SUV Protest

Frank Krygowski said:

You didn't explain what you'd do to get the elderly, the handicapped,
and the impoverished around town. And certainly, the elderly group will
grow larger and larger in the near future.

What _is_ your idea?

Well I don't really know.

I do think that throwing money at a problem that largely
produces "feel good" effects maybe isn't the way to go, and
I definitely don't think mass transit subsidy should end up
being just another poverty program.

As someone mentioned, smaller buses and perhaps schedules
more concentrated around actual use time could at least help
reduce wasted money, not to mention pollution where a large
diesel bus with few people on it ought to become worse to the
socially and environmentally sensitive than a big SUV.

Of course reducing schedules is a sure way to reduce ridership
even further. Maybe increase the cost of driving a private
car could work in some way. Large gas guzzling vehicles
already pay more taxes because they fill up with gas more
often, but a tax by weight category might be useful, as well
as restricting private motor traffic in certain areas of a
city at certain times. Might make it more enjoyable to go
into the city if people on foot didn't have to be on the lookout
for cars all the time. Get around by bus instead. Some towns
in Europe restrict vehicle traffic to city centers. That won't
work in suburbia though.

IMHO, mass transit isn't going to work in the US until private
transit costs so much time (or money) in congestion (or use
costs) that alternatives start to kick in. That seemed to be
starting to happen with $3/gal gas but now that's gone [for a
while]. I think $5/gal gas will probably do more for public
transit than just about anything else anyone could come up with.

At the very worst if one can't come up with an effective way to
subsidize, then reducing the subsidy may be a positive step.

SMH

Mark Hickey said:

I've lived in towns where there IS a VERY developed mass transit
system. Seoul, Korea and Sydney Australia have VERY nice systems that
can move huge numbers of people efficiently. I never considered
driving more than absolutely necessary in either city - MUCH nicer to
take the subway / train (or even bus in Seoul).

Very much agree. I lived in Japan for a few years, and have
traveled in Europe and the mass transit (train) systems there
are spectacular. Why on earth would one bother to drive a car
somewhere with trains so good?

Quoted message said:

But to try to bring an existing city up to that level in the US would
be a horrendously dangerous political move, since all people would
associate with the polititians who pushed the system would be the
snarled traffic from all the construction. Pure political suicide.

We've sort of burned our bridges in this country. Getting back to,
say, 1935, when people used mass transit for getting to work and
their cars more sparingly, isn't going to be easy or cheap. Also,
the way we live now is largely dictated by car use. Places of work,
shopping, relaxation, sleeping are all spread out, accessible only
my motor vehicle and alternative methods (foot/bicycle) more
dangerous than they should be because of it.

I think only large doses of traffic congestion and high gasoline
prices (say $4-5/gal) are the only way it's going to happen. In
other words, not without a great deal of pain. The only way changes
of this scale can occur is via economics. It can't be dictated
through social responsibility or environmental argument alone.

SMH

Mark Hickey said:

Just another data point - I seldom see a bus with more than 10-20%
capacity in the Phoenix, Arizona east valley. I'm sure there are
routes that have more, but the ones I've seen are VERY underused.

Same here. A large, Grumman built (I think) bus with perhaps 2-8
people aboard. Occasionally perhaps half full.

I remember using this bus system 20 years ago and sometimes there
would be standing room only on a morning bus to the campus. Seems
much less usage today.

SMH

Frank Krygowski said:

I do wonder why buses are as big as they are. ISTM that smaller, more
efficient vans would have advantages in operating costs. Gas (or
natural gas?) mileage would be better. Service might be able to be
increased, luring more customers.

There are those smaller "buses" here, based on a Ford E-350 van with
a large passenger body in the back. Not certain of capacity but much
smaller than a full sized bus.

Seem to be mostly for Council on Aging use though. They take elderly
or physically impaired to the mall or doctor or wherever. You can
actually call and schedule one. I think the price has gone up to
$2.50 each way (a taxi will cost $16 I'm told).

Still, they are largely empty, but at least smaller and empty is better
than large and empty.

SMH

Andy Gee said:

Stephen Harding <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:k7lhf.10643$%Z5.9773@trndny07:

Quoted message said:

Andy Gee said:

But my biggest subsidy is peculiar to Manhattan. Stockbroker from
Connecticut drives to NY in his X5 because the farm state
congessional delegation decided to take my federal transportation
money and pay for a road from his subdivision and not pay for a rail
hub in the former World Trade Center site. I think we're getting a
museum and a bus stop or something instead. Fair enough. But he
then emits ozone precursors at

So how do you feel taking subsidies from the American taxpayer
to promote your mass transit system? I believe the over-riding
bulk of Federal mass transit subsidy actually goes to NYC.

