Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

On Jan 15, 5:40*am, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeff > wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 10:29*am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> > > The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass transit
> > > users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that they
> > > use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for the
> > > resources (road repair and building) that they use?
>
> > That is a valid question.
>
> > In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
> > what would happen if mass transit stopped?
>
> > From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
> > strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
> > was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
> > and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
> > Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
> > into and out of NYC) were still running.
>
> > Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
> > not enough roads in NYC without it.
>
> > So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
> > public transportation so that the system continues to work.
>
> Mass transit passengers don't ride for free ... at least most don't.
> Every public transportation system I know of charges money for the
> services it provides. And fares have been steadily rising over the
> years, more so than the gas tax. As you said, mass transit takes a huge
> load off the highway system in most major cities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It does, and yet it's not used as much as you would think (at least
around here) and there's good reason for it. When I lived in Boston
and worked in Newburyport, it was cheaper and faster for me to drive
to and from work than it was for me to take the train. Going the
other way traffic may eliminate the time difference, but it's still
likely cheaper to be in your car than on the train. If the train
didn't take just over an hour to cover a 35 minute drive the appeal to
pay more would likely be much greater.

The point is vehicle owners are taxed in various ways by the federal, state
and is some cases the municipal governments, to help pay the cost of
operating mass transit systems. The largest single portion of the federal
gas tax is going to mass transit rather than the interstate roadways. Why
do we allow the government to do that?

Why should those that use the system NOT be paying their own way, as do
those that choose to use Taxis and limo services, rather than making vehicle
owners pay from them to ride for less?

When I am in Philadelphia or NYC I engage a limo service, rather than
subjecting myself to the
idiosyncrasies of public transit system.


> wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 5:40 am, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff > wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 10:29 am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> > > The question you should be asking is why are they not taxing mass
> > > transit
> > > users, to help pay for the resources (road repair and building) that
> > > they
> > > use, instead of take money from those that are currently paying for
> > > the
> > > resources (road repair and building) that they use?
>
> > That is a valid question.
>
> > In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
> > what would happen if mass transit stopped?
>
> > From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
> > strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
> > was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
> > and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
> > Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
> > into and out of NYC) were still running.
>
> > Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
> > not enough roads in NYC without it.
>
> > So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
> > public transportation so that the system continues to work.
>
> Mass transit passengers don't ride for free ... at least most don't.
> Every public transportation system I know of charges money for the
> services it provides. And fares have been steadily rising over the
> years, more so than the gas tax. As you said, mass transit takes a huge
> load off the highway system in most major cities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It does, and yet it's not used as much as you would think (at least
around here) and there's good reason for it. When I lived in Boston
and worked in Newburyport, it was cheaper and faster for me to drive
to and from work than it was for me to take the train. Going the
other way traffic may eliminate the time difference, but it's still
likely cheaper to be in your car than on the train. If the train
didn't take just over an hour to cover a 35 minute drive the appeal to
pay more would likely be much greater.

In article >,
Shawn Hirn > wrote:
>
>What would you propose states with falling revenues do in order to
>budget their money in this economy? Should they close off roads and
>bridges that need repairs and tell drivers to use alternate routes until
>they have the money to do the repairs?

That's a valid option. When money's tight, cutting back is
important.

>Should they fire cops and firemen?

Lay them off, rather.

>Close parks.

How is that going to reduce expenditures? They'll have to hire extra
security to keep people out of the closed parks.

>day per week? Yes, there are ways in most states to cut spending, but
>the cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with the lost revenue.

Then they might actually have to (horrors) cut the unimportant stuff
that gets the campaign contributions along with the police, fire, and
libraries.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

In article >,
Shawn Hirn > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Jeff > wrote:
>> >
>> >In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
>> >what would happen if mass transit stopped?
>> >
>> >From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
>> >strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
>> >was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
>> >and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
>> >Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
>> >into and out of NYC) were still running.
>> >
>> >Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
>> >not enough roads in NYC without it.
>> >
>> >So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
>> >public transportation so that the system continues to work.
>>
>> No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
>> transportation. It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
>> pay for NYC public transportation.
>>
>> Furthermore, NYC is pretty much singular in this respect.
>> Philadelphia, for instance, works with only relatively minor
>> inconvenience when SEPTA strikes.
>
>You can't be serious. I work in North Philadelphia. I have commuted in
>Philadelphia during the public transit strikes in 1998 and 2005. Let me
>tell you, even in my own car, those public transportation strikes were a
>major inconvenience. Parking in Center City was very hard to find; even
>more than normal. Traffic congestion increased quite a bit. A guy who
>reported to me at work (who didn't own a car) had a major problem
>getting to work during the 1998 SEPTA strike even though he only lived a
>few miles from our office. Lots of my other colleagues were
>significantly inconvenienced during that strike, which lasted 40 days.

