Life without cars is possible
Thaddeus Stevens
by Isabelle de Pommereau
It's pickup time at the Vauban kindergarten here at the edge of the Black Forest, but
there's not a single minivan waiting for the kids. Instead, a convoy of helmet-donning moms
- bicycle trailers in tow - pedal up to the entrance.
Welcome to Germany's best-known environmentally friendly neighborhood and a successful
experiment in green urban living. The Vauban development - 2,000 new homes on a former
military base 10 minutes by bike from the heart of Freiburg - has put into practice many
ideas that were once dismissed as eco-fantasy but which are now moving to the center of
public policy.
With gas prices well above $6 per gallon across much of the continent, Vauban is
striking a chord in Western Europe as communities encourage people to be less
car-dependent. Just this week, Paris unveiled a new electric tram in a bid to reduce urban
pollution and traffic congestion.
"Vauban is clearly an offer for families with kids to live without cars," says Jan
Scheurer, an Australian researcher who has studied the Vauban model extensively. "It was
meant to counter urban sprawl - an offer for families not to move out to the suburbs and
give them the same, if better quality of life. And it is very successful."
There are numerous incentives for Vauban's 4,700 residents to live car-free: Carpoolers
get free yearly tramway passes, while parking spots - available only in a garage at the
neighborhood's edge - go for €17,500 (US$23,000). Forty percent of residents have bought
spaces, many just for the benefit of their visiting guests.
As a result, the car-ownership rate in Vauban is only 150 per 1,000 inhabitants,
compared with 430 per 1,000 inhabitants in Freiburg proper.
In contrast, the US average is 640 household vehicles per 1,000 residents. But some
cities - such as Davis, Calif., where 17 percent of residents commute by bike - have
pioneered a car-free lifestyle that is similar to Vauban's model.
Vauban, which is located in the southwestern part of the country, owes its existence,
at least in part, to Freiburg - a university town, like Davis - that has a reputation as
Germany's ecological capital.
In the 1970s, the city became the cradle of Germany's powerful antinuclear movement
after local activists killed plans for a nuclear power station nearby. The battle brought
energy-policy issues closer to the people and increased involvement in local politics. With
a quarter of its people voting for the Green Party, Freiburg became a political
counterweight in the conservative state of Baden-Württemberg.
At about the same time, Freiburg, a city of 216,000 people, revolutionized travel behavior.
It made its medieval center more pedestrian-friendly, laid down a lattice of bike paths,
and introduced a flat rate for tramways and buses.
Environmental research also became a backbone of the region's economy, which boasts
Germany's largest solar-research center and an international center for renewable energy.
Services such as installing solar panels and purifying wastewater account for 3 percent of
jobs in the region, according to city figures.
Little wonder then, that when the French Army closed the 94-acre base that Vauban now
occupies in 1991, a group of forward-thinking citizens took the initiative to create a new
form of city living for young families.
"We knew the city had a duty to make a plan. We wanted to get as involved as possible,"
says Andreas Delleske, then a physics student who led the grass-roots initiative that
codesigned Vauban. "And we were accepted as a partner of the city."
In 1998, Freiburg bought land from the German government and worked with Delleske's group
to lay out a master plan for the area, keeping in mind the ecological, social, economic,
and cultural goals of reducing energy levels while creating healthier air and a solid
infrastructure for young families. Rather than handing the area to a real estate developer,
the city let small homeowner cooperatives design and build their homes from scratch.
In retrospect, "It would have been much simpler to give a big developer a piece of land and
say, 'Come back five years later with a plan,' " says Roland Veith, the Freiburg city
official in charge of Vauban.
But the result is a "master plan of an ecological city ... unique in its holistic
approach," says Peter Heck, a professor of material-flow management at Germany's University
of Trier, pointing out that this was a community-wide effort involving engineers,
politicians, city planners, and residents - not just an environmental group's pilot program.
