NYC Rail Tunnel: Let's Make it a Multi-Model Project (Re: Rail-Freight Tunnel Daily News Article)
Douglas A. Willinger
"Joel Rubin" <jmr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gh3pdtkf2ncq4ojrg...@4ax.com...
> Would that Robert Moses had had the desire to get something like the
> Second Avenue subway through as opposed to the Cross Bronx Bulldozer
> Way.
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:52:36 -0400, "Tom Scannello"
> <toms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >OldNYC.com contributor S. Gellin forwarded this link to me:
> >
>
>http://www.mostnewyork.com/2001-04-17/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-107560.asp
> >
> >From 4/17/2001 Daily News: "City Doing Enviro Study For Rail-Freight
Tunnel"
> >
> >My commentary:
> >A rail freight tunnel by 2008. A 2nd Avenue Subway. The LIRR-Grand
Central
> >Connection. A tunneled Gowanus Expressway. NYC hasn't seen this much
new
> >infrastructure proposals since the days of Robert Moses! The difference
is
> >that Moses was able to get many of his projects built! Let's see if the
> >same will hold true for these proposals. I know, I know.. wake me up...
I'm
> >dreaming.
> >
> >TS
> >www.OldNYC.com
Moses generally preferred above ground structures versus tunnels for
highways, (while favoring highways over rail), hence most of what he pushed
to be built were above ground highways.
If NYC planning were more comprehensive with pursuing environmentally
advanced designs for projects combining highways and rail, the discussion
for this much needed Cross Bay Rail Tunnel to Brooklyn would include a
vehicular link to New Jersey, with an eastwards continuation across Brooklyn
to J.F.K. Airport.
Like the Cross Brooklyn Expressway proposals of the mid and late 1960s, this
would employ the right of way of the LIRR freight tracks. Unlike these
earlier proposals, this new highway would be designed to not tower over
neighborhoods, nor take lengthy swaths from existing neighborhoods, nor
increase localized air pollution, nor even be something that could
accurately be said as dividing Brooklyn locally. Rather than building a
high viaduct over the railroad, or a below ground roadway lined with new
buildings (at the expense of homes), build this Cross Brooklyn Expressway as
an encased, multi-level, multi-model road tunnel with electrostatic
precipitator filtration technology, built beneath a new linear park for much
of its length.
Please take a look at
http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/future.htm#parks
and just imagine!
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com
Tom Scannello
news:MR1D6.2374$Q_6.9...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
Excellent points, but unfortunatly the political and environemental climate
in New York City is such that there will probably be no new expressways or
vechicular tunnels (even if it wound up being a Multi-Model tunnel)
constructed anytime soon. The environmentalists, community groups, and
politicians would squash the plans for a Multi-Modal tunnel immediately.
"No New Roads" is the mantra of the day. The freight train tunnel is
getting high marks because politicians and environmentalists promise a
reduction in truck traffic, as freight is moved out of the trucks and on to
the freight trains. A Multi-Modal tunnel solution that would allow trucks
to utilize the tunnel would kill the overall project. One can implement all
of the latest and greatest pollution-control technologies in the Multi-Modal
tunnel scenario, but so long as a few inches of roadway is built, there will
be an uproar.
The only place that I foresee a new major road being built would be the
planned road through Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island. It's one of the
few planned roads in the NYC area that I have seen in a long time. Then
again, the proposed road would run through the middle of the former garbage
dump so the only NIMBYs would be the seagulls. It's almost certain that an
environmental group will find a way to squash this proposed road as well.
The legacy of unbuilt vehicle tunnels, bridges and highways in New York City
will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Rehabilitation or replacement of current highway infrastructure is the only
vehicle highway/bridge/tunnel work that will be done in New York. An
expansion project, like building the proposed HOV lanes on the LIE through
Queens, might come to fruition, but that's about it. The only way that the
freight train tunnel is going to be built is if the planners stick to their
current designs. If they start adding accommodations for vehicular traffic
to the plan, we can kiss it goodbye. If we are lucky, planners will have
the foresight to accommodate a mass-transit section of the tunnel. This
would benefit NYC even greater than just a single-purpose freight tunnel.
Freight and mass transit accommodations would be the only Multi-Model
designs that would pass through the rigorous processes of adding new
infrastructure to the City of New York.
Doug Broda
<toms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Excellent points, but unfortunatly the political and environemental climate
>in New York City is such that there will probably be no new expressways or
>vechicular tunnels (even if it wound up being a Multi-Model tunnel)
>constructed anytime soon. The environmentalists, community groups, and
>politicians would squash the plans for a Multi-Modal tunnel immediately.
>"No New Roads" is the mantra of the day.
Robert Moses' irrational disinclination towards mass transit haunts
metro NYC to this day. The "no cars needed" people will haunt NYC well
into this century. Neither have views that a majority of New Yorkers
shared then or share now. A majoirity of city and suburban residents,
taken together or apart, would support some mix of priorities. But
Moses got power through his machinations (Hooverian -- and I mean J.
Edgar, not Herbert), and the utterly-anti-vehicle people hold sway
because their constituents vote in bloc.
Logic suggests that we have to improve mass transit in and around NYC,
with some items being a very high priority. It also suggests that
certain road projects are essential to provide relief. But that was
also the case in Moses' day, and logic didn't prevail then, either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Broda, Troy, NY, USA
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:12:23 GMT, Doug Broda <dbr...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Robert Moses' irrational disinclination towards mass transit haunts
> >metro NYC to this day. The "no cars needed" people will haunt NYC well
> >into this century. Neither have views that a majority of New Yorkers
> >shared then or share now.
>
> I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete,
No that isn't quite true. Rail based passenger transport was a dead
end because it was starting to fail on both use and financial bases.
> while highways were considered the transportation method of the future.
He was right.
> That was long before I-95 had turned into a giant parking lot,
Funny, got any data comparing the daily passenger volumes of the I-95
compared to any transit line? A "parking lot" would have zero
capacity. What you mean but wouldn't actually say is that the I-95 is
so sucessful that it needs expansion.
> and long before an awareness of air pollution.
Oh please. Air pollution has been a decades long fight with POV
transportation in the lead and doing more than any other mode.
Hank Eisenstein
news:HLpD6.126$Ud.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > while highways were considered the transportation method of the future.
>
> He was right.
Half-right. It was/is the right solution for the suburbs, but it's the
wrong solution for a dense metropolitan area such as New York City.
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k
Let's Go Mets!!
Robert Cote
"Hank Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:HLpD6.126$Ud.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > In article <0g7sdtst2dl5s51t9...@4ax.com>,
> > Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > while highways were considered the transportation method of the future.
> >
> > He was right.
>
> Half-right. It was/is the right solution for the suburbs, but it's the
> wrong solution for a dense metropolitan area such as New York City.
I'm not starting a flame war. At least I hope I am not. The
statement was about Moses in his era looking to the future. By most
any measure the suburbs were and probably are the forseeable future.
The dense metropolitian areas such as NYC were not the future as
evidenced by their massive losses in population, in general, since the
days of Moses. NYC being the exception having just regained the same
population albiet at a lower density as it had in 1950.
John
___>^..^<___
"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0g7sdtst2dl5s51t9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:12:23 GMT, Doug Broda <dbr...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Robert Moses' irrational disinclination towards mass transit haunts
> >metro NYC to this day. The "no cars needed" people will haunt NYC well
> >into this century. Neither have views that a majority of New Yorkers
> >shared then or share now.
>
> I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete, while highways
> were considered the transportation method of the future. That was long
> before I-95 had turned into a giant parking lot, and long before an
> awareness of air pollution. And it's worth asking where the City
> would be today *without* most of Moses's projects. We can and should
> rely as much as possible on mass transit, but there are times when
> people have to drive as well.
>
Yes.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:HLpD6.126$Ud.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <0g7sdtst2dl5s51t9...@4ax.com>,
> Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:12:23 GMT, Doug Broda <dbr...@nycap.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Robert Moses' irrational disinclination towards mass transit haunts
> > >metro NYC to this day. The "no cars needed" people will haunt NYC well
> > >into this century. Neither have views that a majority of New Yorkers
> > >shared then or share now.
> >
> > I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> > railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete,
>
> No that isn't quite true. Rail based passenger transport was a dead
> end because it was starting to fail on both use and financial bases.
You're being redundant. The problems were more complex than that, and
included reactions to the monopolistic practices of the Rail Barons.
> > while highways were considered the transportation method of the future.
>
> He was right.
The jury's leaning the other way.
> > That was long before I-95 had turned into a giant parking lot,
>
> Funny, got any data comparing the daily passenger volumes of the I-95
> compared to any transit line? A "parking lot" would have zero
> capacity. What you mean but wouldn't actually say is that the I-95 is
> so sucessful that it needs expansion.
Let's make sure you use the 24-hour averages when figuring out road usage.
> > and long before an awareness of air pollution.
>
> Oh please. Air pollution has been a decades long fight with POV
> transportation in the lead and doing more than any other mode.
Only because they've been forced to. And when it comes to the amount of
pollution generated, autos are still in the lead.
Jim Guthrie
>
> I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> were considered the transportation method of the future. That was long
When Moses started out, the railroads and traction interests were still the
"evil empire" of unbridled private enterprise run amok against the public
weal. The liberal progressive answer to the evils of big business was for
big governent to build highways to free people from the clutches of the
evildoers and "malefactors of great wealth."
Public highways stil epitomize the socialist struggle against monopoly
power -- and by the popularity of the auto, most folk still love the big
government solution.
Of course the unintended consequence was that the auto could never handle it
all, but with its base gone, provate enterprise could no longer handle
overflow traffic, so now the taxpayers pay twice in a big way to support an
unsuccessful modal mishmash.
Cheers,
Jim
Robert Cote
"Jim Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Josh wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> > railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete, while highways
> > were considered the transportation method of the future. That was long
>
> When Moses started out, the railroads and traction interests were still the
> "evil empire" of unbridled private enterprise run amok against the public
> weal. The liberal progressive answer to the evils of big business was for
> big governent to build highways to free people from the clutches of the
> evildoers and "malefactors of great wealth."
At the risk of damaging your well earned respect, I agree.
> Public highways stil epitomize the socialist struggle against monopoly
> power -- and by the popularity of the auto, most folk still love the big
> government solution.
Couldn't the struggle be equally characterized as freedom lovers
rebeling against the concerted efforts of govt and big business in an
unholy alliance... You get it.
> Of course the unintended consequence was that the auto could never handle it
> all,
But the POV transportation model has sucessfully managed to handle
many times more than ever predicted. That's a good thing.
> but with its base gone, provate enterprise could no longer handle
> overflow traffic, so now the taxpayers pay twice in a big way to support an
> unsuccessful modal mishmash.
Well we support a sucessful mode and are not yet fully extricated from
the bad choices of decades past.
Peter Rosa
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:12:23 GMT, Doug Broda <dbr...@nycap.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Robert Moses' irrational disinclination towards mass transit haunts
> >metro NYC to this day. The "no cars needed" people will haunt NYC well
> >into this century. Neither have views that a majority of New Yorkers
> >shared then or share now.
>
> I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete, while highways
> were considered the transportation method of the future. That was long
> before I-95 had turned into a giant parking lot, and long before an
> awareness of air pollution. And it's worth asking where the City
> would be today *without* most of Moses's projects. We can and should
> rely as much as possible on mass transit, but there are times when
> people have to drive as well.
Don't tell that to the anti-car crowd!
Seriously, Moses was not completely opposed to transit, nor is it precisely
true that he considered rail obsolete. It's more accurate to say that he
was at the height of his power during an era when rail's supremacy was
almost unchallenged, and by promoting roads and driving he was just trying
to even things out a bit. Let's not forget that his heyday was more than a
half-century ago. Things were different then.
