>>> register their car to avoid paying...
> >>> Calm down little man, I don't think it's reasonable to charge for
> >>> walking or whatever, obviously on a local level not everything will be
> >>> able to be paid for on that basis. Sheesh, people get so angry.
> >> Angry? I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was being mildly sarcastic,
> >> but not at all angry. Perhaps I should have added the odd ;-) in there.
>
> >> I'm actually in favour of user fees in many cases, especially roads
> >> which have historically been subsidized heavily by property tax and
> >> general funds. Of course the problem with user fees is getting people
> >> to agree to cough up the money up front.
>
> >> When you have to pay the full cost at every use, people often balk. You
> >> can see the same effect in many places in life.
>
> >> ex. Someone who would hesitate if you made them pay $1000 for a year of
> >> coffee has no problem with paying $3-4 multiple times a week.
>
> >> --
> >> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> >> The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it
> >> were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
> >> -- H. L. Mencken
>
> > User fees for roads would not even be close to $7-$8 per gallon, I
> > remember seeing that existing gas taxes already cover around 50% of
> > the cost of roads, with tolls and excise taxes making up around half
> > of the rest.
>
> What are you including in the "cost of roads"? Just maintenance? How
> about emergency services? Patrol? Externalities? Only major highways?
> What about ancillary routes? Local roads? New construction?
>
> If you pick all of the above, I doubt $7-8 would cover it really.

You must be joking. The gas tax already covers the fees for like 50%
of road expenditures. And tolls and excise taxes covers close to half
the rest. There's a good website out there which provides total
statistics on how roads are funded. Fully funding with user fees
wouldn't be close to $7-8 dollars a gallon.

 

[rotten]

On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
> > > strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
> > > Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
> > > only buses protect me from the big predators out there.
>
> > I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks,
> > we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son
> > was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid-
> > gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling.
> > Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to
> > drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and
> > the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe,
> > but maybe not as safe as I had thought.-
>
> Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't
> bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a
> sitting duck...
>
> You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there???
>
> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg
>
> Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the
> ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down
> the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to
> boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this
> driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process
> (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in
> the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows
> the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead
> and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped
> some feet further to shout something at me.
>
> So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle.
> Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting
> season..."

She probably thought you were, like most anti-car screamers, a
deranged lunatic. I probably would have laughed at you, but obviously
you scared the **** out of her.

 

[Bolwerk]

rotten wrote:
> On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I rather keep fit in my SUB (smart utility bike). Well, rethinking my
>>>> strategy in light of the Darwinian roads where I'm forced to drive.
>>>> Even smaller cars put me at the wrong end of the food chain. I guess
>>>> only buses protect me from the big predators out there.
>>> I am in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In the last two weeks,
>>> we have had two bus incidents. One was a lacrosse bus (that my son
>>> was on) that his a mogal in the road so hard that it ripped the kid-
>>> gate off the front of the bus. A couple of kids hit the ceiling.
>>> Then last week, a bus (with the lights flashing) was slowing down to
>>> drop off kids and it was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. 3 kids and
>>> the driver hurt. Nothing too serious. 4 kids okay. Busses are safe,
>>> but maybe not as safe as I had thought.-
>> Though nothing is absolutely safe, they are the only ones that don't
>> bow to SUVs or at least the only ones where you don't feel like a
>> sitting duck...
>>
>> You know how I feel in any other vehicle out there???
>>
>> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cga0264l.jpg
>>
>> Yes, I feel like that, and not even walking you are safe from the
>> ARROGANT, CARELESS SUV DRIVERS. Case in point, as I was walking down
>> the sidewalk last Friday (transferring buses, with a heavy box to
>> boot), an SUV with a young lady at the wheel starts turning into this
>> driveway to the shopping center, cutting me off in the process
>> (something kind of usual in this Darwinian city where I live, #1 in
>> the nation), and I respond by knocking on her window. She then shows
>> the phone: She's gonna call the police! And I shout at her, "Go ahead
>> and call the police!" OK, she changed her mind, but she still stopped
>> some feet further to shout something at me.
>>
>> So, under this TERROR we must live. I guess it's normal in the jungle.
>> Like the sitting duck said, "Never sit down during the hunting
>> season..."
>
> She probably thought you were, like most anti-car screamers, a
> deranged lunatic. I probably would have laughed at you, but obviously
> you scared the **** out of her.

Eh, calling nearly running over a pedestrian on the sidewalk
irresponsible is an understatement. That woman probably should have
her license revoked.