Today, rows of individually designed, brightly painted buildings line streets that are
designed to be too narrow for cars. There are four kindergartens, a Waldorf school, and
plenty of playgrounds - a good thing, because a third of Vauban's residents are under age
18, bucking the trend in a graying country.
As Germany's population ages - and shrinks - experts say Vauban's model will become more
important as officials increasingly tailor-make communities in an effort to attract citizens .
"We have fewer young people. What you need now is a good quality of life with good
services, a good infrastructure for kids and older people," says Thomas Schleifnecker, a
Hannover-based urban planner.
Across Europe, similar projects are popping up. Copenhagen, for instance, maintains a fleet
of bikes for public use that is financed through advertising on bicycle frames.
But what makes Vauban unique, say experts, is that "it's as much a grass-roots initiative
as it is pursued by the city council," says Mr. Scheurer. "It brings together the
community, the government, and the private sector at every state of the game."
As more cities follow Vauban's example, some see its approach taking off. "Before you had
pilot projects. Now it's like a movement," says Mr. Heck. "The idea of saving energy for
our landscape is getting into the basic planning procedure of German cities."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1221-07.htm
______________________________________________________
A new website with concise, valuable information about current affairs has emerged:
http://www.politicsusaweb.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that there is any sense in which the American public could be said not
to know what we do is finally not credible. Are we dupes of propaganda? It’s not as
if the network news folks are eager to help us put together a diagnosis of our
imperial objectives and methods. But the weightier answer is that we operate under a
New Censorship which functions by making everything known and naked to a paralyzing
degree. Is there anyone who doesn’t understand that the Sudanese pharmaceutical lab
that Clinton blew up with eighty cruise missiles was producing . . . pharmaceuticals?
Is there anyone who doesn’t understand that this was an act of state terrorism and a
violation of every principle of international law? . . Clinton emerged unscathed from
this crime against the people of the Sudan because of a) racism (the unspoken
assumption being that it’s okay to bomb little brown people-it happens so often they
ought to be use to it by now; it’s rather like the weather for them), b) the
unacknowledged understanding that American military activities really do support our
privileges stateside, such as those privileges are, and c) the stupefying effects of
the New Censorship.
The New Censorship does not work by keeping things secret. Are our leaders liars
and criminals: is the government run by wealthy corporations and political elites? Are
we all being slowly poisoned? The answer is yes to all of the above, and there’s
hardly a soul on these shores who doesn’t know it. The reign of George II practically
revels in this perverse transparency. Oil policy created in backrooms with lobbyists
from Enron and Exxon-Mobil. Naked pandering to the electricity industry in rolling
back clean-air mandates. Accounting firms like Arthur Andersen buying even “watchdog”
liberal senators such as Christopher Dodd. Elections rigged with brother Jeb’s
connivance in Florida. All of these details are utterly public, reported in
newspapers, television newscasts, and books, yet it’s perfectly safe for this stuff to
be known. The genius of the New Censorship is that it works through the obscenity of
absolute openness. Iraq-gate wasn’t a secret. The real secret is that it wasn’t a
secret, and certainly wasn’t a scandal. It was business as usual. The betrayal of
public trust is a daily story manipulated by the media within the narrative confines
of “scandal," when in fact it’s all a part of the daily routine and everyone knows it.
The media makes pornography of the collective guilt of our politicians and business
leaders. They make a yummy fetish of betrayed trust. We then consume it, mostly
passively, because it is indistinguishable from our ‘entertainment’ and because we
suspect in some dim way that, bad as it surely is, it is working in our interests in
the long run. What genius to have a system that allows you to behave badly, be exposed
for it, and then have the sin recouped by the system as sellable commodity! I mean,
you have to admire the sheer, recuperative balls of it!
~ from “The Middle Mind, Why Americans don’t Think for Themselves” by Curtis White
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fearful people are more dependent, more easily manipulated and controlled, more
susceptible to deceptively simple, strong, tough measures and hard-line postures. ...
