Advocacy & Safety - A city with no cars

The other day, I was reading "The Invisible Class" about a messenger in Chicago. In it he musses about a city without cars and how cars change the landscape of the city.

Then I got to thinking about how this situation of "car culture" came about.

The auto vehicle has many advantages to other forms of transportation. It can travel over distances relatively fast with no effort from the body. It can be used to carry very large loads over any distance, short or long. Trains, busses, and bicycles do not have this kind of flexibility. They can be made to do this, but at the expense of effort or loss of flexibiltity. The car is really a personal transportation device that can do most anything.

I do not think that anyone can doubt the negative impact that the car has on the city or on human living in general. Just look around next time you are sitting at a busy arterial intersection or traffic jam and think of the number of gallons of gasoline are just sitting on the road. I could go further, but there are other threads that deal with just this issue.

The problems I see with the efforts by cities and activists are that they are trying to convince people to ditch their vehicles for transportation options that are less efficient (from the time and flexibility aspect). Some of us, many on this forum, have found reasons for ditching the car (in some instances) that trump the arguments of time efficiency.

So here is the question: How to get people to drop an environmentally damaging, but incredibly flexible, personal transportation vehicle in favor of a less flexible but more environmentally friendly (not just pollution but social environment as well) vehicle (ie bicycle), or an even less flexible and not even personal vehicle (ie mass transit)?

Whatever solution, it has to start in a modern city. Car free cities takes the liberty of starting a city from scratch, but that is not an option. Not only the city centers have to be considered, but the suburban centers and sprawl have to be considered as well.

Any suggestions?

The solution is so simple, and yet so controversial:
Add $3.00 tax to every gallon of gasoline.
It works in the Netherlands......................

Gaul. This thread got me to remembering a couple we meet in our Normandy Bike tour in 1999. Remember talking to a cyclist couple sort of on the outskirsts of a town, their home directly adjacent a major bike pathway, leading to two nearby towns.
the wife and husband bought the house, because it is convenient for them to access the bike path to go in different directions on their bikes to work. What a change of attitudes from here.. I would love to live in such a city.. Bet people are friendlier and you can walk about the town unhindered by traffic and smog. . I assume motorists could park their cars on the edge of town so as to access them when needed for long distance commutes.
Of course, to me long distance means you can't access it by bike in less than 2 hours. Yes, simple solutions- 3 dollar tax on gas..The world of the future..

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
So here is the question: How to get people to drop an environmentally damaging, but incredibly flexible, personal transportation vehicle in favor of a less flexible but more environmentally friendly (not just pollution but social environment as well) vehicle (ie bicycle), or an even less flexible and not even personal vehicle (ie mass transit)?
Brian, I would have to agree with D*Alex, Chris L. and Adam Smith. People will do whatever is most profitable for them personally.

Having said that, I will once again agree with D*Alex and Chris L.:
riding a bicycle and walking are already most profitable for me.

Now I will agree with myself: I love to walk to the bus stop or train station, then sleep while someone else does the driving, unlimited rides, for no more than the cost of signing on to the internet!

:D

The book Asphalt Nation deals with this issue in detail. It was written in the mid-90s but is still very relevant.

Pete. I think people are not that rational. We are creatures of habit and often irrational.. Commuting to a job three hours drive, to save 200 % on an already overpriced house is nuts..
Affordable housing close to work, has been the norm since recorded time. But not now. I think that is the root of a lot of our all too common road rage. Road rage is but a sympton of some irrational force driving us crazy.. Having to replace a car every couple years because affordable housing in not available near to work is pretty irrational too; yet alone not cost effective.
I think the limited incomes I see in our costly housing markets will some future year cause unknown consquences. I think when people can't afford to commute to work and the housing market collapses due to everyone being 'house poor'- will result in an economic meltdown because we have not developed an economic system that is sustainable.. All this is suggested in the 'Asphalt Nation' also..

Originally posted by cyclezealot
Pete. I think people are not that rational. We are creatures of habit and often irrational.. Commuting to a job three hours drive, to save 200 % on an already overpriced house is nuts...

Yes, I couldn't agree more!

Our whole transportation system reminds me of a gambler who bets all his chips on one number. What will people fall back on if driving a car becomes too expensive?

i'd like to second the endorsement of _asphalt nation_ as a worthwhile read for ppl who are into thinking long and hard about these issues. the book was recomended on a thread at this very forum back when i first began lookin' round here(it's been a l'il while now!) and i went out and bought the book on the advice of several BF members. it's proven to be, overall, an entertaining and informative read, despite some of the drawbacks in terms of style.

-rob

Originally posted by Pete Clark

Brian, I would have to agree with D*Alex, Chris L. and Adam Smith. People will do whatever is most profitable for them personally.

Having said that, I will once again agree with D*Alex and Chris L.:
riding a bicycle and walking are already most profitable for me.

I think it was D*Alex and Cyclezealot you were agreeing with, but hey, you can add my support in there as well. I think the whole $ aspect is one that has been largely ignored by cycling advocates and I really don't understand why. The focus seems to be on "cycle to benefit the environment/community/whatever."

Well, that's all well and good, but nobody seems to focus on the fact that the costs of operating and maintaining a car for a year amount to thousands of dollars (this is before the cost of buying one in the first place is even considered). Hence this is why I have always said I am better off without one.

Sure, it might be a little more convenient to own a car, but once someone knows how to use other methods of transport effectively, the difference in convenience pales into insignificance when one compares it to the cost of driving.

http://www.mackinac.com/?SourceId=aAbout

Sadly, it's more a tourist trap than a real, sustainable economy, but it does show that you can live without cars, even in the USA. Scary, though, in a way, to think that a town becomes a tourist attraction mainly due to the 'oddness' of having no motor traffic...

