Do bicycles and cars mix?

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


"David Jensen" wrote in message
...
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.

Then you're being deliberately blind. There's plenty of evidence of
subsidies from property tax, General Funds, and other sources.

"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.

If that was done, it would leave cars, possibly planes, and eliminate all
forms of mass transit.

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. 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.

Not from the information I have seen.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On 10 Aug 2003 22:49:24 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch"
wrote:

And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving.

I have ridden transit in many cities, and have never seen a rush hour
ride where reading or work is a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't work
at all if you're standing, for instance.

---
Bob

Jack May wrote in message
news:EVB_a.139706$YN5.92376@sccrnsc01...

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message
...
Marc wrote:
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. 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?



Urban militants don't believe in data. They just make up the FActs to
suit the theory. Two groups do this: the far left and the far right.

Marc wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

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

If that was done, it would leave cars, possibly planes, and eliminate all
forms of mass transit.

Definitely not planes, and what good are the cars (and bicycles and shoes
for that matter) if all you have are the toll roads and no way to get to
them? You could sit in your car at home and listen to the radio, but that's
not transportation. Of course we could convert all roads to toll roads, and
charge directly for usage, but I'm not sure how many roads we'd want if we
had to pay for them directly.

Mitch.

RJ wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2003 22:49:24 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch"
wrote:

And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving.

I have ridden transit in many cities, and have never seen a rush hour
ride where reading or work is a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't work
at all if you're standing, for instance.

---
Bob

All the years I rode the IRT to school, never once was there an
opportunity to do my homework on the train. You spend your time standing
there and trying not to fall down.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:34:30 -0700, "Baxter"
wrote:

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?


I was under the imression he was.

In article ,
Keith F. Lynch wrote:

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. 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.

More numbers retrieved from a dark and smelly place (and I don't mean
an underground gas tank).
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

In article ,
Marc wrote:

Those of us who don't live in mobile homes have attached garages. 1/3 to
1/4 of the house is a reasonable estimate.

What do you keep in those things, airplanes? My garage might be 1/5th
of my first floor, at most.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

David Jensen wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:34:30 -0700, "Baxter"
wrote:

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?


I was under the imression he was.

That is subsidy per passenger mile. As for fuel, only long distances
buses save much fuel in btu's per passenger mile. Transit buses are worse
than cars, and planes only slightly worse than cars.

The accident rate of a business traveler in a full-sized Chevrolet on an
Interstate is low. It means that the business driver would have to drive
800 miles before flying would be safer. You see, most accidents happen when
planes take off or land, so longer trips are safer.