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

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: An Argument for Fee-based Roads (long)

Expand Messages
  • Rob Hines
    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
    Message 1 of 40 , Apr 2, 2002
      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.
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... I m with you up to this point. ... We ve had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to decide right now never to build another one of
      Message 40 of 40 , Apr 8, 2002
        Louis-Luc said:

        >It's relative...
        >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.

        I'm with you up to this point.

        >The ideal is a monorail:
        >- 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

        We've had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to
        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
        mailbox@... Carfree.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.