They may accept and even welcome repression if it promises to relieve their
insecurities." ~ George Gerbner ~ Annenberg School for Communication
|--------------------------------------|
| ~ Thaddeus Stevens ~ |
|--------------------------------------|
--- In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to
Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against
Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not
happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the
Government of Oceania itself, "Just to keep the People frightened."
-- George Orwell, 1984, 127
----------------------------------------------------------
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress
of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been
born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing,
and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it
does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor
freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the
ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening.They want the ocean without the
awful roar of its many waters."
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both
moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly
submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will
be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words
or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress."
~ Frederick Douglass, 1857
------------------------------------------------------------
A reasonably just and well-ordered democratic society might be possible,
and . . . justice as fairness should have a special place among the political
conceptions in its political and social world. . . [M]any are prepared to accept the
conclusion that a just and well-ordered democratic society is not possible, and even
regard it as obvious. Isn't admitting it part of growing up, part of the inevitable
loss of innocence? But is this conclusion one we can so easily accept?
The answer we give to the question of whether a just democratic society is
possible and can be stable for the right reasons affects our background thoughts and
attitudes about the world as a whole. And it affects these thoughts and attitudes
before we come to actual politics, and limits or inspires how we take part in it. . .
If we take for granted as common knowledge that a just and well-ordered democratic
society is impossible, then the quality and tone of those attitudes will reflect that
knowledge. A cause of the fall of Weimar's constitutional regime was that none of the
traditional elites of Germany supported its constitution or were willing to cooperate
to make it work. They no longer believed a decent liberal parliamentary regime was
possible. Its time had past.
The regime fell first to a series of authoritarian cabinet governments from 1930 to
1932. When these were increasingly weakened by their lack of popular support,
President Hindenburg was finally persuaded to turn to Hitler, who had such support and
whom conservatives thought they could control.
~ John Rawls "Political Liberalism" pg. lx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. This author has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is this author endorsed or sponsored by the
originator.
Bert Hyman
Stevens <fr_e_...@fastmail.us> wrote:
>There are numerous incentives for Vauban's 4,700 residents to live
>car-free: Carpoolers get free yearly tramway passes,
So, how do you carpool unless ->somebody has a car?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Foxtrot
>Subject: Re: Life without cars is possible
Some of us have been saying for years that the ecokooks want to
ban cars and force us all to ride bicycles.
Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine over,
say, a 25-year period."
Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and fleets
of SUVS.
>Thaddeus Stevens <fr_e_...@fastmail.us> wrote:
>
>>There are numerous incentives for Vauban's 4,700 residents to live
>>car-free: Carpoolers get free yearly tramway passes,
>
>So, how do you carpool unless ->somebody has a car?
I was wondering that too. It probably means that the elite
government bureaucrats who will still be allowed to drive get
special incentives to give the peasants an occasional ride.
Next on the ecokooks' agenda: banning air conditioning.
Dan Kimmel
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:flpqo29r7bsruvute...@4ax.com...
> Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Life without cars is possible
>
> Some of us have been saying for years that the ecokooks want to
> ban cars and force us all to ride bicycles.
>
> Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
> stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine over,
> say, a 25-year period."
>
> Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
> Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and fleets
> of SUVS.
I look at gas prices going up by the day and I'm so glad I don't have a car.
Nebuchadnezzar II
>
>>Subject: Re: Life without cars is possible
>
> Some of us have been saying for years that the ecokooks want to
> ban cars and force us all to ride bicycles.
>
> Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
> stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine over,
> say, a 25-year period."
>
> Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
> Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and fleets
> of SUVS.
Of course this is not true, but the funny part is it scares the shit out
of you fatass Reichtards who get winded walking across the room to pick
up your TV remote. I love it.
Foxtrot
>"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote
>> Some of us have been saying for years that the ecokooks want to
>> ban cars and force us all to ride bicycles.