Originally posted by D*Alex
The solution is so simple, and yet so controversial:
Add $3.00 tax to every gallon of gasoline.
It works in the Netherlands......................
I have heard it said, that if there was a large tax on gasoline, our economy would suffer. This is mainly due to the fact that with the vast open lands of America, many goods are shipped via open road and rail. With this in mind, here is my amended tax proposal. Commercial use vehicles would be exempt from heavily taxed gasoline, but privately owned vehicles would pay the full amount. Of course, every one would try to say their vehicle was for business use only.

Now that is an idea that every one can love. (Except, perhaps, cagers). Then again, I support the flat tax and the privatization of Social Security. (I am a registered Indpendant...yes, I prefer to think for myself).:)

In many older European cities it is quite easy to get by without a car. You dont need one for travelling around a compact city, and intercity travel is easily accomplished by rail. Riding around cities in Germany or Denmark is not considered a sign of poverty or social protest, just transportation.
It is pretty difficult to convert a low-density car-based city into a higher density carless one. People are scared of high density living, but if you take the space devoted to cars away, there is plenty of room for more people. In car-based societies, only the poor and have-nots are warehoused in high density "projects", located by unpleasant freeways, and polluted by all the good people travelling past them to the 'burbs every day.

I agree with most of the arguments presented so far, but I'd like to point out a few additional things.

1. The "cost-effectiveness" of transportation doesn't seem to be an important factor for many people. Many people will commute by car because they find it "more convenient", i.e. because they can listen to the radio, talk on the phone and feel they are in their private adobe. Look at the number of people talking on the phone (even on public transport), and drop an ear on their conversation, and there is a lot of unnecessary chatter going on... especially when one considers time on a cell phone is usually billed by the minute (it's during daytime).

Some people factor in some auto costs and prefer to use public transport to go to work. Yet, these same people will go shopping, or will go to church by car, even if there is good bus service.

2. As others have pointed out, bicycling is often more time effective than driving. It's true in large cities, because of parking hassles, traffic jams, etc.; but even in small cities, cycling is time effective for distances up to 3-4 km. When I was working in Trois-Rivières, it took me 7 minutes door to door from home to office (2.2 km). My father was driving the same distance in 7 to 12 minutes (warming the car, finding a parking spot, etc.). And walking was a 25-minute proposition... which was about 30 minutes faster than public transport!

Regards,

Originally posted by mgagnonlv
The "cost-effectiveness" of transportation doesn't seem to be an important factor for many people. Many people will commute by car because they find it "more convenient", i.e. because they can listen to the radio, talk on the phone and feel they are in their private adobe.
I believe most people use the term "cost-effectiveness" to represent a favorable cost-benefit relationship leading to a choice, such as riding a motor vehicle. If a person perceives the benefits of driving to outweigh the costs, they'll choose to drive the car. To them, a car would be "cost-effective".

You have to examine all the benefits (and costs) of a behavior, not just the obvious ones. In fact, you name some of ancillary benefits of auto driving -- convenience, privacy, listening to radio, etc. -- that weigh heavily in peoples' minds when choosing to drive. Yet, unless I'm misreading your post, you seem to use these benefits as examples of how people continue choose a (in your view) cost-ineffective form of transportation.

My only point here is that, for instance, listening to the radio on the way to work can be a major benefit of driving. Personally, I wish I could listen to the radio on my bike-commute to work (I don't, because it's unsafe) and absolutely love to when I drive.

Little things like this mean a whole lot to people and explain why the demand for driving far outstrips the demand for biking. Until biking is perceived by the general public to be advantageous (relative to cars), this whole thread is moot.

Andy.. I am convinced people do not know what is good for them..Never have I seen angrier people than when they commute on LA freeways and can only move 15 mph because the traffic does not move.
I remember someone on this web site posted a study by some British university, stating the average speed of cars in British urban areas is only 19 mph, when you factored gridlock and traffic lights. That is about what I do on my bike !..This is not effective transportation..
Personally, I am not advocating 3 dollar tax on gasoline.
I just think it might effect some of our habits- just maybe..?
I would like to think commuters will find others solutions to traffic gridlock, just because gridlock alone, tells us this is not rational..

Originally posted by cyclezealot
Andy.. I am convinced people do not know what is good for them....Personally, I am not advocating 3 dollar tax on gasoline.
cyclezealot, from your earlier post: "Yes, simple solutions- 3 dollar tax on gas..The world of the future"

Whatever your thoughts towards additional taxes on gasoline, remember that a significant segment of the population that can't reasonably ride bikes on a daily basis would be adversely (unfairly?) taxed for the benefit of those that can.

Remember, too, that the Netherlands is (a) a small country, (b) flat, and (c) generally temperate. And its population never threw a Tea Party.

Andy. I know biking to work is not everyone's cup of tea.. A part of our transportion system should include the bicycle, but also mass transit..
The public should realize if their problem prone car can't get them to work, they have no job.. Public (mass)transportion is every bit as important to a robust economy as train tracks for freight trains, highways for trucks, etc..
Yes, that public transit system should allow we bicyclists access- so we can take along our bikes and commute on bike farther than presently possible.
In fact, I will say providing the means- guaranteing the workforce access to work, is really a national security issue.
I have spent too much time in Europe- our dependence upon the auto is not necessary.. you can get where ever you want and have no car..

The pro's and cons of car ownership are only relative to where you live and the infrastructure of public transport that is available to you, not everyone has the same access to these facilities.

I know that I can cover 16km/10miles as quick as a car can in traffic @30kph, but when I add in the time for a shower at the end of my (old) commute, driving is 15mins quicker. Then on the way home I can average 25kph, taking 38mins, the cars takes about 35mins. So the time difference isn't that much to warrant owning a car, except that my wife (and most other people) can't ride at this speed. She also wears a suit to work, and takes stuff to and from the office.

