Maximize transit, minimize traffic

The Oregonian ^ | 05/06/03 | editorial

[jimt]

Your personal insults, punk, show the vapidity of your arguments. You're a coward behind a keyboard, and a farce as an "engineer". You clearly couldn't engineer your way out of a wet paper bag, when you ignore economics in pursuit of your socialist utopia. Go to DU where they like socialist utopian garbage.

[Willie Green]

LOL!

Sparking a rant like that is proof positive that I hit the nail on the head!

BTW, you STILL haven't offered a viable alternative for addressing the issues of traffic congestion in our densely populated urban areas.

Like I said, jimt, you're simply deadweight, void of any constructive opinions or suggestions.

[supercat]

And what's more is that you LIE to the American People when you disingenuously imply that gasoline taxes pay entirely for all our federal, state and local highways, roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. etc.

When government also uses fuel taxes for things like mass transit, that makes it a little hard to tell how the amount of fuel tax collected compares with the cost of roads.

[Willie Green]

When government also uses fuel taxes for things like mass transit, that makes it a little hard to tell how the amount of fuel tax collected compares with the cost of roads.

When government (federal, state and local) also uses general revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. etc. to subsidize our highways, bridges, roads and tunnels, it becomes even more difficult to determine the true cost.

[jimt]

Sparking a rant like that is proof positive that I hit the nail on the head!

No, what it shows is that you can't answer a simple question - name a light rail system that is profitable - so you resort to personal attacks, like the cowardly little socialist that you are. Also that vacuous pontificating cowards piss me off.

Your idiotic "solution" has never worked anywhere it was tried, but you keep bleating on about it, posting every propaganda piece favoring these boondoggles you can find.

That I "haven't offered a viable alternative for addressing the issues of traffic congestion in our densely populated urban areas" is immaterial. What I have done is show that your "solution" is blather and BS that screws the taxpayer everywhere it's been tried.

You can easily prove me wrong. Show ONE operating light rail system that is not taxpayer subsidized. A real one - not the one at Disneyland.

But you can't. I think instead of hitting the nail on the head, you must have been hitting yourself on the head.

[supercat]

When government (federal, state and local) also uses general revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. etc. to subsidize our highways, bridges, roads and tunnels, it becomes even more difficult to determine the true cost.

If 100% of gas taxes went to fund roads, then it would be clear that any money coming from elsewhere represented external subsidization. But when gas tax money is also used for other purposes, it becomes much less clear.

[Willie Green]

That I "haven't offered a viable alternative for addressing the issues of traffic congestion in our densely populated urban areas" is immaterial.

No it's not.
It drives a stake in the very heart of your arguement.
You're worse than a poor engineer or an obstructionist drone.
You're a luddite. You hinder costructive progress.
You have no constructive proposals to address the current challenges confronting our transportation infrastructure.

[Willie Green]

But when gas tax money is also used for other purposes, it becomes much less clear.

Why do you find it less clear?
It's pretty evident that most cities, counties, towns and other local governments don't charge a gas tax on top of federal and state taxes. Where do you think they get the money for their roads, highways, bridges and tunnels?
Who paid to pave the street that you live on?
Who paid for the stop sign down at the end of your street?
or the speed limit signs?
or the school crossing signs?
Who pays for the streetlights?
Who pays for the streetsweeper (if your community has one)?
Who pays to patch the potholes?
Your local community doesn't collect a gas tax to pay for any of that.

[dalereed]

"Including streets and highways?"

In Calidornia we pay a healthy tax on gasoline to build and maintain them, they should use the money for what it was intended and quit siphoning it off for the mass transit.

Eliminate mass transit!

[supercat]

Your local community doesn't collect a gas tax to pay for any of that.

Actually, the community does get some money from the state which gets some money from the federal government which collects gas taxes.

Besides, aside from some of the signage, most of those costs would be necessary even if the street didn't accomodate any vehicle traffic.

[jimt]

You're a waste of time, and unable to admit your "solution" is for the birds. Bye.

[Willie Green]

Wrong again. My solution is for people.
Specifically those who travel in congested urban areas.

You propose no viable alternative.
You're absolutely worthless as an engineer.
You're incapable of envisioning constructive alternatives.

[WOSG]

"As far as other communities who CHOOSE to subsidize their public transit service, I have no problems with that. Although I would prefer seeing service funded by fares as much as possible, I've also repeatedly stated the benefits communities recieve for providing such subsidies."

Willie, you have to realize that in many communities, the socialists have taken the levers of power and use is to push their agenda now matter what the people say. we've had 2 elections on light rail, both times light rail lost, but they will keep putting in on the ballot until the 'right' answer is given. At the same time, our transit authority is collecting and extra .25% sales tax without voter approval.

whatever happened to no taxation without representation??
I dunno, the situation stinks and is HIGHLY prone to cretin of taxpayer funded boondoggles. Some social engineer. As far as other communities who CHOOSE to subsidize their public transit service, I have no problems with that. Although I would prefer seeing service funded by fares as much as possible, I've also repeatedly stated the benefits communities recieve for providing such subsidies.