>>
>> Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
>> stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine over,
>> say, a 25-year period."
>>
>> Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
>> Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and fleets
>> of SUVS.
>
>I look at gas prices going up by the day and I'm so glad I don't have a car.
Fine, that's your choice. Just don't try to force it on the rest of
us.
That goes for you too, Al Grrrr. MYOFB.
Foxtrot
>"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote
>> Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
>> stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine over,
>> say, a 25-year period."
>>
>> Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
>> Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and fleets
>> of SUVS.
>
>Of course this is not true, but the funny part is it scares the shit out
>of you fatass Reichtards who get winded walking across the room to pick
>up your TV remote. I love it.
Have you seen video of Ted Kennedy hunched over and waddling
lately? As a powerful wealthy politician who has been privileged all
his life, that decadent pig feels qualified to tell the rest of us how
to live. So tell us all about over indulgence, eh?
Dan Kimmel
Fine by me, so long as you stop asking me to subsidize all those highways I
never use.
Or, in the alternative, you can shut up when the government gets around to
spending money on public transportation.
Bert Hyman
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Fine by me, so long as you stop asking me to subsidize all those
> highways I never use.
Sorry; you don't get to pick how your tax money is spent, beyond
choosing who you vote for.
Nebuchadnezzar II
So you'd rather have a fat pig like Fatty Hastert telling you how to
live as he has his hand in the coookie jar? Or perhaps you prefer the
flavor of dipshits like the bugman who want to tell you to keep your
wife on life support after her brain has turned to jello? Do you even
realize the depths your paranoia and idiocy has sank? So don't even
speak about politicians who want to tell you how to live unless you
intend on including fuckers like those, OK dipshit?
Somebody needs to tell dipshits like you it's probably not a good
fucking idea to haul your fat ass around in a 3 ton SUV when foreign oil
is the biggest contributor to the trade deficit, not to mention the fact
that it's financing terrorism and not to mention that asthmatic kids are
dying in large cities because of it too. So if someone has to tell
dipshits how to live, I'd much rather it be a Democrat who is doing it
for a damn good reason rather than a Republican who is pandering to
either large business interests or religious fascists.
Have a nice day.
Foxtrot
>"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Fine by me, so long as you stop asking me to subsidize all those
>> highways I never use.
I don't get health care from the government so I shouldn't have to
pay taxes for others to get it, right? I don't have children so I
shouldn't have to pay federal, state or local taxes for schools, right?
I wasn't affected by Hurricane Katrina so I shouldn't have to pay any
taxes to help those who were, eh?
>Sorry; you don't get to pick how your tax money is spent, beyond
>choosing who you vote for.
I can't believe he even said such a thing. Obviously he hasn't been
fully indoctrinated into liberalism yet.
Bert Hyman
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> So you'd rather have a fat pig like Fatty Hastert telling you how to
> live as he has his hand in the coookie jar?
Are you suggesting that we can only choose from among Kennedy, Hastert
and you?
How about you and your wannabe authoritarian friends just leave
productive society alone?
Nebuchadnezzar II
Bert is the resident Looneytarian. I'm still trying to figure out if
the Losertarians or the Neocons are worse. It's pretty much a toss up.
The Neocons have been much better at convincing idiots to vote for them
lately, so I suppose that makes them more dangerous.
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:Xns98A28E4214...@216.250.184.7...
> In news:mOfjh.1844$%M1.1455@trnddc08 "Nebuchadnezzar II"
> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> So you'd rather have a fat pig like Fatty Hastert telling you how to
>> live as he has his hand in the coookie jar?
>
> Are you suggesting that we can only choose from among Kennedy, Hastert
> and you?
>
> How about you and your wannabe authoritarian friends just leave
> productive society alone?
I'm sure you'd be happier with a Looneytarian in charge. No thanks.
Dan Kimmel
It was a rhetorical statement. Car use is *heavily* subsidized in this
country, and I'm tired of people whining about how unfair people who don't
buy into the car culture are being.