Then if I want to see my parents that live 80kms/50mile away, the only way to get there is by car, there is no public transport. So a car is necessary.

The public transport system here is a complete joke, every half hour on weekdays and every hour on weekends, stopping at 11pm.

The car is even quicker outside of peak hour traffic, cycling takes just as long regardless of the time of day.

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

My only point here is that, for instance, listening to the radio on the way to work can be a major benefit of driving. Personally, I wish I could listen to the radio on my bike-commute to work (I don't, because it's unsafe) and absolutely love to when I drive.

I got to listen to the radio at that time earlier this year when I was between jobs. If it's the same as what's on the radio over there, you're probably not missing all that much. :D

When it costs $1B per mile (or something close), public transportation is not a viable option. If work didn't stop every time a snail was uncovered (i.e., EPA regs), maybe the costs would be lower.

The Bay Area's BART system is extensive already. Still the roads are backed up. Still people choose to travel by car. So they apparently disagree with you and believe that driving is still worth it (is "cost-effective"). Gridlock and all.

The problem with the way Americans have designed their cities, mass transportation is not a realistic option. The solution? Americans need to stop the excessive urban sprawl and begin to build more community oriented areas (i.e. neighborgood grocery stores, hardware stores).

Here in Iowa City, housing has grown 12% in the last decade, while the population has grown by a much smaller percentage. Having lived in this community for 15 years, I have seen the sprawl first hand. Every year the neighborhoods inch out several blocks into what was previously farm land. With Iowa have arguably the most fertile soil in the nation, how can we take this land and put more and more houses on it. I guess this is where the higher yielding genitically altered crops come into play. Hmmm...

The problem is that you can't just suddenly change things, both because its impractical, and because you'd have a difficult time getting three hundred million Americans to just abandon their cars. It won't happen.

What would help to change things would be a gradual increase in the cost of gasoline; have it reflect the real costs of driving, rather than be subsidized out of the general fund. This would reduce overall income taxes signifigantly, and would result in those that use the roads actually paying for them.

Right now, the American transportation system is suffering from a tragedy of the commons -- everyone perceives it as a free resource, and uses it accordingly. If people actually had to pay for what they used, driving-wise, there'd be a lot less in the way of cars on the road, and a real demand for public transporation.

Right now, the American health care system is suffering from a tragedy of the commons -- everyone perceives it as a free resource, and uses it accordingly. If people actually had to pay for what they used, there'd be a lot less in the way of expensive and useless tests, and a real demand for cheaper forms of health care.

Right now, the American education system is suffering from a tragedy of the commons -- everyone perceives it as a free resource, and uses it accordingly. If people actually had to pay for what they used, there'd be a lot less in the way of mediocre and failing schools, and a real demand for accountability.

...

The same argument can be made for very many "free" government services funded by levies on you and me.

Whatever your thoughts towards additional taxes on gasoline, remember that a significant segment of the population that can't reasonably ride bikes on a daily basis would be adversely (unfairly?) taxed for the benefit of those that can.

OK, maybe this is getting off subject, but come on Andy, what are you talking about? what percent of the population cannot ride bikes on a daily basis? we're talking parapalegics, people with major medical problems, the severly mentally ********, and the extremely old that they have to ride in a wheel chair and can't climb stairs.

For the most part, anyone who can get in and out of a car, go up and down steps and generally make their way around w/o assistance is capable of riding a bike. i live in Europe and i see 90+ year old men and women that look like they couldn't even sit up in bed out riding bikes.

on the other hnad, maybe some people are so out of shape they couldn't ride very long, but riding would make them healthier.

not to mention the potential cost savings for future health-care from our letharigic car-driving tv-watching populace.

anyway, sure, there are people for whom we'd have to help or shuttle or make special accomodatikons for if driving weren't avaiable, but that's a bogus argument. there is virtually no one that NEEDS a car for their life --- they just need a car so that they can live so far away from work and school and drive all over the place.

anyway, back to the original topic: a combination system of walking, cycling, public transit, motor-powereed freight, and limited use of personal automobiles is a very viable as well as cost-effective, sustainable and effective solution.

in 20 years or so, people will laugh at the idea of driving a personal car for basic transportation -- unfortunately not because of the environment or deaths from car accidents or destruction of cummunity life or sprawl and loss of farmland ---- no, pretty soon it will no longer be convenient to drive b/c traffic will be so bad it won't be reasonable. If it takes 3 hours to drive 20 miles to work, society will suddenly become very creative about finding alternatives. unfortunately we're a dumb species and can't recognize the problem until it's too late --- it is a classic tragedy of the commons

and Matadon, your comments are right on!

personal auto transportation is a tragedy of the commons, and as usual, no one sees it until it's too late.

as you suggest, we cannot reasonably change things overnight, but we can do things to try and prevent it from getting worse so when we do have to change we can actually do it.

the US would be in really bad shape right now if for some reason we didn't have an oil supply. with all the economy and security talk of the current administration i just don't understand why no one talks about our greatest weakness -- other than suggesting we detroy Alaska to add a few drops to the bucket.

and Andy, your analogy about all government services being tragedy of the commons is flawed. first off, the US doesn't have much of a public health care system, but anyway... people are i think generally aware that we pay huge amount of taxes for schools and other government services -- i.e. that they are subsidized by all taxpayers for the real users. But i think awareness about the level of auto-subsidation is not general public knowledge. many people actually believe they pay for their public costs through their gas taxes and car registration fees. This is like saying that students who pay for their subsidized workbooks and their $1.90 subsidized lunches pay for their education.

