Re: The Automobile Subsidy
elmer
> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>
> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours
> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a
> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, or are people just
> stupid? The answer is that people are actually quite smart, and their
> decision to submit themselves to the misery of suburban commuting is a
> sophisticated response to a set of circumstances that are as troubling
> as their result. Automobile use is the intelligent choice for
> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the
> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley
> Hart and Alvin Spivak have explained that:
>
> We learn in first-year economics what happens when products or
> services become "free" goods. The market functions chaotically; demand
> goes through the roof. In most American cities, parking spaces, roads
> and freeways are free goods. Local government services to the motorist
> and to the trucking industry - traffic engineering, traffic control,
> traffic lights, police and fire protection, street repair and
> maintenance - are all free goods.
>
> THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY
> To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and
> Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to
> between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent
> of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon. If this tax were to
> account for "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency
> medical treatment, it would be as high as $9.00 per gallon. The cost
> of these subsidies - approximately $5,000 per car per year - is passed
> directly on to the American citizen in the form of increased prices
> for products or, more often, as income, property, and sales taxes.
>
> This means that the hidden costs of driving are paid by everyone: not
> just drivers, but also those too old or too poor to drive a car. And
> these people suffer doubly, as the very transit systems they count on
> for mobility have gone out of business, unable to compete with the
> heavily subsidized highways.
>
> Even more irksome is the fact that spending on transit creates twice
> as many new jobs as spending on highways. In fact, every billion
> dollars reallocated from road-building to transit creates seven
> thousand jobs.' Congress's recent $41 billion highway bill, had it
> been allocated to transit, would have employed an additional
> quarter-million people nationwide.
>
> Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners
> choose to drive as much as possible. They are making the correct
> economic decision, but not in a free-market economy. As Hart and
> Spivak note, an appropriate analogy is Stalin's Gosplan, a Soviet
> agency that set arbitrary "correct" prices for many consumer goods,
> irrespective of their cost of production, with unsurprising results.
> In the American version of Gosplan, gasoline costs one quarter of what
> it did in 1929 (in real dollars). One need look no further for a
> reason why American cities continue to sprawl into the countryside. In
> Europe, where gasoline costs about four times the American price,
> long-distance automotive commuting is the exclusive privilege of he
> wealthy, and there is relatively little suburban sprawl.
>
> The American Gosplan pertains to shipping as well. In the current
> structure of subsidization, trucking is heavily favored over rail
> transport, even though trucks consume fifteen times the fuel for the
> equivalent job. The government pays a $300 billion subsidy to truckers
> unthinkingly, while carefully scrutinizing every dollar allocated to
> transit. Similarly, we try to solve our commuter traffic problems by
> building highways instead of railways, even though it takes fifteen
> lanes of highway to move as many people as one lane of track. This
> predisposition toward automobile use is plainly evident in the
> prevalent terminology: money spent on roads is called "highway
> investment," while money spent on rails is called "transit subsidy."
> The American Gosplan is not a conspiracy so much as a culture-albeit
> one strongly supported by pervasive advertising-and it is probably
> unrealistic to hope that legislators will soon take steps, such as
> enacting a substantial gasoline tax, to allocate fairly the costs of
> driving. Pressured by generous automobile industry contributions on
> the one hand and a car-dependent public on the other, politicians have
> lately been using gas-tax elimination as an election strategy, with
> some success. But there is encouraging information suggesting that a
> gas tax may not be the political suicide that most politicians
> suspect. According to a recent Pew Foundation poll, 6o percent of
> those asked favored a twenty-five-cent-per-gallon gas tax to slow
> global warming.*
>
> While there are many supposedly "anti-business" arguments for a higher
> gas tax - from fighting global warming to supporting public transit -
> the real justification is economic: subsidized automobile use is the
> single largest violation of the free-market principle in U.S. fiscal
> policy. Economic inefficiencies in this country due to automotive
> subsidization are estimated at $700 billion annually, which powerfully
> undermines America's ability to compete in the global economy.
There is no alternative. There are no mass transits fr the majority of
Americans.
No one wants to sit packed like sardines in filthy units that do exist.
There has been no serious attempts to develop mass transit that is
plausible and desirable for commuting 20 miles or more that most
Citizens have to travel to and from work and to shop etc.
There is no reason to not have a fleet, of clean comfortable buses and
express lanes for them in Southern California for example. It doesn't
have to run on rails to be mass transit.
Brent
> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the
> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley
Ok, he's got it ok to here... but like all anti-car folks it falls
apart, because the only place they demand free market down to the last
aspect is when it is the roads and private automobile. But at least the
non-drivers are only paying for the most local of roads. The ones they
would need even if automobiles had never been invented. Non-transit
users aren't so lucky. (in the chicago area part of the sales tax is to
fund transit)
> Even more irksome is the fact that spending on transit creates twice
> as many new jobs as spending on highways. In fact, every billion
> dollars reallocated from road-building to transit creates seven
> thousand jobs.' Congress's recent $41 billion highway bill, had it
> been allocated to transit, would have employed an additional
> quarter-million people nationwide.
Ta DA! They have absolutely no freaking problem with government
controlled and near totally socially funded transit. Private car owners
take a far greater percentage of the costs than the transit rider. If
transit were run as a business instead of a social service it might
actually be useful to more people.
> Because they do not pay the full price of driving, most car owners
> choose to drive as much as possible.
I don't know anybody that does.
> One need look no further for a
> reason why American cities continue to sprawl into the countryside. In
> Europe, where gasoline costs about four times the American price,
> long-distance automotive commuting is the exclusive privilege of he
> wealthy, and there is relatively little suburban sprawl.
The way our wise socialist masters want it to be. It seems they believe
we should be poor, living in tenements in the inner city and the
countryside left pristine for the wealthy to enjoy. Al Gore will always
be allowed to fly and drive.
Also note that european gasoline taxes are not only going to the 'cost
of driving' but fund many other things too.
> The American Gosplan pertains to shipping as well. In the current
> structure of subsidization, trucking is heavily favored over rail
> transport, even though trucks consume fifteen times the fuel for the
> equivalent job. The government pays a $300 billion subsidy to truckers
> unthinkingly, while carefully scrutinizing every dollar allocated to
> transit.
That's because the government doesn't have money of its own. It takes it
from people. People want private automobiles so they can disguise the
trucker subsidy. They can't disguise the transit subsidy. transit also
serves a far smaller segment of the population and that segment grows
ever smaller as transit service is cut back. Also it seems (at least in
IL) giving certain groups free transit has made the problems worse.
> While there are many supposedly "anti-business" arguments for a higher
> gas tax - from fighting global warming to supporting public transit -
> the real justification is economic: subsidized automobile use is the
> single largest violation of the free-market principle in U.S. fiscal
> policy.
Hardly. Not by a long shot. The biggest is the banks, followed by the
military industrial complex, followed by health care related items, then
probably social security. Automobiles are probably near the bottom of
the list if all the taxes motorists pay alone are taken out. It's
gasoline taxes on motorists that supply a good amount of money to
transit.