Dan Kimmel
> In news:_-mdnZN5b_SJGRDY...@rcn.net "Dan Kimmel"
> <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > Fine by me, so long as you stop asking me to subsidize all those
> > highways I never use.
>
> Sorry; you don't get to pick how your tax money is spent, beyond
> choosing who you vote for.
Fine. Then lets spend more money on public transportation and I don't want
to hear boo from you.
Bert Hyman
<Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Bert is the resident Looneytarian.
That's a really compelling argument you offer.
You must have studied rhetoric in school.
Probably captain of your debate team too.
Good luck.
Stan de SD
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:_-mdnZN5b_SJGRDY...@rcn.net...
>
> "Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
> news:bguqo2t20n1qiv9cu...@4ax.com...
> > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote
> > >> Some of us have been saying for years that the ecokooks want to
> > >> ban cars and force us all to ride bicycles.
> > >>
> > >> Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
> > >> stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine over,
> > >> say, a 25-year period."
> > >>
> > >> Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
> > >> Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and
fleets
> > >> of SUVS.
> > >
> > >I look at gas prices going up by the day and I'm so glad I don't have a
> car.
> >
> > Fine, that's your choice. Just don't try to force it on the rest of
> > us.
> >
> > That goes for you too, Al Grrrr. MYOFB.
>
> Fine by me, so long as you stop asking me to subsidize all those highways
I
> never use.
Given that the products you use typically move over highways to their final
destination, you can't argue that you receive no benefit from highways. In
addition, those highways are paid for by gasoline taxes, of which some funds
are siphoned off to pay for mass transit. Is/are the mass transit system(s)
you use able to cover all capital expenses AND operating revenue out of the
farebox? If not, sounds like you're the one being subsidized.
> Or, in the alternative, you can shut up when the government gets around to
> spending money on public transportation.
The "government" (federal/state/local) already spends BILLIONS on public
transportation. Where the hell have YOU been?
Stan de SD
>
> "Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
> news:ap1ro2ht8k7jffoq6...@4ax.com...
> > Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > >> Fine by me, so long as you stop asking me to subsidize all those
> > >> highways I never use.
> >
> > I don't get health care from the government so I shouldn't have to
> > pay taxes for others to get it, right? I don't have children so I
> > shouldn't have to pay federal, state or local taxes for schools, right?
> > I wasn't affected by Hurricane Katrina so I shouldn't have to pay any
> > taxes to help those who were, eh?
> >
> > >Sorry; you don't get to pick how your tax money is spent, beyond
> > >choosing who you vote for.
> >
> > I can't believe he even said such a thing. Obviously he hasn't been
> > fully indoctrinated into liberalism yet.
>
> It was a rhetorical statement. Car use is *heavily* subsidized in this
> country,
Prove it. Sources? Cites?
Stan de SD
You really don't have much of a clue, do you?
Stan de SD
"Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:mOfjh.1844$%M1.1455@trnddc08...
> "Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
> news:0nuqo2pacckha3kel...@4ax.com...
> > "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote
> >>> Gore himself even said he wants to ban cars in his 1992 book
> >>> stating his goal of "eliminating the internal combustion engine
> >>> over,
> >>> say, a 25-year period."
> >>>
> >>> Here's new proof that they want us all on bicycles. But of course
> >>> Al Grrrr and ketchup boy will still have their private jets and
> >>> fleets
> >>> of SUVS.
> >>
> >>Of course this is not true, but the funny part is it scares the shit
> >>out
> >>of you fatass Reichtards who get winded walking across the room to
> >>pick
> >>up your TV remote. I love it.
> >
> > Have you seen video of Ted Kennedy hunched over and waddling
> > lately? As a powerful wealthy politician who has been privileged all
> > his life, that decadent pig feels qualified to tell the rest of us how
> > to live. So tell us all about over indulgence, eh?
>
> So you'd rather have a fat pig like Fatty Hastert telling you how to
> live as he has his hand in the coookie jar?