--
Peter Rosa
pros...@yahoo.com
R32...@aol.com
Founder,
Official Ronkonkoma Haters Association
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:_MrD6.567$Ud.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <LfrD6.369$uf.2...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>,
> "Jim Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> > Public highways stil epitomize the socialist struggle against monopoly
> > power -- and by the popularity of the auto, most folk still love the big
> > government solution.
>
> Couldn't the struggle be equally characterized as freedom lovers
> rebeling against the concerted efforts of govt and big business in an
> unholy alliance... You get it.
>
Shows the power of myth - the auto/road paradigm was driven by GM - easily
the biggest business on the block - and tightly intertwined with big
government.
Jim Guthrie
>
> Shows the power of myth - the auto/road paradigm was driven by GM - easily
> the biggest business on the block - and tightly intertwined with big
> government.
>
1916 -- which is more than coincidental with the height of railway mileage
in the U.S.
J.P. Morgan -- the richest man in America and a one-man Federal Reserve (see
his actions to prevent depression in the panic of 1907, for example) bet on
the private enterprise solution: He had the New Haen Railroad purchase just
about every trolley line in New England -- often at inflated values, built
the late, lamented New York Westchester and Boston, expanded the Harlem
River Branch to 6 tracks -- betting that these would become hugely expensive
enterprises would pay off big one day -- hardly fortelling the
government-led juggernaut (represented by Moses in NY) that was to come.
Morgan was, perhaps, the last major business mogul who thought big
government did not have a place in a big-business economy.
When it comes right down to it, GM and its predecessors cared not one whit
whether people used their autos to commute to work on private enterprise's
Vanderbilt Motor Parkway or Moses' socialist enterprise, the Grand Central
Parkway.
But it's far easier to run a GM or other carmaker when one has the power of
big government to literally bulldoze the opposition. And if anything over
the past 60 years, one cannot make the case that business cares about any
kind of philosophical issues that our conservative and libertarian friends
theorize about -- business is perfectly willing to be the pigs at the
government trough at every opportunity in order to enhance short-run market
values. Otherwise, the guys in the Tasselled Gucci Loafers that characterize
the K Street Canyon in DC would be out doing productive work instead of
picking the pocket of the taxpayer.
Cheers,
Jim
Steven M. O'Neill
> Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Doug Broda <dbr...@nycap.rr.com> >> wrote:
>>
>> >Robert Moses' irrational disinclination towards mass transit haunts
>> >metro NYC to this day. The "no cars needed" people will haunt NYC well
>> >into this century. Neither have views that a majority of New Yorkers
>> >shared then or share now.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
>> railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete,
>
>No that isn't quite true. Rail based passenger transport was a dead
>end because it was starting to fail on both use and financial bases.
Rail transport is certainly not failing on use right now. Ask the guy
who had my elbow in his back for 20 minutes on the D train this
morning. Too bad he didn't drive his car today instead.
And thank heavens we have the BQE to make back all that money that
the transit system loses. (Not to mention all the Brooklyn and
Queens neighborhoods it has beautified). And don't start with your
highways-make-money crap, Cote. New York City streets come right out of
the general fund.
>> while highways were considered the transportation method of the future.
>
>He was right.
Unfortunately. But what's the next future?
>> That was long before I-95 had turned into a giant parking lot,
>
>Funny, got any data comparing the daily passenger volumes of the I-95
>compared to any transit line? A "parking lot" would have zero
>capacity. What you mean but wouldn't actually say is that the I-95 is
>so sucessful that it needs expansion.
Maybe we can expand it into the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. Glub
glub.
>> and long before an awareness of air pollution.
>
>Oh please. Air pollution has been a decades long fight with POV
>transportation in the lead and doing more than any other mode.
I don't deserve to breathe anyway -- it was my choice to come to the
city.
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ www.cars-suck.org
Scott M. Kozel
>
> J.P. Morgan -- the richest man in America and a one-man Federal Reserve (see
> his actions to prevent depression in the panic of 1907, for example) bet on
> the private enterprise solution: He had the New Haen Railroad purchase just
> about every trolley line in New England -- often at inflated values, built
> the late, lamented New York Westchester and Boston, expanded the Harlem
> River Branch to 6 tracks -- betting that these would become hugely expensive
> enterprises would pay off big one day -- hardly fortelling the
> government-led juggernaut (represented by Moses in NY) that was to come.
> Morgan was, perhaps, the last major business mogul who thought big
> government did not have a place in a big-business economy.
That's just too funny! J.P. Morgan as the railroad magnate is the
person who coined the phrase "The Public Be Damned". That's pretty much
how his railroads operated.
> But it's far easier to run a GM or other carmaker when one has the power of
> big government to literally bulldoze the opposition.
That's exactly what the railroads did back in his day, they used their
government-chartered monopolistic empires to literally bulldoze the
opposition.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Steven M. O'Neill
>"Jim Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> J.P. Morgan -- the richest man in America and a one-man Federal Reserve (see
>> his actions to prevent depression in the panic of 1907, for example) bet on
>> the private enterprise solution: He had the New Haen Railroad purchase just
>> about every trolley line in New England -- often at inflated values, built
>> the late, lamented New York Westchester and Boston, expanded the Harlem
>> River Branch to 6 tracks -- betting that these would become hugely expensive
>> enterprises would pay off big one day -- hardly fortelling the
>> government-led juggernaut (represented by Moses in NY) that was to come.
>> Morgan was, perhaps, the last major business mogul who thought big
>> government did not have a place in a big-business economy.
>
>That's just too funny! J.P. Morgan as the railroad magnate is the
>person who coined the phrase "The Public Be Damned". That's pretty much
>how his railroads operated.
>
>> But it's far easier to run a GM or other carmaker when one has the power of
>> big government to literally bulldoze the opposition.
>
>That's exactly what the railroads did back in his day, they used their
>government-chartered monopolistic empires to literally bulldoze the
>opposition.
And how do we get the government-chartered monopolistic empire back in
the hands of the railroads?
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Joseph Brennan
>person who coined the phrase "The Public Be Damned".
You mean Vanderbilt stole it?
- Joe
Scott M. Kozel
No, J.P. built it! :-)
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Jim Guthrie
place in a big-business economy.
>
> That's just too funny! J.P. Morgan as the railroad magnate is the
> person who coined the phrase "The Public Be Damned". That's pretty much
> how his railroads operated.
>
transportation history.
But Morgan roads generally operated very well and extremely efficiently.
They had to to make fixed charges.
> > But it's far easier to run a GM or other carmaker when one has the power
of
> > big government to literally bulldoze the opposition.
>
> That's exactly what the railroads did back in his day, they used their
> government-chartered monopolistic empires to literally bulldoze the
> opposition.
>
There was really little opposition, unless one counts the preachers who
railed against corporations that might run their trains on Sunday.
Again, it is gratifying to know that transportation history and economics
are so central to your thinking.
Cheers,
Jim
Scott M. Kozel
> > person who coined the phrase "The Public Be Damned". That's pretty much
> > how his railroads operated.
>
> It is always gratifying to note that highway fans are up on their
> transportation history.
It is indeed.
> But Morgan roads generally operated very well and extremely efficiently.
> They had to to make fixed charges.
They also had no competition from other forms of motorized ground
transportation or from airplanes, since they didn't exist yet.
> > > But it's far easier to run a GM or other carmaker when one has the power of
> > > big government to literally bulldoze the opposition.
> >
> > That's exactly what the railroads did back in his day, they used their
> > government-chartered monopolistic empires to literally bulldoze the
> > opposition.
>
> There was really little opposition, unless one counts the preachers who
> railed against corporations that might run their trains on Sunday.
Incorrect. The monopolistic, empire building mindset of the railroads
for decades is what led the state and federal governments to institute
so many railroad-related regulatory reforms and controls about 100 years
ago.
> Again, it is gratifying to know that transportation history and economics
> are so central to your thinking.
It is indeed.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Doug Broda
wrote:
>I'm not starting a flame war. At least I hope I am not. The
>statement was about Moses in his era looking to the future. By most
>any measure the suburbs were and probably are the forseeable future.
>The dense metropolitian areas such as NYC were not the future as
>evidenced by their massive losses in population, in general, since the
>days of Moses. NYC being the exception having just regained the same
>population albiet at a lower density as it had in 1950.
That's all true, but the problem was that Moses ignored math and
reality in an awful combination. He should have been able to see the
unreality of some of his urban projects without which his other roads
could never meet capacity without rail's help. Also, while proposing
multi-zillion dollar projects, he opposed leaving *space* for an
if-needed rail corridor more than once, stating cost as a primary
concern, though the cost would have been a drop in the bucket in
contrast to the project cost.
Peter Rosa
Jim Guthrie wrote:
> J.P. Morgan -- the richest man in America and a one-man Federal Reserve (see
> his actions to prevent depression in the panic of 1907, for example) bet on
> the private enterprise solution: He had the New Haen Railroad purchase just
> about every trolley line in New England -- often at inflated values, built
> the late, lamented New York Westchester and Boston, expanded the Harlem
> River Branch to 6 tracks -- betting that these would become hugely expensive
> enterprises would pay off big one day -- hardly fortelling the
> government-led juggernaut (represented by Moses in NY) that was to come.
Just to clarify, the failure of the New York, Westchester and Boston RR was not
the result of competition from roads, whether built by Robert Moses or
otherwise. It failed simply because it didn't go into Manhattan. Most
commuters - it was never really anything but a commuter line - found it easier
to take the NY Central or the New Haven, with their one-seat rides into
Manhattan.
Doug Broda
wrote:
>
>Just to clarify, the failure of the New York, Westchester and Boston RR was not
>the result of competition from roads, whether built by Robert Moses or
>otherwise. It failed simply because it didn't go into Manhattan. Most
>commuters - it was never really anything but a commuter line - found it easier
>to take the NY Central or the New Haven, with their one-seat rides into
>Manhattan.
Yup. I'm not a Moses fan, but the railroad that became the #5 failed
because of the lack of a Manhattan terminal; had nothing to do with
Moses. Stan Fischler's subway book has an extensive discussion of the
topic.
Bob Tiernan
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> The monopolistic, empire building mindset of the railroads
> for decades is what led the state and federal governments
> to institute so many railroad-related regulatory reforms
> and controls about 100 years ago.
Well, not quite. The state governments were into this
first (even though big government types always claim that
the national government does things first), but the
states were trying to treat the railroads as golden
geese that were tied down. National regulations
came into being at the *request* of railroad tycoons,
for this and other reasons. The other reasons were
that national regulations would make it easier for
them to maintain their markets shares of the industry
as well as, hopefully, a certain profit level.
Despite popular images of railroad barons buying
up numerous lines, they were having a tough time
of it in a more laissez faire climate and hated
the competitive nature of it which they could not
control. Anyone who didn't want the railroad
owners to get away with anything would have
opposed the national regulations, but they were
passed under the guise of "saving competition".
That image has held ever since.
Bob T.
Hank Eisenstein
drawings of the future expected cars to run on automated highways at high
speeds. All 20 lanes of them.
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k
Let's Go Mets!!
"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jg5vdtgts2hfp8koi...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:51:03 GMT, Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think that's true. At the time Moses did most of his work,
> >> railroads were considered old-fashioned and obsolete,
> >
> >No that isn't quite true. Rail based passenger transport was a dead
> >end because it was starting to fail on both use and financial bases.
>
> I don't see that these two statements are contradictory. Look at any
> drawing of the near future in those days, and it's characterized by
> giant highways and cars. No trains. People thought that trains were
> old-fashioned and about to be replaced by cars and air travel. To a
> large extent, they were right. So where's the contradiction?