So you're claiming it's a major inconvenience, rather than a minor
one. That's a long way from being "unable to function".

>When the gas price was around $4 per gallon, public transportation use
>spiked in the Philadelphia area. During that time, I noticed a
>significant reduction in road traffic when I drove to and from work.

I didn't. And the Schuylkill Expressway sure didn't seem any less busy.

>When public transportation use rose, there were fewer cars on the roads,
>which means less pollution, less traffic, fewer delays, less wear and
>tear on the roads, etc.

Buses put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than cars. And trucks
(which are not impacted by public transportation) do most of the
damage. So no, you won't get less wear by increasing public
transportation use. Buses also cause traffic delays and belch enormous
clouds of diesel smoke.

>Funding public transportation is a no-brainer,
Only you have no brain.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On Jan 15, 3:40*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Shawn Hirn > wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article >,
> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >> In article >,
> >> Jeff > wrote:
>
> >> >In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
> >> >what would happen if mass transit stopped?
>
> >> >From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
> >> >strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
> >> >was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
> >> >and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
> >> >Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
> >> >into and out of NYC) were still running.
>
> >> >Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There are
> >> >not enough roads in NYC without it.
>
> >> >So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
> >> >public transportation so that the system continues to work.
>
> >> No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
> >> transportation. *It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
> >> pay for NYC public transportation.
>
> >> Furthermore, NYC is pretty much singular in this respect.
> >> Philadelphia, for instance, works with only relatively minor
> >> inconvenience when SEPTA strikes.
>
> >You can't be serious. I work in North Philadelphia. I have commuted in
> >Philadelphia during the public transit strikes in 1998 and 2005. Let me
> >tell you, even in my own car, those public transportation strikes were a
> >major inconvenience. Parking in Center City was very hard to find; even
> >more than normal. Traffic congestion increased quite a bit. A guy who
> >reported to me at work (who didn't own a car) had a major problem
> >getting to work during the 1998 SEPTA strike even though he only lived a
> >few miles from our office. Lots of my other colleagues were
> >significantly inconvenienced during that strike, which lasted 40 days.
>
> So you're claiming it's a major inconvenience, rather than a minor
> one. *That's a long way from being "unable to function".
>
> >When the gas price was around $4 per gallon, public transportation use
> >spiked in the Philadelphia area. During that time, I noticed a
> >significant reduction in road traffic when I drove to and from work.
>
> I didn't. *And the Schuylkill Expressway sure didn't seem any less busy..
>
> >When public transportation use rose, there were fewer cars on the roads,
> >which means less pollution, less traffic, fewer delays, less wear and
> >tear on the roads, etc.
>
> Buses put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than cars. *And trucks
> (which are not impacted by public transportation) do most of the
> damage. *So no, you won't get less wear by increasing public
> transportation use. Buses also cause traffic delays and belch enormous
> clouds of diesel smoke.

So having 20 cars is better for the roads than one bus?

Jeff

> >Funding public transportation is a no-brainer,
>
> Only you have no brain.
> --
> It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On 2009-01-16, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-15, Shawn Hirn > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Brent > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-01-14, Matthew Russotto > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
>> >> > transportation. It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
>> >> > pay for NYC public transportation.
>> >>
>> >> All of Illinois is taxed to support the CTA. Those of us closer to the
>> >> CTA but still outside it's service area get to be taxed more for it.
>> >
>> > It evens out though because those who can use the CTA help pay for the
>> > cost of the roads you use.
>>
>> This makes no sense. The road taxes that a non-driver pays go to the
>> most local of roads. The same roads the buses they take use. The taxes
>> paid by a non-driver who lives in wrigleyville do not in any way support
>> the driving of someone living out in Naperville.
>
> You're not seeing the big picture. Gas taxes do not cover the full cost
> of our nation's highway system. A lot of road repair and maintenance
> comes from revenue streams other than gas taxes. Do you think a town in
> Wyoming with a population of 1000 generates enough gas tax revenue to
> pay for all the roads those people use in their area? I don't think so.
> Even those who don't own a car or a drivers license still pay gas taxes
> indirectly through the cost of the goods and services they use.

You're mixing two things. Gasoline and other road taxes are
redistributed. Not only over a county, or a state or even the nation but
diverted to non-road purposes. But those are taxes FOR ROADS and are
paid for by DRIVERS. The various other taxes (almost always property
tax) paid by non-drivers that go to roads go to the most local of
roads. And nobody in po-dunk WY is a non-driver, that is if he isn't
living some sort of 19th century mountain man lifestyle that is.

You were talking about a non-driver who lives in chicago paying for
roads in the suburbs outside the CTA's service area. Sorry, it just
ain't happening by any accounting I'm familiar with. As a non-driver he
isn't paying any specific road taxes, just general taxes. What general
taxes he pays will be going to roads within the city, ideally the one in
front of his house.