AWARENESS should be the first step -- public disclosure and full understanding of the true costs of driving

then reduction of subsidies and other factors that create an unequal economic playing field (or market) and make people MORE likely to choose driving more and more and longer and longer distances --- existing residents paying for new services for communities further from the city, free roads, free parking, subsidized infrastruture, military protection of oil interests, etc.

anyway, unfortuantely i've become rather pessimestic --- i think there's very little hope of helping the situation and things will have to get really really bad before they will get better. some time soon we will have hundreds of thousands of people who waste many hours a day sitting in traffic and pollution as they try and live the American dream of living in a huge house on a huge plot of land out in the country (where land is cheap) while still holding down a job 50+ miles away in the city and also driving kids to school and wherever else. in many cities in the US like LA, Houston a large number of people are now more than 3 hours per day in the car. i think something around 4-6 hours/day of REQUIRED driving will be the breaking point. but before then we will have to endure more road rage, more deaths from tired careless impatience drivers who just want to get on with their lives but think the car is the only way...

Originally posted by nathank
OK, maybe this is getting off subject, but come on Andy, what are you talking about? what percent of the population cannot ride bikes on a daily basis? ...
First, I'm a card-carrying bike-commuter, so my credentials regarding this topic are better than most. Second, I've actively tried to enlist others in my company and elsewhere to take up b-c'ing. Yes, some of these people could bike-commute but elect not to. The car is too convenient, etc. And my company's employees are on average very young and we're in sunny San Jose, so you'd think the odds are best here.

Some work an early shift and would b-c in the dark in the morning all summer long. They feel unsafe. I tell them it's not bad. Still, they believe it to be unsafe.

Others are worried about the impending darkness of autumn/winter. Same story. Same response.

Others worry about the upcoming rainy season. Others are concerned about safety overall. Many haven't been on a bike in 10 years so it's a primarily a perspective thing.

Then we have the significant majority of otherwise able bodied people who have kids to pick up or drop off, who want to go to a restaurant after work, who ... this and who ... that. These people view a bike as constraining.

Besides, if more than a few elected to do the b-c thing, the shower facilities would need expanding.

I guess the point is that where these folks could commute via bike, they have their own reasons to say "Thanks, but no thanks". They choose not to b-c. I can't fault their reasoning even though I'm in a unique position to counter their arguments. Then again, I b-c only about 3 times a week because 20 miles each way is a long way to go.

Originally posted by nathank
... and Andy, your analogy about all government services being tragedy of the commons is flawed. first off, the US doesn't have much of a public health care system, but anyway... people are i think generally aware that we pay huge amount of taxes for schools and other government services -- i.e. that they are subsidized by all taxpayers for the real users. But i think awareness about the level of auto-subsidation is not general public knowledge. many people actually believe they pay for their public costs through their gas taxes and car registration fees. ... ... anyway, unfortuantely i've become rather pessimestic
I didn't say "all" government services, did I? I was careful to use "very many".

Besides, what is Medicare and Medicaid if not a HUGE, public health care system?

I agree, however, that people are lulled into thinking their gasoline taxes feed into the transportation fund when we know that, in fact, it goes to the general fund.

Just like other "specific" taxes, like FICA.

Personally, I don't fret too much over the car and public transportation and such. I think the real answer is to cut down on the need to travel to work in the first place. Social changes regarding telecommuting can cut the demand for transportation significantly. Not eliminate, but reduce traveling. It will take time, but it's far cheaper than throwing money at public transit.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Right now, the American health care system is suffering from a tragedy of the commons -- everyone perceives it as a free resource, and uses it accordingly. If people actually had to pay for what they used, there'd be a lot less in the way of expensive and useless tests, and a real demand for cheaper forms of health care.

It's a false analogy; first off, the U.S. doesn't really have much of a public healthcare system; most people have medical insurance through their work.

Second, a properly run public healthcare system is a service that only serves public benefit; it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, young or old, green or mauve -- you can get healthcare. This helps to improve the overall health of the entire community; not just those lucky few at the top of the medicinal pyramid.

In contrast, the American highway system is only of benefit if you own a car, although you pay for it either way. Furthermore, there are no reasonable alternatives for the majority of Americans -- if you don't want to use public healthcare, as in the above example, you're free to go to a private practice, holistic medicine specialist, witch doctor, or whathaveyou.



Right now, the American education system is suffering from a tragedy of the commons -- everyone perceives it as a free resource, and uses it accordingly. If people actually had to pay for what they used, there'd be a lot less in the way of mediocre and failing schools, and a real demand for accountability.

...

The same argument can be made for very many "free" government services funded by levies on you and me.

Same arguments apply; it's another false analogy. You don't need twenty thousand dollars worth of steel and plastic in order to expand your mind in school; and, furthermore, going to school improves one's quality of life -- spending an hour in a traffic jam does not.

Originally posted by Matadon
(A)It's a false analogy; first off, the U.S. doesn't really have much of a public healthcare system; most people have medical insurance through their work.

Second, a properly run public healthcare system is a service that only serves public benefit; it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, young or old, green or mauve -- you can get healthcare. This helps to improve the overall health of the entire community; not just those lucky few at the top of the medicinal pyramid.

(B)In contrast, the American highway system is only of benefit if you own a car, although you pay for it either way....

(C)... You don't need twenty thousand dollars worth of steel and plastic in order to expand your mind in school; and, furthermore, going to school improves one's quality of life -- spending an hour in a traffic jam does not.

On (A), we agree to disagree on the merits of a public healthcare system. Medicare/Medicaid forms the largest entitlement spending programs of the Federal gov't ... how this can be considered "private" beats me. Anyway, it's a sidenote ... I hereby drop healthcare as a discussion item for this thread.