>
> >> while highways were considered the transportation method of the future.
> >
> >He was right.
>
> Yes, he was, for *his* immediate future. Our immediate future holds a
> mix, and who knows what will happen 100 years from now.
>
> >> That was long before I-95 had turned into a giant parking lot,
> >
> >Funny, got any data comparing the daily passenger volumes of the I-95
> >compared to any transit line? A "parking lot" would have zero
> >capacity. What you mean but wouldn't actually say is that the I-95 is
> >so sucessful that it needs expansion.
>
> ? I meant exactly what I said: I-95 has slowed down to a crawl. I said
> nothing about whether it had been successful, or whether it should be
> expanded, because that wasn't the topic of discussion; the real issue
> here is that in many cases people don't *want* the highways to expand,
> and so they don't.
>
> >> and long before an awareness of air pollution.
> >
> >Oh please. Air pollution has been a decades long fight with POV
> >transportation in the lead and doing more than any other mode.
>
> Er, decades-long doth not take us back into Moses's heyday, which, if
> you noticed, is what I was writing about. When Moses, LaGuardia, and
> others emphasized highway construction, they did so without
> considering the possibility that automobiles would contribute to smog.
>
> Josh
Steve Anderson
>
> Don't forget that the utopian view that is usually presented with those
> drawings of the future expected cars to run on automated highways at high
> speeds. All 20 lanes of them.
Not to mention the GM "Futurama" exhibit at the 1939-1940 New York
World's Fair, the most popular exhibit at the fair.
-- Steve Anderson
http://www.nycroads.com
http://www.phillyroads.com
http://www.bostonroads.com (coming soon)
Jim Guthrie
>
> That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. People paint Moses as
> some kind of villain, because they expect him to use contemporary
> criteria, but the needs, atmosphere, knowledge, and prejudices of
> fifty years ago were very different than they are today. Who knows --
> fifty years from now, people may be excoriating *us* for supporting
> the Second Avenue subway, rather than doing the obviously *right*
> thing and reserving the space under Second Avenue for Personal Robotic
> Jitneys . . .
>
Moses was a poduct of his time, as are we all. The only villains arounds are
the guys that happily drive along these highways prattling on about "Social
Security and welfare as 'government wealth redistribution schemes'" and
complaining about taxes collected "at the point of a gun (no doubt by
jack-booted thugs)" and all the rest.
One cannot drive a car and exhibit any intellectual honesty in promotion of
small and low-tax government.
This is not to say that in a democratic society, the people cannot elect
officials who annoint the chosen mode of centralized state planning. The
huge budget at both he state and federal levels for highways -- along with
the direct and indirect subsidies (read: wealth redistribution schemes) that
benefit motorists anywhere from 40%-60% (transportation planners) to 88%
(small-government-loving Libertarian ideologues) of government-related costs
of driving proves that people choose big gummint without any ideology
attached at all.
[BTW -- there are so-called faux-Libertarians who think public highways are
legitimate government intrusion, but I digress]
In any case, most of us muddle along without ideology, and just want to get
to work on time and in one piece, I suspect that will be the case in 50
years. Having memories of my first train ride more than 50 years ago, I
would also remind you that technology does not move that fast. Heck, today's
subway cars are essentially the same outline as public carriages of Roman
times, and adhering to the same principles: squeeze more people in to give
them place utility while observing the technical limits of the
carriage-building materials/and path infrastructure.
Cheers,
Jim
Robert Dubnicka
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:24:19 GMT, "Hank Eisenstein"
> <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget that the utopian view that is usually presented with those
> >drawings of the future expected cars to run on automated highways at high
> >speeds. All 20 lanes of them.
>
> surrounded by whizzing highways . . .
Now we have a different vision thanks to SmUG: skyscrapers the size of
continents marginally served by slowing moving light rail lines.
Some people try to foist this vision off as "progress"...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> One cannot drive a car and exhibit any intellectual honesty in promotion of
> small and low-tax government.
Where does that put people who use transit and promote small and low-tax
government? Transit systems in the U.S. are from 40% to 80% subsidized
by general tax revenue. You have a very big mouth to be making such
broad accusations of "intellectual honesty".
> This is not to say that in a democratic society, the people cannot elect
> officials who annoint the chosen mode of centralized state planning. The
> huge budget at both he state and federal levels for highways -- along with
> the direct and indirect subsidies (read: wealth redistribution schemes) that
> benefit motorists anywhere from 40%-60% (transportation planners) to 88%
> (small-government-loving Libertarian ideologues) of government-related costs
> of driving proves that people choose big gummint without any ideology
> attached at all.
That's baloney, any way you slice it.
In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected the
U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
That is 92% coverage of direct revenues with direct expenses, and like I
said it is questionable as to whether the 8% can be considered a
"subsidy".
Then the road infrastructure only comprises about 15% of the total
annual cost of road transportation; nearly all the remainder is
comprised of -private- spending on vehicles, vehicle services,
insurance, fuel, etc. The road transportation system is overwhelmingly
supported by PRIVATE expenditures.
As usual, the rabid transit activists have it completely backwards.
Steven M. O'Neill
>"Jim Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> One cannot drive a car and exhibit any intellectual honesty in promotion of
>> small and low-tax government.
>
>Where does that put people who use transit and promote small and low-tax
>government? Transit systems in the U.S. are from 40% to 80% subsidized
>by general tax revenue. You have a very big mouth to be making such
>broad accusations of "intellectual honesty".
The only problem is that the subsidy to transit (which is
proportionately smaller in New York City than anywhere else in the
U.S.), benefits the general public by reducing the negative impacts of
driving, while subsidies to drivers benefit primarily drivers (who are
only 46% of households). (You will argue that goods and services are
delivered by road. I say let's pay for those transportation costs by
charging the trucking companies directly instead of taking cash from
the general fund. Why should I have to pay to have your fancy new sofa
delivered?)
>In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected the
>U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
>billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
>administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
>administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
>they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
>little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
>ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
You forgot toll operation, police and fire services, trucking
regulation, court costs and debt service. Oh and environmental
damage.
>That is 92% coverage of direct revenues with direct expenses, and like I
>said it is questionable as to whether the 8% can be considered a
>"subsidy".
In New York State in 1991 [1] [2], the subsidy was $2.4 Billion.
That's 35 percent of total expenditures.
=====
[1] "Subsidies for Traffic", Charles Komanoff and Cora Roelofs, 1994.
See also New York Times, March 29, 1994.
[2] A long time ago, but I doubt things have changed much.
danny burstein
[big snip of the ever continuing argument about the relative general tax
subsidies applied to transit versus roads, etc...]
>only 46% of households). (You will argue that goods and services are
>delivered by road. I say let's pay for those transportation costs by
>charging the trucking companies directly instead of taking cash from
>the general fund. Why should I have to pay to have your fancy new sofa
>delivered?)
to play devil's advocate here: why should I, as a member of the general
public, have to pay tens of millions of extra dollars in bridge work so as
to give bicyclists a chance to sun themselves?
the answer is that certain items are considered to be 'general public
goods'. and while we can argue about just how valuable each of them is,
the fact is that this taking of money out of taxpayers' pockets to benefit
others is part and parcel of the political animal.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >"Jim Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One cannot drive a car and exhibit any intellectual honesty in promotion of
> >> small and low-tax government.
> >
> >Where does that put people who use transit and promote small and low-tax
> >government? Transit systems in the U.S. are from 40% to 80% subsidized
> >by general tax revenue. You have a very big mouth to be making such
> >broad accusations of "intellectual honesty".
>
> The only problem is that the subsidy to transit (which is
> proportionately smaller in New York City than anywhere else in the
> U.S.), benefits the general public by reducing the negative impacts of
> driving, while subsidies to drivers benefit primarily drivers (who are
> only 46% of households). (You will argue that goods and services are
> delivered by road. I say let's pay for those transportation costs by
> charging the trucking companies directly instead of taking cash from
> the general fund. Why should I have to pay to have your fancy new sofa
> delivered?)
Roads provide many general benefits to society too.
> >In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected the
> >U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
> >billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
> >administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
> >administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
> >they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
> >little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
> >ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
>
> You forgot toll operation, police and fire services, trucking
> regulation, court costs and debt service.
All included except court costs.
> Oh and environmental damage.
Are you ready to charge "environmental damage" caused by transit and
large cities too?
> >That is 92% coverage of direct revenues with direct expenses, and like I
> >said it is questionable as to whether the 8% can be considered a
> >"subsidy".
>
> In New York State in 1991 [1] [2], the subsidy was $2.4 Billion.
> That's 35 percent of total expenditures.
That's probably using the "road user taxes spent on roads" argument,
which conveniently omits from the equation the road user taxes diverted
to non-road purposes. About 70% with the (incomplete) former, and 90%
coverage for the (correct) latter.
> =====
> [1] "Subsidies for Traffic", Charles Komanoff and Cora Roelofs, 1994.
> See also New York Times, March 29, 1994.
> [2] A long time ago, but I doubt things have changed much.
Komanoff is an anti-auto activist.
RJ
wrote:
> subsidies to drivers benefit primarily drivers (who are
>only 46% of households).
Only 46% of households drive?
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Dubnicka" <dubn...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3AE08339...@richmond.infi.net...
Actually, the rail lines would be moving, the freeways gridlocked.
John
___>^..^<___
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE0AFD0...@mediaone.net...
> "Jim Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > One cannot drive a car and exhibit any intellectual honesty in promotion
of
> > small and low-tax government.
>
> Where does that put people who use transit and promote small and low-tax
> government? Transit systems in the U.S. are from 40% to 80% subsidized
> by general tax revenue. You have a very big mouth to be making such
> broad accusations of "intellectual honesty".
And road/auto systems are supported to similar degree by tax revenues - even
more when you consider "externialities".
> > This is not to say that in a democratic society, the people cannot elect
> > officials who annoint the chosen mode of centralized state planning. The
> > huge budget at both he state and federal levels for highways -- along
with
> > the direct and indirect subsidies (read: wealth redistribution schemes)
that
> > benefit motorists anywhere from 40%-60% (transportation planners) to 88%
> > (small-government-loving Libertarian ideologues) of government-related
costs
> > of driving proves that people choose big gummint without any ideology
> > attached at all.
>
> That's baloney, any way you slice it.
>
> In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected the
> U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
That's not quite what OHIM 2000hfbt.pdf shows - for 1999, out of $113
billion available, only $75 billion come from motor-fuel and vehicle taxes
and tolls. The rest came from other sources including property taxes and
general fund appropriations.
> billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
> administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
> administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
> they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
> little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
> ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
There's a lot more to the road system than just concrete and asphalt.
> That is 92% coverage of direct revenues with direct expenses, and like I
> said it is questionable as to whether the 8% can be considered a
> "subsidy".
>
> Then the road infrastructure only comprises about 15% of the total
> annual cost of road transportation; nearly all the remainder is
> comprised of -private- spending on vehicles, vehicle services,
> insurance, fuel, etc. The road transportation system is overwhelmingly
> supported by PRIVATE expenditures.
>
> As usual, the rabid transit activists have it completely backwards.
>
As usual, the rabid auto activist/apologists deny reality.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Where does that put people who use transit and promote small and low-tax
> > government? Transit systems in the U.S. are from 40% to 80% subsidized
> > by general tax revenue. You have a very big mouth to be making such
> > broad accusations of "intellectual honesty".
>
> And road/auto systems are supported to similar degree by tax revenues - even
> more when you consider "externialities".
I hope you brush and floss your teeth after posting like this, for the
sake of your teeth.
> > In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected the
> > U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
>
> That's not quite what OHIM 2000hfbt.pdf shows - for 1999, out of $113
> billion available, only $75 billion come from motor-fuel and vehicle taxes
> and tolls. The rest came from other sources including property taxes and
> general fund appropriations.