> Economic inefficiencies in this country due to automotive
> subsidization are estimated at $700 billion annually, which powerfully
> undermines America's ability to compete in the global economy.
What really undermines it is the banking system that runs this country's
economy and the spending on war and war related items.
This guy would have some credibility if he argued for private roads and
private rail funded by private companies and individuals. Instead he
complains the roads aren't 'free market enough' but rail should be more
socialist.
Larry Sheldon
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
>> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>>
>> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours
>> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a
>> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing,
Since we know at this point that we have a typical
bigcityeastcoastcommunist rant, I stopped reading at this point.
Some of us moved to where that is rarely a problem -- even it the first
major snow storm of the year it rarely took me more than an hour to
cover the 23 miles home.
And I would rather sit in my car, with one or two of my friends or my
radio, perhaps sipping on my coffee, than stand like a sardine is a can
of smelly people who look like they might be inclined to do me harm as I
try to wold on to my brief case, wallet and a filthy strap against the
ministrations of a driver that seems to alternate from full accelerated
to panic stop every few seconds.
(Did that by the way for most of thirty years, and spent a lot of time
sitting and waiting when the system broke for reasons we rarely found
out about. Having to run from stop to stop, stand in the crowd (and
maybe the rain) to "make connections" was a part that I was mostly able
to avoid.)
I'll not cast aspersions on those who choose to live under the tyranny
of the transit system, but I'm glad I was bright enough to save my money
and escape.
Larry Sheldon
>> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the
>> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley
That is the purest nonsense.
Does money grow on trees? Do you find it under rocks? (No, those
people are trying to stop mining.) Do you pump it out of the ground?
(Same problem).
The consumer pays all of the cost and more. There is no free lunch.
Brent
What is meant by a 'free good' is that someone else pays for it.
Government run health care is going to be paid for by every productive
person but lots and lots of people are going to see it as free. This
will create shortages, etc.
The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*. In a way
road use still functions like a 'free good' in that costs are
distributed to a huge number of drivers and burried in the prices of
fuel, registration, etc. Most people do realize they are paying them,
just ask any bicyclist hating motorist and he'll bring up taxes. That
said it is only the road itself that is 'socialized' (and mostly
within road users) with driving. Drivers have to take care of the
vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs.
The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light.
transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's
fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders.
The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very
rarely use it.
If he had made an argument that both should stand on their own two feet
with -direct- costs to the users, he would be credible. Instead what he
is left with is a demand that transit be funded better with tax dollars.
*as private businesses it is their right to structure their prices as
they see fit and provide parking as they see fit. Until they believe it
is more profitable for them to charge for parking separately, they
won't.
Larry Sheldon
> On 2009-11-03, Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the
>>>> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley
>> That is the purest nonsense.
>>
>> Does money grow on trees? Do you find it under rocks? (No, those
>> people are trying to stop mining.) Do you pump it out of the ground?
>> (Same problem).
>>
>> The consumer pays all of the cost and more. There is no free lunch.
>
> What is meant by a 'free good' is that someone else pays for it.
> Government run health care is going to be paid for by every productive
> person but lots and lots of people are going to see it as free. This
> will create shortages, etc.
So cars and their use are not free goods, but transit systems and their
use are.
OK.
What was the point of the article?
> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*. In a way
> road use still functions like a 'free good' in that costs are
> distributed to a huge number of drivers and burried in the prices of
> fuel, registration, etc. Most people do realize they are paying them,
> just ask any bicyclist hating motorist and he'll bring up taxes. That
> said it is only the road itself that is 'socialized' (and mostly
> within road users) with driving. Drivers have to take care of the
> vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs.
OK, you and I are using the same music. I didn't read accurately, and
it took me a while to realize that. Sorry.
I pay (directly) to a variety of local, state, federal, and foreign
governments for the so-called socialized facilities.
The street in front of my house has demonstrable economic value to me,
and I pay for it through SID taxes.
The subway system in New York, and the street car system they want to
build here have little demonstrable value to me at all.
> The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light.
> transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's
> fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders.
> The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very
> rarely use it.
Bingo.
> If he had made an argument that both should stand on their own two feet
> with -direct- costs to the users, he would be credible. Instead what he
> is left with is a demand that transit be funded better with tax dollars.
>
> *as private businesses it is their right to structure their prices as
> they see fit and provide parking as they see fit. Until they believe it
> is more profitable for them to charge for parking separately, they
> won't.
We have a current event issue with that. I am a member of the Vestry of
a small church that is growing rapidly--something we are not used to,
and some were not prepared for.
We started a project to build more parking spaces. Many people
including some of the folks that other folks listen to don't think we
should be wasting our money, "lots of churches have very little parking
and the people park on the streets".
They miss the fact that those churches are in urban settings, were built
before minimum parking-space regulations came into being (to solve that
very problem!), are not on narrow residential streets (this church is
located on a corner, the south edge is on a "No Parking This Side"
street, the West edge street is so narrow that if people don't park half
on the grass, there isn't enough room for cars to drive past them, and
then only one at a time, unidirectionally). The neighborhood is all
large homes on large lots with curving driveways across the front, so
most of the frontage is driveway and the required setback, and you can't
park in front of the mailboxes, and ....
Getting somebody else to take care of your needs for really does not
work very well.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
> >elmer wrote:
> >> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> >>> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
> >>> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>
> >>> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours
> >>> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a
> >>> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing,
>
> >Since we know at this point that we have a typical
> >bigcityeastcoastcommunist rant, I stopped reading at this point.
>
> yourself to new ideas, I stopped reading your posts at this point.
nice try Scott
you can see the ignoramuses you are dealing with
what they don't realize is they are paying for all these subsidies for
cars and roads, and esp trucks
but they expect transit to be clean, 100% efficient, WITHOUT subsidy
Kenny McCormack
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the
>>> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley
>
>That is the purest nonsense.
I assume that you've woken up and figured out what we adults mean by
"free good", so I won't bother addressing that.
>Does money grow on trees? Do you find it under rocks? (No, those
>people are trying to stop mining.) Do you pump it out of the ground?
>(Same problem).
>
>The consumer pays all of the cost and more. There is no free lunch.
(Not really in response to your post, but rather to the thread-in-general)
The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk
costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs
of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to
my doing so.
That major costs (which are, as I say, not determined much or at all by
how much I drive) are:
1) Purchasing/maintaining the vehicle
2) Taxes (as the original article made clear - a lot of tax dollars
go to subsidizing private vehicle ownership and usage)
Note that I am not arguing any particular position here, w.r.t. the
usual "car good/car bad" flamage of this NG. Just pointing out that the
economics are muddied.
Larry Sheldon
> The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk
> costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs
> of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to
> my doing so.
Well, yeah. That is true.
If somebody else (there is that point again!0 is paying for your fuel,
lubricants. windshield washer fluid, insurance(some of which is mileage
sensitive here), and tires. Did I mention fuel? Or parking? Or tolls?
