All rail lines are bleading dollars like crazy. Then again, all highways are bleading dollars like crazy especially those that have no tolls. Our city streets are bleading dollars like crazy resulting in higher property taxes for everyone. Did you know that Amtrak was unprofitable? Did you know Chicago's metro was a huge money pit?

I've said it before there can be no middle ground when it comes to public transportation. If it's not being used like Amtrak, people call it a waste of tax dollars. If it loses money like the New York City MTA, people still call it a waste of tax dollars. You can't win.

I feel the same way about highways. If a new interchange gets backed up with traffic, it does not mean the constuction was a failure. If that's the case, every highway ever constructed would be a failure. Just like every Railroad in New York, Boston, London, Japan etc would be a failure because they all get loaded with people.

The Republican attitude is that trains should have plenty of seats and make loads of money without having to depend on government. It's a dream. Public transit can never make money because the fares do not come near to covering the cost. The actual fare of a New York City subway ride would be close to $7.50 per ride but charges less than $2.00 bucks.

Of course I know that all rail lines are bleeding money like a bad Quentin Tarantino film! That's how I know yours is!
I like Randya's statement about the use of gasoline taxes for public transportation as a method of keeping congestion down. I hadn't considered it from the larger-system perspective before, and it makes sense. I like that idea. The users of the road are paying a premium to reduce congestion. I find that much more palatable. Now, if only that were true. The followup statement that it is being matched, 1:1 from federal tax dollars means that it is likely being matched by income tax revenues.

BTW, I'm not a Republican, since you keep bringing them up! I don't like having a bunch of party leaders dictate my thinking to me. I have a brain, so I use it. Just like I have legs and use them! :-)

Drivers are already taxed based on miles driven. Gas taxes are directly related to the number of miles driven. so are taxes on tires, highway tolls, repair parts and labor, etc. you could even argue that the more miles you drive, the more often you are likely to buy a car and pay sales tax on it.

Implementing a direct mileage based tax would likely lead to widespread fraud as people find ways to underreport their mileage.

Thats why I said they should take some tax off gas. People use gas for lawn mowers, weedeaters, etc. The costs of repairs are just part of any ownership responsibilities. Tax on tires is for disposal. Yes, the more you drive the more often you need to buy a new one. Thats the whole point. Give people tax credits for driving less miles. If you drive less you pay less tolls, buy less gas, buy fewer tires. Being able to drive is an expensive privilege not a cheap right.

How does the UK make mass transit so succesful - when I was there this past summer on a biking trip - it seemed as if every layer of society was represented on trains and buses. It was a nice break, you get on and read, talk to people, or just look out the window. Why not here? I hope this question doesn't dillute the conversation, but what could we do here in America to make riding a train to work every morning or taking a bus to go shopping more attractive?

I don't know about England but I know that when I was in Germany it was very clear that driving was a privilige. It was very expensive to take manditory driving classes, Insurance was high and cars weren't even allowed on the road if they had dents in them. There was also a very extensive mass transit from buses to trains (both of which had places to put your bicycles) and the fares were very reasonable with the ability to get a day pass that would let you ride from bus to train. It was great unless you closed down the bars then it was a fight for taxi cabs or walk home (the bikes you could sign out for on base weren't equiped for night riding I think the idea was to just ride around the area not take the bikes 25 km. to Frankfurt)

well our current gas tax is probalby the most fair tax in the U.S. everyone pays according to useage
if it were done otherwise the poor and Middle class would pay the most cause the rich would find loopholes like they do for all the other taxes

as for mass trans they arent much good if you live 20 miles in the country like I do
and dont say move closer to the city :) as I own my home
and couldnt affort to sell it and rent :)

and most places in this world are a lot nicer to eachother than we are here in the U.S.
geess just look at the comments on this post alone
and this has been one of the more civil threads goin

one of the biggest problems we have here in the U.S. is the gas companies own stock in the car makers and the car makers own stock in the gas companys
other words they are in cohoots againts us the American People
and what do we do? Go buy the biggest, fastest, most powerfull, auto we can afford
and they love it, and we pay the gas prices and tire prices
and it will continue untill....
we as a nation wise up , but that aint goin to happen in our life time
in the UK they take pride in restoring older Autos and driving them
we want to restore them and get paid for do it by entering them in contest only
buy new gas hog to pull them around with :)
it's the american way :)

