|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote: In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote: On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk 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 - 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 |
Ads |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote: On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote: In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote: On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk 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 - 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. |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
"Bill" wrote in message et... So does that mean you want all the city office clones to move into the city and make it all the more crowded. That sounds like your solution. Chicago is kind of a model for this kind of thing with it's Metra rail system that branches out of Chicago like the spokes of a wheel. There are plenty of parking spots where the train picks up people, even in the dead of winter and then takes them on a 79 MPH straight shot to the city. Once there one can use the 'el and overground/underground subway system. You can get off of that close enough for a short bus hop and short walk to work. It works for Chicago but has merely spread the suburbs out to a 50 mile plus radius of the center of the city. To have all those office workers live in Chicago would be an absurdly crowded situation. No easy fix in sight. I'll bet New York is about the same, even if not quite planned out as well as Chicago. Bill Baka Um no, I expressly do not want anyone to have to move where they do not want to, provided they have the means. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 5:30 pm, Dane Buson wrote: In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote: On Jun 7, 1:25 pm, Dane Buson wrote: In rec.bicycles.misc rotten wrote: On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk 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 - 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. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote:
rotten wrote: On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote: Pat wrote: On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "Pat" wrote in message legroups.com... On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "Joe the Aroma" wrote in messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com... 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. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
"rotten" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote: rotten wrote: On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote: Pat wrote: On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "Pat" wrote in message legroups.com... On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "Joe the Aroma" wrote in messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com... 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. |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk wrote: rotten wrote: On Jun 6, 4:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote: Pat wrote: On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "Pat" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "Joe the Aroma" wrote in messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com... 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. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
rotten wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk 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 |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
"Bill" wrote in message . net... rotten wrote: On Jun 7, 10:52 am, Bolwerk 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!!!!! |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
we are sitting ducks
George Conklin wrote:
"Bill" 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands | donquijote1954 | General | 360 | June 12th 07 05:16 PM |
What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands | donquijote1954 | Social Issues | 347 | June 12th 07 05:16 PM |
American bikes best! | yourbuddy | General | 2 | December 21st 05 01:47 AM |
NYC Power Proclamation Sets Lead for American Cities | Cycle America | General | 0 | April 28th 05 10:48 PM |
NYC Power Proclamation Sets Lead for American Cities | Cycle America | Rides | 0 | April 28th 05 10:48 PM |