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

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: "America's Epidemic of Youth Obesity"--NYT article

Expand Messages
  • John O. Andersen
    Since we got rid of the family car, we ve noticed a lot more money available for us for other things. I can verify car costs are indeed a big part of the
    Message 1 of 33 , Dec 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Since we got rid of the family car, we've noticed a lot more money available
      for us for other things.

      I can verify car costs are indeed a big part of the budget.

      John Andersen
      Unconventional Ideas at http://www.unconventionalideas.com
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
      To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:00 PM
      Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: "America's Epidemic of Youth Obesity"--NYT
      article


      > Don't forget the private sector subsidies to the automobile. The cost of
      employee parking comes out of your salary, and the cost of shopping center
      parking is paid for by the goods stores sell. According to Auto Nation,
      each automobile in North America requires seven parking spaces on the
      average.
      >
      > Individuals don't get off lightly, either. Around twenty percent of
      family budgets are for their motor vehicles, more than they spend on food.
      The entire system has been built around increasing consumption to stimulate
      motor vehicle sales, with the result that more highways, free parking, and
      street-widening caused vehicle mileage to increase faster than the
      population. It is a very effective system that does what it was designed to
      do during the Eisenhower administration, at the expense of families and the
      taxpayers. Auto Nation states that car travel is increasing thirty percent
      faster than the rapidly increasing US population. The problem is, this
      system was designed to stimulate jobs in the US. In the past thirty years,
      US automakers have lost almost half their market share and foreign suppliers
      will grab a bigger share of US petroleum dollars every year from now on.
      It's interesting how people cling on to antiquated economic systems, long
      after the original perce!
      > ived needs are no longer there. It certainly will be a challenge for
      groups like Carfree Cities to right this wrong, at least until the
      realization of the true cost of carburbs sets in.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "turpin" <turpin@...>
      > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:05 PM
      > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: "America's Epidemic of Youth Obesity"--NYT
      article
      >
      >
      > > "paulparma" <info@v...> wrote:
      > > > Exactly what are the amounts and items subsidized.
      > > > Acording to the Department of Xportation, most
      > > > federal Highway money comes from gas taxes, the
      > > > rest, a much lesser amount, coming from income
      > > > taxes.
      > >
      > > Not many roads in Austin are federal highways. We get some state and
      > > highway money for I35, 183, and other highways and their
      > > interchanges. But the vast majority of our roads are maintained by
      > > the city, which issues bonds and pays them off from general revenues,
      > > i.e., property tax and the 1% of sales tax it gets. In addition to
      > > road maintenance itself, there are two other areas of significant
      > > public expense due to automobile travel. (1) Police efforts dedicated
      > > to enforcing traffic laws. This, again, is paid from general city
      > > revenues. (2) Emergency response and area hospital costs incurred
      > > from automobile accidents. Some of this is city paid, but there are
      > > other revenue streams also.
      > >
      > > It's important to focus on city roads rather than highways, for
      > > several reasons. Cities are really the hub of transportation issues.
      > > They are where the cost shifting is greatest. And it is far more
      > > reasonable to get some cities to try out alternatives than to shift
      > > federal policy. Unfortunately, you can't change cities without
      > > changing state policies. For a city to implement some of the
      > > transportation ideas frequently discussed, it MUST control its
      > > boundary and the regional roads through it. Unless the state gives a
      > > city this kind of control, you see the kind of growth pattern visible
      > > in some towns in Arkansas, that are ten miles long and three blocks
      > > wide, stretched out along the state or federal highway.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • paulparma <info@venetianpassage.com>
      ... Should we be targeting the transportation departments as well as , maybe even preceding lobbying the legislators? These guys are are the ones under
      Message 33 of 33 , Dec 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@c...>

        > I see a window of opportunity here. The next year or two are going
        > to be years of budget crises in the USA, especially at the state
        > level. ....................
        >
        > Are we ready? Can we organize to take adantage of this opportunity?
        > Can we start a massive program of writing to legislators and news
        > media? Can anyone take responsibilty for coming up with the best
        > numbers we've got and working them into some generalized press
        > releases? Can others tailor these for local environments and get
        > them into the right hands? Lots of work, but some real chance of
        > a payback.
        >

        Should we be targeting the transportation departments as well as ,
        maybe even preceding lobbying the legislators? These guys are are the
        ones under presure; there's all that federal money, waiting to be
        matched, because we are still driving and paying those federal gas tax
        dollars, so the federal pile keeps getting bigger, and unused. Won't
        the state folks know that as the DIRECT gas taxes go up, the gas usage
        goes down. Which I think, if this is in fact so, can be properly
        countered with, sure, now you'll have all the money you need to do
        what ever people want to pay for.... so trtansit, and most central,
        dense building and rebuilding, wil get a fare shake.

        To me this is the thing we have to discuss, besides the numbers, and
        were it comes from now stuff; that is we need to diccuss what we think
        the very astute sense of the xportation administrators to know that if
        they raise the gas taxes, revinue, especially in a recovered economy
        will be down from what it could be in the current methodology. I
        think that the game has in fact changed in that toll roads are now
        the previlent building mode.... discussion by more informed
        members....

        Paul Parma
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.