I like Randya's statement about the use of gasoline taxes for public transportation as a method of keeping congestion down. I hadn't considered it from the larger-system perspective before, and it makes sense. I like that idea. The users of the road are paying a premium to reduce congestion. I find that much more palatable. Now, if only that were true. The followup statement that it is being matched, 1:1 from federal tax dollars means that it is likely being matched by income tax revenues.
I would guess that the federal matching funds are actually at least in part derived from federal gas taxes, but you'd have to do some research on federal trasportation funding to know for sure. There were funds for these types of projects included in the original and reauthorized ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) legislation, a portion of which was dedicated CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) funding. See links below to get started.

Anyway, even if federal funding for rail, bike and ped projects comes from general funds, e.g. from income taxes, I'd personally rather see my federal income taxes go to alternative transportation projects, or to any of dozens of other worthwhile causes, instead of to the war in Iraq or tax relief for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. You could probably build a great national intercity rail system plus light rail systems in cities all over the country with all of the money we've wasted in Iraq and on tax breaks so far. :(

And you could put a lot of unemployed people to work building those rail lines, just like the WPA put people to work building roads, hydroelectric dams, rural electrification projects, and other valuable public works projects in the 30's and early 40's. :)

http://www.dot.gov/ost/govtaffairs/istea/
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/

with all of the money we've wasted in Iraq and on tax breaks so far. :(

"Wasted" :rolleyes:

The study says that traffic costs us billions of "hours". The problem here is one of the idiotic perception that we need to cram ever second of our lives full of doing something "useful". Yes, I drive my car back and forth to work, but I don't have any "lost time" while doing it. Other than idiots sometimes driving stupidly near me and endangering me, I'm not missing out on anything. When I bike commute, I don't worry about what I'm missing out on while riding home, I'm just riding. I keep the same attitude in my car, otherwise, taking my car all the time would be more productive timewise. I usually have nothing planned specifically when I get home, and can just do whatever I want for the evening.
This study points out a serious psycological flaw in our way of thinking and living. We worship studies like these, then go to the Doctor for our annual heart checkup, only to be told we "need to relax".
"Doing nothing IS doing something."

The study says that traffic costs us billions of "hours". The problem here is one of the idiotic perception that we need to cram ever second of our lives full of doing something "useful". Yes, I drive my car back and forth to work, but I don't have any "lost time" while doing it. Other than idiots sometimes driving stupidly near me and endangering me, I'm not missing out on anything. When I bike commute, I don't worry about what I'm missing out on while riding home, I'm just riding. I keep the same attitude in my car, otherwise, taking my car all the time would be more productive timewise. I usually have nothing planned specifically when I get home, and can just do whatever I want for the evening.
This study points out a serious psycological flaw in our way of thinking and living. We worship studies like these, then go to the Doctor for our annual heart checkup, only to be told we "need to relax".
"Doing nothing IS doing something."


I've gotta say, this is well said. Everyone needs to be the change they want to see in the world, since the world, society, and humanity is all made up of people. By being the change, you start the change, and others may choose the same if they see that you are successful.

The study says that traffic costs us billions of "hours". The problem here is one of the idiotic perception that we need to cram ever second of our lives full of doing something "useful". Yes, I drive my car back and forth to work, but I don't have any "lost time" while doing it. Other than idiots sometimes driving stupidly near me and endangering me, I'm not missing out on anything. When I bike commute, I don't worry about what I'm missing out on while riding home, I'm just riding. I keep the same attitude in my car, otherwise, taking my car all the time would be more productive timewise. I usually have nothing planned specifically when I get home, and can just do whatever I want for the evening.
This study points out a serious psycological flaw in our way of thinking and living. We worship studies like these, then go to the Doctor for our annual heart checkup, only to be told we "need to relax".
"Doing nothing IS doing something."