I have to pay $35 for no other reason that I live too close to Omaha.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
built on what was once private productive land.
And things like fire, rescue, and police when there are accidents or
special circumstances. An accident on a major road can tie up
multiple police cars for hours rerouting traffic, cleaning up, etc.
That's all paid for by the general taxpayer.
Indeed, at a recent town meeting, we were told a proposed expansion
would require the town--at taxpayer's expense--to add four more police
cars.
> Drivers have to take care of the
> vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs.
Actually, the vehicles themselves now get govt subsidies.
> The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light.
> transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's
> fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders.
> The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very
> rarely use it.
Actually the author is pretty much on target. The benefits of transit
are given to a large segment of the population, not just those
themselves who ride it.
The vast, vast amount of transportation taxes goes to support the
motor vehicle, not transit.
Brent
> On Nov 3, 10:17�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
>> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
>> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
> And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
> built on what was once private productive land.
So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really anything
as private land.
> And things like fire, rescue, and police when there are accidents or
> special circumstances. An accident on a major road can tie up
> multiple police cars for hours rerouting traffic, cleaning up, etc.
> That's all paid for by the general taxpayer.
For the cops in that it takes away from their time writing traffic
tickets. People are also very opposed to being charged for fire and
rescue services. I think most people would be better off charged on a
per event basis by a private company that competes with other private
companies.
That said, mention the end of socialized fire departments and
most people will get rather upset. Just look what happened when some
home owners and insurance companies started hiring private fire fighters
to protect property from wild fires. Even worse cops started arresting
people who protected their own property.
> Indeed, at a recent town meeting, we were told a proposed expansion
> would require the town--at taxpayer's expense--to add four more police
> cars.
well, that sounds like justifying putting more revenue gathering
employees on the roads to me.
>> Drivers have to take care of the
>> vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs.
> Actually, the vehicles themselves now get govt subsidies.
I was against cash-for-clunkers too.
>> The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light.
>> transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's
>> fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders.
>> The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very
>> rarely use it.
> Actually the author is pretty much on target. The benefits of transit
> are given to a large segment of the population, not just those
> themselves who ride it.
You know what, the 'benefits to a large segment of the population'
argument is either bullshit or it's not. You can't use it for transit
but not for roads or vice versa.
> The vast, vast amount of transportation taxes goes to support the
> motor vehicle, not transit.
Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just
taxes aimed at transportation.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 2009-11-04, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 10:17 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
> >> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
> >> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
> > And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
> > built on what was once private productive land.
>
> So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really anything
> as private land.
as well there should not be
there is only so much land
and for the most part no more is being created
>
> > And things like fire, rescue, and police when there are accidents or
> > special circumstances. An accident on a major road can tie up
> > multiple police cars for hours rerouting traffic, cleaning up, etc.
> > That's all paid for by the general taxpayer.
>
> For the cops in that it takes away from their time writing traffic
> tickets. People are also very opposed to being charged for fire and
> rescue services. I think most people would be better off charged on a
> per event basis by a private company that competes with other private
> companies.
>
crapola, then you are going to be paying for some private company's
profit
which means you are going to get wal-mart type low wage workers doing
the fire and rescue
so this private company can low ball the contract
wait until you wreck on the freeway and no govt rescue
only a private contractor with minimum wage grunts
crapola
there is much more general taxation spent on roads then transit
most local spending comes from general taxation rather then the gas
tax, esp in NJ
Robert Heller
>
> On 2009-11-04, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:17�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
> >> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
> >> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
>
> > And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
> > built on what was once private productive land.
>
> So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really anything
> as private land.
The key word is 'productive'...
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
Brent
> At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2009-11-04, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 10:17�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
>> >> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
>> >> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
>>
>> > And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
>> > built on what was once private productive land.
>>
>> So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really anything
>> as private land.
>
> The key word is 'productive'...
Which is hardly unique to road use. Government can take land for
practically any purpose it decides now, including giving it to other
people. An expansion of transit would take a lot of land as well. It is
rather rare that a rail right-of-way is just the width of the tracks
too.
Also, if north americans would learn how to drive properly fewer
lanes would be needed.
Dave C.
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-04, Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> > At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Brent
> > <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 2009-11-04, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 10:17 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of
> >> >> what goes to non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in
> >> >> front of their houses and businesses who choose not charge
> >> >> separately for parking*.
> >>
> >> > And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road
> >> > is built on what was once private productive land.
> >>
> >> So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really
> >> anything as private land.
> >
> > The key word is 'productive'...
>
> Which is hardly unique to road use. Government can take land for
> practically any purpose it decides now, including giving it to other
> people.
That's only because the Supreme Court of the United States has
misinterpreted the Constitution in a 5-4 ruling where only 7 of the
voting members were present to hear arguments in the case.
The ruling was based on precedents where other courts had also ruled
incorrectly on the Constitutionality of eminent domain to take private
land and give it to other private landowners for private purposes.
-Dave
Brent
That's the nature of the system. The original error was allowing the
council of 9 the power they have today. The system of constitutional
interpetation started to be rigged a long time ago.
The loss of productive private property to roads is really very minor in
the productive loss of land and wealth of land owners. Property tax
itself is a great loss of productive resources. Then there is all the
land held by the federal, state, and local governments. Whatever loss
there may be for land being used roads, rail, etc is very minor as
transportation itself is a productive use. It may be a less productive
use than the free market would have put it to, but it is at least still
productive.
Brent
>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just
>>taxes aimed at transportation.
> And you think roads are not?
I've been over this already. You could try to pay attention.
Stephen Sprunk
BTW, your computer's clock appears to be way, way off; the date on your
article was 4 Nov 2009 10:42:07 +0800 (i.e. 4 Nov 2009 02:42:07 UTC),
but the server headers show it posted around 4 Nov 2009 14:35:43 UTC.
Are you sure you aren't actually in -0400?
SCOTUS cannot be legally incorrect (within the US) because they alone
decide what is "correct" WRT the US Constitution.
However, many states have reacted to their decision by severely limiting
how local governments can use their eminent domain powers. If yours
isn't one of them, contact your state legislators.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Matthew Russotto
>Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>
>THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY
>To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and
>Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to
>between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent
>of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon.
It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.
>If this tax were to
>account for "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency
>medical treatment, it would be as high as $9.00 per gallon.
And even easier if you make up numbers which don't have enough
substance to be falsified.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
Larry Sheldon
> It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.
87% of all statistics quoted here were made up on-the-fly.
Matthew Russotto
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite <larrysheldonis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
These "subsidies" are mostly the product of the fevered anti-car
mind. Tolls and dedicated taxes pay for nearly all the cost of the
roads (the exceptions being mostly very local roads). Car owners pay
the cost of purchase and maintainence of the cars themselves. Parking
is paid for either by the driver, or by a (typically private)
individual or organization who sees a benefit in not charging drivers
to park on his property.
>but they expect transit to be clean, 100% efficient, WITHOUT subsidy
The _goal_ (rarely met) for transit is that the farebox pay for 50% of
its operating cost. That's 50% of the operating cost, and 0% of the
capital cost. Given that, for transit fans to complain that
automobiles are heavily subsidized is ludicrous.
