What the *bleep* is going on? - gas prices (Charlotte: subsidized, tax)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....
It is simply unfair to have non-drivers cover the costs of highways that they do not use.
This is a political arrogance that has existed for years. ....
Unless you are totally self sufficient, then highways mean electricity, municipal water & sewer, mail & package service, access to all emergency service, food and goods in the stores, and many more too long to miss. You are benefiting from highways whether you own a car or not.
in regards to private parking, you are free to only do business with places which do not offer free parking.
So in both cases, I find this argument to be without merit.
It's disingenuous to call out the US for "printing" and attributing that directly to the price spikes... regardless of whether the USD is the world reserve currency and petrodollar - it's all relative value... and from a relative perspective, currency wars are in full flight. It's essentially a debasement race. This great global Keynes experiment we're watching unfold. Everyone is "printing" (easing)... everyone is trying to keep their currency down so it doesn't heat up and hyperinflate.
Plus don't think it's all on the up and up... Sure in theory, every country is trading oil in USD - however, the reality is different. Side deals are occurring - XYZ for oil... gold... etc. In some cases we strong arm countries into it to force them into a potential war (i.e Iran).
Unless you are totally self sufficient, then highways mean electricity, municipal water & sewer, mail & package service, access to all emergency service, food and goods in the stores, and many more too long to miss. You are benefiting from highways whether you own a car or not.
in regards to private parking, you are free to only do business with places which do not offer free parking.
So in both cases, I find this argument to be without merit.
You pay for most of those in other ways.
The city's have the most cost effective infrastructure (per capita), because it does not need to stretch so far
on the up and up... Sure in theory, every country is trading oil in USD - however, the reality is different. Side deals are occurring - XYZ for oil... gold... etc. In some cases we strong arm countries into it to force them into a potential war (i.e Iran).
If they ever succeed in reviving demand, then inflation is going to pick up, and so will interest rates
Great!
I that case, I assume you would be prepared to see the Gasoline tax rise enough
that it can cover the cost of maintaining the Highways.
It is simply unfair to have non-drivers cover the costs of highways that they do not use.
This is a political arrogance that has existed for years. Why not start there, and see if any
benefits ensue from this first step ?
How about all the so-called Free Parking everywhere. Do you think it is really free, and no one pays for it?
"Public transportation is expensive to develop and maintain, has limited availability outside a municipality, and relies on tax dollars (so the taxpayer gets to pay for his own gas and the bus system's as well, even if he never uses the bus system)."
Actually, if you get the density around it right, and the ridership right, then the required subsidy can be greatly reduced, even eliminated
You are very interesting to discuss this with, Geo. I appreciate your info and point of view, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions, suppositions and solutions.
I don't know what you mean about "free parking." Developers should include parking into their sites, so I am either misunderstanding what you are referring to or this is a term that means something other than parking at places of business. ???
Your ideas about mass transit are based on a lot of "what ifs." If a city is literally built from ground up incorporating things such as subways, light rail, streetcars, etc . . . this is a totally different proposition than trying to add on and re-do and piece together a cobbled up system such as what we have here in Charlotte -- and it is terribly expensive to create. So it is a huge investment. My problem with these systems is they require huge capital (tax dollars) and yet the fares are set so low that there is no return on investment, plus the ridership could NEVER produce a pay-back situation even over 20 years. People should be willing to pay a realistic, much higher fee to ride mass transit. And no passes for anyone but the elderly and children and a reduced fee for folks on welfare.
As far as highway development, the people who use federal highways should be paying for daily use. That means tolls for trucks based on weight and for all cars. I have no problem with that and although I know the history of our interstate system (Eisenhower, military), even as a child I wondered why we could travel all over in a car and pay no fees til we hit the "pikes" in the NE. I thought - wow - these guys are onto something . . . they make people pay for these roads. Seemed like a great idea to me, lol.
I think the whole world needs to slow down. I would love to feel safe enough to do my tooling around on a Vespa, but that would not be safe, even in my suburban world.
I grew up surrounded by people who car-pooled b/c that made it cheaper - and gas was only 25 cents a gallon back then! It was a lifestyle choice based on careful use of resources.
I would be fine with hitching up a set of paired mules to do most of my local errands, but I don't think most Americans are willing to go that route, either, green though it may be.
I think a lot of people car pooled back in the day because they only had one car or no car at all. You can get a beater for $500 these days to get you from a to b.
I think Geo would prefer a city to do away with free parking to encourage less car drivers...
You pay for most of those in other ways.
The city's have the most cost effective infrastructure (per capita), because it does not need to stretch so far
How specifically? None of what I mention could exist without highways.
Furthermore the USA crosses a continent. The interstate highway system as well as all the state roads needed to move goods between cities are necessary for every city in this country to survive.
I still don't see where your argument that non-car owners are being unfairly taxed to support highways they don't use. Of course if you can give some better specifics, I am willing to listen.
Great!
I that case, I assume you would be prepared to see the Gasoline tax rise enough
that it can cover the cost of maintaining the Highways.
It is simply unfair to have non-drivers cover the costs of highways that they do not use.
This is a political arrogance that has existed for years. Why not start there, and see if any
benefits ensue from this first step ?
If you consume any goods, you are a user of the highway system whether you drive or not.
I don't know what you mean about "free parking." Developers should include parking into their sites, so I am either misunderstanding what you are referring to or this is a term that means something other than parking at places of business. ???
I don't understand this either. Nothing is free. Someone's paying for it.
Example: The parking at Northlake Mall isn't free. The mall customers are paying for it by shopping at stores who pay rent to the mall's ownership group. Just because there isn't a person collecting money at the entrances to the parking lot doesn't mean it is free. If Northlake started charging for parking, fewer people would go there. Fewer purchases would be made. People would lose jobs.
Policies that attempt to create incentives and disincentives for certain behavior usually create other, unforeseen incentives/disincentives. Be careful what you wish for!
You are very interesting to discuss this with, Geo. I appreciate your info and point of view, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions, suppositions and solutions.
I don't know what you mean about "free parking." Developers should include parking into their sites, so I am either misunderstanding what you are referring to or this is a term that means something other than parking at places of business. ???
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is very late here, but I will make a very short response:
"Free" parking is paid for by the property owners who dedicate so much of their land to cars, think they will lose business if the do not provide it. In effect, pedestrians and others who do not park pay for it (too), yet get not benefit
... more later...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
