Taxing Drivers By The Mile

On 18 Feb 2005 01:30:43 +0100, The Real Bev >
wrote:

>Gary V wrote:
>
>> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
>> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
>> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
>> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
>> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
>> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
>> expenses.)
>
>Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
>true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?


No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
it.

In article >,
Ed Stasiak > wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote
>> > "Ed Stasiak" > wrote
>> >
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if the legislation for this included
>> > yearly and/or random checks
>>
>> Or just set up "DUI check points," (or "papers checkpoints,"
>> if you prefer) under the guise of "safety," and do the compliance
>> check then....
>
>A device similar to the 'red light cameras' could probably be
>developed with a central computer constantly checking vehicles
>stopped at a red lights and if your vehicle's transponder doesn't
>send the correct signal, a digital photo is taken of your license
>plate and you get a visit from the cops.

There aren't any red lights here in Needles, CA, a city of 5,000 on the
border with Arizona. Most residents don't buy gas here at all because of
the high price*, but buy it just across the river in Arizona. How would
the bureaucrats collect their mileage tax from us?

*the difference in gas tax isn't enough to explain the high price. Some
accuse the gas station owners of colluding to rake unwary travelers
over the coals. Another possible explanation is the special blend of
"clean" gasoline California requires everywhere, not just in the big
cities like most other states.

Lee

Bob Ward wrote:
>
> The Real Bev > wrote:
>
> >Gary V wrote:
> >
> >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
> >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
> >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
> >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
> >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
> >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
> >> expenses.)
> >
> >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
> >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?
>
> No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
> it.

Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and
into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then
we should be willing to pay for it.

--
Ch rs,
B v
=======================================
My f ck ng k yb rd h s l st ts v w ls.

In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote:

> Bob Ward wrote:
> >
> > The Real Bev > wrote:
> >
> > >Gary V wrote:
> > >
> > >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
> > >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
> > >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
> > >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
> > >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
> > >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
> > >> expenses.)
> > >
> > >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
> > >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?
> >
> > No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
> > it.
>
> Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and
> into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then
> we should be willing to pay for it.


If you make mass/rapid transit free, you get more ridership. You also do
away with all of the infrastructure/employees that are related to the
collection of fares.

You also cut down on pollution, traffic congestion and road
construction/repair.

As to transporting 2x4's, rent a truck or have it delivered. 15 bags of
groceries, have it delivered.

You don't honestly think that if mass/rapid transit was free, that there
would be no more private vehicles? (most of this is directed to bob ward)

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:38:49 -0500, "Ed Stasiak" >
> 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, they are
private garages and they can charge whatever isn't too high to put them
out of business.

What should cause a riot is how King Richard the second is systematically
eliminating metered and other street parking as a way to encourage people
to use transit.

My experience in chicago is that transit doesn't get better, it
continually gets worse overall. (yes there are some blips where it gets
better but the overall trend line is downward over the decades when all
aspects of service are considered) 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.

Most pro-transit people seem to be also pro-car. Meaning they realize
both have their place and wonder why all the tards in charge of such
things just refuse building/running a transit system people want to use
instead of running one people use because it isn't as bad as driving.

Robert Morien wrote:
>
> In article >,
> The Real Bev > wrote:
>
> > Bob Ward wrote:
> > >
> > > The Real Bev > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Gary V wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
> > > >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
> > > >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
> > > >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
> > > >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
> > > >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
> > > >> expenses.)
> > > >
> > > >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
> > > >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?
> > >
> > > No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
> > > it.
> >
> > Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and
> > into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then
> > we should be willing to pay for it.
>
> If you make mass/rapid transit free, you get more ridership. You also do
> away with all of the infrastructure/employees that are related to the
> collection of fares.
>
> You also cut down on pollution, traffic congestion and road
> construction/repair.
>
> As to transporting 2x4's, rent a truck or have it delivered. 15 bags of
> groceries, have it delivered.
>
> You don't honestly think that if mass/rapid transit was free, that there
> would be no more private vehicles? (most of this is directed to bob ward)

Of course not, but it would certainly leave room on the freeways for the
rest of us!

Actually, I like the Gold Line. (Pay no attention to those gross
"accidents," they weren't the fault of the transit system!) For 90
cents in transportation costs I can walk a quarter mile to the station,
ride 13 miles into Chinatown or Union Station, look around, eat lunch
and ride/walk back home. OTOH If I had to walk a mile in high heels to
my job at the other end or the trip took longer than it would to drive
and park, I'd drive. If they want public transportation to work, it has
to work as well as or better than private transportation and be a LOT
cheaper.

--
Cheers,
Bev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It only takes 2 men to tile a bathroom
if you slice them thinly enough.

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote
> > "Ed Stasiak" > wrote
> >
> > The U.S. was far less urbanized 100 (even 50) years ago then
> > it is today, it wasn't a case of tearing up existing urban areas as
> > much as paving over farm fields.
>
> Not true along the east coast. Those states have been urbanized
> since the 1700s.

Yes it is true, until WWII the majority of people in the U.S. lived
in rural areas. Other then the extreme western tip, Long Island for
example used to be covered with farms.

> > My neighborhood was a beet field prior to 1959 and the same
> > more or less applies to all urban/suburban areas in the U.S.
>
> You mean like New York, Boston, Washington, D.C. and places
> like that?

Which are densely populated urban areas where mass transit makes
sense, it doesn't make sense to eliminate cars in rural Podunk U.S.A.
or suburbanized areas that were designed around cars.