As for trucks, assuming you mean cargo vehicles and not light trucks,
they claim they're subsidizing "four wheelers". Others claim
otherwise. In practice, it's not all that important; if they really
are paying less than their share of costs, and that is changed, the
cost will simply be passed on to those purchasing those goods... who
are mostly drivers.
Trying to focus on the various costs which can be claimed (fairly or
unfairly) as "subsidies" to drivers misses the big picture. Which is
that there are so many drivers that any such subsidies _must_ come
mostly _from_ drivers as well. So if you were to wave a magic wand
and all these "subsidies" would disappear, with the money going back
into the pocket of those providing them, and the costs charged
directly to drivers, _driving would not become unaffordable_.
Matthew Russotto
Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk
>costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs
>of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to
>my doing so.
This is true, but not at all a subsidy. Mostly what it does is make
transit use (even at heavily subsidized rates) uneconomical for a car
owner.
>That major costs (which are, as I say, not determined much or at all by
>how much I drive) are:
> 1) Purchasing/maintaining the vehicle
> 2) Taxes (as the original article made clear - a lot of tax dollars
> go to subsidizing private vehicle ownership and usage)
Said tax dollars being mostly taken from drivers in the first place.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> That's the nature of the system. The original error was allowing the
> council of 9 the power they have today. The system of constitutional
> interpetation started to be rigged a long time ago.
You know, if government was as evil as you constantly complain, they
would've found an excuse (as you so often say) to lock you up forever.
But you're out on the street, free to do as you please, and probably
making a good living.
That suggests your arguments are nonsense.
When they come to take you away let us know.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> One of the biggets problems with sprawl is that the taxpayers who live
> in the older areas of the city end up paying for all the new
> infrastructure that are needed by new developments. In CA we have a
> law called "Mello-Roos" which basically avoids this whole problem.
> Mello-Roos requires developers to sell bonds to fund new
> infrastructure; the eventual buyers of the new homes pay off the bonds
> through a special assessment on their property taxes over the next 20
> years.
That's nice for Calif, but a problem exactly as you describe
elsewhere.
A lot of people have selfish greedy interests in creating more
sprawl. They run businesses that support it or they like living far
away. The problem is that the rest of supports their lifestyle
through higher taxes and utility fees.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> These "subsidies" are mostly the product of the fevered anti-car
> mind. Tolls and dedicated taxes pay for nearly all the cost of the
> roads (the exceptions being mostly very local roads).
No, they do not.
Brent
Lacking any real arguments to make I see. Your attacks on me don't
change the manipulations and increases in power of the supreme court
which are facts of history.
I do find the 'if you were right things would be much worse' argument
amusing. The frog does boil slowly.
Like all productive people I'd be much better off if government was kept
in it's cage. Instead the giant parasite grows ever more burdensome.
> When they come to take you away let us know.
That would be a violation of the law. (yeah, I know, you didn't read
those bills and don't think they exist)
James Robinson
>
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> When they come to take you away let us know.
>
> That would be a violation of the law. (yeah, I know, you didn't read
> those bills and don't think they exist)
They'll just use Extraordinary Rendition, or whatever they call it next.
Brent
sorry, I wasn't clear... telling that they've taken me away or that they
visited is the violation.
Clark F Morris
I thought they only could do that to non-citizens and those citizens
who voluntarily entered a foreign country that would do renditions for
the United States.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Lacking any real arguments to make I see. Your attacks on me don't
> change the manipulations and increases in power of the supreme court
> which are facts of history.
I did not attack you.
I attacked your anti-government rants. I stand by my position that if
your rants were true, they'd have come and taken you away long ago,
using the many powers and techniques you claim they have.
> > When they come to take you away let us know.
>
> That would be a violation of the law. (yeah, I know, you didn't read
> those bills and don't think they exist)
According to you the government ignores the laws (like the
Constitution) and does what it damn pleases.
Brent
>
>> Lacking any real arguments to make I see. Your attacks on me don't
>> change the manipulations and increases in power of the supreme court
>> which are facts of history.
>
> I did not attack you.
An out of the blue out-of-subject-out-of-drift attack wasn't personal,
sure.... whatever.
> I attacked your anti-government rants.
Even if I were to accept that characterization, you did so in reply to
an extremely brief summary of supreme court history. Very odd.
> I stand by my position that if
> your rants were true, they'd have come and taken you away long ago,
> using the many powers and techniques you claim they have.
Your argument is like saying if your car's engine hasn't siezed a badly
performing oil pump that's getting worse is not a problem.
>> > When they come to take you away let us know.
>> That would be a violation of the law. (yeah, I know, you didn't read
>> those bills and don't think they exist)
> According to you the government ignores the laws (like the
> Constitution) and does what it damn pleases.
I guess you just need personal experience. Sooner or later you'll get
some. I won't expect an apology. Although I suspect you'll find a way to
rationalize it until the very end.
Stephen Sprunk
"Can" and "do" are often quite different, especially when you're dealing
with secret military teams under the control of the CIA, none of whose
activities are ever reported to the public. If they were violating the
law, how would we know?
The only worse program we have is FISA (which allows the gov't to get
secret warrants, from a secret rubber-stamp court whose judges aren't
even publicly named, to spy on anyone within the US, including citizens).
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 4, 1:11 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lacking any real arguments to make I see. Your attacks on me don't
>> change the manipulations and increases in power of the supreme court
>> which are facts of history.
>
> I did not attack you.
>
> I attacked your anti-government rants. I stand by my position that if
> your rants were true, they'd have come and taken you away long ago,
> using the many powers and techniques you claim they have.
OTOH, if they did come and get him, that would lend credence to his
arguments. By leaving him alone, they let him make a fool of himself.
It's not like loony on USENET poses any actual threat to the shadowy
figures behind the curtain, if in fact they do exist
Kenny McCormack
Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>In article <hcppor$5jn$2...@news.xmission.com>,
>Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk
>>costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs
>>of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to
>>my doing so.
>
>This is true, but not at all a subsidy.
I don't think I clamed that it was.
>Mostly what it does is make
>transit use (even at heavily subsidized rates) uneconomical for a car
>owner.
Agreed. But I like transit and use it when it makes sense - which is to
say, when you live in one of the two cities in the US (to the best of my
knowledge) where the system density is high enough to make it work.
Clarification of "to make it work": I mean, outside of normal to-and-fro
the office commuting. I have, in fact, very rarely used transit for
commuting. I've used it a lot for recreation.
>>That major costs (which are, as I say, not determined much or at all by
>>how much I drive) are:
>> 1) Purchasing/maintaining the vehicle
>> 2) Taxes (as the original article made clear - a lot of tax dollars
>> go to subsidizing private vehicle ownership and usage)
>
>Said tax dollars being mostly taken from drivers in the first place.
Right. And that's the whole point - that it is a fixed cost.
You cannot control it by driving less.