And in 2000 $26 million more in road use taxes that were siphoned off to
non-road uses. You are wrong, just like always, and my point stands.
> > billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
> > administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
> > administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
> > they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
> > little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
> > ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
>
> There's a lot more to the road system than just concrete and asphalt.
Yes, there's bridges, right-of-way, traffic signals and various other
appurtenances, all accounted for.
> > That is 92% coverage of direct revenues with direct expenses, and like I
> > said it is questionable as to whether the 8% can be considered a
> > "subsidy".
> >
> > Then the road infrastructure only comprises about 15% of the total
> > annual cost of road transportation; nearly all the remainder is
> > comprised of -private- spending on vehicles, vehicle services,
> > insurance, fuel, etc. The road transportation system is overwhelmingly
> > supported by PRIVATE expenditures.
Over 80% of the cost of road transportation is paid by PRIVATE owners,
and the road component is over 85% funded (on the balance) by direct
user taxes.
Peter Schleifer
wrote:
In NYC, but that figure is for households which own or lease at least
one automobile. There are many more households in NYC with people who
are licensed to drive (that is why there is so much demand for weekend
car rentals in NYC).
--
Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> > As usual, the rabid transit activists have it completely backwards.
> >
> As usual, the rabid auto activist/apologists deny reality.
How about both of you visit this site, then post what you think about it.
It's entitled "The Real Cost of Travel." The authors of the site do not
appear to be rabidly pro- or anti-anything. They're just trying to post
the facts, it seems.
http://www.transport-link.com/costs/Welcome.htm
Alex
Scott M. Kozel
>
> How about both of you visit this site, then post what you think about it.
> It's entitled "The Real Cost of Travel." The authors of the site do not
> appear to be rabidly pro- or anti-anything. They're just trying to post
> the facts, it seems.
Yeah right. It claims for 2000 in the New York City metropolitan area
$106 billion spent in direct road transportation costs borne by users,
and $82 billion in external road transportation costs. It has no figure
for non-road transportation external costs (typical). Using the same
proportion for the whole U.S., that would be an annual $2.5 trillion for
road transportation, or 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product. That
doesn't pass the giggle test, and it's typical rabid anti-auto,
anti-trucking, anti-road propaganda, that includes everything up to the
Hubble Space Telescope as a "cost" to autos (well, not quite that high).
:-)
Charlie Thorne
wrote:
>In <9bqf2a$9fv$1...@news.panix.com> ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) writes:
>
>[big snip of the ever continuing argument about the relative general tax
>subsidies applied to transit versus roads, etc...]
>
>>only 46% of households). (You will argue that goods and services are
>>delivered by road. I say let's pay for those transportation costs by
>>charging the trucking companies directly instead of taking cash from
>>the general fund. Why should I have to pay to have your fancy new sofa
>>delivered?)
>
>to play devil's advocate here: why should I, as a member of the general
>public, have to pay tens of millions of extra dollars in bridge work so as
>to give bicyclists a chance to sun themselves?
>
>the answer is that certain items are considered to be 'general public
>goods'. and while we can argue about just how valuable each of them is,
>the fact is that this taking of money out of taxpayers' pockets to benefit
>others is part and parcel of the political animal.
>
There are, of course, public goods, but a large percentage of them
only benefit the seller of the goods. If you have an item you want to
sell at a very large price, you get the government to mandate the high
price. If the amount paid by each person is fairly small, but the
number sharing in the revenue is small, then politically this works
fairly well.
As examples: Most of the price of sugar is due to the "subsidy".
It's a regulated commodity and sells in the U.S. at about 10 times the
world price. Those who can sell at that price make a lot but the
average person doesn't care, since it's such a small part of the
budget.
As another example: Peanuts. Why would the government regulate the
price of peanuts? To aid the peanut growers. Again, the average
person doesn't notice the price increase, but the growers get a huge
price over what would be the world price.
Many examples of "Public Goods" fit in this category. As a last
example, why subsidize auto, bus, airline and truck travel but make
railroads pay the full freight. Highways are built on untaxed land by
the government who buys the land at a low price. Railroads have to
buy their own land (when they were still in business), build the
infrastructure and then pay taxes on the whole investment.
Charlie
John
___>^..^<___
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE0F22C...@mediaone.net...
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Where does that put people who use transit and promote small and
low-tax
> > > government? Transit systems in the U.S. are from 40% to 80%
subsidized
> > > by general tax revenue. You have a very big mouth to be making such
> > > broad accusations of "intellectual honesty".
> >
> > And road/auto systems are supported to similar degree by tax revenues -
even
> > more when you consider "externialities".
>
> I hope you brush and floss your teeth after posting like this, for the
> sake of your teeth.
I was hopin you could remain on-topic and avoid ad-hominems.
>
> > > In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected
the
> > > U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
> >
> > That's not quite what OHIM 2000hfbt.pdf shows - for 1999, out of $113
> > billion available, only $75 billion come from motor-fuel and vehicle
taxes
> > and tolls. The rest came from other sources including property taxes
and
> > general fund appropriations.
>
> And in 2000 $26 million more in road use taxes that were siphoned off to
> non-road uses. You are wrong, just like always, and my point stands.
You haven't shown that that came from motor-fuel, vehicle taxes and tolls.
>
> > > billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
> > > administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
> > > administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
> > > they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
> > > little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
> > > ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
> >
> > There's a lot more to the road system than just concrete and asphalt.
>
> Yes, there's bridges, right-of-way, traffic signals and various other
> appurtenances, all accounted for.
And parking and police and many, many more things that are not being covered
in your numbers
>
> > > That is 92% coverage of direct revenues with direct expenses, and like
I
> > > said it is questionable as to whether the 8% can be considered a
> > > "subsidy".
> > >
> > > Then the road infrastructure only comprises about 15% of the total
> > > annual cost of road transportation; nearly all the remainder is
> > > comprised of -private- spending on vehicles, vehicle services,
> > > insurance, fuel, etc. The road transportation system is
overwhelmingly
> > > supported by PRIVATE expenditures.
>
> Over 80% of the cost of road transportation is paid by PRIVATE owners,
> and the road component is over 85% funded (on the balance) by direct
> user taxes.
>
Is it healthy for so much to be spent on transportation? (regardless of
source)
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> Yeah right. It claims for 2000 in the New York City metropolitan area
> $106 billion spent in direct road transportation costs borne by users,
> and $82 billion in external road transportation costs. It has no figure
> for non-road transportation external costs (typical). Using the same
> proportion for the whole U.S., that would be an annual $2.5 trillion for
> road transportation, or 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product. That
> doesn't pass the giggle test, and it's typical rabid anti-auto,
> anti-trucking, anti-road propaganda, that includes everything up to the
> Hubble Space Telescope as a "cost" to autos (well, not quite that high).
The site was put together by a firm whose "public and private sector
clients are, for the most part, sponsors of major planning studies or
proposed construction projects; these include roadway and airport
modernizations, commercial and residential developments, solid waste
facilities and hospitals." (As noted elsewhere on the site). I hardly
suspect that they are a "typical rabid anti-auto, anti-trucking,
anti-road" group.
However, they are <gasp> economists! If you haven't studied any urban
economics, keep in mind that these people's whole life, pretty much, is
looking for externalities (i.e. costs not directly borne by users). Now,
an economists' definition of "cost" is a bit peculiar -- anything bad
thing is a "cost," even if there's no financial loss on anyone's part. So
the cost of congestion is the time wasted while sitting in traffic.
Economists then convert such non-financial costs into dollar values.
Basically, they do studies to find out how much a driver would be willing
to pay to avoid being stuck in traffic. So most of that $21.7 billion
"cost" of congestion is "paid" for only in the sense that drivers sitting
in traffic get aggravated.
Similarly, the cost of accidents includes the "cost" of death, generally
valued at $5 million (this figure arrived at based on observing how much
people pay, in real life, to avoid risky situations). This is also not a
financial cost -- you "pay" for death with your life, not with money. (And
auto insurance doesn't pay the full cost of death, mind you).
Thus the dollar value for the "total external cost of roadway transport"
bears little relationship to GDP. Hence it does "pass the giggle test"
(unless you think economics itself is funny, which is a point that you
might care to make).
Most economists are neither rabidly pro-auto or pro-transit. The standard
economists' view of American transportation goes something like this:
* Road transportation is underpriced
(i.e. there are external costs not borne by users)
* Increased gas taxes and restructured auto insurance would be the best
way to price roads correctly
* Tolls should be used to price congestion, but for no other purpose. So
roads in urban areas would have high peak-hour tolls; roads in rural areas
would never have tolls.
* Transit subsidies can be justified as a "second best" measure, in lieu
of correctly pricing roads
* However, most places in America are not dense enough for transit ever to
be economically efficient
* Subways are economically efficient only in Manhattan (and *maybe*
selected corridors in Boston and Philadelphia)
* In other places, buses sometimes are economically efficient, but small
jitneys usually would be better
(Yes, there are external costs to transit, too. There ought to be a
separate table for that on the Transport-Link site, and I suspect that
lack of data is the chief reason why it's not there).
Any thoughts?
Alex
Robert Cote
thor...@osu.edu (Charlie Thorne) wrote:
> Many examples of "Public Goods" fit in this category. As a last
> example, why subsidize auto, bus, airline and truck travel but make
> railroads pay the full freight. Highways are built on untaxed land by
> the government who buys the land at a low price. Railroads have to
> buy their own land (when they were still in business), build the
> infrastructure and then pay taxes on the whole investment.
Nationwide the sum total of all railrods pay an annual property tax
bill of $350 million. Care to back calculate just how little that is?
Ever hear of railroad land grants?
Assignment of emminent domain?
The Alameada Corridor project?
Amtrak payments to row owners?
California Proposition 5?
Metrolink (Los Angeles) capital improvements?
Do you know why the Space Shuttle's SRBs are segmented in the first
place? Yes, it is very germane.
That's enough for now but back to my first question. Taxes are a
pittance. Compare the next figures to commercial truckers that pay
$30 billion plus in road use taxes.s. Nationwide at all levels the
railroads pay less than $350 million dollars in property taxes. A
"fair" valuation would add two digits to that number. Here in CA
(the real CA not that upstart to the north ;-), we have a general 1%
property tax rate. The segment of SP line along the coast between
Ventura and Santa Barbara averages 100 ft wide row (very roughly).
Some places only 40 others 400. Now a residential lot in that area
runs a half million USD for a 1/2acre lot. That's a million dollars
every 400 feet or a property value of $13 mill per mile. Do you
think they pay $2.5 million every year for this tiny 20 mile stretch?
Want to do the same calculation for the property value for the huge
area near the Burbank airport?
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:33:03 GMT, Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That's a million dollars
> >every 400 feet or a property value of $13 mill per mile. Do you
> >think they pay $2.5 million every year for this tiny 20 mile stretch?
>
> And since when do drivers pay real estate taxes on highways?
Were you on the tracks when you said this? Didn't you see the
"PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESSPASSING" signs? Seems to me that those
drivers already paid for the road right of ways, now you want to tax
them for the infrastructure they prepaid for with gas taxes.
Regardless, you've seen the property tax impacts for adjacent
properties so you already knew that highyways increase local property
tax revenues but that wasn't convienient for your flipant comment.
While we are at it, yes vehicle owners do indeed frequently pay a
property tax on their autos which are part of the highway mode of
transportation.
Nice attempt at distraction however. You've got me "defending"
highway based tax structures when the real point was the absolute
refutation that the previous poster who claimed railroads pay fair
taxes on their assests. Not even close.
You really want to go this route then we can calculate the lost
revenue for those urban rail corridors that are sitting idle for
decades because of the distorted tax situation.