Except that it's not sating that all commuting time is wasted, only the difference between the time it would take if there were no traffic induced delays and the actual time. If it takes 2 hours to drive 20km, something's wrong. To date the solution has usually been 'Build More Roads', but this is a temporary solution at best, and not very cost effective. Apart from anything, during non-peak times you end up with vast expanses of bitumen with hardly any cars on them - very inefficient.

I would have thought a fairly obvious solution, at least in part, would be to try to spread the load around a bit. Are we so ingrained with our rural roots that no matter how many generations have passed we still need to only work in daylight hours. Any office worker can do their job irrespective of the time of day; what's with the persistance of the 8 to 5 working day, or whatever it is. If people could choose their working times, or even if there was some sort of roster system companies could work to, the flow of traffic coming and going from major business centres could be spread out. I for one would prefer a 3pm to midnight day. I could achieve stuff around the house in daylight, spend time with the wife and kids and so on. As it is, evenings are usually 'dead' time spent in idle pursuits such like tv and bikeforums.

Exactly. Everyone would like to see more people on mass transit. Usually others.
I have to commute up to LA couple times a year..While on the Train- Metrolink- I look about and see the commuters at their tables, drinking their coffee, reading the paper, working lab tops. now, visualize I-5 next to the train tracks.Road rage, stalled traffic, exits that take over 10 minutes to exit.
Visualize where the sane would prefer to be. Especially, in the car , overlooking the security of my bike, strapping on my helmet, getting ready to exit, and wiz to work in the unoccupied bike lanes. Sounds refreshing to me.
I will gladly be the others.

Except that it's not sating that all commuting time is wasted, only the difference between the time it would take if there were no traffic induced delays and the actual time. If it takes 2 hours to drive 20km, something's wrong. To date the solution has usually been 'Build More Roads', but this is a temporary solution at best, and not very cost effective. Apart from anything, during non-peak times you end up with vast expanses of bitumen with hardly any cars on them - very inefficient.

I would have thought a fairly obvious solution, at least in part, would be to try to spread the load around a bit. Are we so ingrained with our rural roots that no matter how many generations have passed we still need to only work in daylight hours. Any office worker can do their job irrespective of the time of day; what's with the persistance of the 8 to 5 working day, or whatever it is. If people could choose their working times, or even if there was some sort of roster system companies could work to, the flow of traffic coming and going from major business centres could be spread out. I for one would prefer a 3pm to midnight day. I could achieve stuff around the house in daylight, spend time with the wife and kids and so on. As it is, evenings are usually 'dead' time spent in idle pursuits such like tv and bikeforums.

To acheive this first off all companies that dont currently work a second shift would have double electric bill so product would go up to cover additional cost.
Secondly Restraunts and such would be open longer and again they would have to raise prices to cover additional workers and over head. More Police would have to be hired to make it equal to the dayshift
so more taxes would still have to be collected. I think you see my point a lot of other things would change too, and drive prices higher on most everything we pay for now.
oh and last but not least when would road construction and repairs take place ?
usally they try to be out of the way somewhat come Rush Hour

"Wasted" :rolleyes:

Not totally wasted. When we take over iraq and our companies establish oil refineries there, we'll have more fuel to burn.

...While on the Train- Metrolink- I look about and see the commuters at their tables, drinking their coffee, reading the paper, working lab tops. now, visualize I-5 next to the train tracks.Road rage, stalled traffic, exits that take over 10 minutes to exit.
..... Sounds refreshing to me.
I will gladly be the others.

I visit a 'big city' (Boston, usually) maybe once or twice a year. I always wonder....why would anyone want to drive a car around in the city? I live in Rhode Island now..you can drive to a 'park and ride' parking lot at an Amtrak station, hop aboard the train, and be at south station in a jiffy. You get off at south station and there are coffee shops, newspaper stands, whatever, to let ya relax and enjoy a bit before you go to (work). Why anyone would want to fight the battles on I-95/I-93 escapes me.

roughstuff

Not totally wasted. When we take over iraq and our companies establish oil refineries there, we'll have more fuel to burn.