Gary V
> On Nov 3, 10:17 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to
> > non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses
> > and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*.
>
> And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is
> built on what was once private productive land.
But the land surrounding the new road will now become more developed,
leading to a higher tax base.
rsh...@gmail.com
>
>
> But the land surrounding the new road will now become more developed,
> leading to a higher tax base.
crapola
if that were true every county beside an exit on the interstates would
be flush with cash
Mark Mathu
<scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our
>backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully
>conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be
>this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to
>be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic
>decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ
>them. The transportation system would be free to evolve naturally into
>an optimally balanced, optimally efficient one. No more
>all-you-can-eat buffet; no more tragedy of the commons.
We would send land transportation back to where it was in the dark
ages.
Larry Sheldon
> We would send land transportation back to where it was in the dark
> ages.
Why be half way? Let them send all of civilization back to the stone age?
We'll be there in another year or two, looks like.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Brent
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just
>>>>taxes aimed at transportation.
>>
>>> And you think roads are not?
>>
>>I've been over this already.
>
> So have I. See the first post this this thread, which clearly shows
> that the same is true for roads.
It doesn't show much of anything really. The 'non-transportation' taxes
I pay that go to transit, go almost entirely to transit that is rather
distant from me, that I have no use for. The 'non-transportation' taxes
that I pay that go to roads, go to the roads that are very close to my
property. The taxes I pay that are supposed to go to roads go to
practically anything else the state decides to apply them to.
Stephen Sprunk
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>> On Nov 4, 10:18 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> One of the biggets problems with sprawl is that the taxpayers who live
>>> in the older areas of the city end up paying for all the new
>>> infrastructure that are needed by new developments. In CA we have a
>>> law called "Mello-Roos" which basically avoids this whole problem.
>>> Mello-Roos requires developers to sell bonds to fund new
>>> infrastructure; the eventual buyers of the new homes pay off the bonds
>>> through a special assessment on their property taxes over the next 20
>>> years.
>>
>> That's nice for Calif, but a problem exactly as you describe
>> elsewhere.
>
> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do
> it, you can, too.
Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are
responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the
Internet.
Where I live, one of the conditions for getting a zoning change is that
the developers must agree to put in the roads, utilities, schools, etc.
necessary to serve their development. The cost is then built directly
into the price of the houses, not borne by existing residents. It'd be
nice if that were actually state law, but it works just fine as a city
ordinance in the places that have adopted it. Those who haven't will
suffer the logical result of their (in)action.
(It's also rather easy to get such laws passed, since (a) the people who
pay the costs, the new residents, don't actually live there yet and
therefore can't vote against the politicians until it's too late, (b)
the existing residents, who _do_ vote, will love it, and (c) it raises
property values, which means more tax revenue for the politicians to spend.)
Brent
>> Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your
>> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do
>> it, you can, too.
>
> Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are
> responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the
> Internet.
I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written
their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty
pointless. Especially when said representives vote entirely different
than nearly everyone who wrote and called them to express their views.
Orval Fairbairn
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
> <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> >On 2009-11-05, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
> >><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> said:
> >>
> >>>On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just
> >>>>>taxes aimed at transportation.
> >>>
> >>>> And you think roads are not?
> >>>
> >>>I've been over this already.
> >>
> >> So have I. See the first post this this thread, which clearly shows
> >> that the same is true for roads.
> >
> >It doesn't show much of anything really. The 'non-transportation' taxes
> >I pay that go to transit, go almost entirely to transit that is rather
> >distant from me
>
> "Proximity to Brent" is irrelevant. The fact remains, roads are
> supported by all forms of taxation, just like transit is. In some
> cases (Orange County Measure M) the same tax supports both.
>
> QED.
... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them;
they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads; they have
direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend on somebody
else's schedule.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Brent
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>On 2009-11-05, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent
>>><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> said:
>>>
>>>>On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just
>>>>>>taxes aimed at transportation.
>>>>
>>>>> And you think roads are not?
>>>>
>>>>I've been over this already.
>>>
>>> So have I. See the first post this this thread, which clearly shows
>>> that the same is true for roads.
>>
>>It doesn't show much of anything really. The 'non-transportation' taxes
>>I pay that go to transit, go almost entirely to transit that is rather
>
> "Proximity to Brent" is irrelevant. The fact remains, roads are
> supported by all forms of taxation, just like transit is. In some
> cases (Orange County Measure M) the same tax supports both.
I don't know about the state you live in, but all forms do not go to
roads here in IL where the road funds are raided for other purposes year
after year. Chicago gets it's yearly state support for the CTA though.
People down in carbondale pay for transit in chicago even if they've
never been on a bus or a train in their lives.
Matthew Russotto
>Russotto) said:
>
>>Trying to focus on the various costs which can be claimed (fairly or
>>unfairly) as "subsidies" to drivers misses the big picture. Which is
>>that there are so many drivers that any such subsidies _must_ come
>>mostly _from_ drivers as well. So if you were to wave a magic wand
>>and all these "subsidies" would disappear, with the money going back
>>into the pocket of those providing them, and the costs charged
>>directly to drivers, _driving would not become unaffordable_.
>
>You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our
>backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully
>conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be
>this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to
>be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic
>decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ
>them.
If we got rid of all transportation subsidies -- let's say including
those derived from user fees -- and just bolt a magic meter in each
car, transit would disappear almost entirely. So I'm not sure what
"correct economic decisions" people could make, besides driving. Oh,
if they're walking or riding bicycles, that gets metered too, though
at a much lower rate.
But in fact the lion's share of roads are already paid for by direct
user fees, and the other things you claim are subsidies, like parking for
customers and employees, are not subsidies.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
Matthew Russotto
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>Russotto) said:
>
>>>Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>>>
>>[...]
>>>THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY
>>>To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and
>>>Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to
>>>between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent
>>>of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon.
>>
>>It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.
>
>Are you claiming that their numbers are made up? If so, you'll
>cheerfully supply the correct numbers as well as your source for them,
>right?
I'm not going to go through such lengths to argue with a hit-and-run
poster quoting from whatever his latest holy book is. At least not
until he posts his own sources and calculations so _I_ can verify
them.
Matthew Russotto
Naa. Whatever you do, they'll claim you should be doing something
else.
James Robinson
>
> If we got rid of all transportation subsidies -- let's say including
> those derived from user fees -- and just bolt a magic meter in each
> car, transit would disappear almost entirely. So I'm not sure what
> "correct economic decisions" people could make, besides driving. Oh,
> if they're walking or riding bicycles, that gets metered too, though
> at a much lower rate.
>
> But in fact the lion's share of roads are already paid for by direct
> user fees, and the other things you claim are subsidies, like parking for
> customers and employees, are not subsidies.
I wonder how much the magic meter would charge for driving through the Big
Dig in Boston, if the fee is intended to recover the full cost of the
facility? Perhaps you see that partially being charged to someone driving
a few blocks in North Adams who never uses the Big Dig in his life?
Larry Sheldon
> Naa. Whatever you do, they'll claim you should be doing something
> else.
