NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7160

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 6.9 KB | 167 lines

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!news.encore.com!wcarroll
From: [e-mail] (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:59:42 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <=b#[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <3=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <=b-s+b=@dixie.com>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet readnews user id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: achilles.encore.com
Lines: 154

[e-mail] (John De Armond) writes:
>[e-mail] (William Carroll) writes:
>>Of course, a large percentage of Americans own bikes. Can you say the same
>>for pogo sticks and rickshaws? Lots of Americans use bikes as transportation.
>>Is the same true for pogo sticks and rickshaws?
>
>Some percentage of Americans own bikes (I hesitate to call it "large"
>unless you want to wrap in all the kiddie bikes)

Well, the Statistical Abstract lists it as the 3rd most popular form of
exercise, behind swimming and walking. Of course, pushing a gas peddle
isn't yet considered exercise.

>  One occasionally sees a bozo making a traffic hazard
>of himself out on a main road but that is so seldom as to be notable.

I notice it all the time. Most of the time its a retiree in a land yacht
or a yuppie in a sports car or luxury sedan. Occasionally its some idiot
in a piece of junk belching smoke.

>Installing bike trails here would make little difference.  The terrain
>is too hilly

Atlanta? Too hilly? Let's be serious! Even a flatlander like myself
wouldn't consider Atlanta real hilly.


>>So where is everyone going to drive those cars, John? Can they double the
>>number of lanes on I-75 through downtown Atlanta once more? Are you
>>willing to pay the bill for that project?
>
>Yes and yes.  Doubling again won't be necessary

Maybe not this year or next, but with your attitude, its an eventual
certainty.

>stacked lanes similar to those in 'Frisco are certainly practical.
>Considering how easy it is to pass roads-related sales tax initiatives
>around here, one can assume the majority of Atlantans feel the same way.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you enjoy paying for it. And driving
through the construction. And breathing that nice healthy air that lots
more cars will bring.

>>And what about the people who can't afford cars? You know, those same
>>working poor that will fair so badly under a gas tax. Since you are
>>proposing a transporation system that requires a car, are you willing to
>>provide a car to everyone that can't afford one? If not, how are they
>>going to get to work? Or do they just go on welfare instead?
>
>Oh, my heart's breaking.  This is such a stale tactic.  You people on
>the Big Government side of the equation seem to always roll out the
>poor when it is convenient to your argument.

First, I didn't roll out the poor, those arguing against a gas tax did.
They seemed real concerned about them too.

And when did I become Big Government?

>  Hell, my daily driver, the "Rolls Knardley"
>cost me $500.  I bought this 68 Fury III to use as in a demonstration
>project to show how easily and cheaply such cars can be cleaned up.
>I've delayed the project a bit because it is sooo much fun watching
>the yups in their $40k cars screw up their noses when the Knardley's
>carb float sticks and the smoke rolls :-)

Ah yes, tailpipe emissions. I beleive part of the gas tax argument involves
that too. I guess you must be for them. And if someone wants to tax them,
I'm sure you'd rant and rave about why that's unfair and will obstruct your
freedom to make your own lifestyle choices.

So how much did it cost to clean the heap up like that?

>The fact is the working poor already pay little income tax because
>of current exemptions.  What this lovely gas tax advocated by Stead and
>presumably yourself

Presumably.

>would do is force the poor out of their cars
>because their real cost of transportation becomes more than they can
>afford.

Do you always roll out the poor when it is convenient to your argument?
Of course, you roll them back to the ghetto when you no longer need them.

Why do I doubt your sincerity as an advocate for the poor?

>That's your real goal, isn't it?  Keep 'em down in the ghetto
>where they can't cause too much trouble and can't add to the road
>congestion.

My but you're presuming a lot today.

My goal is to stop auto-centrics like you from forcing me to subsidize
your lifestyle choice through more non-transportation-related taxes. I've
already posted numbers (twice) that show federal highway disbursements
far out-strip gas tax incomes. I support a gas tax because I'd like to
see you support your own auto-centrism.

>Such hypocrisy is disgusting.

Coming from you that means a lot.


>>And you never did say what you thought a cyclist's fair share of road costs
>>would be. I'd love to see your numbers.
>
>Since I like to be right when I quote numbers and since I don't have
>those numbers, I'll refrain from shooting numbers out my ass as others have.
>In general terms, however, I can say that the cost of opportunity,
>that is, the cost of making a roadway available to you, is the same
>with bicycles as it is cars.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

You could also say that the cost of making a roadway available to me as
a cyclist is zero because the roads have been made available for motorists
and I am able to use those portions of the road commonly unused by motorists.

Or you could take it from the point of view that if the road had indeed been
designed for the cyclist rather than the motorist, the costs would have been
much lower from factors such as: narrower lanes, requiring less construction
and less right-of-way purchase; and lower construction costs due to a lower
vehicle weights and speeds. And lower costs mean lower taxes, something you
claim to support.

>GA DOT has publicly stated that cars
>contribute little to road surface damage so the unit cost of repair is
>about the same.

I imagine the GA DOT said something cars contribute little to road surface
damage compared to trucks. If cars didn't contribute to road surface
damage, roads where trucks are banned would never wear.

The relation I've seen passed around the net is that road damage is
proportional to the square of the weight on each axle. A passenger car
is an order of magnitude heavier than a bike. I'll let you do the math
yourself.

>There probably ought to be a nuisance tax on bicycles as well.

Gee you big government types want to add taxes to everything, don't you?
Are you going to add the nuisance tax for ignorant motorists too?


--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) [e-mail]

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."    -Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC(?)