The tax cut helped me buy a new bike so I didn't have to use as much gas. :D

To acheive this first off all companies that dont currently work a second shift would have double electric bill so product would go up to cover additional cost.

I really don't think electricity is a significant overhead. In any case, if an entire office changes it's times for the working day, the electricity will be exactly the same. I support you playing devil's advocate here, but that argument is a little spurious don't you think?

Secondly Restraunts and such would be open longer and again they would have to raise prices to cover additional workers and over head. More Police would have to be hired to make it equal to the dayshift
so more taxes would still have to be collected.

So, what, you're saying creating more jobs is a bad thing?

I think you see my point a lot of other things would change too, and drive prices higher on most everything we pay for now.

I really don't think it'd be as bad as you say. Obviously, not everyone would or should change their patterns. The retail industry needn't change their hours, although I expect they may extend them if the customers are there. Additional staff won't drive up prices if additional sales are also there.

oh and last but not least when would road construction and repairs take place ?
usally they try to be out of the way somewhat come Rush Hour

There wouldn't be a rush hour, or more likely, there'd be a series of much smaller peaks instead of just two big ones, so the effect would be that contruction and repairs would be easier. The idea is to minimise, or even eliminate road construction by using the existing roads more efficiently. Maintenance could happen pretty much any time as closing a lane would be much less disruptive. Weekends would still most likely be a low traffic time anyway.

well funny things have worked out that way so far as business are open longer they charge higher prices
any excuse to get more $$ for what ever has alway driven up prices

as for road construction yea there would be several mini ones
and if you put more people to work then you have just gone back where you started congested roads

it's not an easy answer to the problem
and for those that live in the major cities it's some what easier than for those that live father out
you can ride a bike, take the bus, cab, or tram/subway

if you live around the smaller cities most do not accept a Bike as means of transpertation to get to and from work they want you to have a car

I commend anyone who rides to bike to work

even here in my small city Pop. about 35,000 we even have a rush hour and they put in a bypass around the city
I have lived in the "Big City" ( Lexington Ky ) and it would take an hour to go a few miles
everyone is in a hurry to go no where, it's loud and constant noise

out here it takes 30 mins to go 20 miles
but over all it's a little cheaper to live
it's quite and peacefull

In the US, gas is blood.

If we ever have to pay European prices, we'll bleed to death.

Maybe we should start reducing consumption now, before it's forced upon us.

Have you guys ever listened to the average 2004 Teenager either?

Me: "why must you use your car to get to your friends house, who lives 4 blocks away?"

Them: "because I HAVE a car... and I love to use it. Why should I walk? That requires effort"




Seriously. The average person in 2004, in America is a LAZY ASS. They'd rather sit in traffic, eating their cream-filled donuts, listening to talk radio than, perhaps ride a bike to work, commute to work via public transit, or even better yet... GET OFF THE ROAD.

It gets worse and worse every year here around the K.C / M.O area...

But anyway... it's not just the shear number of cars... it's the FRAME OF MIND inside the grey matter of the average human corporate puppet.

-Matt

Not totally wasted. When we take over iraq and our companies establish oil refineries there, we'll have more fuel to burn.
Exactly. It's all a subsidy for those that use petroleum in it's many forms, myself included. But the biggest subsidies go to the largest users. Too bad it's being paid for in blood, that's never a good thing and has many negative consequences. :mad:

If it takes 2 hours to drive 20km, something's wrong. To date the solution has usually been 'Build More Roads', but this is a temporary solution at best, and not very cost effective. Apart from anything, during non-peak times you end up with vast expanses of bitumen with hardly any cars on them - very inefficient.

Instead of working unnatural shifts - I don't think humans are traditionally nocturnal - I still think rail is the obvious solution. Rail transit is orders of magnitude more efficient at moving large numbers of people than private vehicles are. The local interstate could carry many more people during peak hours if track was laid on one of two of the lanes, and commuter trains were used. The people in the adjacent lanes could sit in gridlock and watch you go by in the train...:D if they don't want to get on...well, as Homer Simpson would say...DUH ;)

My g/f just got a folding bike so that she can take a combination of car bus and bike to and from work.