Like the sign I saw pictures of--something like "It doesn't matter what
I write on this sign, you will report that it is racist">
Matthew Russotto
Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I don't know about the state you live in, but all forms do not go to
>roads here in IL where the road funds are raided for other purposes year
>after year. Chicago gets it's yearly state support for the CTA though.
>People down in carbondale pay for transit in chicago even if they've
>never been on a bus or a train in their lives.
Here in Pennsylvania, the Governor attempted to get tolls on
Interstate 80 (runs E-W across the middle of the state) to provide
money for SEPTA (SouthEast Pennsylvania Public Transit Authority or
similar -- serves the Philadelphia suburbs, not including any part of
I-80). Fortunately the feds wouldn't go for it, but the audacity of
it was really something.
Matthew Russotto
If the magic meters existed and were the only way to pay for things,
that particular boondoggle would have never been built.
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> > Naa. Whatever you do, they'll claim you should be doing something
> > else.
>
> Like the sign I saw pictures of--something like "It doesn't matter what
> I write on this sign, you will report that it is racist">
>
mtr, niggers can do no wrong
Clark F Morris
Try walking, bicycling or using a horse and buggy on a freeway
(actually there are some where you can but not many). Try driving a
car if you're blind. Transit isn't everything but for many it is
useful.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:
>
>> ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them;
>> they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads; they have
>> direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend on somebody
>> else's schedule.
>
> Try walking, bicycling or using a horse and buggy on a freeway
> (actually there are some where you can but not many).
99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
> Try driving a car if you're blind.
You don't have to drive a car to travel in it.
> Transit isn't everything but for many it is useful.
Roads carry transit buses, car pools and van pools.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Larry Sheldon
>> Transit isn't everything but for many it is useful.
>
> Roads carry transit buses, car pools and van pools.
Finally! I've been wondering when you were going to get of the beer
trucks, bread trucks, gasoline trucks, meat trucks, vegetable trucks,
hay trucks, cattle trucks, grain trucks, moving trucks, ..... trucks.
Good work.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>>> Transit isn't everything but for many it is useful.
>>
>> Roads carry transit buses, car pools and van pools.
>
> Finally! I've been wondering when you were going to get of the beer
> trucks, bread trucks, gasoline trucks, meat trucks, vegetable trucks,
> hay trucks, cattle trucks, grain trucks, moving trucks, ..... trucks.
>
> Good work.
Well, yes, roads carry far more than just people ... they carry freight,
and in nearly all cases their rights-of-way carry public utilities.
Bernd Felsche
>Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:
>>> ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can
>>> use them; they are compatible with the equipment that uses other
>>> roads; they have direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use
>>> doesn't depend on somebody else's schedule.
>> Try walking, bicycling or using a horse and buggy on a freeway
>> (actually there are some where you can but not many).
>99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
Source of stats? And how are the 99% measured?
Are you indicating that there's a severe shortage of freeways?
Because more than 80% of my travel distance is usually on restricted
access roads. During vacations; I'd hazard a guess and make that
90%.
>> Try driving a car if you're blind.
>You don't have to drive a car to travel in it.
>> Transit isn't everything but for many it is useful.
>Roads carry transit buses, car pools and van pools.
And swimming pools!
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
Orval Fairbairn
Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
It would be far cheaper for the government to pay for taxi service for
those individuals than to build huge mass-transit systems.
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> It would be far cheaper for the government to pay for taxi service for
> those individuals than to build huge mass-transit systems.
>
> -
oh, really
5.5 million a DAY use NYC transit
Look at the problems with the Phila transit strike
do you really think taxis can handle millions of rides?
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them;
> they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads; they have
> direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend on somebody
> else's schedule.
>
> --
and they require a very heavy subsidy
those overloaded trucks do tremendous damage
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
>
> Source of stats? And how are the 99% measured?
Centerline miles. In the U.S. there are over 4 million miles of public
roads, and about 44 thousand miles of Interstate highways.
Jim Yanik
news:hcvvok$tf1$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use
>>> them; they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads;
>>> they have direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend
>>> on somebody else's schedule.
>>
>> Try walking, bicycling or using a horse and buggy on a freeway
>> (actually there are some where you can but not many).
>
> 99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
>
>> Try driving a car if you're blind.
>
> You don't have to drive a car to travel in it.
>
>> Transit isn't everything but for many it is useful.
>
> Roads carry transit buses, car pools and van pools.
>
and the food you eat,your medicines.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>>
>>>> Transit isn't everything but for many it is useful.
>>>
>>> Roads carry transit buses, car pools and van pools.
>>
>> Finally! I've been wondering when you were going to get of the beer
>> trucks, bread trucks, gasoline trucks, meat trucks, vegetable trucks,
>> hay trucks, cattle trucks, grain trucks, moving trucks, ..... trucks.
>>
>> Good work.
>
> Well, yes, roads carry far more than just people ... they carry freight,
> and in nearly all cases their rights-of-way carry public utilities.
My guess is the first roads were built to haul freight over, with the
news groups consumed with debates of whether the freight or the
armies.... hey! you know what! There are roads all over the place
named Military Road (we have two--"Old Military Road" being one).
Defense Highway, and such. Don't remember any "Taxi Avenues, or "Bus
Drives".....
Orval Fairbairn
<17f24beb-6e32-4bc9...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
That may hold for New York or Chicago, but, for the REST of the country,
it would be FAR cheaper!
Stephen Sprunk
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Orval Fairbairn
> <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> said:
>> ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them;
>
> cognitive functions to properly operate one, you mean.
... and isn't too young or too old, and hasn't had their license
suspended or revoked, and who hasn't been convicted of certain offenses,
and who can afford insurance, and is in the country legally, etc.
There are a _lot_ of people who can't drive for one reason or another.
> There will always be people who do not drive, either because they
> can't or because they choose not to. There will be those who choose
> public transit rather than incur the costs of purchasing, insuring,
> and maintaining a (second) car.
OTOH, why should the rest of us subsidize those who either can't or
won't drive rather than forcing them to pay the full cost of their
transit use?
(I support ending subsidies to _both_ modes so that consumers will make
a more rational economic choice.)
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article
> <17f24beb-6e32-4bc9-bd2d-f207cd601...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It would be far cheaper for the government to pay for taxi service for
> > > those individuals than to build huge mass-transit systems.
>
> > > -
>
> > oh, really
>
> > 5.5 million a DAY use NYC transit
>
> > Look at the problems with the Phila transit strike
>
> > do you really think taxis can handle millions of rides?
>
> That may hold for New York or Chicago, but, for the REST of the country,
> it would be FAR cheaper!
>
> --
lets see now,
It would be far cheaper for the government to pay for taxi service
for
> > > those individuals than to build huge mass-transit systems.
>
that is what you said
and now we have excluded NY, Chicago, and I guess Philly
http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/library/pdfs/rtr/2008-10_Ridership_Technical_Report.pdf
now this is Miami, a little over 300,000 use transit per weekday
that would be a hell of a lot of taxi trips not to mention adding
severely to congestion
but you don't know the first thing about Miami
all you do is talk thru your arse
and btw you can take the reason foundation crapola and shove it
Stephen Sprunk
> Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
>>
>> Source of stats? And how are the 99% measured?
