A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old June 8th 07, 11:06 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
rotten
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default 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:[email protected] 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.


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.

Ads
  #342  
Old June 10th 07, 01:26 AM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Bolwerk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 203
Default we are sitting ducks

rotten wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:30 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
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:[email protected] 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.


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.
  #343  
Old June 10th 07, 02:45 AM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Joe the Aroma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default we are sitting ducks


"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

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.


  #344  
Old June 10th 07, 03:01 AM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Bolwerk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 203
Default we are sitting ducks

Joe the Aroma wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

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.
  #345  
Old June 11th 07, 05:51 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
rotten
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default we are sitting ducks

On Jun 9, 10:01 pm, Bolwerk wrote:
Joe the Aromawrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...


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.

  #346  
Old June 11th 07, 09:44 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
rotten
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default we are sitting ducks

On Jun 8, 9:50 am, Bolwerk wrote:
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.


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.

  #347  
Old June 12th 07, 04:04 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
rotten
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default we are sitting ducks

On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat 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.

  #348  
Old June 12th 07, 05:16 PM posted to alt.planning.urban,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides,misc.transport.urban-transit
Bolwerk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 203
Default we are sitting ducks

rotten wrote:
On May 29, 3:24 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:
On May 24, 2:15 pm, Pat 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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
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
Do good value for performance bikes have to be American? Jo Stoller UK 23 June 15th 04 08:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.