On (B), the highway system is a benefit even if you don't own a car. It was created as a means to insure defense, it allows ambulances to get to you quickly, it allows your food to be easily and cheaply delivered. It is simply preposterous to think the highway system benefits only those having cars.

On (C), education does indeed require infrastructure to "expand one's mind". I fail to see your point. Also, going to work certainly improves one's quality of life; if you choose to sit in a traffic jam as a means to this end, so be it. It's a cost of the gain that is work. If it weren't, you wouldn't do it.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
On (A), we agree to disagree on the merits of a public healthcare system. Medicare/Medicaid forms the largest entitlement spending programs of the Federal gov't ... how this can be considered "private" beats me. Anyway, it's a sidenote ... I hereby drop healthcare as a discussion item for this thread.

Since debating the merits of a public healthcare system is rather off-topic, fair enough; but note the size difference between Medic(are|aid) and, say, Blue Cross.



On (B), the highway system is a benefit even if you don't own a car. It was created as a means to insure defense, it allows ambulances to get to you quickly, it allows your food to be easily and cheaply delivered. It is simply preposterous to think the highway system benefits only those having cars.

Emergency services and pizza delivery (there is no other food) are both local services, and make no use of the massive interstate system which we have built. I think we all agree that local roads are a good thing to have; the question here isn't "are roads a good thing?", but is instead "is our current freeway system a good thing?"

Goods are easier to transport by rail, and commercial rail systems are both more durable, carry substantially more cargo, and do less damage to the environment than do trucks. It makes more sense to move goods across the nation via rail to local points of delivery, where motorized vehicles can transport them to their final destination. The energy savings alone of doing things this way would likely be in the billions of dollars.

As to national defense, that's why the freeways were created; but that isn't the purpose they serve today. Troop and equipment transport is done mostly via aircraft nowadays; a C-130 can take a lot more cargo than a Peterbuilt, and have room for troops to boot.



On (C), education does indeed require infrastructure to "expand one's mind". I fail to see your point. Also, going to work certainly improves one's quality of life; if you choose to sit in a traffic jam as a means to this end, so be it. It's a cost of the gain that is work. If it weren't, you wouldn't do it.

Education does require infrastructure; that's not the question here. Education does not require a multitrillion dollar freeway system, nor does it require a personal automobile to ferry faculty and students to and from the classroom. Furthermore, the costs of maintaining parking space for all those vehicles detracts from the funds available to educate.

As for commuters, it really isn't a matter of choice. Housing is rarely available near commercial areas, and if it is, it's far too expensive for anyone but the incredibly wealthy to afford it. Look at San Francisco -- a studio apartment near the financial district runs around $1,500 a month. Working in the suburbs is an option, but only if you want to work in the service industry, where you will take a very signifigant pay cut over working as a professional. So, commute, or live in near-poverty. Not much of a choice to me.

Time to go back and dissemble your original quote ...


Originally posted by Matadon
What would help to change things would be a gradual increase in the cost of gasoline; have it reflect the real costs of driving, rather than be subsidized out of the general fund. This would reduce overall income taxes signifigantly, and would result in those that use the roads actually paying for them.

By "cost" of gasoline, you mean taxes on gasoline, which is different than the cost of producing gasoline, which is less now than in the "oil crisis" on an inflation-adjusted basis.

So, you mean tax the hell out of gasoline to drive up the cost and make people aware of and respond to the "real" costs of driving.

And how would the "real" cost of driving be determined? Does the transportation fund represent the "real" costs? If not, you're going to have to assess the real cost before instituting the fee structure. Have you thought of that? Good luck.

And, again, you make a false assumption that only users of highways benefit from highways. The entire trucking distribution network which cannot be substituted by the train system as you suggest is centered on interstates, my friend. You may choose to ignore this obvious fact if you wish. But take away the highways and watch food costs, for instance, skyrocket. I'll identify the real costs of not having highways on your behalf while you focus on pizza delivery.

And exactly how would you implement this use fee structure? On a per-mile basis? By enacting tolls every 10 miles or so? Can you imagine the gasoline waste and pollution arising from cars idling at toll roads across the country? Taxes on vehicles? Then watch for the introduction of unsafe vehicles as manufacturers build wildly inexpensvie (read: cheaply built) automobiles to backfill demand. Taxes on gas? Cars go to diesel. Taxes on diesel? Trucks stop shipping.

And how exactly will you get your pipe dream enacted? Because without enactment, it's a dream, right? So, tell me how you're going to convince rational people that your scheme is the correct one.

Idle thinking. Keep dreaming.

Europe seems to do just fine with their multi-dollar gas tax. Of course, America is a large country and relies a lot on long distance transportation of goods. But, then again, why do I need underwear made in Mexico? Can't Iowan's make underwear?

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Time to go back and dissemble your original quote ...

By "cost" of gasoline, you mean taxes on gasoline, which is different than the cost of producing gasoline, which is less now than in the "oil crisis" on an inflation-adjusted basis.

So, you mean tax the hell out of gasoline to drive up the cost and make people aware of and respond to the "real" costs of driving.

And how would the "real" cost of driving be determined? Does the transportation fund represent the "real" costs? If not, you're going to have to assess the real cost before instituting the fee structure. Have you thought of that? Good luck.


By "real" costs of driving, I mean to include all the costs of road mantenance and construction, traffic planning, and pretty much most of the departmental budget of the DOT (or at least the NHSTA); most of this comes out of the general fund at this point in time. Or are you telling me that eighteen cents a gallon is enough to cover all of that?



And, again, you make a false assumption that only users of highways benefit from highways. The entire trucking distribution network which cannot be substituted by the train system as you suggest is centered on interstates, my friend. You may choose to ignore this obvious fact if you wish. But take away the highways and watch food costs, for instance, skyrocket. I'll identify the real costs of not having highways on your behalf while you focus on pizza delivery.