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 15, 3:40 pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Shawn Hirn > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> >> In article
>> >> >,
>> >> Jeff > wrote:
>>
>> >> >In cities where mass transit is actually efficient, like NYC and DC,
>> >> >what would happen if mass transit stopped?
>>
>> >> >From experience, when mas transit was greatly slowed down (during the
>> >> >strike in Dec. 2005), there were major problems getting around NYC. I
>> >> >was able to get around and get to work only because only the subways
>> >> >and buses were shut down. Fortunately, some trains (run by the Long
>> >> >Island Railroad and MetroNorth as well as the trains and buses going
>> >> >into and out of NYC) were still running.
>>
>> >> >Without the mass transit, NYC would not be able to function. There
>> >> >are
>> >> >not enough roads in NYC without it.
>>
>> >> >So it is appropriate, IMHO, to tax private transportation to support
>> >> >public transportation so that the system continues to work.
>>
>> >> No, that's a reason to tax New Yorkers in general to support public
>> >> transportation. It's not a reason to tax, e.g., drivers in Albany to
>> >> pay for NYC public transportation.
>>
>> >> Furthermore, NYC is pretty much singular in this respect.
>> >> Philadelphia, for instance, works with only relatively minor
>> >> inconvenience when SEPTA strikes.
>>
>> >You can't be serious. I work in North Philadelphia. I have commuted in
>> >Philadelphia during the public transit strikes in 1998 and 2005. Let me
>> >tell you, even in my own car, those public transportation strikes were a
>> >major inconvenience. Parking in Center City was very hard to find; even
>> >more than normal. Traffic congestion increased quite a bit. A guy who
>> >reported to me at work (who didn't own a car) had a major problem
>> >getting to work during the 1998 SEPTA strike even though he only lived a
>> >few miles from our office. Lots of my other colleagues were
>> >significantly inconvenienced during that strike, which lasted 40 days.
>>
>> So you're claiming it's a major inconvenience, rather than a minor
>> one. That's a long way from being "unable to function".
>>
>> >When the gas price was around $4 per gallon, public transportation use
>> >spiked in the Philadelphia area. During that time, I noticed a
>> >significant reduction in road traffic when I drove to and from work.
>>
>> I didn't. And the Schuylkill Expressway sure didn't seem any less busy.
>>
>> >When public transportation use rose, there were fewer cars on the roads,
>> >which means less pollution, less traffic, fewer delays, less wear and
>> >tear on the roads, etc.
>>
>> Buses put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than cars. And trucks
>> (which are not impacted by public transportation) do most of the
>> damage. So no, you won't get less wear by increasing public
>> transportation use. Buses also cause traffic delays and belch enormous
>> clouds of diesel smoke.
>
> So having 20 cars is better for the roads than one bus?

Except during rush hours, the buses here usually only have a handful of
passengers. You ****ing LIEbrawls are clueless. **** off
over to Russia--you'd LOVE it there.



>
> Jeff
>
>> >Funding public transportation is a no-brainer,
>>
>> Only you have no brain.
>> --
>> It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
>

>>> The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices
>>> of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
>>> outrageously high and climbing higher forever.

>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is
>> USENET I know I never will.
>
> And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
> full of environmentalists.

Marin County certainly is, and it demonstrates how they got their way.
Just TRY to move there if you don't have more money than God.

All one need do is look at the price of property in California and it become
apparent what the runaway environmentalism of the environuts has done to its
cost, and the costs of many other things in that state like prices for fuel
and electricity

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
>>>> The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices
>>>> of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
>>>> outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
>
>>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
>>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is
>>> USENET I know I never will.
>>
>> And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
>> full of environmentalists.
>
> Marin County certainly is, and it demonstrates how they got their way.
> Just TRY to move there if you don't have more money than God.

On Jan 17, 4:28*pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> All one need do is look at the price of property in California and it become
> apparent what the runaway environmentalism of the environuts has done to its
> cost, and the costs of many other things in that state like prices for fuel
> and electricity

Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and
San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has
very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot
more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a
lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at
some world-class universities.

The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England
states. I don't know how much of this has to do with environmental
regulations. Much of the cost might have to with the free market
system where utilities bought electricity from companies like Enron.
California now gets a lot of its electricity from burning natural gas.

However, I don't consider environmentalists nuts. Rather, they are
people who like the environment that we all share to survive. I don't
see what is so nutty about that.

jeff

> "John David Galt" > wrote in ...
>
> >>>> The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices
> >>>> of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes,
> >>>> outrageously high and climbing higher forever.
>
> >>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis
> >>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is
> >>> USENET I know I never will.
>
> >> And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock
> >> full of environmentalists.
>
> > Marin County certainly is, and it demonstrates how they got their way.
> > Just TRY to move there if you don't have more money than God.