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:37:59 GMT, "Scott M. Kozel"
> <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Are you ready to charge "environmental damage" caused by transit and
> >large cities too?
>
> Oh, come on. Cities cause less environmental damage on a per capita
> basis than either suburbs or rural areas, and you know it.
>
> I don't plan to get into this argument, but I think it would be a lot
> more interesting to read if participants refrained from calling their
> pigeons squab.
Yep. You make a completely unsupportable claim then "don't plan to
get into this argument." Fine retract and we all walk away. Joshua
you just threw an off topic bomb into the middle of a formerly transit
topical tread and now you want to walk away? Pick up the mess you've
started THEN walk away.
Scott's claim included ""environmental damage" caused by transit and
it's an easy claim.
Hank Eisenstein
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k
Let's Go Mets!!
"Joshua P. Hill" <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jij0et4sc0nvj6jec...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:24:19 GMT, "Hank Eisenstein"
> <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget that the utopian view that is usually presented with those
> >drawings of the future expected cars to run on automated highways at high
> >speeds. All 20 lanes of them.
>
> A delightful vision, that . . . skyscrapers the size of continents,
> surrounded by whizzing highways . . .
>
> Josh
RJ
<an...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>(Yes, there are external costs to transit, too. There ought to be a
>separate table for that on the Transport-Link site, and I suspect that
>lack of data is the chief reason why it's not there).
Either that or they are dishonest.
RJ
<XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Oh, come on. Cities cause less environmental damage on a per capita
>basis than either suburbs or rural areas, and you know it.
>
>I don't plan to get into this argument,
You'd better; you can't just lay out that assertion without any kind
of reasoning for it.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was collected the
> > > > U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and $110
> > >
> > > That's not quite what OHIM 2000hfbt.pdf shows - for 1999, out of $113
> > > billion available, only $75 billion come from motor-fuel and vehicle taxes
> > > and tolls. The rest came from other sources including property taxes and
> > > general fund appropriations.
> >
> > And in 2000 $26 million more in road use taxes that were siphoned off to
> > non-road uses. You are wrong, just like always, and my point stands.
>
> You haven't shown that that came from motor-fuel, vehicle taxes and tolls.
That is exactly what the OHIM source says.
Go take a basic accounting course before you bother us again.
> > > > billion was expended for public road construction, maintenance and
> > > > administration (all levels of government). Given that local road
> > > > administration should get at least some non-motoring tax revenue since
> > > > they directly serve homes and businesses, that means that there is
> > > > little if any net subsidy for road infrastructure in the U.S. These
> > > > ratios are fairly similar in the individual states. (USDOT OHIM)
--
Scott M. Kozel
>
> > Yeah right. It claims for 2000 in the New York City metropolitan area
> > $106 billion spent in direct road transportation costs borne by users,
> > and $82 billion in external road transportation costs. It has no figure
> > for non-road transportation external costs (typical). Using the same
> > proportion for the whole U.S., that would be an annual $2.5 trillion for
> > road transportation, or 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product. That
> > doesn't pass the giggle test, and it's typical rabid anti-auto,
> > anti-trucking, anti-road propaganda, that includes everything up to the
> > Hubble Space Telescope as a "cost" to autos (well, not quite that high).
>
> The site was put together by a firm whose "public and private sector
> clients are, for the most part, sponsors of major planning studies or
> proposed construction projects; these include roadway and airport
> modernizations, commercial and residential developments, solid waste
> facilities and hospitals." (As noted elsewhere on the site). I hardly
> suspect that they are a "typical rabid anti-auto, anti-trucking,
> anti-road" group.
Road transportation is 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product?
> Thus the dollar value for the "total external cost of roadway transport"
> bears little relationship to GDP. Hence it does "pass the giggle test"
> (unless you think economics itself is funny, which is a point that you
> might care to make).
Based on their "direct costs borne by users" proportion, road
transportation would still be 1/4 of the entire U.S. gross domestic
product. That is still far out of the bounds of any reasonableness
test.
> Most economists are neither rabidly pro-auto or pro-transit. The standard
> economists' view of American transportation goes something like this:
[...]
Those comments about road transportation are NOT the "the standard
economists' view of American transportation". They are better described
as a fringe opinion.
John
___>^..^<___
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE1FF88...@mediaone.net...
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was
collected the
> > > > > U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government), and
$110
> > > >
> > > > That's not quite what OHIM 2000hfbt.pdf shows - for 1999, out of
$113
> > > > billion available, only $75 billion come from motor-fuel and vehicle
taxes
> > > > and tolls. The rest came from other sources including property
taxes and
> > > > general fund appropriations.
> > >
> > > And in 2000 $26 million more in road use taxes that were siphoned off
to
> > > non-road uses. You are wrong, just like always, and my point stands.
> >
> > You haven't shown that that came from motor-fuel, vehicle taxes and
tolls.
>
> That is exactly what the OHIM source says.
>
> Go take a basic accounting course before you bother us again.
>
Go take a course in reading before you come back.. You CLAIM that $101
billion came from road user taxes and fees, but the 2000hfbt.pdf shows only
$75 billion coming from that source.
John
___>^..^<___
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE20198...@mediaone.net...
> Alexander Nobler Cohen <an...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah right. It claims for 2000 in the New York City metropolitan area
> > > $106 billion spent in direct road transportation costs borne by users,
> > > and $82 billion in external road transportation costs. It has no
figure
> > > for non-road transportation external costs (typical). Using the same
> > > proportion for the whole U.S., that would be an annual $2.5 trillion
for
> > > road transportation, or 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product.
That
> > > doesn't pass the giggle test, and it's typical rabid anti-auto,
> > > anti-trucking, anti-road propaganda, that includes everything up to
the
> > > Hubble Space Telescope as a "cost" to autos (well, not quite that
high).
> >
> > The site was put together by a firm whose "public and private sector
> > clients are, for the most part, sponsors of major planning studies or
> > proposed construction projects; these include roadway and airport
> > modernizations, commercial and residential developments, solid waste
> > facilities and hospitals." (As noted elsewhere on the site). I hardly
> > suspect that they are a "typical rabid anti-auto, anti-trucking,
> > anti-road" group.
>
> Road transportation is 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product?
>
Direct costs are 17% of GDP, externalities raise that percent. For the
average person, it is often the first or second largest expenditure.
Robert Cote
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
Amazingly from exactly one year ago I wrote:
The transit cash still flows out of the FHA highways budget AFAICT.
The 1999 data of 2000 forecast:
Net Collections: 101,840
Amount for Nonhighway Purposes (9,380)
Amount for Mass Transportation (8,954)
Amount for Collection Expenses (2,761)
Amount for Territories (155)
Net Used for Highway Purposes 80,591 <---- compare ----
Sources:
Motor-Fuel and Vehicle Taxes 75,221
Tolls 5,370
Highway User Revenues Subtotal 80,591 <---- compare ----
Property Taxes and Assessments 5,488
General Fund Appropriations 17,128
Other Taxes and Fees 6,327
Alexander Nobler Cohen
Go explore the site yourself -- including the home page and "About the
Company" pages, and then decide for yourself. That is, if you have the
slightest interest in visiting a site that does not fully support your
world view.
Alex
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > That is exactly what the OHIM source says.
> > >
> > > Go take a basic accounting course before you bother us again.
> > >
> > Go take a course in reading before you come back.. You CLAIM that $101
> > billion came from road user taxes and fees, but the 2000hfbt.pdf shows only
> > $75 billion coming from that source.
>
> Amazingly from exactly one year ago I wrote:
>
> The transit cash still flows out of the FHA highways budget AFAICT.
> The 1999 data of 2000 forecast:
>
> Net Collections: 101,840
> Amount for Nonhighway Purposes (9,380)
> Amount for Mass Transportation (8,954)
> Amount for Collection Expenses (2,761)
> Amount for Territories (155)
> Net Used for Highway Purposes 80,591 <---- compare ----
>
> Sources:
> Motor-Fuel and Vehicle Taxes 75,221
> Tolls 5,370
> Highway User Revenues Subtotal 80,591 <---- compare ----
> Property Taxes and Assessments 5,488
> General Fund Appropriations 17,128
> Other Taxes and Fees 6,327
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1999hfbt.pdf
United States Department of Transportation -
Federal Highway Administration
Excerpts:
"Total disbursements for highways are expected to exceed $110.2 billion
in 1999, an increase of 12.4 percent over 1996, which is the latest year
that final numbers are available".
"In 1999, total highway-user revenues of $101.3 billion (motor fuel,
motor vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls) are anticipated. This would
fund about 92 percent of all highway disbursements".
....
Important note: When US DOT OHIM says "highways", they mean "all public
roads", in other words, all classes; Interstate, arterial, primary,
collector, secondary, urban street.
Those excerpts are completely in context with the conclusions of the
report, and I have provided summary information below.
FUNDING FOR HIGHWAYS, ALL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT, 1999 -
TABLE HF-10B (millions)
**SUMMARY**
DISPOSITION OF HIGHWAY-USER REVENUE BY COLLECTING AGENCIES
Net Collections 101,301
Less: Amount for Nonhighway Purposes (17,001)
Less: Amount for Mass Transportation (8,956)
Less: Amount for Collection Expenses (2,890)
Less: Amount for Territories: (150)
Net Used for Highway Purposes: 72,304
REVENUES USED FOR HIGHWAYS - BY COLLECTING AGENCIES
Highway User Revenues 72,304
Other Taxes and Fees (*) 26,938
Investment Income and Other Receipts 6,605
Bond Issue Proceeds 9,944
Drawn From or Placed in Reserves (5,573)
Total Funds Available 110,218
DISBURSEMENTS FOR HIGHWAYS - BY EXPENDING AGENCIES
Grand Total Disbursements 110,218
(*) Property Taxes and Assessments
General Fund Appropriations
Other
Analysis:
Q: On the balance, how much road expenditures are directly
user funded?
A: Grand Total Disbursements were 110,218, with Net Collections
HUR of 101,301 (91.9%)
Q: How much direct road user revenue are spent on roads?
A: Net Collections of HUR were 101,301, with Net Used for
Highway Purposes of 72,304 (71.4%)
Q: How much road expenditures have revenue sources directly
from HUR?
A: Grand Total Disbursements were 110,218, with Highway User
Revenues of 72,304 (65.6%)
.....
My website article below has the final figures for 1995, and they are
proportionally very similar to the 1999 figures above --
"Road Funding in the U.S." -
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Road_Funding_US.html
Scott M. Kozel
> > Alexander Nobler Cohen <an...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >(Yes, there are external costs to transit, too. There ought to be a
> > >separate table for that on the Transport-Link site, and I suspect that
> > >lack of data is the chief reason why it's not there).
> >
> > Either that or they are dishonest.
>
> Go explore the site yourself -- including the home page and "About the
> Company" pages, and then decide for yourself. That is, if you have the
> slightest interest in visiting a site that does not fully support your
> world view.
I visited it and I gave you my opinion of it, as far as the kinds of
gross exaggerations I see claimed for road transportation and road
"external costs". For them to do that and then conveniently omit
"external costs" for transit, looks very spurious and fallacious.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > Road transportation is 1/3 of the entire gross domestic product?
>
> Direct costs are 17% of GDP, externalities raise that percent. For the
> average person, it is often the first or second largest expenditure.
There's $800 billion per year in total direct accounting costs for road
transportation in the U.S. That's 10% of GDP.
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> > Thus the dollar value for the "total external cost of roadway transport"
> > bears little relationship to GDP. Hence it does "pass the giggle test"
> > (unless you think economics itself is funny, which is a point that you
> > might care to make).