I don't recall saying that all trucking could be replaced; I stated that most, if not all, cross-country trucking could be replaced by rail transport. Hell, by keeping the interstates in place, the changes can be made gradually, over time, in small increments. Local trucking will continue for some time, although a multipurpose (commuter/commercial) light-rail system will help reduce local trucking needs as well.

As for pizza delivery, please, learn to take a joke.



And exactly how would you implement this use fee structure? On a per-mile basis? By enacting tolls every 10 miles or so? Can you imagine the gasoline waste and pollution arising from cars idling at toll roads across the country? Taxes on vehicles? Then watch for the introduction of unsafe vehicles as manufacturers build wildly inexpensvie (read: cheaply built) automobiles to backfill demand. Taxes on gas? Cars go to diesel. Taxes on diesel? Trucks stop shipping.


Raising the taxes on fuel (for reasons stated above) will handle the use fees; logically, the more gas you buy, the more you use the roads.

Second, I like your slippery slope there. Raised taxes leads to unsafe vehicles and massive tax-fraud and a collapse of the national economy. Care to explain your logic?



And how exactly will you get your pipe dream enacted? Because without enactment, it's a dream, right? So, tell me how you're going to convince rational people that your scheme is the correct one.

Idle thinking. Keep dreaming.

Actually, I never said it was anything but a dream -- Americans will grind themselves into the ground and turn the U.S. into a third-world country before they give up their fast-food ford-on-the-freeway lifestyle. It's the really sad thing about my people; unable, for the most part, to see beyond the carrot dangling in front of their noses.

Originally posted by Steele-Bike
Europe seems to do just fine with their multi-dollar gas tax. Of course, America is a large country and relies a lot on long distance transportation of goods. But, then again, why do I need underwear made in Mexico? Can't Iowan's make underwear?

Of course they can, but you'd have to pay more for it. Maybe even a whole dollar. *gasp*

Originally posted by Matadon
Of course they can, but you'd have to pay more for it. Maybe even a whole dollar. *gasp*
You sure are loose with other people's money !!

BTW, y'all. You'd be proud of me. I took the SJ Light Rail home tonight. I have to say it was dreadful. It took forever to snake its way through SJ -- over an hour. About the same amount of time, coincidentally, it takes for me to bike-commute 20 miles home.

At least in SJ, public transportation in the form of the high-tech light rail system is a no-go for most people.

there is virtually no one that NEEDS a car for their life

This is true to a point, but not realistic.

What else don't we need.

Electricity (that pretty much covers all things that use it), people lived for thousands of years without it so why do we burn mountains of coal to make the stuff. We don't need it to live, but I am not about to give it up.

Cars are here to stay like it or not. And a lot of people do need them to live. My dad is a brick layer, I can't see him towing his trailer on the bike with half a tonne of sand, cement mixer, scaffolding and tools. Not everyone can ride 40 miles r/t to work (me included), and not everyone can live close to work, it just isn't possible.

Try going to the hardware store and buying a wheel barrow then carting it home on a bike. Try going Christmas shopping with two kids, then carting all those gifts home on a bike. Try going out for dinner with your wife all dressed up for an anniversary on a bike (if I tried this I would not be married for long):D Not likely.

Cars do have a purpose, a bike WILL NOT be ideal in every situation for everyone. Having said this, I still believe that more people should try finding alternative means to get to and from work at least a few days per week. If everyone did this there would be a lot less traffic on the road.


CHEERS.

Mark

Dutchy,

i agree, and i was only stating that to make a point about our assumptions of what we NEED - and b/c Andy's statements about most people not being ABLE to bike is false --- they're too lazy, OK, but very few are truly unable. and yes, your father probably COULD transport most of his stuff by bike, but in today's economy he wouldn't be very competitive. so he has a more legitimate need to drive a truck, but the solo drivers on the freeway in the SUV going to work and back...


Cars do have a purpose, a bike WILL NOT be ideal in every situation for everyone. Having said this, I still believe that more people should try finding alternative means to get to and from work at least a few days per week. If everyone did this there would be a lot less traffic on the road.

my view of the ideal is pretty similar to what you described: where society is organized so people don't NEED a car for every little activity and walking or biking serve most needs and then we have more heavy-duty transportation like rail, cars, trucks, and planes for long-distance or freight transportation.

but transporting a huge mass of steel and plastic tens or hundreds of miles a day for your own personal self is SO wasteful and inefficient and eventually unsustainable not only b/c of pollution and fuel, but just simply there is not enough space for 6+billion people on this planet to live this way...

as i said before, the huge automobile as daily personal transport device for the majority of people in the US will not last much longer... but people won't face this reality and will drive and sit in traffic and inhale pollution and endure road-rage and commute 50 miles from the suburbs for quite a few years before the critical change point is reached in maybe 20-25 years... then things will change radically and quickly - to what i'm not sure.

Originally posted by Dutchy


This is true to a point, but not realistic.

What else don't we need.

Electricity (that pretty much covers all things that use it), people lived for thousands of years without it so why do we burn mountains of coal to make the stuff. We don't need it to live, but I am not about to give it up.

Nuclear. Solar. Wind. Geothermal. Hydrogenerated. There are plenty of non-polluting sources of energy. Yes, I'm aware of what nuclear waste is, but it's something we can contain and deal with -- not a cocktail of nasty chemicals that just gets thrown into the atmosphere as a byproduct of combustion.

Generating electricity doesn't have to pollute the air, or water, or ground.


Cars are here to stay like it or not. And a lot of people do need them to live. My dad is a brick layer, I can't see him towing his trailer on the bike with half a tonne of sand, cement mixer, scaffolding and tools. Not everyone can ride 40 miles r/t to work (me included), and not everyone can live close to work, it just isn't possible.