The advantage of the bus is - obviously - that you can read or gaze out of the window or daydream..although I don't doubt that many car drivers in L.A> already do that. On the other hand there's almost always someone obnoxious on the bus or train (it's usually me), and that can take the fun out of it. Also waiting for buses to show up is no fun. The bike is great but then there are al lthe hassles of other people, car drivers, bad weather, flat tyres etc.

So the answer...telecommuting - that would be great. I did it in the early nineties for a while and it was fantastic - i don't think I've been so productive in my entire life. My stress levels were way down and I was very comfortable in my own environment. Great.

Is this a record for time elapsed to ressurect a thread?

Our governor recently put out proposals to accelerate freeing up funds for faster highway building to ease congestion. She refered to freeway congenstion as a "time tax"

http://www.governor.state.az.us/documents/2007%20SOS%20Address%20Public.pdf (on page 5)

Al

I don't know that multiple "shifts" is necessarily the answer. Some people can work that way. I certainly do more of my work "after hours" but I also have a lot of work that needs to be done when other people are working.

I don't think the 9-5 workday is necessarily some archaic carryover from the old days. It does help in that companies that have to operate with one another are open at the same time. And obviously this has changed some as well with international needs (some people DO work odd house due to this need).

What I think works very well also is remote working. Ever since our second child was born I started working from home a ton more. I basically go into the office once a week. I get as much work done as before, even though the house is a bit chaotic at times (2 kids under 4 and a stay at home wife). But if you factor in the 2 hours saved by a round trip commute I still make out ahead.

But bottom line is that no single solution works everywhere. But it is much easier to do a number of different things to lessen the load on the roads.

-D

Gasoline is subsidized? By whom? And if so, why do they add so much tax on it? Where I live, there's federal, state, and local taxes.

By the federal government, who in part also collects some of those gas taxes, along with your state government who collects sales tax and excise tax on gas.

The fed gives the oil companies monies for research and exploration... and again those monies come out the citizens' pockets... so you pay and pay and pay.

Do a google on oil company subsidies to see all 1,400,000 responses, of which this article is one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901128.html

Note in that article the figure of $85 BILLION dollars and ask yourself where it comes from.

The funny thing is that we citizens really do pay for all the expenses for roads and gas and even auto manufacturing... but all the costs are hidden and spread out to such an extent that it is not obvious to you. If you paid directly for these things the bill would probably be quite shocking.

As a side note, while you are paying Exxon et. al. to explore for more gas, they still get to pocket the profits... go figure.

And don't forget that oil companies, like lots of polluters, don't have to pay anything or compensate anyone for the environmental depletion and destruction, and health problems they cause as a matter of normal operations.

If you read the entire PDF, it's obvious the study wants more road construction to expand capicity. It's insane.

I've heard the old, "We need more roads to reduce traffic congestion" argument before. What's really driving road expansion is the desire to add more development, which can't happen without more road capacity. The real world result is the same old congested roads, only bigger and with more commercial and residential development nearby.

The bottom line is you swap quality of life in your neighborhood for economic expansion. Hey, look at the bright side, maybe you'll get another x-mart next door. Actually, I have seven gas stations within 2 miles of my front door. I'm truly blessed to live so close to so much prosperity.

Instead of this scenario, recently intown developers in Atlanta have been revitalizing older downtown neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas by locating new development back in the city. The result is that people don't have far to drive to go anywhere. This is an improvement on the old pattern of moving development further and further away from the city and widening and adding new roads to handle the increased traffic.

Still, as long as a city grows, traffic will always be a problem. Except that if you're on foot or on a bicycle, that traffic is a lot easier to handle. ;)

But building more and wider roads will not decrease the billions of hours wasted, it will only multiply it.

The prosperous used to be identified by having a house in the 'burbs and driving the freeway to work. Now, they can be known by their ability to walk to the office.