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.
Your model only works if we relocate two hundred million people into highly concentrated urban areas like NYC. That would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, which as you state, "we don't have it".
Until a huge portion of the population is concentrated like NYC and lives like robots, most of us will be dependent on cars. Cars represent freedom. Freedom to go where I choose and when I choose. I will never be without a car until I am too old to drive.
And millions of us will choose to live in rural or suburban areas until we cannot afford to.
A huge portion of the population in big cities never or rarely goes downtown. I lived in Atlanta for five years and went downtown maybe 2 or 3 times. Same in Dallas and in Los Angeles. And in most cities you still have to own and drive a car. In Atlanta where they have a huge rail system you have to drive quite far, park your car, board a train, then take a taxi to your office. Why would you do that? That's why so few people work downtown in those cities.
There should be some walking in that commute, one would think if a person took a train to get to where they were going that the taxi would be unnecessary.
Your model only works if we relocate two hundred million people into highly concentrated urban areas like NYC. That would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, which as you state, "we don't have it".
Until a huge portion of the population is concentrated like NYC and lives like robots, most of us will be dependent on cars. Cars represent freedom. Freedom to go where I choose and when I choose. I will never be without a car until I am too old to drive.
And millions of us will choose to live in rural or suburban areas until we cannot afford to.
How does cars represent freedom when people are slaves to their cars? Being dependent on cars for even the most basic tasks isn't freedom.
Also, places don't need to be as dense as NYC to make rail work. If that is the case, all of Europe must be extremely dense, and cities like Portland must look just like NYC because rail works.
There should be some walking in that commute, one would think if a person took a train to get to where they were going that the taxi would be unnecessary.
Have you ever tried to walk a mile in a suit in a hot southern city? It does not prepare you for work.
How does cars represent freedom when people are slaves to their cars? Being dependent on cars for even the most basic tasks isn't freedom.
Also, places don't need to be as dense as NYC to make rail work. If that is the case, all of Europe must be extremely dense, and cities like Portland must look just like NYC because rail works.
I'm not a slave to anything. I have three cars and am very free to go where I choose.
And Portland rail "works" only if you define "works" quite liberally. Yes, rail "works" because people ride it. But if you are a Portland tax payer, their rail is a total failure.
Obviously tracking every road we drive on would need to be done by GPS tracking so we can be properly charged for the roads we drive on.
You and theunbrainwashed obviously don't understand concepts and technology. You don't have to track anybody to adequately allocate road costs to those that use them most. Nobody suggest we track every inch of road you travel. And you would not need to know WHICH roads you drive on, just how far and that can be done quite cheaply and easily with an odometer. No intrusion. No nickel and dime. No cost. Fair allocation of road costs. No subsidy for electric cars. higher rates for big trucks if you choose. It's really a simple concept.
Have you ever tried to walk a mile in a suit in a hot southern city? It does not prepare you for work.
If your stop is a mile from where you are going then it isn't an efficient rail system or there is a closer stop. And I have walked a mile in a hot summer wearing a suit.
I'm not a slave to anything. I have three cars and am very free to go where I choose.
And Portland rail "works" only if you define "works" quite liberally. Yes, rail "works" because people ride it. But if you are a Portland tax payer, their rail is a total failure.
I disagree, if you aren't able to have options to do the most basic of things, then you are a slave to your car. You are free to go wherever you want, as long as you can only do it by car.
Also two conservative links that are against Portland light rail doesn't change the fact that Portland's light rail works. Does it work for everyone in the city and metro? Of course not, it has a long way to go before it reaches that level, but it keeps reaching more and more areas as it grows.
Particularly rail. Rail made much more economic sense when a huge percent of the population worked 8 to 5 and commuted to a central location. Today, more and more people work from home, travel, work odd hours or work from a remote location. Rail takes you from a location of it's choosing to a location of it's choosing. You can choose to move close to a rail station, but most people don't. The "if you build it, they will come" philosophy has been a total failure. Most of us just shake our heads in wonder as we watch mostly empty light rail cars go by.
Meanwhile, tax payers watching the half empty rail cars are sitting in traffic jams because they have no choice. Politicians believe if they make driving more painful (by slowing funding for roads) then people will shift from cars to rail. The problem is that most people have no choice. They don't commute to a central location every day.
So despite hundreds of billions of dollars invested and hundreds of billions of dollars from tax payers, ridership per capita continues to decline and has done so for decades. But it's politically correct to continue to invest in rail even though a huge majority of tax payers will never board a train.
Uh; not all of us drive or can afford to own a car or truck. Word is more and more people born after about 1980 DON'T even want drivers licenses.
You and theunbrainwashed obviously don't understand concepts and technology. You don't have to track anybody to adequately allocate road costs to those that use them most. Nobody suggest we track every inch of road you travel. And you would not need to know WHICH roads you drive on, just how far and that can be done quite cheaply and easily with an odometer. No intrusion. No nickel and dime. No cost. Fair allocation of road costs. No subsidy for electric cars. higher rates for big trucks if you choose. It's really a simple concept.
So basically you want to create a mileage tax. Works for me, I don't drive that much so my mileage tax would be extremely low.
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.