It's not a matter of everyone giving up cars; your father needs his truck to do work, as do others, and this is a given -- e.g., his vehicle is *commerical* in nature. Where the problem lies is with the millions of commuters that shuttle themselves back and forth between the suburbs and the city, wasting millions of gallons of gasoline, polluting the atmosphere, and destroying the land with their passage.

Light-rail is the answer to that problem. Cars will always be here, in some form or another, but we desperately need to reduce their quantity.

As to distance-to-work, what's close? Five miles? Ten? I'd say ten is a reasonable distance for an average bicycle commute, which would give a rough area of 300 square miles in which to place office buildings, people, and businesses. Now, imagine what you could do in three hundred square miles if you didn't need to devote one inch of it to automotive parking[1].

Personally, if I could walk/ride to a local RT station, and and it took an hour to get to work, it would be worth it. Why? Because I can reclaim that time. I can read. Play on my laptop. Do homework. Listen to music on my walkman/discman/PDA. I'm not stuck in an endless line of cars, having to worry about what the driver in front of me is going to do next.



Try going to the hardware store and buying a wheel barrow then carting it home on a bike. Try going Christmas shopping with two kids, then carting all those gifts home on a bike. Try going out for dinner with your wife all dressed up for an anniversary on a bike (if I tried this I would not be married for long):D Not likely.


That's what rental cars are for. Think about it; not owning a car will save you in the neighborhood of $6000 yearly (including depreciation). For that, methinks you can rent a light truck for days at the hardware store, and you can splurge and rent a Ferrari to take your wife out on your anniversary.


Cars do have a purpose, a bike WILL NOT be ideal in every situation for everyone. Having said this, I still believe that more people should try finding alternative means to get to and from work at least a few days per week. If everyone did this there would be a lot less traffic on the road.

CHEERS.

Mark

We agree on that; cars aren't evil things, they're just grossly mis- and over-used by the majority of the population.

[1] Small electric vehcles could handle emergency duties, as well as provide transport of goods and services in and out of this rather small city.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
BTW, y'all. You'd be proud of me. I took the SJ Light Rail home tonight. I have to say it was dreadful. It took forever to snake its way through SJ -- over an hour. About the same amount of time, coincidentally, it takes for me to bike-commute 20 miles home.

At least in SJ, public transportation in the form of the high-tech light rail system is a no-go for most people.

If it's anything like Sacramento's, than you're right, it's crap. Our light-rail was likely designed by a cadre of rabid, worm-infested kangaroos, because it certainly wasn't designed by people with college educations.

It only goes from Sacramento proper (which is good) to the slummiest neighborhoods in town (which is bad; and, yes, they were slums before RT came around). It's great for commuters if you're primary industry revolves around words and phrases like "biatch", "8-ball", "freebase", and "give me your wallet."

Why they couldn't have sent rail out to the three main commuter-habitats, I have no idea. Three new tracks, laying on dead-man's land next to the freeway, running out to Roseville, Folsom, and Elk Grove, would help to alleviate so much traffic congestion that the freeway would actually be useful again as a means of transport.

I know that this is way off the subject and I may be way out of line to correct something like this, but the book referred to originally in the thread is called The Immortal Class by Travis Hugh Culley. Not trying to be a jackass, but if someone wanted to read it, they might have a hard time finding it if the name is incorrect. Also, I just skimmed the threads so the correction may have already been made...if so I apologize in advance.

Originally posted by nathank
(A)... i was only stating that to make a point about our assumptions of what we NEED - and b/c Andy's statements about most people not being ABLE to bike is false --- they're too lazy ...

(B)... but transporting a huge mass of steel and plastic tens or hundreds of miles a day for your own personal self is SO wasteful and inefficient and eventually unsustainable not only b/c of pollution and fuel, but just simply there is not enough space for 6+billion people on this planet to live this way...

On (A), I suppose we could all run to work too. How 'bout walking on our hands? ;) There are any number of substitutes for locomotion, but how many feasible substitutes? People view driving a car as more time-efficient, safer, convenient, and luxurious than biking. I view these as factors leading to a rational choice they make that leads them to turn the key (even though I am a serious bike-commuter) while you view their choice as being rooted in laziness. I think your analysis ignores human factors like those denoted above.

On (B), remember that by now we should have been zipping along in clean, electric, Jetson-style levitating cars. But in all these years, no one has found a viable alternative to the good ol' internal combustion engine.

As far as the sustainability of this behavior (driving) all I can say is that the benefits so far of driving far exceeds the cost, as is apparent by the unending popularity of cars. Fuel is more abundant than before, and cheaper, and pollution is always a problem, but not a worsening problem (according to the EPA) even with the explosion in the number of cars on the road in the past decades.

In a macro sense, the advantage of auto based transportation is that it places choice in the hands of millions of individual riders and thus is flexible, convenient, and not easily disrupted. My apologies to all of you stuck in traffic jams in Manhattan, LA, and every other urban eyesore that folks willingly decide to live in; but the problem is not cars. The problem is that you are so incapable of entertaining and employing yourselves in the absence of millions of your fellow men (and women) that you cluster together like lemmings on the shore. 95% of the pavement in this country is not bumper to bumper clogged traffic.

In reverse, the disadvantage of mass transit is that it places choice in remarkably few people, it is not convenient, and it IS easily disrupted. You wanna see gridlock? Watch what happens in NY or DC when some disgruntled public employee transit unions decide they aren't gonna work unless they get a pay raise.

To me the solution is smaller cars, and more fuel efficient vehicles. This will happen in due time when the price of gasoline rises...NOT BECAUSE of taxation, but due to natural economic forces. I fail to see how giving MORE money to the Ted Kennedys and George Bushes (to avoid the democrat/republican issue) will solve our transportation problems. Fuel efficiency is a virtue in its own right, and I think it will proceed in coming decades no matter what happens to the price of gas.

