Taxing Drivers By The Mile

Matthew, what was the construction cost of the parking space in the
private lot leased by your employer?

In article >,
Ed Stasiak > wrote:
>
>Here in metro Detroit, all one needs to do to see the "efficiency"
>of the SMART system is look at the bazillion ton buses, spewing
>diesel fumes and getting in everybody's way, as they carry 3 or 4
>people to their job flipping burgers at McDonalds.

The MOST-USED transit line in the SEPTA (Philadelphia-area) system
recovers 56% of operating costs in fares. Some of the least used are
around 16%. Real efficient.

In article .com>,
Dick Boyd > wrote:
>Matthew, what was the construction cost of the parking space in the
>private lot leased by your employer?

Damned if I know, though judging from the condition of the lot after
the latest snowstorm, maybe they should have paid a bit more.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:

> Nice try, but were talking about urban areas. Boston - home of the
Big
> Dig - has been urbanized since the 1700s. It had to be torn apart and
> rebuilt when we shifted from horses to automobiles. If we can afford
> The Big Dig, we can afford to dig a few smaller tunnels for subway
> trains.

Urban areas like Buffalo, NY? The city that's downtown was killed by a
light rail system shutting down the streets of downtown to traffic?
The city that's now looking at spending billions to move or remove the
light rail, to revitalize downtown?

Or urban areas like San Diego, CA which planned several freeways, and
allowed neighborhoods to be built based on the planned freeways,
freeways which have now been cancelled and had their funding shifted
into mass transit? These missing freeways cause major congestion on
other freeways, since there's more people than were intended to use
them who have to - there's no other way between their house and their
job. Mass transit is available, but only to certain areas and it takes
2-3x as long as driving, even with the congestion.

By some people's logic, they deserve to be in traffic, since they won't
take mass transit. And all the service personell, who people need to
drive to their home/business to fix some consumer's
computer/washer/heater/phones/cable.

And all the trucks, what are they doing using roads? Americans don't
buy anything from stores, get them off the road! While we're at it,
make sure that FedEx and UPS are stuck in traffic too. Businesses
never need anything THAT fast.

It seems most mass transit advocates ignore that freight shipping,
service industries, and even busses require roadways. The more
population we have, the more shipping, service, and busses we'll have.

In addition, even if you removed all the commuters from the roads,
there's still a lot of people driving kids to school, going to a
friend's house that isn't along a mass transit route, or going to a
destination that mass transit has no reason to reach.

It's great to protect open spaces, but if you can't get to them what
good are they?

It's great to say all goods should be freight shipped, but how many
malls are built along railroad tracks?

It's great to rationalize spending billions on mass transit, but it
still leaves goods and services sitting in congestion, which means more
pay for truckers which leads to higher prices in the stores.

Mass transit has its place - in already dense areas where there is a
demand for it. Mass transit groupies never seem to understand the full
reasons for demand on the roadways, which makes them act like they're
disposable.

Dave

What about the small car sized SUVs? While you're at it, what about
"mini vans" that have become bloated and weigh 4500 pounds empty? This
whole issue has more to do with anal control addicts than anything
else. Gas taxes should be sufficient.

In article ich.edu>,
says...

>Not really: they'd just leave the existing gasoline taxes in place and add
>the new per-mile charges *on top of* them. Problem, er, "solved".

That's exactly what they are hoping to do, double tax you. They want to
be able to control more of your money.
------------
Alex

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:36:08 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>You start charging Americans $10 a day to drive in urban areas
>>>>and you're going to have riots on your hands.
>>>
>>> You've obviously never been to downtown Chicago. It'll cost you around
>>> $40/day to park there. Care to show me the news clippings about the
>>> riots this causes?
>>
>>Um no it doesn't. And if there are places that expensive
>
> Which is it? Either they exist or they don't.

scott, you do the old trim and attack for not having what you trimmed.
Suck an egg.

> My point is, there is no "free parking" in downtown Chicago.
> Effectively, people in America *are* being charged to drive in urban
> areas.

Grant park garage. Nowhere near $40. Although when I go down town I
either park south of 12th and bike or I park in areas I know well on the
south side or northside and bike downtown.

>>Transit is promoted by making driving
>>more painful. A completely ass backwards approach. But since most transit
>>advocates are not really pro-transit, but anti-car, this makes sense.

> Do you see me as "anti-car?"

No. ease off the trim button and read the whole fing thing.

> The reason I want transit is so I can save wear, tear, and damage to
> my car. I want to PRESERVE my car, not eliminate it!

Again, you should read the WHOLE post.

> Transit advocates who want to eliminate cars are like pedalcyclists
> who belong to Critical Mass - they are a small lunatic fringe that do
> not represent the interests of the majority.

They are the majority of transit advocates in my experience.
The fringe loonies are the ones who even oppose parking lots at train
stations.

In article >, Paul wrote:

> Tolls can be removed if the people keep an eye on the authority
> collecting the toll and demand the toll's removal when the project is
> paid off.... See: http://tinyurl.com/7xmmg

Well it's not that easy in c(r)ook county IL. Even if there was an
elected offical who wanted to do it, he couldn't.

Besides the corruption and politics, there is the ass-backwards way this
is sold to the moron majority.

The toll road authority just kept coming up with new projects, deciding
that users of the original toll road system had to keep pay tolls for.
(shouldn't the users of the new roads do that?) So no money was built up
to maintain I294,etc. So now the initial roads need work, so they use
that not only to keep the tolls but raise them.

In article ich.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Robert Morien wrote:
>
> > Let's spend as much per year on mass transit as we spend on roads.
>
> Just mass transit, then, eh? Not a word about getting freight off the
> roads and back into railcars where it belongs, then?

Well this thread has been mostly about moving people. I believe that in
general the railroads have already received funding equivalent to roads
in that most of the land they use was either given to them free once
upon a time or thru eminent domain.

But hey, why not.

In article >,
Scott en Aztl?n > wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:52:45 -0800, Robert Morien
> > wrote:
>
> >The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive.
>
> Cars are already doing that to themselves, by virtue of their sheer
> numbers that grow faster than our ability to expand roads to
> accommodate them.

Not so, what they do is just get people mad that THEY aren't able to get
where they want, when they want...