The difference is that unlike brain-dead liberal Democrat slaves,
conservatives won't blindly keep voting forever for people who betray their
trust - witness the last elections where many conservatives told their
Republican reps to pound sand by not voting for them. OTOH, dumb liberals
will keep returning bloated swine like Kennedy, despite how many women he
drowns to death, until his liver finally gives out.
Nebuchadnezzar II
> In news:gLgjh.213$Ej7.131@trnddc02 "Nebuchadnezzar II"
> <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Bert is the resident Looneytarian.
>
> That's a really compelling argument you offer.
>
> You must have studied rhetoric in school.
>
> Probably captain of your debate team too.
>
> Good luck.
I wasn't offering any argument, other than you're a Looneytarian. Do
you deny being a Looneytarian?
Dan Kimmel
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DI...@covad.net> wrote in message
news:9287d$458dc858$45035f0d$18...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
You must be joking. Take a look at any highway bill passed by Congress over
the last half century.
Dan Kimmel
to
> > spending money on public transportation.
>
> The "government" (federal/state/local) already spends BILLIONS on public
> transportation. Where the hell have YOU been?
Actually using public transportation and realizing how (relatively) LITTLE
the government supports it in contrast to the way car use is subsidized.
Dan Kimmel
I see you obviously know very little about this subject.
Dan Kimmel
You really don't have much of a clue, do you?
Bert Hyman
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
While it's obvious that road construction and maintenance in this
country is paid for out of tax receipts, are you sure this counts as a
"subsidy"?
I'd be curious to see the accounting for the money taken in from taxes
and fees directly related to cars and driving vs. that spent on
infrastructure for cars and driving (and before you ask, no, I'm not so
curious that I'm going to do the reasearch myself).
If there's more spent than the users are paying, then it's subsidized;
otherwise, not.
Stan de SD
I know that the vast majority of people use roads, and that gas taxes
provide a considerable amount of funding, with some of it diverted to "mass
transit". I also know of NO public "mass transit" systems that pay for
everything out of the farebox. Sorry, but if anyone is being subsidized,
it's the users of mass transit - not the other way around.
Stan de SD
If a mass transit system can't pay for its construction, capital, and
operating expenses out of the farebox, it's being subsidized by the
taxpayers. I don't suspect you're about to post any numbers to the contrary,
as it doesn't appear that you're the type of person that deals with facts.
Stan de SD
I have far more of a clue than you do. You're not about to come up with any
facts or numbers that contradict what I have stated - that highway users
subsidize mass transit, and not the other way around.
Dan Kimmel
If you think gas taxes are paying for most of the highways with money left
over, yet, for mass transit, you really don't know very much.
Dan Kimmel
Certainly haven't seen any in YOUR posts.
Dan Kimmel
As I noted, you're clueless. In fact, car use is heavily subsidized:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap6b.htm#body
Only 40% comes from gas taxes. That's about the same as all non-car related
tax dollars going to highways (slightly less according to the chart).
So of every dollar going to highway construction, forty cents is coming from
general tax revenue, NOT gas taxes, car fees or tolls.
As a percentage, mass transit is more heavily subsidized, but that only
tells part of the story. Mass transit received some $26.5 billion from all
tax sources (federal, state, and local) in 2002.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap6c.htm#body
Nearly $135 billion was spent on highways and bridges, of which more than
$55 billion was from non-car related tax sources.
So drivers can more than twice as much in subsidy as mass transit riders.
Mass transit riders are subsidizing car users, NOT the other way around as
you falsely claim.
Dan Kimmel
This is why I get annoyed by sniveling cowards like Stan. He demands
"facts," and then when presented with them doesn't even have the class to
admit he was wrong. Instead he slinks away, no dobut to pop up another day
to claim superior knowledge in the adsence of facts, knowing that no one
will remember the way he was slapped down the last time he pulled this scam.