>
> Centerline miles. In the U.S. there are over 4 million miles of public
> roads, and about 44 thousand miles of Interstate highways.
It'd be better to count lane-miles, and you haven't counted US and state
highways, which are far more numerous.
Stephen Sprunk
> On 2009-11-05, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your
>>> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do
>>> it, you can, too.
>>
>> Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are
>> responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the
>> Internet.
>
> I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written
> their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty
> pointless.
I've found little point in writing or calling _my_ representatives,
because they usually agree with me. In the few areas where I disagree
with their actions, the most common response is "You're right, but I'd
get killed in the next election if I did that."
OTOH, there's not much point in writing or calling the others because
they know I can't vote for them.
Still, letting the politicians know your views is important because (a)
it shows you actually care about a particular issue, unlike a poll, and
(b) you can give more detailed position information (or even an entire
proposal) than the simple "for", "against", or "don't know" that most
polls limit you to.
> Especially when said representives vote entirely different than nearly
> everyone who wrote and called them to express their views.
So toss 'em out at the next election. Contribute to or even campaign
for their opponent--provided their opponent has a different position,
which they often don't.
Another trick is voting in the _opposite_ party's primary rather than
your own, so you can try to tilt the opponent selection to someone that
is less offensive to you. Most people ignore the primaries, so your
vote has significantly more power there as well.
rsh...@gmail.com
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> >>> 99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
>
> >> Source of stats? And how are the 99% measured?
>
> > Centerline miles. In the U.S. there are over 4 million miles of public
> > roads, and about 44 thousand miles of Interstate highways.
>
> It'd be better to count lane-miles, and you haven't counted US and state
> highways, which are far more numerous.
>
kozel like the rest of the reason foundation twist stats to fit their
needs
what carries the most traffic
which is the most expensive to build and maintain
how much does it cost per lane mile to build
video guy - www.locoworks.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would be "Bus Boulevard" and "Taxi Thruway".
Brent
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-11-05, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your
>>>> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do
>>>> it, you can, too.
>>>
>>> Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are
>>> responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the
>>> Internet.
>>
>> I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written
>> their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty
>> pointless.
> I've found little point in writing or calling _my_ representatives,
> because they usually agree with me. In the few areas where I disagree
> with their actions, the most common response is "You're right, but I'd
> get killed in the next election if I did that."
Sure it wasn't just 'killed'? :) I don't know who your representives
are but to be in that much agreement with any of them outside a few
exceptions sounds rather disturbing. One of the VERY rare occasions I
got an actual response from a representive it was not one I could vote
for but I wrote him because of his enlightened keep-right-except to pass
legislation. I gave a quick primer on the 85th percentile method for
speed limits. The reply was him saying it was 'interesting'. That's it.
> OTOH, there's not much point in writing or calling the others because
> they know I can't vote for them.
> Still, letting the politicians know your views is important because (a)
> it shows you actually care about a particular issue, unlike a poll, and
> (b) you can give more detailed position information (or even an entire
> proposal) than the simple "for", "against", or "don't know" that most
> polls limit you to.
And then you get a stock form letter reply that shows they didn't even
take the time to read it.
>> Especially when said representives vote entirely different than nearly
>> everyone who wrote and called them to express their views.
> So toss 'em out at the next election. Contribute to or even campaign
> for their opponent--provided their opponent has a different position,
> which they often don't.
That worked well for the POTUS. People voted for change and got George
Bush's 3rd term. someone once said 'if voting changed anything it would
be illegal'. Speaking of the POTUS, he's one of the representives I used
to write.
> Another trick is voting in the _opposite_ party's primary rather than
> your own, so you can try to tilt the opponent selection to someone that
> is less offensive to you. Most people ignore the primaries, so your
> vote has significantly more power there as well.
1) The lesser evil is still evil.
2) The two party system does not offer opposites. It offers two slightly
different forms of statism.
3) Here in c(r)ook county there is only one primary to vote in, the
democrat primary, it is the election. The ballot for the republican
party primary is usually nearly blank. To support the one worthwild
(IMO) canidate for POTUS last year I had to give up voting in a number
of local elections decided by the democrat primary.
4) The election process is anything but fair. I predict Todd Stroger
will be re-elected c(r)ook county board president but few if anyone,
probably nobody, will admit having voted for him.
The system just doesn't work, isn't fair, and the choices well
controlled. That's why everything stays the course.
Just checked my email, I got a nice ignorant of the facts reply from a
representive again. Nice Iran scare-mongering coupled with calls for
economic sanctions and an attitude of using 'stength' that will probably
eventually lead to war. Fun. More killing, more death, more empire. For
what? Lies and paranoia. He actually expects me to believe that Iran's
newish enrichment facility was secret when the IAEA was notified as
required by treaty. Democrat or republican, it's the same nonsense.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
>>> Source of stats? And how are the 99% measured?
>> Centerline miles. In the U.S. there are over 4 million miles of public
>> roads, and about 44 thousand miles of Interstate highways.
>
> It'd be better to count lane-miles, and you haven't counted US and state
> highways, which are far more numerous.
That is irrelevant to the original point that I responded to, the
complaint that you can't ride a bike or walk on a freeway. About 99% of
the public road mileage is non-freeway.
Randy "Hershey Highway" Hersh
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff30819d-058a-4c7d...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>kozel like the rest of the reason foundation twist stats to fit their
>needs
And you just make crap up to fit your needs, and you won't admit it when you
get caught because you have no rocks. I've already shown that.
I guess we can add hypocrisy to your list there Hershey Highway.
--
Don't forget to have your troll spayed or neutered
Matthew Russotto
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>Russotto) said:
>
>>>>It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that their numbers are made up? If so, you'll
>>>cheerfully supply the correct numbers as well as your source for them,
>>>right?
>>
>>I'm not going to go through such lengths to argue with a hit-and-run
>>poster quoting from whatever his latest holy book is.
>
>Translation: you cannot refuse my points with substantive points of
>your own, so you resort to Ad Homonem attacks.
You don't have any points. You're not the person who posted the
numbers. And if the standard is that anti-car folk get to post a
bunch of numbers without any real backing, and they stand until
non-anti-car folk provide figures which are verifiable, the game is
riged.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
Larry Sheldon
> You don't have any points. You're not the person who posted the
> numbers. And if the standard is that anti-car folk get to post a
> bunch of numbers without any real backing, and they stand until
> non-anti-car folk provide figures which are verifiable, the game is
> rigged.
Watching enlightenment occur is a wonderful thing.
Miles Bader
>>... and isn't too young or too old, and hasn't had their license
>>suspended or revoked, and who hasn't been convicted of certain offenses,
>>and who can afford insurance, and is in the country legally, etc.
>>
>>There are a _lot_ of people who can't drive for one reason or another.
