Re: [carfree_cities] Re: An Argument for Fee-based Roads (long)
- Here is another spin on this post.
A friend of mine, playing the devils advocate and largely unaware of our
current transport ills brought up the argument that we wouldn't have the
right to charge a user fee on gas for three main reasons:
1. That we all do benefit from subsidized transportation. (I argued some
more than others
2. Which burned me more since it was such a generalization, that people
shouldn't face user fees on gas because the rest of society funds
medical social insurance, university (here in Canada), public school,
and other services government provides that does not benefit every
individual in society. He argued that in effect its part of our culture
to subsidize services even if few benefit.
3.People want to live in the suburbs.
Arg! I provided him with many rebuttals, although I couldn't exactly
quash the second argument, even though I believe it to be wrong.
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 03:13 PM, turpin wrote:
> --- In carfree_cities@y..., "smithjeff11" <smithjeff11@y...> wrote:
>> I don't believe that any one perspective is
>> sufficient to explain the bizarre situation
>> American society find itself in, but economics
>> might explain a few things .. Economics won't
>> explain the love affair that America has with
>> the car.
> I agree completely. The economic factors and
> cultural factors interact. It is important to
> keep both in mind. Economic factors have the
> advantage that they are more readily quantified,
> we understand more about their cause and effect,
> they provide a basis for understanding who
> benefits and who pays, and so they give more
> leverage for making policy. But I agree that
> we should work on cultural factors also.
- Louis-Luc said:
>It's relative...I'm with you up to this point.
>Knowing there is an environment spoiled with cars, and
>an underground city filled with life (Montreal Underground Network), I
>prefer the subway way over the
>bus, because you can ride it and walk through the underground city for hours
>(or repetedly for days), without knowing cars even exist.
>However, in a city with no car, or where car drivers yield to human-powered
>traffic both in theory and 100% in practice, then streetcars or buses become
>much more attractive, because you don't have the stress of walking through
>car traffic when you ride them and walk in the city.
>The ideal is a monorail:We've had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to
>- it runs in the air (over street level) NONONONONONO!!!!!
>- it frees the street for human uses true
>- when you ride it, you see outdoors, true, but not at eye-level
>but I think it's more vulnerable to the weather than a metro. probably so
decide right now never to build another one of the damn things. It's
true that newer technology is better in this respect than older stuff,
but it will never be acceptable. (Well, ok, some breakthrough in materials
that allowed the construction of spider-web thin supports for the tracks
(or whatever) might change the picture somewhat, but it still is not
the right way to do it. If you need above-ground transport, trams are
the way to go. If there's too much traffic from the trams to be acceptable,
then you HAVE to build a metro, no matter what the cost. If there's that
much traffic, the cost is not unreasonable (per rider).)
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities