Do bicycles and cars mix?

Matthew Russotto wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tanya Quinn wrote:

It is not square footage that matters since a lot is never filled by
building anyway, but the size of the lots determine how many houses
you can put in any given area. If a house has 60' frontage (typical
suburban lot) and 20' of the frontage is taken up by an attached
double car garage then 1/3 of the space is effectively dedicated to
cars.

The "logic" just gets more and more bizarre. I suppose a garage
with a side entrance thus takes up no space at all?
--

People who hate cars come up with almost anything to prove their points.
ACCESS showed years ago that a well-planned city devotes more space to roads
than suburban areas, for example.

Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...
Marc wrote:
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
be the only one with that in mind.

The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
shut down if it requires government subsidies.

I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.


You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars and
airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.

wrote in message
thlink.net...

They often get turned into spare rooms too.

Hell, in California a detached garage could be converted into house and sold
for $500K. There is more craziness in California than just politics

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Jack May wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

Motorists pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than
transit riders pay of the costs of transit. Maybe bus rides should cost
$3.00 instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00
to $20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
driving. Most of those costs are paid out of general tax revenues.

Since you are in total disagreement with figures published by the US
Federal Government, where do you get your data?

They're not "data" at all. They're propaganda. Claptrap belched forth by
one or another of the sky-is-falling groups that counts everything from a
six-year-old kid with the sniffles to the cost of a feather duster for
your venetian blinds as a "cost of driving".

DS

wrote

Actually it was an underestimate. It should have been about 100.

You are a funny, funny ....umm....hmm....not quite sure what you are.

But you ARE funny.

Pete

On 13 Aug 2003, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to $20.00 per gallon if
they're intended to cover the full costs of driving.

Pfft. Now how 'bout if we complicate things by replacing gasoline with
gasohol (E85), the ethanol in which requires a substantial federal subsidy
to be remotely cost-competitive and the manufacture of which consumes the
energy contained in 1.5 litres of ethanol per litre of ethanol produced.

What then?

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message
...
They're not "data" at all. They're propaganda. Claptrap belched forth by
one or another of the sky-is-falling groups that counts everything from a
six-year-old kid with the sniffles to the cost of a feather duster for
your venetian blinds as a "cost of driving".

So you have no source for your data, only conspiracy theories. It seems
that your entire belief system would collapse if it had to conform to
reality. I will just remember you in future posts as a person with no
credibility.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Jack May wrote:

They're not "data" at all. They're propaganda. Claptrap belched forth by
one or another of the sky-is-falling groups that counts everything from a
six-year-old kid with the sniffles to the cost of a feather duster for
your venetian blinds as a "cost of driving".

So you have no source for your data, only conspiracy theories.

Whoops, Jack, you've made an error. I posted no data -- I merely commented
on the veracity of what somebody else posted. It is not my job to do
others' homework for them, but I do reserve the right to heckle when they
fail to do it and try to bluff their way through instead.

It seems that your entire belief system would collapse if it had to
conform to reality.

You know nothing of my "belief system".

I will just remember you in future posts as a person with no
credibility.

*shrug* No skin off my back. Suit yourself. I will not apologise for
failing to conform to your pet theories and little beliefs.

DS

On 13 Aug 2003 21:42:14 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch"
wrote:

Marc wrote:
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
be the only one with that in mind.

The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
shut down if it requires government subsidies.

I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.

Are you implying that cars paying for 100% of their costs and 75%
of the costs for mass transit is "fair share" because you see more
value in mass transit?

No, I'm stating that those numbers are completely bogus. Motorists
pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than transit
riders pay of the costs of transit.

Please provide evidence to support this claim. All of the evidence I
have seen shows that motorists pay between 95%-103% of the cost.


Maybe bus rides should cost $3.00
instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to
$20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
driving. Most of those costs are paid out of general tax revenues.

Please identify them.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


wrote in message
thlink.net...

Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...
Marc wrote:
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
be the only one with that in mind.

The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
shut down if it requires government subsidies.

I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.


You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars and
airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.

Since we're talking vastly different fuel usages, your comparison is bogus.
How about you use subsidy per passenger-mile instead?