>
> the current public transit system isn't as usable as it should be. How
> many Russel Weller types could we remove from the roads if they had
> adequate alternatives to driving available to them?
... not to mention, er, "temporarily incapacitated" (i.e., drunk) people ....
-Miles
--
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. -- Steven Wright
John David Galt
> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours
> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives.
We do seek alternatives. The next time you want to complain about
people trying to use your neighborhood street as a shortcut, realize
that they're engaged in exactly that search.
> Is it a
> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, or are people just
> stupid? The answer is that people are actually quite smart, and their
> decision to submit themselves to the misery of suburban commuting is a
> sophisticated response to a set of circumstances that are as troubling
> as their result.
No one "decides to submit" to suburban commuting. Job availability and
the scam known as urban planning dictate where we live and work. Blame
the assholes who support your county's general plan every 5 years.
> Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because
it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth
using at ten times the price. Whether we're rich enough to do so is
another question, but make no mistake: if those who would ban, restrict,
or more heavily tax automobile use succeed, we will all be much poorer
for their efforts. And that's no accident. They are at war with your
right to enjoy life.
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite
wrote:
straight out of the mouthpiece of the4 reason foundation
notwithstanding that oil prices and supplies are not going to be
stable forever
Clark F Morris
And for anyone who believes that the current suburban landscape and
industrial development in the boondocks isn't due to planning on
various levels, I have the right to collect tolls on the Brooklyn
Bridge for sale. In many suburbs, planning restrictions in commercial
(retain, industrial, office) require setbacks and lot sizes that make
the area transit hostile. Lot density restrictions (needed for areas
with septic systems rather than sewers) drive up the cost of housing
and roads to service them. Allowing industrial commercial development
and banning low/moderate income housing adds to the cost and time of
commuting to low wage jobs. What most people are saying when they
complain about smart growth planners is not that planners are bad but
that a particular type of planner is bad. Bluntly before I got
married and moved to a farm in rural Nova Scotia, the type of planning
that encouraged businesses to move to a suburban location NOT served
by transit and difficult to serve by transit even if desired was at
war with MY RIGHT TO ENJOY LIFE. Not everyone wants a house with at
least an acre of land.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:59:04 -0800, John David Galt
> <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>> Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because
>> it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth
>> using at ten times the price. Whether we're rich enough to do so is
>> another question, but make no mistake: if those who would ban, restrict,
>> or more heavily tax automobile use succeed, we will all be much poorer
>> for their efforts. And that's no accident. They are at war with your
>> right to enjoy life.
>
> And for anyone who believes that the current suburban landscape and
> industrial development in the boondocks isn't due to planning on
> various levels, I have the right to collect tolls on the Brooklyn
> Bridge for sale. In many suburbs, planning restrictions in commercial
> (retain, industrial, office) require setbacks and lot sizes that make
> the area transit hostile. Lot density restrictions (needed for areas
> with septic systems rather than sewers) drive up the cost of housing
> and roads to service them. Allowing industrial commercial development
> and banning low/moderate income housing adds to the cost and time of
> commuting to low wage jobs.
Setbacks, lot sizes, and mandatory parking (it's not up to the property
owner in many places) are big problems, yes, but IMHO the single biggest
factor is zoning.
You can't have dense, walkable neighborhoods without mixed-use property,
and that is against the law in most major US cities.
Without dense, walkable neighborhoods, the best you're going to see is
P&R rail stations for suburban commuters to get to older, walkable
business centers and underutilized buses for people too poor to buy a car.
> What most people are saying when they complain about smart growth
> planners is not that planners are bad but that a particular type of
> planner is bad.
What I've seen so far of "Smart Growth" is ridiculous, but it may be the
best that can be done without overhauling the zoning and other relevant
laws.
> Not everyone wants a house with at least an acre of land.
Exactly. However, in most US cities your only choices are a
single-family detached house or renting an apartment. Townhouses, if
any exist, may only be available for rental, not purchase--and they also
tend to be significantly smaller than a detached house.
There are a couple square miles here where townhouses and condos are
legal, but the artificially limited supply (by the city planners'
design) and massive unmet demand has pushed the prices to 3-4 times what
one would pay for a detached house in the 'burbs with 2-4 times the
square footage. It just doesn't make sense for most people.
Matthew Russotto
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>Russotto) said:
>
>>In article <2h57f5pn5v3ecrn8b...@4ax.com>,
>>Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Last time on rec.autos.driving, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
>>>Russotto) said:
>>>
>>>>>>It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you claiming that their numbers are made up? If so, you'll
>>>>>cheerfully supply the correct numbers as well as your source for them,
>>>>>right?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not going to go through such lengths to argue with a hit-and-run
>>>>poster quoting from whatever his latest holy book is.
>>>
>>>Translation: you cannot refuse my points with substantive points of
>>>your own, so you resort to Ad Homonem attacks.
>>
>>You don't have any points. You're not the person who posted the
>>numbers.
>
>posted.
You didn't post any points.
John David Galt
> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
Why do you keep quoting those progress-hating liars?
John David Galt
>> it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth
>> using at ten times the price. Whether we're rich enough to do so is
>> another question, but make no mistake: if those who would ban, restrict,
>> or more heavily tax automobile use succeed, we will all be much poorer
>> for their efforts. And that's no accident. They are at war with your
>> right to enjoy life.
> straight out of the mouthpiece of the reason foundation
Funny, I've always thought of them as MY mouthpiece, which is why I've
been a subscriber since 1977.
> notwithstanding that oil prices and supplies are not going to be
> stable forever
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/where_to_put_al.html
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because
>
> it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth
> using at ten times the price.
Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full
price if providing it. Now automotive users are subsidized by general
tax dollars, like property taxes. A Washington Post editorial, posted
here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs.
Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%.
>They are at war with your
> right to enjoy life.
Sitting in a traffic jam is not anyone's idea of enjoying life.
Inventing strawmen "those who would ban automobiles" to blame for
inadequate roads is ridiculous. Very, very few people want to ban
automobiles and they're lumped in with the "earth is flat" or the
"Martians have taken over" crowd; that is, not taken seriously at all.
Roads are extremely costly to build. Land is finite and building a
road today--as opposed to the 1950s--means bulldozing homes, stores,
factories, and offices, which ain't cheap to do. Naturally the
business people who will be shut down and the homeowners who will be
kicked out (or worse, left against a busy highway outside their
bedroom window) object to such projects and with good reason. Their
quality life is worth something to them, you know.
Raising tolls or taxes to pay for needed roads is political suicide.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them;
> they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads; they have
> direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend on somebody
> else's schedule.
You don't listen to traffic reports, do you?
Most motor trips, short and long, require checking the clock first.
No point going out during rush hours since roads are jammed. No point
going out during peak weekend shopping or leisure travel since roads
are jammed.
Our network of old roads also requires heavy maintenance which means
detours and closures. This must be checked for in advance to avoid
jamups, too. Even in rural places or at 3 a.m. the jamups are
terrible from maintenance work.
Then there's accidents which shut down roads until it's all cleaned
up.