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.
The internal combustion engine is just as inefficient in Denmark as it is here. It is a massive waste of resources to move a single person in a 4000 lb cage. Your deflection is avoiding the hard numbers. I get that you like cars but you have not provided any counter claims to suggest that pollution, climate change, health care costs, wasted energy, and lost productivity are net positives for the economy.
Which would those be? The hard numbers that shows that cars are more efficient per passenger mile than transportation?
It isn't, but why does not that matter? I don't think it was explicitly mentioned that the conversation on car costs was limited to the US.
Denmark isn't the United States. The example is non-analogous.
The article is also unclear on exactly who is economically better off - the city vs the commuters/residents. The "formula" used to make this determination was stated to include "transport costs, security, comfort, branding/tourism, transport times and health" - not exactly economic indicators for people. Finally the "costs saved" in many cases may well be due to avoiding a governmental obligation that exists in Denmark (e.g., socialized healthcare) and not in the U.S.
When you start using generic terms like "liability to society" then the complaint just becomes specious. The individual car owners are presumably members of this society and cars are certainly an economic benefit or enabler for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
It's arguable whether that's an economic benefit or not. Many of those listed have environmental and maybe health externalities, and the money spent on all these things could be spent on other things. It's approaching this fallacy, though not quite. High oil use creates a high trade deficit, which is an economic negative. No, I don't necesarily agree that car use is a net economic cost, overall the benefits in connectivity and movement could be higher than the costs.
Denmark isn't the United States. The example is non-analogous.
Obviously, not. But Denmark is at least relevant for Denmark. However, was the discussion limited to the US? If so, say clearly you're not interested in elsewhere. Why must it be analogous to the US?
Quote:
The "formula" used to make this determination was stated to include "transport costs, security, comfort, branding/tourism, transport times and health" - not exactly economic indicators for people.
The internal combustion engine is just as inefficient in Denmark as it is here. It is a massive waste of resources to move a single person in a 4000 lb cage. Your deflection is avoiding the hard numbers. I get that you like cars but you have not provided any counter claims to suggest that pollution, climate change, health care costs, wasted energy, and lost productivity are net positives for the economy.
The average car is much more fuel efficient in Denmark than here.
Last edited by nei; 08-23-2014 at 07:24 AM..
Reason: typo
Obviously, not. But Denmark is at least relevant for Denmark. However, was the discussion limited to the US? If so, say clearly you're not interested in elsewhere. Why must it be analogous to the US?
The report and the claims are relevant only to Denmark. The country is a high tax welfare state based with economic and other policies based upon expectations of a homogeneous population. The US isn't any of these.
The thread is about "fuel taxes" and "roads" and yes the discussion was generally relating to fuel taxes in the US and comparative subsidies between US public transit and roads. Then someone claims that "cars are an economic drain on society" and bases this claim on a report on bicycling in Denmark. It's not a stretch to state the report is not meaningful in the US and it's rather absurd to extrapolate such an article as if it would apply anywhere outside of Denmark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Those costs are paid for by people.
....no they are not at least not the way implied. Denmark is a welfare state. The entity benefiting from lower costs is the government. The "savings" are not passed on to the taxpayers.
Aggregate math doesn't work too well on a non-homogeneous population. If someone told you the average jeans size was 34x29 does that mean jeans of that size would fit all or even a majority of the population? Maybe in Denmark, not here.
The math was specious because of their "formula" and obligations, taxes, and tax deductions there that don't exist here. For example, tax rate there is up to 51.5%. Municipal taxes are on the order of 25%. Property taxes range from about 1.5% to about 3.5% - per year. VAT is 25%. Tax for healthcare is around 6%. You pay the tax and you get whatever healthcare the government is willing to provide not necessarily what you need. The individuals didn't "save" any costs and they live in an environment where they pay for the service whether they get it or not. In the US the taxes are much lower and the expectation is that you can go out and pay for what you need - the "government" isn't here to give it to you.
The article and the poster were woefully inadequate with respect to disclosing other information about Denmark and cars. The country is anti-car. The tax on a car is around 180%. Add to that the VAT of 25% and you are over 200% in taxes for a car. Then add fuel taxes, plate fees, and road taxes. The commuters are on bikes because their country makes cars largely unaffordable and there isn't any accommodating public transportation.
In short the article is not supportive of the poster's claim that "cars are a drain on the economy" as far as the US is concerned. It's not even clear that such is the case in Denmark. With such high taxes and a welfare state it might just be that a large percentage of the population of Denmark simply cannot afford cars. Non-analogous comparison for many reasons.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-23-2014 at 08:12 AM..
Going back to that bicycle conversation, a lot of bicycle paths have a purpose more for recreation than practical transportation. Some don't connect destinations that people would want to go for practical purposes well, or just meander. At times, there are filled with pedestrians / joggers / bicyclists going very slowly that they force an impractically slow speed of travel or have frequent stops when intersecting other roads while going on a parallel road you'd have the right of way. Plenty of bike paths are useful, but some seemed geared for the mindset of "drive to the bike path parking lot and ride your bike back and forth for exercise". One of the local bike paths here is maintained by the state parks department, though it is used for transportation. The focus I've seen by some bike path groups isn't "let's build a path to avoid sections of unpleasant roads" but just as a recreation trail.
The report and the claims are relevant only to Denmark. The country is a high tax welfare state based with economic and other policies based upon expectations of a homogeneous population. The US isn't any of these.
The thread is about "fuel taxes" and "roads" and yes the discussion was generally relating to fuel taxes in the US and comparative subsidies between US public transit and roads. Then someone claims that "cars are an economic drain on society" and bases this claim on a report on bicycling in Denmark. It's not a stretch to state the report is not meaningful in the US and it's rather absurd to extrapolate such an article as if it would apply anywhere outside of Denmark.
I didn't say anything about whether it was meaningful to the US or not. My point was that not every conversation point needs to about the US or relevant to the US, as I repeated several times.
I didn't say anything about whether it was meaningful to the US or not. My point was that not every conversation point needs to about the US or relevant to the US, as I repeated several times.
Well you're free to explain how the report on cycling in Denmark is not supportive of the poster's claim anywhere else either. I simply noted that it was inapplicable to the US.
Going back to that bicycle conversation, a lot of bicycle paths have a purpose more for recreation than practical transportation. Some don't connect destinations that people would want to go for practical purposes well, or just meander. At times, there are filled with pedestrians / joggers / bicyclists going very slowly that they force an impractically slow speed of travel or have frequent stops when intersecting other roads while going on a parallel road you'd have the right of way. Plenty of bike paths are useful, but some seemed geared for the mindset of "drive to the bike path parking lot and ride your bike back and forth for exercise". One of the local bike paths here is maintained by the state parks department, though it is used for transportation. The focus I've seen by some bike path groups isn't "let's build a path to avoid sections of unpleasant roads" but just as a recreation trail.
A big reason for this is that bike paths were an after thought, added after cities fully developed.
The only available land was along creek and rivers and through parks.
Trying to add bike paths now in a developed city grid system means a cross street every 300 ft.
A big reason for this is that bike paths were an after thought, added after cities fully developed.
The only available land was along creek and rivers and through parks.
Trying to add bike paths now in a developed city grid system means a cross street every 300 ft.
Well yes. Though Boston has a bike path that it's in the right of way of land that was cleared for an expressway and then never built. Posted some photos from that path here. That one is useful for transportation. Abandoned rail corridors are another possibility, too.
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.