I'm going to put my statistician hat on for a moment. Federal mass
transit money is part of Federal transportation money, which includes
highways. If there is a transportation bill for $286 billion, of which,
say, $20 billion is for mass transit, and New York, where the
overwhelming majority of mass transit riders lives, gets the majority of
that money, we're still paying out much more to other people's highways.

Sure, but there's a lot more people using national highways than people
in NYC using mass transit!

I just read where the gasoline excise tax is no longer projected to pay
what is required for maintenance/construction of Federal Highways (some
people think it pays for *all* road work but that is not true).

The Federal gasoline tax has been steady for a long time and now there
is talk about raising it. Given the high cost of gas now, that's going
to be difficult for politicians to do.

Raising the gas tax seems fair enough to me, and I drive a big V-8 gas
guzzler! (Of course this negatively impacts the poor, and I don't know
how you charge a different rate at the pump to match one's income level).

SMH

Claire Petersky said:

"gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't quite get the subsidy comment.

Trying to find a relatively unhysteric view, here:
http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/drivingtipssafety/a/aa041603a_4.htm

You also subsidize them through insurance claims -- they are less safe, but
the drivers of SUVs pay the same insurance rates as those who drive normal
cars.

OK I have seen the tax break on the oversized SUV's and trucks. I agree
that is is subsidy.
Of course out tax code is full of these. Renters subsidize home owners
and the investers in income producing reale estate. Wokers subsidize
investors captial gains. I'm not arguing for or against these specfics,
just noting that we have many of these situations.

On the insurance issue I think it is a bit more complex. I have a hard
time parsing out vehicle safety vs. driver safety. I undersant that
there is a lot of self selection going on but I'm more inclined to lay
the risk on the driver than on the vehicle.

Stephen Harding <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:__Bif.782$iZ3.460@trndny03:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Andy Gee wrote:

>But my biggest subsidy is peculiar to Manhattan. Stockbroker from
>Connecticut drives to NY in his X5 because the farm state
>congessional delegation decided to take my federal transportation
>money and pay for a road from his subdivision and not pay for a rail
>hub in the former World Trade Center site. I think we're getting a
>museum and a bus stop or something instead. Fair enough. But he
>then emits ozone precursors at

So how do you feel taking subsidies from the American taxpayer
to promote your mass transit system? I believe the over-riding
bulk of Federal mass transit subsidy actually goes to NYC.

I'm going to put my statistician hat on for a moment. Federal mass
transit money is part of Federal transportation money, which includes
highways. If there is a transportation bill for $286 billion, of
which, say, $20 billion is for mass transit, and New York, where the
overwhelming majority of mass transit riders lives, gets the majority
of that money, we're still paying out much more to other people's
highways.

Sure, but there's a lot more people using national highways than
people in NYC using mass transit!

Please let me clarify this. Someone (me, for example) in New York City
pays out $1.40 or so in Federal taxes for each dollar in Federal money
received. Add to that a the cost of living factor -- $100,000 is
"average" in Manhattan but lets a family have lots left over in most
other places. Plus, unlike other places with air quality issues, New
York City's air problems are almost exclusively from sources originating
from outside the city: automobile commuters and midwestern coal power
plants. Finally, I'd like to separate true "national highways" which
should be a common expense from local roads masquerading as Interstates.
The only thing they do is at value to local sprawl, and should be paid
for locally.

--ag

Stephen Harding said:

IMHO, mass transit isn't going to work in the US until private
transit costs so much time (or money) in congestion (or use
costs) that alternatives start to kick in. That seemed to be
starting to happen with $3/gal gas but now that's gone [for a
while]. I think $5/gal gas will probably do more for public
transit than just about anything else anyone could come up with.

Frankly, higher gas prices may get people to re-think what vehicles they
buy - i.e. take gas milage into consideration, or get a hybrid..

BUT - many places there is NO WAY to use Mass Transit simply because it
DOES NOT EXIST!. Yes, in cities you can get around, but here in the NJ
suburbs you cannot get from point A to point B via mass transit unless
points A&B happen to be along one of the rail lines going into NYC (or
Philly for southern NJ). And if you don't live along one of the rail
lines, you have to drive to get to a train station. Also many buses are
INTERSTATE (i.e., originate in NJ but terminate in NYC). Although they
make many stops in NJ, you cannot get off in NJ, you can only get on the
bus (You must stay on all the way into NYC). This is fine if you are
commuting into NYC....

Janet

Lol, I live in Silicon Valley and soccer moms are driving pink hummers.