> > If you eliminate the car (or make it so expensive that it's virtually
> > eliminated) how am I going to get from my suburban house to
> > work and back every day in any kind of reasonable manner via
> > a mass transit system?
>
> As Sam Kinison might say, "MOVE TO THE TRANSIT!"

So what you're really saying is move into a 'hive' just so mass
transit can be made possible in the U.S. No thanks.

> > I ain't walking a mile at the butt crack of dawn in the dead of
> > winter to get to a bus/train stop and I refuse to live in a 'hive'
> > just to make mass transit possible!
>
> In that case, I hope you're independently wealthy so you can continue
> to live in your suburban sprawl without having to spend 10 hours a
> week stuck in freeway traffic.

I live 2.5 miles from the Detroit border so I'm hardly living in the
sticks and my combined daily drive time is only 40-50 min., force
me to use mass transit and that turns into 2+ hours a day.

> > Mass transit is a good idea in a heavily urbanized area like London,
>
> But go ahead, feel free to stick with your personal automobile. While
> you're moving along at 10 MPH, choking on exhaust fumes, I'l be the
> one waving to you from the train as I sail past you at 75 MPH on a
> private right-of-way with no obstructions.

I'm not suggesting that no system of mass transit be adopted, only that
in the U.S. any system _has to_ take into account the already existing
infrastructure of neighborhoods, roads, stores, parking lots, ect.

Going to a mass transit only system simply isn't going to work everywhere
and will cost bazillions of dollars to implement, while sticking the population
with a horrible inefficient system.

Obviously some areas like LA are going to have to do something but for
the majority of the U.S., cars are still the most efficient transportation
available.

> "Robert Morien" > wrote
>
> As to transporting 2x4's, rent a truck or have it delivered. 15 bags of
> groceries, have it delivered.

So if the roads and vehicles that run on those roads are still there,
why wouldn't I just keep my car/truck which is far more practical?

If mass transit means pointing a gun at my head (thru outrageous gas
costs, tax-by-the-mile, ect) to get me to use it, then there is something
wrong with that mass transit system.

I should _want_ to use it because it's better, not be forced to use it
just to make it possible.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:19:55 -0800, Robert Morien
> wrote:

>In article >,
> The Real Bev > wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>> >
>> > The Real Bev > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Gary V wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
>> > >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
>> > >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or 15
>> > >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of riders,
>> > >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
>> > >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
>> > >> expenses.)
>> > >
>> > >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
>> > >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?
>> >
>> > No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
>> > it.
>>
>> Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and
>> into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then
>> we should be willing to pay for it.
>
>
>If you make mass/rapid transit free, you get more ridership. You also do
>away with all of the infrastructure/employees that are related to the
>collection of fares.
>
>You also cut down on pollution, traffic congestion and road
>construction/repair.
>
>As to transporting 2x4's, rent a truck or have it delivered. 15 bags of
>groceries, have it delivered.
>
>You don't honestly think that if mass/rapid transit was free, that there
>would be no more private vehicles? (most of this is directed to bob ward)


How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? I just pointed out
(correctly) that FREE mass transit would attract a lot more riders
than any system that charges fares. Many people won't/can't ride mass
transit to work even if you PAID them to - it simply isn't flexible
enough to meet the needs of everyone.

In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote:

> Robert Morien wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > The Real Bev > wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Ward wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Real Bev > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Gary V wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> As far as mass transit, that generally costs more to provide than
> > > > >> automobiles. It also doesn't necessarily go where you need to go -
> > > > >> ever try to bring home a dozen 2x4's from Home Depot on the bus? or
> > > > >> 15
> > > > >> bags of groceries? If mass transit suddenly gained millions of
> > > > >> riders,
> > > > >> there would be even less money raised through gas or mile taxes - so
> > > > >> now how you gonna pay for it? (Remember, fares *don't* cover
> > > > >> expenses.)
> > > > >
> > > > >Some fares don't even cover the cost of their collection. If that's
> > > > >true, doesn't it make more sense to make such transit totally free?
> > > >
> > > > No, because you would find yourself providing a hell of a lot more of
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Supposedly that's a civic good -- getting people out of their cars and
> > > into public transportation. If that's what we as a society want, then
> > > we should be willing to pay for it.
> >
> > If you make mass/rapid transit free, you get more ridership. You also do
> > away with all of the infrastructure/employees that are related to the
> > collection of fares.
> >
> > You also cut down on pollution, traffic congestion and road
> > construction/repair.
> >
> > As to transporting 2x4's, rent a truck or have it delivered. 15 bags of
> > groceries, have it delivered.
> >
> > You don't honestly think that if mass/rapid transit was free, that there
> > would be no more private vehicles? (most of this is directed to bob ward)
>
> Of course not, but it would certainly leave room on the freeways for the
> rest of us!
>
> Actually, I like the Gold Line. (Pay no attention to those gross
> "accidents," they weren't the fault of the transit system!) For 90
> cents in transportation costs I can walk a quarter mile to the station,
> ride 13 miles into Chinatown or Union Station, look around, eat lunch
> and ride/walk back home. OTOH If I had to walk a mile in high heels to
> my job at the other end or the trip took longer than it would to drive
> and park, I'd drive. If they want public transportation to work, it has
> to work as well as or better than private transportation and be a LOT
> cheaper.


The theory is to gradually make cars unattractive. In doing this new
developments occur near the mass/rapid transit lines instead of hiway
exits. I've also seen some theoretical developments that were more like
mini-towns with most of the "necessities within walking distance of all
housing AND a transit line either thru the middle or near the most dense
population point connecting to the next development.