>
> Based on their "direct costs borne by users" proportion, road
> transportation would still be 1/4 of the entire U.S. gross domestic
> product. That is still far out of the bounds of any reasonableness
> test.
A few comments:
(a) The data is for the NY metro area. Simply multiplying it by a
population factor in order to get data for the entire U.S. is not accurate
(b) Please post the GDP figure you're working with, and source
(c) You'd be surprised how large a percentage of GDP that transportation
is. Remember, the data includes air travel and all freight movement.
> > Most economists are neither rabidly pro-auto or pro-transit. The standard
> > economists' view of American transportation goes something like this:
>
> [...]
>
> Those comments about road transportation are NOT the "the standard
> economists' view of American transportation". They are better described
> as a fringe opinion.
I'm glad that you chose to dismiss, rather than discuss, my comments.
Anyway, I disagree that they are "a fringe opinion," for the following
reasons:
(a) The views I described are pretty much exactly the views of Columbia
economics Professor Brendan O'Flaherty, whose field is urban economics,
and whom I know personally. O'Flaherty, a car-owning New Jersey
suburbanite, is not exactly an rabid anti-auto activist.
(b) Based on my readings of various *economic* literature on
transportation, the views a posted are quite representative. Yes, there
is some variation (some economists believe in "curb rights" for mass
transit, for example) but you would be hard-pressed to find an *economist*
who believes that road transportation is correctly priced. (If you find
one, do post!)
(c) The views I posted are very, very moderate, with criticisms directed
at both roads and transit. Hardly fringe material.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of the material I posted, or the
material on the website. Rather than dismiss it out of hand, why not
critique it?
Alex
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> I visited it and I gave you my opinion of it, as far as the kinds of
> gross exaggerations I see claimed for road transportation and road
> "external costs". For them to do that and then conveniently omit
> "external costs" for transit, looks very spurious and fallacious.
Take a look at the description of the company.
http://www.transport-link.com/staff/Welcome.htm
I see no reason to suspect them as a fringe group, or as intentionally
dishonest.
Alex
RJ
Then why did they tally "external costs" on only the POV side of the
equation?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> > > Thus the dollar value for the "total external cost of roadway transport"
> > > bears little relationship to GDP. Hence it does "pass the giggle test"
> > > (unless you think economics itself is funny, which is a point that you
> > > might care to make).
> >
> > Based on their "direct costs borne by users" proportion, road
> > transportation would still be 1/4 of the entire U.S. gross domestic
> > product. That is still far out of the bounds of any reasonableness
> > test.
>
> A few comments:
> (a) The data is for the NY metro area. Simply multiplying it by a
> population factor in order to get data for the entire U.S. is not accurate
It should provide a reasonable approximation.
> (b) Please post the GDP figure you're working with, and source
>
> (c) You'd be surprised how large a percentage of GDP that transportation
> is. Remember, the data includes air travel and all freight movement.
>
> > > Most economists are neither rabidly pro-auto or pro-transit. The standard
> > > economists' view of American transportation goes something like this:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Those comments about road transportation are NOT the "the standard
> > economists' view of American transportation". They are better described
> > as a fringe opinion.
>
> I'm glad that you chose to dismiss, rather than discuss, my comments.
> Anyway, I disagree that they are "a fringe opinion," for the following
> reasons:
They have huge upfront reasonableness questions, kinda like the people
who claim that Clinton has killed over 200 people, if you catch the
drift. :-)
> (a) The views I described are pretty much exactly the views of Columbia
> economics Professor Brendan O'Flaherty, whose field is urban economics,
> and whom I know personally. O'Flaherty, a car-owning New Jersey
> suburbanite, is not exactly an rabid anti-auto activist.
Mark Delucchi (Transportation Economist) of UC Davis has conducted
extensive economic research on full costing of transportation including
external costs, and his research is well-known. His most recent
publication is in ACCESS Magazine (ACCESS is the official magazine of
the University of California Transportation Center, and is offered free
of charge to the public).
The article points out the difficulty of "getting the prices right",
makes the case that auto external costs and transit external costs are
fairly equal on a passenger-mile basis, makes the case that external
costs are very difficult (impossible in some cases) to price, and most
importantly makes the case that "getting the prices right" economically
would favor autos and not transit.
"Should We Try to Get the Prices Right?"
ACCESS Spring 2000
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~uctc/access16lite.pdf
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~uctc/access.html
"Pricing might surprise and disappoint some of its advocates. Contrary
to expectations, the use of pricing to “level the playing field” will
induce people to shift from transit to autos, because presently the
field is tilted in favor of public transit. Those who feel it important
to get people out of their cars should focus on improving the quality
and reducing the cost of alternatives".
...
"With good reason, many people are skeptical about estimated external
costs of transportation. The best estimates of virtually all important
external costs — air pollution, noise, accidents, congestion, and oil
importing — vary by about an order of magnitude. (Estimates of
infrastructure, service, capital, and operating subsidies are less
uncertain.) Although further research and analysis can in principle
reduce this uncertainty, they might not reduce it enough for us to pick
the “right” price with confidence, especially for environmental
externalities. Some issues, such as valuing mortality related to air
pollution, may be intractable. Presently, researchers raise as many
issues as they resolve".
....
MARGINAL SOCIAL COST PRICING WOULD
FAVOR PASSENGER GASOLINE VEHICLES
"Some people advocate “getting the prices right” in the belief that it
will encourage the use of public transit or new transportation
technologies, such as electric vehicles. But if the “right” prices are
supposed to be efficient prices, then, as mentioned above, all
transportation modes must be priced at MSC. As we shall see, the
subsidies to public transit generally are much greater than the
external costs of automobile use, per passenger mile; as a result, MSC
pricing generally would favor auto use over transit use. Similarly, MSC
pricing probably would favor conventional gasoline vehicles over new
vehicle technologies".
The above quotes are entirely in context with the whole article.
> (b) Based on my readings of various *economic* literature on
> transportation, the views a posted are quite representative. Yes, there
> is some variation (some economists believe in "curb rights" for mass
> transit, for example) but you would be hard-pressed to find an *economist*
> who believes that road transportation is correctly priced. (If you find
> one, do post!)
>
> (c) The views I posted are very, very moderate, with criticisms directed
> at both roads and transit. Hardly fringe material.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of the material I posted, or the
> material on the website. Rather than dismiss it out of hand, why not
> critique it?
>
> Alex
>
>
--
Scott M. Kozel
Do you smell a rat?
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> >Take a look at the description of the company.
> >
> >http://www.transport-link.com/staff/Welcome.htm
> >
> >I see no reason to suspect them as a fringe group, or as intentionally
> >dishonest.
>
> Then why did they tally "external costs" on only the POV side of the
> equation?
Based on the description of the company (above URL), what incentive would
they have to be intentionally dishonest or misleading?
Alex
Jeff Zeitlin
>Just to clarify, the failure of the New York, Westchester and Boston RR was not
>the result of competition from roads, whether built by Robert Moses or
>otherwise. It failed simply because it didn't go into Manhattan. Most
>commuters - it was never really anything but a commuter line - found it easier
>to take the NY Central or the New Haven, with their one-seat rides into
>Manhattan.
... and I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was no real zoning
in place at the time of the building of the NEBW, and the failure to go
into Manhattan was based on a presumption that the central business
district would continue to expand northward, ending up around the terminal
at E180 right about the time the NEBW was to go into operation.
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jzei...@cyburban.com
(ILink: news without the abuse. Ask via email.)
RJ
I don't care what they write about themselves; they only tell half the
story, and the reason has to be either incompetence or dishonesty.
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Anyway, provide a plausible explanation of how cities harm the
> enviornment more on a per capita basis than the suburbs and I'll
> listen. But rest assured, I'm not holding my breath.
Heat islands.
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And who was it, Robert, who said some very provocative things the
> other day in response to what I believed was a rather moderate and
> well-considered thread -- one that was in fact supportive of Robert
> Moses, and of the need for highways -- and prefaced his post with "I
> don't mean to start a flame war"?
I don't know, who was it? It wasn't me. I said:
I'm not starting a flame war. At least I hope I am not. The
statement was about Moses in his era looking to the future. By
most any measure the suburbs were and probably are the forseeable
future. The dense metropolitian areas such as NYC were not the
future as evidenced by their massive losses in population, in
general, since the days of Moses. NYC being the exception having
just regained the same population albiet at a lower density as it
had in 1950.
See that? I made a statemen AND backed it up. I even went so far as
to acknowledge NYC as an exception.
> Anyway, provide a plausible explanation of how cities harm the
> enviornment more on a per capita basis than the suburbs and I'll
> listen. But rest assured, I'm not holding my breath.
You made the claim. Back it up or retract. In a seperate reply I've
already provided the example you so unreasonably demand but I'm not
about to let you off the hook you've set for yourself. You've made
lots of claims in the past and relied on me to provide refutation.
Time to carry your own opinions rather than casually snipe at others'.
Hank Eisenstein
enforcement?
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k
Let's Go Mets!!
"RJ" <re_jo...@hotcoldmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ub4etsdlddhjrq2l...@4ax.com...
Larry Gross
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
> OK, I apologize, because I thought that these things were well enough
> known that I didn't have to explain myself.
>
> Per capita energy consumption in cities is lower, because people
> travel shorter distances and large, closely-spaced buildings are more
> energy efficient.
>
> The average city resident and worker occupies fewer square feet of
> ground space for housing, working, and travel, so less habitat gets
> paved over, and that area tends to be compact, rather than intermixed
> with ecosystems. A suburbanite may pave over only 1/10 of an area with
> roads, but they generally run through green areas that become
> fragmented and in most cases can no longer support their original
> diversity of wildlife. In a city, by way of contrast, those roads tend
> to be in a much smaller area. So one has
>
> --------------city-------------- -------------country-------------
>
> rather than the much more destructive
>
> -country-suburb-country-suburb-country-suburb-country
>
> Add to that the monoculture of the suburban lawn and pesticide
> application. And that's the gist of it.
>
> Josh
the basic premise is probably correct but if the intent is to claim that
cities are less polluted overall it don't wash. Its not how much pollution
per capita, its how much pollution total for the area impacted and cities,
even 'clean' cities have seriously degraded water and air quality compared
to less densely settled areas. IOW, its not only how much pollution per
capita, its' how much 'carrying capacity' that the environment can sustain
in a given area. Once you get beyond the 'carrying capacity' for _any_
region, the environment suffers and in turn habitat for both people and
critters suffers. In the end, any given area has a finite 'carrying
capcity'
beyond which damage results so just stuffing more and more people
into an area does not result in a cleaner environment than areas that
are less dense.
Robert Cote
JohnDoe <joh...@monmouth.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:42:36 -0400, Joshua P. Hill
> <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> [psycho babble snipped]
>
> I am not going to address NY's inequitable tax distribution problems
> but the bottom line is that the MTA transit system is subsidized by
> non riders via a myriad taxes on utilities and businesses, tolls,
> monies diverted from highway trust funds and monies taken from the
> general tax fund.
To the tune of more than a billion dollars per year. I gave Josh all
the data, he should be able to confirm this.
Robert Cote
"Hank Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
> What are thjey calling external costs? Emergency services? Law
> enforcement?
Good question and an enlightening one:
HIDDEN COSTS OF ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION FOR
THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA,
ESTIMATED FOR 2000
CONGESTION COSTS 21.7
AIR POLLUTION HEALTH & PROPERTY COSTS 14.6
ACCIDENT COSTS 27.8
NOISE COSTS 3.9
VIBRATION DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 1.0
PAVEMENT DAMAGE TO VEHICLES 1.7
LAND COSTS 6.5
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY COSTS 3.0
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 2.2
TOTAL EXTERNAL COST OF ROADWAY TRANSPORT 82.5
[that's billions of dollars BTW]
Why interesting? Glad you asked. The "list" looks mighty familiar to
the regulars of some of these groups. This is the Sierra Klub and
VTPI list. We know Todd Littman. He asked last year for corrections
to his data right here in m.t.r. I was one of the people foolish
enough to think he was being honest. Instead my comments were used to
predismiss any issues I had pointed out and still the proveably
incorrect data was not ammended. Well he did adjust the figures that
favored his view when I pointed those out.
