Re: An Argument for Fee-based Roads (long)
- Can someone point out estimates for the degree of public subsidy for different modes of transportation? These estimates vary widely based on what you consider a subsidy (most are conservative in this regard), but it would be good to have some numbers nonetheless.
Don't forget about less tangible subsidies. When someone is forced to listen to traffic noise or deal with ugly public spaces, that's a subsidy too.
>Conservatives will point out that states are unlikely to decrease theirYou could point out that tax shifting - increasing one kind of tax on damaging activities while decresasing others so as to take in the same amount in taxes as before - has been done successfully, most notably recently with Germany's green taxes.
>other taxes, simply because those taxes no longer have to fund automobile
>transporation. There is some truth in this complaint, but it refuses to
>address the tremendous harm caused by the public subsidy of car
- 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