Honda Car Forum

In article <1Etbl.181$Dx.34@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Jay Giuliani" <jrgiuliani@verizon.net> wrote:

> As a child, bus systems were all privately owned

Bus systems can't be children.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:32:37 -0800 (PST), Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com>
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.
>
Pfft. You liberals. Always wanting the infrastructure to work. Don't
you know that we should sacrifice civilization to the ideology of Ayn
Rand?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:46:29 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Brent wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Tim Howard wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>> >
>> > The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just the USA)
>> > is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only nominal.
>> >
>> > The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full scale
>> > revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government poking its nose
>> > into stuff it has no business in.
>>
>> Nanny state finally went after something you care about?
>
>It's the economy stupid ! But they've become unstoppable here now. They just
>ignore protest.
>
>Graham
>

Uh huh.

http://tinyurl.com/6t3huj

On 2009-01-15, Gordon McGrew <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:32:37 -0800 (PST), Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com>
> 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.
>>
> Pfft. You liberals. Always wanting the infrastructure to work. Don't
> you know that we should sacrifice civilization to the ideology of Ayn
> Rand?

Because civilization is defined as using a threat of violence to take
from some people to give to other people while taking a cut.

On 2009-01-15, Gordon McGrew <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:46:29 +0000, Eeyore
><rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Brent wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Tim Howard wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline
>>> >
>>> > The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just the USA)
>>> > is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only nominal.
>>> >
>>> > The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full scale
>>> > revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government poking its nose
>>> > into stuff it has no business in.
>>>
>>> Nanny state finally went after something you care about?
>>
>>It's the economy stupid ! But they've become unstoppable here now. They just
>>ignore protest.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>
> Uh huh.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6t3huj

That happened in 2003. The war continues today. You just supported
Graham's point.

In article <TKwal.279060$Mh5.64164@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:

> I would think that a per mile tax (gas) along with a sliding rate on
> registration fees that reflect a particular vehicles impact on roads and
> maintenance would be the way to go.
>
> As such, large commercial vehicles would pay considerably more than sub
> compact cars.

The reality is that gas taxes have to go up as the price of gas drops.
The driver of an SUV or a Civic uses the same amount of gas and drives
the same distance regardless of the cost of that gas at the pump.

I do like your idea of having the cost of auto registration tied to the
impact a vehicle has on the roads. Heavier vehicles should cost more to
register than lighter vehicles.

In article <gkankb$nbl$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"CharlesTheCurmudgeon" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Why doesn't the state learn to budget, like normal people have to do? I
> don't support all my cronies, my dad's old cronies, or his party's cronies
> and the Outfit besides.

Which state are you referring to? Most states do have to run a balanced
budget. Its not like the states can go out and print their own currency
like the federal government can.

Most states depend on PROJECTED revenue from various sources in order to
pay for their daily obligations and service bond debt. With the credit
crunch, most (if not all) states and public agencies are finding it
nearly impossible to borrow money for planned capital projects such as
building new highways. States can't control the retail price of gas, so
when the price falls, their revenue from gas taxes falls, but their
obligations to do road maintenance remains the same. As a result, most
states are in a financial bind.

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? Should they fire cops and
firemen? Close parks. Cut down the hours at DMV stations (meaning longer
wait times for customers)? Tell school children to stay home one extra
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.

In article
<81f717f2-a3cf-4352-9485-542719cc9785@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com> 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.

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.

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.
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. Funding public transportation is a no-brainer,
its a win-win situation for all concerned, even for people in areas of
the state that don't benefit from public transportation because it means
more money to maintain highways can be spent in their area.

In article <1Etbl.181$Dx.34@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Jay Giuliani" <jrgiuliani@verizon.net> wrote:

> I agree, it comes down to charging the people that use something a fair rate
> to support it.
>
> As a child, bus systems were all privately owned and you paid a rate
> designed to keep the company in business which was agreed upon by the public
> utilities commissions.
>
> The reasons transit went public was because there was such resistance to
> fare changes, most companies simply went out of business because they could
> not stay profitable. As a result the public took over the transit systems.
>
> Cheap public trasit became an entitlement that no one wants to give up.
>
> There has long been a belief that federal dollars should support public
> transportation systems. Someone in Wyoming would question this.

And someone in Philadelphia might reasonably ask if the fuel taxes that
guy in Wyoming pays is enough to offset his use of the highways in his
area, or if Wyoming needs federal help to build and maintain highways.

> Philadelphia's system has been working with reduced support for several
> reasons:
>
> Gradual rate increases to realistic levels
>
> Reducing runs on bloated schedules resulting in empty vehicles, and
> terminating underutilized services
>
> This has created hardships for many that have no alternative but has served
> the greater good.
>
> The profitable portion of SEPTA's business is the commuter rail bringing
> paying workers in from the burbs.
>
> That said, Philly did not work that well during the strike, even with the
> regional rail working while the buses and subways were out.
>
> I would not want to even be near NYC during a strike.
>
> I have a friend that lives in Manhatten and garages his car 22 blocks
> uptown.

If your friend only drives on weekends, he's foolish to maintain a car
in Manhattan. He's better off joining Zip Car or some other car share
organization, or just renting when he needs to drive. When I lived in
Center City, I got along fine without owning a car, and that was before
the advent of companies like Philly Car Share. I simply rented a car on
those weekends when I needed to drive. I have a dear friend who lives on
Manhattan's Upper East Side and she manages to get along fine without
ever driving, even on weekends.

Even in the suburbs in NJ where I live now, I consider my Prius as much
of a luxury as a necessity. I went for four months, a few years ago
without a car as an experiment. I managed to get along without one, but
there were times when it was a PITA, like when I had to be at work at
5:00am twice. Even though I live in a different state from where my
office is, it takes me a total of 90 minutes to walk to PATCO station,
take the train over the Delaware River, then walk the three miles to my
office. On nice days, I still do that if I wake up early enough.

Not once during my experiment did my lack of a car impede my ability to
do my job. I know my situation is not generalizable, but I suspect there
are a lot of people, even those who live in suburban areas like I do,
who can get by fairly well without a car. I drive to work most days
purely because its more convenient then public transportation, not
because its necessary. Like today when I plan to visit my parents for
dinner after work. To do that via public transportation would add a
total of about three hours onto my travel time, but in my car, I will
spend maybe 40 minutes in total driving to work, then to my parents,
then home again.

> They have to cab or bus to the garage to take a ride on the weekend.
>
> I personally avoid center city Philly as much as possible and since I
> changed jobs, never go to NYC any longer.
>
> Bottom line is the city, the riders and the businesses they work at should
> be paying the freight.
>
> They ought to consider allowing new businesses to start running on speific
> routes and see how the cost shake out.

I agree. I am a big fan of public transportation, especially in densely
populated areas such as Philly and NYC, but I like the idea of opening
up public transportation routes to private entities. I am not proposing
that government supported public transportation agencies close, only
that their monopoly be whittled down some.