Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] California Crunch 2?

Expand Messages
  • Chris Bradshaw
    [from article by pres. of the Calif. Automobile Assoc.] ... This is a major crunch. The very people who object to congestion _when they are driving_, object
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      [from article by pres. of the Calif. Automobile Assoc.]

      > We are looking at traffic flows through local communities because gridlock
      > may start at the first red light you hit after leaving home. We hope our
      > research and ideas will be valuable in shaping California's transportation
      > future.

      This is a major crunch. The very people who object to congestion _when
      they are
      driving_, object to traffic through their communities _while they are at
      home
      reading their newspapers_. Thus the average citizen is schizophrenic
      politically.

      > We worked with legislators and Davis last year to better utilize motorist
      > taxes for transportation purposes. As a result, more of the taxes paid by
      > motorists, including all of the sales and excise tax on gasoline, will now
      > go directly for transportation -- something that had not been true in the
      > past.

      This has been a long-time objective of the road lobby. But where are
      the political
      forces pushing for the other half of the equation, specifically, that no
      non-road
      taxes are spent on roads? In reality, the local road system in most
      jurisdictions
      is paid for by the property taxes, which are paid according to the
      amount (value,
      in most places) of property owned, a recognition that a road is an
      extension of a
      property, regardless whether the property owner is a driver or not, and
      regardless
      if the property owner attracts many visitors or whether those visitors
      come mostly
      from a distance and thus mostly by car.

      Property taxes should pay only for each street to be provided as a
      simple two-lane
      with two sidewalks, on-street parking, and design considerations only to
      allow for
      slow, local movements. All other "improvements" should be paid for by
      motorists.
      Further, each new development should face a "transportation footprint"
      fee for
      those eimprovements, based on the development's "contribution" to
      traffic beyond
      the minimal (small number of people/goods arriving after a short trip by
      the
      greenest-most mode.)

      Chris Bradshaw
      Ottawa
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.