I-Like-To-Bike

This is the bottom line of your argument. Numerous selfish and close minded people share that view and also don't want to pay for anything that doesn't appear (in their biased and limited viewpoint) to provide a direct benefit to themselves; like schools, child welfare, public transportation, roads that they don't personally use, etc., etc.

Roody

This is a good point. A good thing can be over-built and over-used, or used in destructive ways. However, in the case of American highways, I think this is a fault of poor design and implementation, but not a good argument against the basic concept of broad-based funding for good roads.

Obviously, as I have posted many times, I'd like to see major changes in the way that roads (and transportation in general) are planned, designed, and built. For example, I'd like to see a reduction in sprawl, streets that work for all users, and a bigger slice of the revenue pie for public transit, among other modifications. But that's all something that needs to be worked out and fought out. In the meanwhile, I want better funding for roads and transportation, even if that means (temporarily) giving more to motorists.

Dave Cutter

Documentation? Link flaming? The way I've seen both used here..... it is the very same thing. Without knowledge, and/or experience and some level of understanding.... they are just links collected from a targeted google search..... meaningless. You didn't even get the era correct. Most of the "links" reference a article.... based on a report.... of a non-academic, non-professional, bias "study". THEY MEAN NOTHING.

If?!?!?

I didn't lose interest... NONE OF US DID! We got off our butts and worked our asses off (we didn't have forums to post/play in). And we accomplished our goals. But a few were to timid and afraid to walk away (and get other/real jobs).... and created a career from the victory. And the goals were moved and altered. Now the movement lives as a religion. I respect all religions... even those created by man. God does not speak directly to me... so I listen to his creations. Your religion has my respect. But it has nothing to do with science. I watched it being created.

I have no idea what you meant. You references are off.... your dates are off... now you say your grammar is also off. Why should I even read your posts?

No.... not likely. It would appear from your posts... that your attention span is about half-a-google-search [long]. You're stuck with your "feelings" and I doubt that will ever change. You're already decades behind in even current events... I can't imagine you'll ever catch-up.

B. Carfree

I think it may be a mistake to focus on making streets work for all users. I would prefer to have some streets only work for motor vehicles (like freeways), some that work for all users (arterioles) and some that work well for everyone who isn't in a motor vehicle (e.g. tertiary roads, residential streets (complete with cut-throughs for peds/cyclists) and such). If we insist on making all roads work for all users, the acreage of the asphalt and concrete would completely destroy the livability of most places, in my opinion.

cooker

You can do better than that. I already said I believe in public funding of health care and education. The reason I don't want to pay for someone else's sprawl is because it is harmful, not because I'm being selfish, as you would have understood if you had being paying attention instead of just making your stereotypical strawman arguments.

cooker

The "global cooperation" around phasing out fluorocarbons, which is what we were discussing, occurred mostly in the 1980s. You apparently missed it, as you said in post no. 87 that you don't even remember it. Perhaps you should have been reading the NYT - agree with it or not, at least it does cover a lot of the big stories, so it would help you keep more aware of current events.

Ekdog

Thank God we didn't listen to people who were as uninformed as he back in the 1980s.

What The Ozone Scare Can--and Can't--teach Us | The New Republic

Dave Cutter

No, no, no. You have no history. You think what you remember is what happen.... because you have no idea how we/you got there. You must think the EPA was established by our founding fathers. So sad.

No history, no accumulated knowledge, no wisdom or understanding of science. But you have your "feelings" and your "faith" that what the current environmental [religious] leaders say is true.

Roody

Cue Twilight Zone music...

chewybrian 

No, it is just that it would be difficult to tax, and you would be infringing on basic human rights. You have the right to peaceably assemble, as long as you can afford the tolls for the sidewalks to get there. You have the right to petition your government, if you can get there.

It might be more practical to have a registration tax for a bike than to try to tax miles ridden. If that is what it would take to get people to pay for what they use with their cars, then so be it. Again, removing subsidies for cars and taxing bicycles would be a net win for all of us here, anyway, as the bike tax would not need to be much.

My purpose is not to drive people out of their cars because I disagree with their choice. I only want them to face the real costs squarely to make correct decisions. How many people would move closer to work, own one car instead of two, carpool, ride the bus, etc., if they had to pay the real costs? Why should we support the current system which gives them incentive to drive everywhere without even knowing, much less bearing, the true costs?

I would never support a walking tax or toll.

cooker

Actually, no, I'm by nature quite a skeptic, which is why I like to check my facts rather than just rely on what random guys on the internet claim, while never backing it up themselves, and attempting to ridicule anybody who provides (or asks for) confirmation of their assertions.

Ekdog

You might consider using that as your signature.

I-Like-To-Bike

What you choose to call "sprawl" is where all those other people live. Those people may choose to call inner city areas all sorts of names including "harmful", and not wish to pay for benefits for all those selfish "someone else's" who live there.

Is there a difference in the self righteousness?

I-Like-To-Bike

Could you be a little more specific about which "subsidies" and "costs" you want to be paid only by car owners because you believe bicyclists derive no benefit from the expenditures?

Dave Cutter

You can't "check your facts" with a google search. What your doing is the equivalent of 14 years old boys... asking their bubbies.

If you want to "absorb the knowledge of a study" You're going to have to read a few hundred (or thousand pages). And then you'll need to reference and read some of the studies mentioned in the footnotes. It's is a long and time consuming practice. You're just jumping-over the fact checking process and accepting the web searches as gospel.... on faith.