$6,500,000,000 in "Land Costs" annually. Yeah right.
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:31:10 GMT, Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <m6l3etojrc5r4cpgl...@4ax.com>,
> > Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And since when do drivers pay real estate taxes on highways?
> >
> >Were you on the tracks when you said this? Didn't you see the
> >"PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESSPASSING" signs? Seems to me that those
> >drivers already paid for the road right of ways, now you want to tax
> >them for the infrastructure they prepaid for with gas taxes.
>
> Somebody paid for the railroads, too. Why should they pay real estate
> taxes when the highway users don't?
Because they are private property.
...
> >While we are at it, yes vehicle owners do indeed frequently pay a
> >property tax on their autos which are part of the highway mode of
> >transportation.
>
> So? As far as I can tell, the only issue here is whether those who use
> the highways get a tax break -- or incur a liability -- relative to
> those who use the railroads. As far as I can tell, you haven't
> established that one way or the other.
I sure did. Nationwide railroads only pay $350 million in property
taxes. Criminally low. That was the issue until you attempted
distraction by wanting to compare public property to private property.
> >Nice attempt at distraction however.
>
> Robert, I do not soil myself with such tactics.
You just soiled yourself again. The full comment is:
Nice attempt at distraction however. You've got me "defending"
highway based tax structures when the real point was the absolute
refutation that the previous poster who claimed railroads pay
fair taxes on their assests.
The real point still remains that railroads do not pay anything
remotely like fair taxes on their property.
> You may agree or
> disagree with me.
I disagree. You continue to attempt distraction.
> I may be right or I may be wrong.
You have shown yourself to be wrong by continuing to attempt
distraction and failing any comparable railroad property tax
explanation.
> But with me, for better or worse, what you see is what you get. So
> please do not accuse me of motives which I do not have.
Who said motives? You are still attempting distraction. This I
should add is on top of the original massive snip of evidence of other
private railroad subsidies. Remember these:
Ever hear of railroad land grants?
Assignment of emminent domain?
The Alameada Corridor project?
Amtrak payments to row owners?
California Proposition 5?
Metrolink (Los Angeles) capital improvements?
Do you know why the Space Shuttle's SRBs are segmented in the first
place? Yes, it is very germane.
> >You really want to go this route then we can calculate the lost
> >revenue for those urban rail corridors that are sitting idle for
> >decades because of the distorted tax situation.
>
> That's actually more interesting. I think you have to consider the
> cost and political difficulty of replacing contiguous ROW's that will
> very likely be needed as population increases. You have to consider
> the ratio of ROW to population and area, which is tiny in most cases.
> And then you have to consider the general revenues support of
> highways, to the extent that occurs. Finally, I think you have to
> consider the fact that the value of property is to some extent
> relative. Handing a ROW over to developers would not typically attract
> more people or businesses to an urban community, so in practice, the
> tax base wouldn't go up. One may tax on the *basis* of property, but
> one is really taxing people.
"Handing a ROW over to developers would not typically attract
more people or businesses to an urban community?!?"
You yourself don't even beleive what you just wrote. Regardless you
still haven't addressed the issue. No one else gets to leave private
property idle with massive tax breaks in the manner that railroads do.
Any discussion of future public aqusition is just more evidence of
transit or rail subsides or both.
Robert Cote
Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:49:00 -0400, JohnDoe <joh...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:45:19 -0400, Joshua P. Hill
> ><XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>And since when do drivers pay real estate taxes on highways?
> >
> >everytime the buy gas, oil, tires, pay a toll, pay to park their car
>
> Those are indeed taxes. But they are not real estate taxes.
Care to tell me where I can buy gas, oil, tires that isn't at a place
that pays property taxes funded by my purchases? Care to go back and
look at the cash positive NYC Metro toll revenue data I sent you that
is used to subsidize transit? Do you really want to know what the big
expenses for private parking facilities are? Where do you think
public parking fees go? Are you thinking transit? Good.
Hank Eisenstein
-Hank
--
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k
Let's Go Mets!!
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:xjDE6.163$Fv5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
danny burstein
>Care to tell me where I can buy gas, oil, tires that isn't at a place
>that pays property taxes funded by my purchases?
sure. stop at pretty much any Indian reservation.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Robert Cote
"Hank Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
> That's a stretch.
I agree but consider the context. Josh asked the question because
he's defending the pittfully low property taxes private railrods pay
on their assets. In the case of the assests involved in the use of
highways some 80% is privately owned and at the very least fully taxed
and in some cases like tires quadruple taxed relative to what
railroads pay.
But since the subject is still nomianally about subsides on fixed rail
transport why don't you ask Josh where some of the NYC area tolls go?
Are you thinking transit? Good.
There's also the long shopping list of rail subsides I posted earlier
that no one seems to want to address.
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> Care to tell me where I can buy gas, oil, tires that isn't at a place
> that pays property taxes funded by my purchases?
Those are taxes on the gas station (etc.)'s real estate, not on the real
estate of the highway itself.
Alex
Robert Cote
dan...@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote:
> In <xjDE6.163$Fv5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> Robert Cote
> <tech...@gte.net> writes:
>
> >Care to tell me where I can buy gas, oil, tires that isn't at a place
> >that pays property taxes funded by my purchases?
>
> sure. stop at pretty much any Indian reservation.
From: http://www.navajocentral.org/faq02a.htm
Then there is no property tax?
Since the Navajo land is held in trust by the Federal government, it
is all public land. The use of parcels of it are leased to individuals
various ends, but it is all trust land and cannot be owned.
Seems like we are back to public property versus private property
issue doesn't it?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Hank Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> > That's a stretch.
>
> I agree but consider the context. Josh asked the question because
> he's defending the pittfully low property taxes private railrods pay
> on their assets. In the case of the assests involved in the use of
> highways some 80% is privately owned and at the very least fully taxed
> and in some cases like tires quadruple taxed relative to what
> railroads pay.
>
> But since the subject is still nomianally about subsides on fixed rail
> transport why don't you ask Josh where some of the NYC area tolls go?
> Are you thinking transit? Good.
"Tolls at the MTA's bridges and tunnels last year generated $940 million
in revenues, of which more than two-thirds was used to subsidize mass
transit in the city and suburbs".
[link no longer active]
http://www.nypost.com/02252001/news/regionalnews/24797.htm
> There's also the long shopping list of rail subsides I posted earlier
> that no one seems to want to address.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> The article points out the difficulty of "getting the prices right",
> makes the case that auto external costs and transit external costs are
> fairly equal on a passenger-mile basis, makes the case that external
> costs are very difficult (impossible in some cases) to price, and most
> importantly makes the case that "getting the prices right" economically
> would favor autos and not transit.
In other words, he acknowledges that the prices are wrong. His paper
may indicate that there is insufficient information to get prices right,
but the prices presently are still wrong. The fact that he even bothered
to write a paper entitled "Should We Try to Get the Prices Right?" only
reinforces my point that many economists WOULD like to try to get the
prices right.
As for the conclusions about transit, I never said that economists were
too keen on transit. As I said before, O'Flaherty believes that subways
are economically efficient ONLY in Manhattan. That's not a wildly
pro-transit point of view.
Pro-auto types (m.t.r posters) act as though road transportation is
priced perfectly, and there are no externalities. That's not true.
Pro-transit types (nyc.transit posters) act as though cars are the
root of every urban problem. That's not true either. Moreover, since
neither mode is priced correctly, there's really no good way of
determining whether transit subsidies are economically efficient or not.
All I'm calling for is a little moderation in these discussions. Maybe
we all can learn something...
Alex
Scott M. Kozel
The highway is PUBLIC PROPERTY, just like aboveground rail transit lines
are on public property. Why is it so hard to understand why there are
no property taxes on public property?!?
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> > Those are taxes on the gas station (etc.)'s real estate, not on the real
> > estate of the highway itself.
>
> The highway is PUBLIC PROPERTY, just like aboveground rail transit lines
> are on public property. Why is it so hard to understand why there are
> no property taxes on public property?!?
There is an opportunity cost to the land. Were highways developed as
private property instead, the land would be taxable. When many highways
were built in New York and other Eastern cities, private buildings were
demolished to make way for the highway. Thus land that previously
generated tax revenue no longer does.
Alex
Scott M. Kozel
>
> > The article points out the difficulty of "getting the prices right",
> > makes the case that auto external costs and transit external costs are
> > fairly equal on a passenger-mile basis, makes the case that external
> > costs are very difficult (impossible in some cases) to price, and most
> > importantly makes the case that "getting the prices right" economically
> > would favor autos and not transit.
>
> In other words, he acknowledges that the prices are wrong. His paper
> may indicate that there is insufficient information to get prices right,
> but the prices presently are still wrong. The fact that he even bothered
> to write a paper entitled "Should We Try to Get the Prices Right?" only
> reinforces my point that many economists WOULD like to try to get the
> prices right.
No he doesn't; just that the prices may not necessarily be the most
optimum, and that the most optimum might induce people to shift from
transit to autos, and that the main questioned area is the estimated
external costs of transportation. It doesn't take the discipline of
'economics' to track and assign the direct costs of the various
components of a mode, the discipline of 'accounting' can handle that.
> As for the conclusions about transit, I never said that economists were
> too keen on transit. As I said before, O'Flaherty believes that subways
> are economically efficient ONLY in Manhattan. That's not a wildly
> pro-transit point of view.
>
> Pro-auto types (m.t.r posters) act as though road transportation is
> priced perfectly, and there are no externalities. That's not true.
I don't think that is true at all. Most would agree that there are
externalities to any economic activity, including with road
transportation. It's just when "studies" start assigning costs that
look one to two orders of magnitude higher than anything that seems
reasonable, then some of us are rightfully skeptical of the whole the
discussion.
> Pro-transit types (nyc.transit posters) act as though cars are the
> root of every urban problem. That's not true either. Moreover, since
> neither mode is priced correctly, there's really no good way of
> determining whether transit subsidies are economically efficient or not.
The modes are probably priced as correctly as possible given the current
state-of-the-art of technology and economics.
> All I'm calling for is a little moderation in these discussions. Maybe
> we all can learn something...
--
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> > In other words, he acknowledges that the prices are wrong. His paper
> > may indicate that there is insufficient information to get prices right,
> > but the prices presently are still wrong. The fact that he even bothered
> > to write a paper entitled "Should We Try to Get the Prices Right?" only
> > reinforces my point that many economists WOULD like to try to get the
> > prices right.
>
> No he doesn't; just that the prices may not necessarily be the most
> optimum,
How is "not necessarily...the most optimum" different from "wrong"?
> and that the most optimum might induce people to shift from
> transit to autos,
Quite possible.
> and that the main questioned area is the estimated
> external costs of transportation.
Yes, that's exactly what the Transport-Link site attempts to calculate.
If you disagree with the numbers, I'd love to see your own estimates of
the external costs of transport.
> It doesn't take the discipline of
> 'economics' to track and assign the direct costs of the various
> components of a mode, the discipline of 'accounting' can handle that.
Accounting deals with direct costs, which are well-documented. I'm
interested in both direct and external costs.
> I don't think that is true at all. Most would agree that there are
> externalities to any economic activity, including with road
> transportation. It's just when "studies" start assigning costs that
> look one to two orders of magnitude higher than anything that seems
> reasonable, then some of us are rightfully skeptical of the whole the
> discussion.