[Willie Green]

You seem to forget that we're a Republic, a form of representative democracy that safeguards against the tyrannical and myopic mob-rule of a pure democracy. There are times when it is beneficial that our representatives make decisions that go against popular sentiment. While this often also has its disadvantages, it is considered to be superior over the long run because of the checks and balances built into the system.

Similary, you fail to recognized that a society as modern and complex as ours requires an equally complex transportation infrastructure to serve its needs. Public transportation, including light-rail mass transit is often a necessary component of that infrastructure. Your categorical opposition to mass transit is adolescent.

[WOSG]

Willie, you are refuting a strawman.

This is not about democracy vs. republic. This is about how vested interests ally with 'social engineers' to rape the taxpayers, and abuse democratic processes when the people start chafing at their impositions!

I for one think the public should approve tax hike measures and think unelected bodies shouldnt have the power to change their tax rates. I thought this was a conservative site not one for Liberal elitists. How ironic, yo talk like Pat B. one day and Ralph Nader the next.

"Similary, you fail to recognized that a society as modern and complex as ours requires an equally complex transportation infrastructure to serve its needs. "

Another strawman, this is not about if we need transport, it is about how to develop it and what forms. Our highways and our air transport sector are highly complex and most of us have no problem with continuing

""Public transportation, including light-rail mass transit is often a necessary component of that infrastructure. Your categorical opposition to mass transit is adolescent."


Another strawman. I am opposed to boondoggles, not all mass transit. LRT has proven to be an expensive boondoggle for many american mid-sized cities. It's a chimera - these cities are better off just having good bus service, cheaper by far and as convenient (if not more so) for actual users.
I for one would love high-speed intercity rail, proper subways where needed, and think PRT is an interesting idea. But there is one simple caveat: All these ideas arae only worthwhile if they are USED and if their cost per passenger mile is somewhere reasonable and only worthwhile if the actual users bear all (or at least almost all) the cost.

Just say no to boondoggles! Is that clear enough?

Responding with strawman argumentation is imho more 'adolescent' than debating the real merits of whether these systems really work where they are tried.

[WOSG]

"But when gas tax money is also used for other purposes, it becomes much less clear.

Why do you find it less clear?"

You fail to acknowledge this fact: Billions of dollars are diverted from the federal gas tax to mass transit. Indeed ALL mass transit subidies are from the general taxpayer.
Whereas over $100 billion are taken in federal gas taxes and only 80% or so of this ends up being used for highways.
more than $20 billion a year is diverted. An earlier post of mine gave the exact numbers.

Now, you havent give the numbers of these subsidies you claim exist. without solid numbers, it is far from clear how much transportation is subsidized by gas taxes versus other means.

All we do know is that it is unheard of for local mass transit riders to pay a fee to the federal govt for their trips, like car drivers do.


"It's pretty evident that most cities, counties, towns and other local governments don't charge a gas tax on top of f ederal and state taxes.Where do you think they get the money for their roads, highways, bridges and tunnels?"

Our local subsidy for mass transit, that covers about 5% of local transit needs, has a GREATER local subsidy than the roads themselves, which covers about 95% of local transit needs.

It's not just the existence or amount of subsidy, but the passanger mile effectiveness of it. For roads, it is measured in pennies per pasenger mile, for some mass transit solution, it is far far higher, in some LRT cases over a $1/passenger mile in subsidy.

We have a local sales tax dedicated for mass transit. we dont have such a tax for roads.

[WOSG]

A response to: "You're incapable of envisioning constructive alternatives. "

Here's a proposal that is 21st century technology - Personal Automated Transit - not 19th century (trolleys/light-rail etc.) :



http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm

I think a sensible urban transit system for 2020 and beyond will look a lot like the above.

[WOSG]

You can easily prove me wrong. Show ONE operating light rail system that is not taxpayer subsidized. A real one - not the one at Disneyland.

Has anyone risen to the challenge?

[WOSG]

"How much of the cost of highway construction and maintenance is "recovered" through user fees?"

From what the numbers show, most, or all, or beyond all the costs are covered by gas and vehicle taxes of various kinds.

[Tailback]

How many dedicated gas tax dollars has Oregon collected? By law gas tax money in Oregon is required to be spent on highways, yet in the last 30 years almost no increased lane capacity has been created in Oregon. You sir can spin your stupid choo-choo agenda any way you want to but people who have to LIVE in the Willamette valley know what the real deal is. How do you feel to be in such well esteemed company as Vera Katz and Eric Stenn?