You don't have a science background.... you have a belief system.

Often times.... these "stories" you read (and you.. as well as others... post links to/about) are written by someone who interviewed someone you claims to have read or reviewed a study in which they had no involvement. Often times the interviewee isn't even mentioned by name OR position. They are by definition not a hoax or fraud... but they are close.

This is just link flaming! Has nothing to do with educated adult behavior.

Dave Cutter

Cute! No.... just insulting. You know I am factually correct. And you're offended because it conflicts with your religion of environmentalism. I am sorry. I have NO desire to shake your faith in the God of Al Gore.

chewybrian 

This is sometimes true and sometimes not. A complex issue can not often be properly addressed in a graph or a newspaper article, and the writer may have an agenda.

But a simple assertion, like 'bicycle use is at new lows' is easily verified or dispelled with a reference from a credible source. When the National Bicycle Dealers Association says that sales of bicycles were up 10% in 2014, then your assertion is disproved. The rate of sale of new bicycles is a reasonable indicator of their use, the source is credible, and the issue is not complex.

chewybrian 

Look at the total miles driven by all vehicles and divide up the cost, adjusted for weight of the vehicle. Perhaps there would be a tiered pricing system for gas, or taxes payed at different rates by mileage driven. Figuring it out and implementing such a system would be easy; gathering the political will to do it would be all but impossible. Once subsidies are granted, they are seldom revoked. Possibly tobacco subsidies are a rare exception?

We should all pay taxes for the portion of road cost needed for police and ambulance use. Trucks would pay and pass along the new cost to the grocers and others using their service, and ultimately we would all pay more for the products. However, the true cost of bringing the product to you would be known and built into the price you pay, rather than hidden in other taxes. Then you could make a rational and fair choice about whether the costs are worth it to you. (Bottled water, anyone?)

And, yes, perhaps even cyclists should pay for that very small portion of cost which is created by their use.

I don't believe cyclists do not benefit from the presence of roads, but they do pay more than their share in the current system. I am more concerned with getting everything priced squarely for everyone, though. Yes, I can buy bottled water for 50 cents instead of a dollar because the other fifty cents was already paid in other ways. I'd rather have the whole dollar in my hand and make my own decision about whether I want the water for a dollar. All our buying (or driving) decisions should be made on this basis to encourage the best allocation of our resources.

cooker

Of course you can. Join the 21st century.

Roody stated that there was global cooperation and cost sharing around phasing out fluorocarbons. You denied it ever happened. I cited a book on the subject and hi-lighted a newspaper quote that specifically mentioned the global economic fund.LOL. It certainly sounds like you want me to take what you say on faith.

Are you saying the book and NYT article are some kind of spin or propaganda, and the Montreal protocol and global fund never happened? You need to provide some kind of independent verification of that to convince me, or you're just bloviating.

I-Like-To-Bike

Probably sounds pretty good to provincial shut-ins with no desire, ambition, or knowledge of anything existing beyond the end of their own bicycle path/bus line.

Should all costs for the building, operating and maintaining public transit to include buses, commuter rolling stock, commuter rail bed, rail stations, airports, pro rated road building/maintenance costs, as well as the entire public supported Amtrak costs be 100% paid for only by the users on a per mile (plus perhaps weight factor especially if air travel is to be included). Is that part of your fairness/public good scheme?

Needless to say all bike paths and trails as well as on street improvements for bicyclists will be "easily" billed to be paid exclusively by the users of these facilities, eh?

cooker

No I think it is very fair that we not subsidize the elective components of each others' lifestyles. Are we in agreement there?

For example, I think it's it a good thing if I share the cost of suburban kids' schooling, but I don't want to have to pay for their school buses if it's simply because their parents opted to live too spread out for them to walk or bike. Who would be the selfish ones in that case?

I-Like-To-Bike

Only when you reveal if you are in favor of no public support for lifestyles that includes choosing to bring additional resource consuming children into existence. Why not let those who choose to have children pay every cent of the cost of raising, caring and educating them?

Also how about no public support for those who choose to read books, visit parks, get any kind of education that is not necessary for a specific vocation, or travel anywhere unless it is in service of the government? What is with all those subsidies for elective lifestyle choices, eh?

B. Carfree

Perhaps in part because those children didn't choose to come into existence. Depriving them of education harms the children, not the parents who may (or may not) have made an unwise choice in breeding.

Decades ago, the SCOTUS addressed this issue when it decided that public schools had to accept illegal immigrant children. The Justices recognized that condemning a group of children to horrid lives of zero opportunity, even if they legally had no right to be here, was against the public interest. Many people are still upset about this, but it is at least pragmatic.

Now what's pragmatic about subsidizing housing and transportation choices that demonstrably harm public health?

Walter S

+1. Dave refuses to back up his faulty memory with factual references. And when you post references to NYT and other articles those are just silly links.

I was 30 years old in 1990. I remember the Ozone issue well. It was very visible among the top news stories. I got tired of hearing about it. But Dave doesn't even remember it and thinks the rest of the world is crazy. Not much you can do with that!

I-Like-To-Bike

The issue isn't about depriving anyone of education, or roads, only who is to pay for them. Some of the sanctimonious posters on this list seem all about sticking the costs of anything to which they disapprove or do not like, including "public interest" assets like utilities and roads serving the middle class, to those other guys who do not choose to live the unselfish inner city life.