I'd love to know what "seems reasonable" to you. Is your opinion just a
gut sense, or is it based on an alternative data set? If the latter, why
not post it?
> The modes are probably priced as correctly as possible given the current
> state-of-the-art of technology and economics.
So much for the evils of transit subsidies :)
Alex
danny burstein
>On 22 Apr 2001 12:53:13 -0400, dan...@panix.com (danny burstein)
>wrote:
>>In <xjDE6.163$Fv5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> writes:
>>
>>>Care to tell me where I can buy gas, oil, tires that isn't at a place
>>>that pays property taxes funded by my purchases?
>>
>>sure. stop at pretty much any Indian reservation.
>and how many of those are there in a 75 mile radius of columbus
>circle?
there's one on Long Island which just about makes that cut - close enough
for gov't work. The ones in Ct. are a bit above your number
don't know about upstate or jersey.
danny burstein
>>there's one on Long Island which just about makes that cut - close enough
>>for gov't work. The ones in Ct. are a bit above your number
>>don't know about upstate or jersey.
>where on Long Island, the only one I know of is in the hamptons, out
>of the radius,
that's the one I'm talking about. i'd have to measure the exact mileage,
but since it was two hours from manhattan on a day with lots of traffic,
it can't be much farther than that.
> none in NJ and none that qualify in NY.
like i said, I dunno about reservations in Jersey and don't know enough
about the ones in upstate NY to tell whether there are any small ones
closer than the more widely known ones.
>anyway you slice it, your strawman is bogus
nope. since my original comment didn't include mileage but was simply a
response to the questioner who said it was impossible to buy gasoline,
etc., at a place which didn't pay property taxes. _you're_ the one who
decided to play stupid. Well, maybe not play.
Oh, there are other places which would qualify as well. buildings on gov't
or quasi-gov't land, such as the Port Authority, usually don't pay
property taxes. (they may pay a fee or a lease arrangement in lieu of
such, but they're not paying property taxes). And there are all those tax
reduced "enterprise zones".
So next time you're at Teterboro head over to Butler and put some high
octane avgas in your Corvair.
Jeff
> In article <8IDE6.7073$l5.3...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com>,
> "Hank Eisenstein" <ni...@quuxuum.org> wrote:
>
> > That's a stretch.
>
> I agree but consider the context. Josh asked the question because
> he's defending the pittfully low property taxes private railrods pay
> on their assets. In the case of the assests involved in the use of
> highways some 80% is privately owned and at the very least fully taxed
> and in some cases like tires quadruple taxed relative to what
> railroads pay.
>
> But since the subject is still nomianally about subsides on fixed rail
> transport why don't you ask Josh where some of the NYC area tolls go?
> Are you thinking transit? Good.
>
> There's also the long shopping list of rail subsides I posted earlier
> that no one seems to want to address.
Rail pays for its infrastructure AND it pays taxes on its property AND it pays
the railroad diesel tax. In addition ,Rail pays for the ENTIRE COST of its
infrastructure (except where it shares cost with public transportation systems)
not just the MARGINAL COST as roadway travellers do.
Jeff
> In article <n9m4eto1dov9n35f6...@4ax.com>,
> Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:31:10 GMT, Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <m6l3etojrc5r4cpgl...@4ax.com>,
> > > Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> And since when do drivers pay real estate taxes on highways?
> > >
> > >Were you on the tracks when you said this? Didn't you see the
> > >"PRIVATE PROPERTY NO TRESSPASSING" signs? Seems to me that those
> > >drivers already paid for the road right of ways, now you want to tax
> > >them for the infrastructure they prepaid for with gas taxes.
> >
> > Somebody paid for the railroads, too. Why should they pay real estate
> > taxes when the highway users don't?
>
> Because they are private property.
And allowing certain modes of transportation to use public property and only
pay a marginal cost to use said public property amounts to quite a subsidy.
> > >While we are at it, yes vehicle owners do indeed frequently pay a
> > >property tax on their autos which are part of the highway mode of
> > >transportation.
> >
> > So? As far as I can tell, the only issue here is whether those who use
> > the highways get a tax break -- or incur a liability -- relative to
> > those who use the railroads. As far as I can tell, you haven't
> > established that one way or the other.
>
> I sure did. Nationwide railroads only pay $350 million in property
> taxes. Criminally low.
What is the standard for "criminally low?" Unlike tax free municipal bond
funded sports stadium gifts on land taken by eminent domain to professional
sports, railroads provide a critical interstate commerce function.
> That was the issue until you attempted
> distraction by wanting to compare public property to private property.
>
> > >Nice attempt at distraction however.
> >
> > Robert, I do not soil myself with such tactics.
>
> You just soiled yourself again. The full comment is:
>
> Nice attempt at distraction however. You've got me "defending"
> highway based tax structures when the real point was the absolute
> refutation that the previous poster who claimed railroads pay
> fair taxes on their assests.
>
> The real point still remains that railroads do not pay anything
> remotely like fair taxes on their property.
I disagree.
Jeff
> Seems to me that those
> drivers already paid for the road right of ways, now you want to tax
> them for the infrastructure they prepaid for with gas taxes.
Railroads pay for infrastructure, and they pay property taxes. Road users
are permitted to pay only marginal cost, at best.
> You really want to go this route then we can calculate the lost
> revenue for those urban rail corridors that are sitting idle for
> decades because of the distorted tax situation.
Please do. I would like to see the calculations.
Robert Cote
Jeff <jeff...@limitless.spam> wrote:
Not with you, not in this xposted thread.
Jeff
Sounds like a good way to melt an exhaust valve. Avgas contains quite a bit of lead too.
Scott M. Kozel
The land most definitely does still exist, and it is providing economic
benefits to the public, net increases in nearby development and overall
net increases in property tax collections. You're only looking at one
side of the equation. Privately administered highways that are open to
the public, of which more and more are being built all the time, indeed
should and do pay property taxes. Publicly administered facilities are
supported by tax dollars, and it is an oxymoron to levy property taxes
on them.
danny burstein
>>
>> So next time you're at Teterboro head over to Butler and put some high
>> octane avgas in your Corvair.
>Sounds like a good way to melt an exhaust valve. Avgas contains quite a
>bit of lead too.
shhh... that's one of the Great Big Evil Sekrets of the Aviation Kabal.
anyway, that's why I specifically mentioned a Corvair. The engines on that
car would probably swoon over the high lead high octane avgas ...
Scott M. Kozel
> > optimum,
>
> How is "not necessarily...the most optimum" different from "wrong"?
Easy - the former could include "nearly correct to the best of our
ability to determine", and that certainly is not categorizable as
"wrong".
> > I don't think that is true at all. Most would agree that there are
> > externalities to any economic activity, including with road
> > transportation. It's just when "studies" start assigning costs that
> > look one to two orders of magnitude higher than anything that seems
> > reasonable, then some of us are rightfully skeptical of the whole the
> > discussion.
>
> I'd love to know what "seems reasonable" to you. Is your opinion just a
> gut sense, or is it based on an alternative data set? If the latter, why
> not post it?
I already provided the link to ACCESS Magazine and Delucchi's article,
did I not? I don't necessarily adopt all of his conclusions, but he as
a transportation economist certainly has a thoughtful, well-researched
discussion of the issues.
> > The modes are probably priced as correctly as possible given the current
> > state-of-the-art of technology and economics.
>
> So much for the evils of transit subsidies :)
I've been an advocate of the Washington Metrorail system many times in
my Usenet posts, and I have a number of favorable articles on my website
about the rail transit systems in the D.C. area and Baltimore area. I
use a public transit bus for my trip to/from work downtown every
weekday. I am very much in favor of most transit public policy.
David Jensen
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote in
<mBoE6.13505$B4.11...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com>:
>Direct costs are 17% of GDP, externalities raise that percent. For the
>average person, it is often the first or second largest expenditure.
Direct costs of all transportation are 17%?
Chris Thompson
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:59:55 GMT, "Jim Guthrie"
> <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >One cannot drive a car and exhibit any intellectual honesty in promotion of
> >small and low-tax government.
>
> Regrettably, few of those who promote those things strike me as being
> honest about them -- they're all for small government when it's a
> matter of feeding children, but run to Uncle Sam the moment their
> beach houses are washed away.
>
> Josh
Or their 3million dollar house they built in a spot near the river that has
flooded every 40 years since colonial times.
Chris
Scott M. Kozel
>
> >sure you like the deal in NYC, you get cheap subway rides while
> >everyone else pays the costs for that ride
>
> You blithering idiot! Have you read one word that anyone has said here
> over the years?
---snip---
That's quite a laundry list.
If it is correct, then it implicitly shows decades of ineptitude by NYC
elected officials, and to a lessor degree, by NY state elected officials
also, to have allowed such inequities to have taken place.
If it is not correct, then it's a nice attempt to manipulate non-NYC
areas and non-NY state areas, into favoring NYC and NY state by tax
revenue allocation shifting to NYC and NY state.
Neither scenario is pretty.
Alexander Nobler Cohen
> That's quite a laundry list.
>
> If it is correct, then it implicitly shows decades of ineptitude by NYC
> elected officials, and to a lessor degree, by NY state elected officials
> also, to have allowed such inequities to have taken place.
I've seen lots of documentation indicating that it's correct.
The problem is not really ineptitude, but rather, that rural areas are
grossly overrepresented in the US Senate. California, Illinois, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania also are Federal donor states, by large amounts.
Part of the differential is "automatic" because of the income tax (incomes
are high, on average, in NYC and all the aforementioned states).
Alex
Alexander Nobler Cohen
Quick addedum to my previous message:
No, I do not advocate rewriting the US Constitution
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:tUoE6.4172$ZS1.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <ltoE6.13435$B4.11...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com>,
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
>
>
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AE1FF88...@mediaone.net...
> > > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > > > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In 1999 (a proportionally typical year), $101 billion was
> > collected the
> > > > > > > U.S. in road user taxes and fees (all levels of government),
and
> > $110
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not quite what OHIM 2000hfbt.pdf shows - for 1999, out of
> > $113
> > > > > > billion available, only $75 billion come from motor-fuel and
vehicle
> > taxes
> > > > > > and tolls. The rest came from other sources including property
> > taxes and
> > > > > > general fund appropriations.
> > > > >
> > > > > And in 2000 $26 million more in road use taxes that were siphoned
off
> > to
> > > > > non-road uses. You are wrong, just like always, and my point
stands.
> > > >
> > > > You haven't shown that that came from motor-fuel, vehicle taxes and
> > tolls.
> > >
> > > That is exactly what the OHIM source says.
> > >
> > > Go take a basic accounting course before you bother us again.
> > >
> > Go take a course in reading before you come back.. You CLAIM that $101
> > billion came from road user taxes and fees, but the 2000hfbt.pdf shows
only
> > $75 billion coming from that source.
>
> Amazingly from exactly one year ago I wrote:
>
> The transit cash still flows out of the FHA highways budget AFAICT.
> The 1999 data of 2000 forecast:
>
> Net Collections: 101,840
2000hfbt.pdf :
Net Collections = $105,228
Amounts from Motor-fuel and vehicle taxes = $74,909
> Amount for Nonhighway Purposes (9,380)
> Amount for Mass Transportation (8,954)
> Amount for Collection Expenses (2,761)
> Amount for Territories (155)
> Net Used for Highway Purposes 80,591 <---- compare ----
>
>
> Sources:
> Motor-Fuel and Vehicle Taxes 75,221
> Tolls 5,370
> Highway User Revenues Subtotal 80,591 <---- compare ----
> Property Taxes and Assessments 5,488
> General Fund Appropriations 17,128
> Other Taxes and Fees 6,327