My suspicion, as an economist, is that increases in fuel efficiency in transportation and elsewhere will overwhelm the decline in supply, and that petroleum prices will continue to fall in real terms--even if short term spikes such as we have now my pockmark the way. Of course, then we Amerikans will be to blame for poverty in the Arab world, where they will be sitting on drained and useless oil fields while the rest of the world uses solar, wind, and various degrees of nuclear energy. Until then, enjoy your SUV!! And gimme a wave when ya go by...I am the guy with the cranberry colored fuji.

Roughstuff

Originally posted by Steele-Bike
Europe seems to do just fine with their multi-dollar gas tax. Of course, America is a large country and relies a lot on long distance transportation of goods. But, then again, why do I need underwear made in Mexico? Can't Iowan's make underwear?

Do they wear underwear in Iowa?

I am not so sure Europe is 'doing fine with its multidollar gas tax.' Eurosclerosis is now a widespread disease, has been for almost 15 years. Many European countries sport unemployment rates in the high single digits and low teens, and even so are hopelessly dependent upon a subservient immigrant class (the Turks in Germany, for example) who can be deported at a moments notice. The europeans are clucking right now that we want to go to war with iraq to keep oil prices low...when in fact, we import less oil as a percent of consumption than almost every european country. If we catch cold, they will get pneumonia.

Of course there are many OTHER reasons for these problems, too..not just transportation taxes But it's all different blooms of the same rose: decisions are made by government bureaucracies and not by individuals.

Roughstuff

Originally posted by Roughstuff
... My suspicion, as an economist, is that increases in fuel efficiency in transportation and elsewhere will overwhelm the decline in supply [of gasoline] ...
Good stuff, Roughstuff, except that disagree that there is a declining supply of gasoline. (I agree, however, that fuel efficiency will nevertheless improve as a consequence of increasing technology.)

Gasoline supplies (oil reserves, actually) are increasing faster than the rate of depletion. There is therefore no imminent end to fuel supplies as many would like to believe. The internal combustion engine is capable of existing for quite some time to come.

To me the solution is smaller cars, and more fuel efficient vehicles. This will happen in due time when the price of gasoline rises...NOT BECAUSE of taxation, but due to natural economic forces. I fail to see how giving MORE money to the Ted Kennedys and George Bushes (to avoid the democrat/republican issue) will solve our transportation problems. Fuel efficiency is a virtue in its own right, and I think it will proceed in coming decades no matter what happens to the price of gas.


Roughstuff-

I may be incorrect or off base here, but isn't the price of gasoline in this country artificially low due to direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies? To name one, how much does it cost the U.S. to maintain a significant military presence in the Persian Gulf? Certainly at least part of the reason has to do with the oil reserves located there. Now if Exxon had to pay for their own military forces to keep the supply of oil stable, wouldn't that be an example of a "natural economic force"? It would certainly raise the price of a gallon of gas. Instead of taxing gasoline and handing money to the Kennedys and the Bushes, why don't we just remove all subsidies that benefit oil producers, and let the economic chips fall where they may? That seems like a free-market solution that doesn't require any government intervention at all. In fact, it would save billions in public spending every year.
What do you think?

According to the book Ashalt Nation, removing the subsidies (including huge tax breaks for oil companies, military escorts, etc) and requiring all road maintenace to be paid for by gas taxes, would raise the price of gas by several dollars per gallon.

Originally posted by Bikesalot
[
Roughstuff-

I may be incorrect or off base here, but isn't the price of gasoline in this country artificially low due to direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies? To name one, how much does it cost the U.S. to maintain a significant military presence in the Persian Gulf? Certainly at least part of the reason has to do with the oil reserves located there. Now if Exxon had to pay for their own military forces to keep the supply of oil stable, wouldn't that be an example of a "natural economic force"? It would certainly raise the price of a gallon of gas. Instead of taxing gasoline and handing money to the Kennedys and the Bushes, why don't we just remove all subsidies that benefit oil producers, and let the economic chips fall where they may? That seems like a free-market solution that doesn't require any government intervention at all. In fact, it would save billions in public spending every year.
What do you think? [/B]

We have had this argument before. MANY MANY companies get subsidies--if ya wanna hop on the libertarian train I have been riding for years and try and phase them ALL out, I am with you 100%. Yes...let the chips fallwhere they may. I might point out that in many countries oil companies (not just US ones) do maintain substantial paramilitary and police forces at considerable expense. It will only get bigger with time...as the book 'The New Centurions' makes clear. Having dealt with some of these people from time to time, I think you would prefer the citizen soldiers we have in the US. But yes I agree with your very good suggestion...phase out these subsidies.

Still i must quibble a bit about this incessant reference to our involvement in the middle east as being a hidden cost to US oil users. That my be correct, but it is ALSO true that the lower prices flow to ALL users worldwide...US, Europe, Japan and many others. I am ALL FOR assessing foreign countries for their fair share of OUR EXPENSE (and OUR BLOOD) to protect what is the lifeblood of the WORLD ECONOMY..not just our own. If you assume that this cost is, for example, $1.50 per gallon of gas, that price would be tacked on worldwide (or should be) and then you'll be RIGHT back where ya started--a differential between the US and European countries due primarily to taxes.

But damn it sure would help us conserve. For god sakes 2000 years from now we'll look back on this amazing substance and say, 'can you believe people used to just BURN this stuff?'


roughstuff

Segway will change the world as we know it...
*cough

Originally posted by Roughstuff
Do they wear underwear in Iowa?

Is it getting hot in here, or did those flames just burn the Hanes off my .....?