Honda Car Forum

In article <srhi-914048.05545915012009@news.newsguy.com>,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <o8-dndJspI0ujvPUnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9785@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com> 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, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <srhi-914048.05545915012...@news.newsguy.com>,
> Shawn Hirn *<s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <o8-dndJspI0ujvPUnZ2dnUVZ_oTin...@speakeasy.net>,
> > russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >> In article <81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Jeff *<jeff....@gmail.com> 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

In article <gknfgk$n48$3@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2009-01-15, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <gkl4gi$lsi$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-14, Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> 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.

On 2009-01-16, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <gknfgk$n48$3@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-15, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > In article <gkl4gi$lsi$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-01-14, Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> 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" <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99754230-533d-4524-8ac0-7bb2a494b594@q19g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 15, 3:40 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> wrote:
>> In article <srhi-914048.05545915012...@news.newsguy.com>,
>> Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <o8-dndJspI0ujvPUnZ2dnUVZ_oTin...@speakeasy.net>,
>> > russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> >> In article
>> >> <81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Jeff <jeff....@gmail.com> 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" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:gkrl4a$3fm$5@blue.rahul.net...
>>>> 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" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in messagenews:gkrl4a$3fm$5@blue.rahul.net...
>
> >>>> 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.

"Jeff" <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:791ab41d-5f36-4b76-8989-a2554c58aa6c@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

Social engineering, the DAHLING of LIEbrawls everywhere is what is nutty.
Penalize industry and you won't HAVE the revenue to your greeny shit.

>
> jeff
>
>> "John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in
>> messagenews:gkrl4a$3fm$5@blue.rahul.net...
>>
>> >>>> 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.
>

In article <99754230-533d-4524-8ac0-7bb2a494b594@q19g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Buses put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than cars. =A0And trucks
>> (which are not impacted by public transportation) do most of the
>> damage. =A0So 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?

As far as wear is concerned, likely so. Road wear goes up much
greater than linearly with weight.


--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress