 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2008MTA Ridership is WAY UP
KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a fuel-efficient car. "The times they are a-changin'..." > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing > one commuter who takes the subway even though he just purchased a > fuel-efficient car. > > "The times they are a-changin'..." Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in chicago. > > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA > > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Time for a fare increase and service cuts. That's how it's done in > chicago. Unfortunately, the MTA is still lame when it comes to certain commutes. Now, I'm self-employed and work at home. However, before that, I was an employee, so here's a comparison of the commute: Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time). Via MTA: Almost 3 hours. 30 Minute walk to nearest bus stop on westside. 1 hour commute per bus schedule into downtown LA. 1 more hour to downtown Long Beach per the Blue Line. 10 minutes for 4-block walk to office from transit mall. That's 2:40 without regard to waiting for bus and train - 4+ wasted hours per day over direct driving. Leaving my place at 5:30am couldn't guarentee that I'd get to work by 8am, and leaving work at 5pm, I'd get home at 8pm at the earliest. If I were still making that commute, driving would be the choice regardless of cost (even $10.00/g gasoline). It would be the only way I could get a decent night's sleep + food between two work days. The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving. In the 70's when I was in school, the MTA (formerly RTD) did have lines that worked for my commute, and even though I did have to change busses twice, the wait was usually only 10 minutes between them. However, then, it was 90 minutes on the bus vs. 60 minutes driving. I'm ignoring the RTD strike in 1976. > Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time). > Via MTA: Almost 3 hours. Sounds about right. Nearly every time I looked into transit as alternative it took 3 times as long or more. > It would be the only way I could get a > decent night's sleep + food between two work days. Sleep isn't allowed in the people's paradise comrade ;) > The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match > people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving. I've been saying that about transit for years. In the chicago area they just keep cutting service and raising fares and raising taxes. The chi.general theory is that the CTA aims to have one train ride a year that costs several million dollars per passenger or something like that ;) > Sounds about right. Nearly every time I looked into transit as > alternative it took 3 times as long or more. So you're saying your own personal experience is applicable to everyone else? I certainly hope not. >> Sounds about right. Nearly every time I looked into transit as >> alternative it took 3 times as long or more. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I certainly hope not. What is your malfunction? I responded to someone's personal experience that mine was similiar. How about taking a giant cup of STFU. >> > KTLA's top story at 6:30 is the sharp increase in ridership on MTA >> > trains. They attribute the increase to high gasoline prices, citing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Direct driving: 45 minutes average (30 minutes best time). >Via MTA: Almost 3 hours. Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making those choices in the coming months. >The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match >people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving. That change will come. As ridership increases, there will be more money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded service. As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc. We're witnessing the beginnings of that process right now. People like me who make conscious choices are the engine that drove the initial go-'round. Now a few people who are lucky enough to live within striking distance of transit purely by chance are starting to take advantage of the system. That will fuel additional growth and start the next round. Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I first started riding Metrolink, they didn't even have service on weekends in The OC. They've come a long way in just a few short years.  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this > country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a > little conscious effort to make the lifestyle choices that will permit > you to use transit. Look for more and more people to start making > those choices in the coming months. A little conscious effort? Transit is a two-ended choice, the employers must also choose to locate in areas served by transit. Then it has to be served reliably and via a line that goes some place where one is willing to live. It takes more that a little decision to narrow ones self to what may be a few employers. It could also mean a serious pay cut, more than any commuting savings could compensate for. >>The real change that is needed is that MTA needs to have service that match >>people's commutes in a way where it's actually competitive to driving. > That change will come. In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not respond to customers. > As ridership increases, there will be more > money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded > service. I can't see that happening except in isolated cases. The system thrives on tax dollars, not fares. Transit advocates and its leaders spend their time cooking up ways to blackmail more tax dollars and make driving suck more (as many are simply anti-car at heart). Improved service doesn't seem to be on the agenda in most cases. > As the transit system expands, it becomes more useful to more > people; ridership increases; more money becomes available and > additional demand drives more expansion; etc. etc. etc. Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up. > Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains > every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I > first started riding Metrolink, they didn't even have service on > weekends in The OC. They've come a long way in just a few short years. In the chicago area we've been slapped with additional sales tax, fare increases and reduced service despite people in mass spending the last dozen years arranging themselves to use the star shaped transit system. >> Yes, there are a lot of people in your situation. Transit in this >> country has been allowed to atrophe very severely, so it takes a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not > respond to customers. Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in whole by the government? >> As ridership increases, there will be more >> money available and more demand for additional routes and expanded [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy > and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up. That's nonsense. Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system. >> Already Metrolink in Orange Cuonty has announced plans to run trains >> every 30 minutes, 18 hours per day. That's going to be HUGE!! When I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > increases and reduced service despite people in mass spending the last > dozen years arranging themselves to use the star shaped transit system. >> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not >> respond to customers. > Other than rail freight and passenger airlines, the latter certainly > heavily subsidized, what transportation system isn't run partly or in > whole by the government? Transit, is run all the way down to routes and times. All the government does in roads is road building. >> Such money comes from general taxes and taxes on driving. As the economy >> and driving slows the money for transit projects will dry up. > That's nonsense. It's the absolute f.cking truth. Here in c(r)ook county IL the sales tax was increased to pay for transit. That's in addition to the funds they get from general taxes from the state, county, and city of chicago. > Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by > drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't > anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system. Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads haven't completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far exceed what is actually spent on them. Hello Brent, > Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes > consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state > activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored > practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads > haven't completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads > far exceed what is actually spent on them. Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses. So, the end resuult is that far less road taxes (gasoline taxes and vehicle registration) are collected than the amount necessary to fund the roads, even if no money were dirverted. Highways alone sometimes run a profit, if you count all of the road taxes as exclusively going to them, although gasoline taxes have fallen so much in real terms that this isn't even true anymore. Of course, once you start to start counting environmental and political consequences of oil you are deeply down the drain. Would we really be in Iraq if it wasn't for oil? There is a trillion dollars right there. Greg Gritto > Hello Brent, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally > to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses. Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property taxes paid for the road. > So, the end resuult is that far less road taxes (gasoline taxes > and vehicle registration) are collected than the amount necessary > to fund the roads, even if no money were dirverted. I'm sorry, that just doesn't add up. You'll need cites. > Highways alone sometimes run a profit, if you count all of > the road taxes as exclusively going to them, although gasoline > taxes have fallen so much in real terms that this isn't even true anymore. Um, that's why those taxes were past, for the roads. > Of course, once you start to start counting environmental > and political consequences of oil you are deeply down the drain. > Would we really be in Iraq if it wasn't for oil? There is a trillion > dollars right there. The reason for meddling in Iraq is the same as it has been since before gulf war one, to keep Iraq's oil off the market. The US government does what is best for the corporations, special interests, and wealthy individuals that fund those in office, not what is best for the nation. Transit will not work in its present form in the US. Trying to get people to use a broken system by making alternatives suck more has never been a winning way to go about something. Transit advocates should root out those who concentrate on penalizing driving and actually make transit better. As it stands right now, I can make equal or better time on my bicycle than by transit even if transit when where I needed it to go. My bicycle is a lot more flexible. Hence, you could make gasoline a $100,000 a gallon, it doesn't make transit usable. >> Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally >> to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property > taxes paid for the road. "Much more"? Gas taxes and tolls fund only 55% of road spending nationwide according to the FHWA; the other 45% comes from other sources, e.g. property, sales, and income taxes. A 10% difference is not "much more". There are transit systems that manage to get better than 55% fare recovery. Heck, even Amtrak manages to do better than that... S SignatureStephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking >>> Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally >>> to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses. >> Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the >> property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally >> funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property >> taxes paid for the road. > "Much more"? Gas taxes and tolls fund only 55% of road spending nationwide > according to the FHWA; the other 45% comes from other sources, e.g. > property, sales, and income taxes. A 10% difference is not "much more". > There are transit systems that manage to get better than 55% fare recovery. > Heck, even Amtrak manages to do better than that... It would be nice if you people wouldn't keep trying to change my argument into what you want it to be. As per the cite given, 22 billion dollars was diverted to transit and other uses while property taxes specifically for roads was 7 billion. If you include the general fund expenses on the local level, mostly property taxes anyway, it makes up for the diversions of the 'user fees' on the state and federal level. Again, if roads were sucking from the general fund, on the state and federal level where the diversions are made, there wouldn't be the diversions. It's difficult to do the diversions, laws have to be passed, there is debate, etc. If the roads were a net suck, they would just spend the general funds on transit, police state, bike trails, etc. It's the path of least resistance. Obviously the general fund is depleted which makes diversions from the road 'user fees' the path of least resistance. Simply put, if roads were sucking in other taxes like a black hole as transit advocates like to make it seem, there would be no need to divert gasoline taxes etc to transit. All it would take would be a general fund appropiation and the roads could use their own user fees. Least resistance. >"Much more"? Gas taxes and tolls fund only 55% of road spending nationwide >according to the FHWA; 72.29%. And under road spending that's including highway law enforcement... but not including fine revenue as "highway user revenue". >There are transit systems that manage to get better than 55% fare recovery. >Heck, even Amtrak manages to do better than that... Only on operating expenses. On capital expenses they recover a big fat zero. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 10, 10:13 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Again, no. Gasoline taxes and their diversions are much more than the > property tax portion used for the localist of roads. One federally > funded checkpoint could bring more revenue to a town's PD than property > taxes paid for the road. Cites, please. > On May 10, 10:13 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cites, please. diversions were cited by someone else in this thread as a link, I put the numbers in a post. Do try to keep the f.ck up. Checkpoint costs, I've posted numerous articles on federally funded checkpoint programs.. a small town could easily find the 6 figure funding for a checkpoint program from the feds to be more than what they collect in property taxes that is supposed to go for roads. On May 10, 2:36 am, Greg Gritton <grittonNO.famil...@AMcomcast.net> wrote: > Yes, but roads are also supported by property taxes, generally > to a far greater extent that gasoline tax supports other uses. > So, the end resuult is that far less road taxes (gasoline taxes > and vehicle registration) are collected than the amount necessary > to fund the roads, even if no money were dirverted. Hello Greg, In my state, fuel taxes and turnpike tolls are restricted to road use. However, my property taxes pay a significant amount of public safety costs for Interstate drivers. In the end, I pay in my _general_ (non fuel) taxes far more to support roads and airways than I did transit. In a neighboring state their gas taxes are lower, but their property taxes support a county road network. Those people are clearly subsidizing roads; that is, their road users are getting a free ride. It has often been reported on the roads newsgroup that highway user fees pay only 90% of highway costs. Considering how massive the highway network, that 10% balance is a very substantial amount of money. >>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not >>> respond to customers. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > was increased to pay for transit. That's in addition to the funds they > get from general taxes from the state, county, and city of chicago. That seems more sensible and stable than a general appropriation. At least then there's a dedicated, consistent funding source. Of course, I get the impression Chicago isn't exactly fiscally responsible with *anything*. >> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by >> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far > exceed what is actually spent on them. If politicians play games with money, wow, shocking. But that doesn't mean the funds alone would cover the expenditure. Maybe at one time gas tax revenue did cover the expenditure. Anyway, that's simply not true anymore, if it ever was. Roads haven't turned to dust because they are paid for out of some combination of general appropriations, local sales taxes, local property taxes, tolls, and gas taxes - obviously varying by state and route. >>>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not >>>> respond to customers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > get the impression Chicago isn't exactly fiscally responsible with > *anything*. It's stealing plain and simple. >>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by >>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't >>> anymore self-sufficient funding-wise than a typical transit system. >> Dead wrong. The road system's monies are used for other purposes >> consistantly. Everything from transit and bike paths to police state >> activities like checkpoints. Raiding the road funds is a time honored >> practice in government. Yet, despite all the pilfering the roads haven't >> completely turned to dust. This means the taxes paid for roads far >> exceed what is actually spent on them. > If politicians play games with money, wow, shocking. But that doesn't > mean the funds alone would cover the expenditure. Well, then dig out a cite, because the road funds always have money to take for other purposes. > Maybe at one time gas tax revenue did cover the expenditure. Anyway, > that's simply not true anymore, if it ever was. Roads haven't turned to > dust because they are paid for out of some combination of general > appropriations, local sales taxes, local property taxes, tolls, and gas > taxes - obviously varying by state and route. It's simple math. There is X tax money collected for roads. A portion of X is used for other things, call this Y. X-Y is what is spent on the roads. No other funds are diverted to roads, the taxes collected explictly for roads are used on roads and a whole host of other things. The game works like this... people expect roads, so the government diverts the road money to the things it wants. Then it goes to the people and says 'there is no money for the roads we need to increase the taxes'. That's how it works. Money from other funds does not go to road building, only those taxes specific to the roads. Some are to the drivers, some are more general like on property taxes, but each is set for road use like the sales tax increase here in c(r)ook county is set for transit use. >>>>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not >>>>> respond to customers. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It's stealing plain and simple. Then so is highway funding. Or, uh, any taxes. Okay, I can go with that! >>>> Transit may sometimes be paid for by fees paid by >>>> drivers (such as a toll at a specific point), but the road system isn't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > on the roads. No other funds are diverted to roads, the taxes collected > explictly for roads are used on roads and a whole host of other things. Yes, very simple math. > The game works like this... people expect roads, so the government > diverts the road money to the things it wants. Then it goes to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for road use like the sales tax increase here in c(r)ook county is set > for transit use. Okay, that theory is easy to test. In 2003, $9.1 billion of federal/state/local road taxes went to "general" purposes. An additional $11.8 billion was spent on transit. That's out of $103.4 billion (that's X above) in combined federal, state, and local tolls, gas taxes, and vehicle taxes. Even if 100% of that were used on the road system, that wouldn't cover the $139.2 billion expenditure (that's Y above) on highways for that year. So, factor in the difference, the best you can argue is roads were subsidized to a tune of $35.8 billion in 2003. So, in 2003, X - Y ~= -$35.8 billion If no other funds are diverted to roads, the highway transportation system must have one hell of a piggy bank. >>>>>> In general, no, transit will not. It's government run, it does not >>>>>> respond to customers. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> It's stealing plain and simple. > Then so is highway funding. Or, uh, any taxes. > Okay, I can go with that! In this case it is directly stealing. People are taxed, stolen from using government as the weapon to provide for other people. At least with roads, the taxation scheme means that what taxes not paid by drivers are for the localist of roads, the ones that non-drivers also benefit from. Even if you do not drive, it's handy to have a road near your property. >>> Maybe at one time gas tax revenue did cover the expenditure. Anyway, >>> that's simply not true anymore, if it ever was. Roads haven't turned to >>> dust because they are paid for out of some combination of general >>> appropriations, local sales taxes, local property taxes, tolls, and gas >>> taxes - obviously varying by state and route. >> It's simple math. There is X tax money collected for roads. A >> portion of X is used for other things, call this Y. X-Y is what is spent >> on the roads. No other funds are diverted to roads, the taxes collected >> explictly for roads are used on roads and a whole host of other things. > Yes, very simple math. >> The game works like this... people expect roads, so the government >> diverts the road money to the things it wants. Then it goes to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> for road use like the sales tax increase here in c(r)ook county is set >> for transit use. > Okay, that theory is easy to test. > In 2003, $9.1 billion of federal/state/local road taxes went to > "general" purposes. An additional $11.8 billion was spent on transit. > That's out of $103.4 billion (that's X above) in combined federal, > state, and local tolls, gas taxes, and vehicle taxes. > Even if 100% of that were used on the road system, that wouldn't cover > the $139.2 billion expenditure (that's Y above) on highways for that > year. So, factor in the difference, the best you can argue is roads > were subsidized to a tune of $35.8 billion in 2003. > So, in 2003, X - Y ~= -$35.8 billion > If no other funds are diverted to roads, the highway transportation > system must have one hell of a piggy bank. It's real nice when you can pull numbers out of your a.s and use creative interpetations. Not to mention not citing anything so that your little hocus-pocus cannot be revealed. Anyway.... Here's where you probably went wrong, on purpose: 1) You included various most local road costs but did not include the revenues on the most local roads from property taxes. It is a typical thing to only include per gallon gasoline taxes (usually fuel taxes are layered with different names) and maybe registration. 2) Toll road costs were included but not toll revenues. 3) Bond issues were counted as spending all in the year of the project. Basically your 'math' lowers the revenues and increases the costs. The fact of the matter is, if roads sucked money from the general fund instead of being sucked from, the government would just spend the general funds on transit, bike trails, police checkpoints, and other nonsense because the general funds don't require jumping through the hoops to spend on whatever they want to spend them on. The road taxes require new legislation to divert. It's a higher resistance path. They have to work to unlock a specifically set up pile of money. If more was spent on roads that what was collected for them, there would be no pile of money to unlock. Therefore, the only reason roads could look like they are taking from general fund is by a creative presentation. Hello Brent, > On 2008-05-10, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote ... I think there are two arguments that can and are being made, both oppsite, but both true: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees This is an economic argument that basically says that roads are subsidized, and is true. For example, gasoline tax and registration are generally considered user fees to use the roads. The gasoline tax is the best, as the amount of tax you pay is roughly in proportion to the amount you use and damage the roads. (Yes, it isn't perfectly proportional, but isn't too bad.) Registration isn't proportional to usage, but at least pays, directly, for the privledge of driving. The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and maintenance. The difference widens if you consider the fraction of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.) that are indirectly devoted to roads. It widens further when you consider the environmental costs of driving and the political costs of oil consumption. Thus, economically, driving is sigificantly underpriced, and is therefore overused compared to what would be economically ideal. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Road funding is diverted to other uses This is a transparency argument. One expects that gasoline tax and vehicle registration is spent on roads. Some areas have property taxes designated to roads. One expects them to be spent on roads. Finally, many areas have bond measures that are advertised as improving roads and traffic. But, the reality is that a good amount of the gasoline taxes, the money spent on vehicle registration, the property taxes designated to roads, and money from bond measures is spent on transit instead, and some is even spent on non-transportation items. Thus, less is spent on roads than people expect. Finally, even when things are clear, there isn't always a choice. For example, bond measures for transportation usually contain funding for both roads and transit, making it impossible for one to vote to fund roads [or transit] only. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, I think you are arguing past each other. Both arguments are true, one says that roads don't pay their way, and the other says that not as much money is spent on roads as the revenue that is collected for them. But, the arguments are totally different, one is economic, while the other is about honesty and transparency. Sinerly, Greg Gritto > 1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees > This is an economic argument that basically says that roads > are subsidized, and is true. For example, gasoline tax and registration [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perfectly proportional, but isn't too bad.) Registration isn't proportional > to usage, but at least pays, directly, for the privledge of driving. > The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly > less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and > maintenance. I have written exactly that, however, the 'gap' is in the most local of roads. Which are the miles of winding light trafficed residential streets and some arterials. These are largely covered in property taxes just like the sidewalks. To say a person who doesn't drive does not benefit from having a road near his property is just silly. > The difference widens if you consider the fraction > of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.) > that are indirectly devoted to roads. Police departments pay for their road "services" by road side theft in form of fines, tickets, property seizures, etc. Motorists are all potentional victims of the police 'gang' in this respect. Then there are the parking tickets and other fines that drivers face. Even non-drivers can be fined for merely storing a car in their own driveway. These revenues, in some small towns the main source of revenue are not counted as 'user fees' but they are paid entirely by drivers. > It widens further when you > consider the environmental costs of driving and the political costs > of oil consumption. The 'costs' are only in taxes because of the US government's political system that rewards those who can pay off the office holders. Remove the government foreign policy and military subsidizes to big oil and let the free market resume and these 'costs' will simply vanish. These 'costs' are simply a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to big oil. If the US government would adopt the constitutional non-inteventionist foreign policy and stopped using the military for big oil, the political instability of the middle east would make that oil cost more to big oil. We, the people, already pay the cost of the instability at the pump, but the oil companies can pocket it because tax money is spent to 'stablize' the region. People are getting hit twice, from the taxman and at the pump. Without the US government's actions big oil would just have to use harder to extract oil in the americas and we would simply just pay at the pump and probably less than we pay now as the free market would break big oil's ability to manipulate supply like debeers and dimonds. > Thus, economically, driving is sigificantly underpriced, and is therefore > overused compared to what would be economically ideal. No it is not underpriced, some costs are hidden to drivers, and there is an outright theft of wealth that is spread out to everyone if they drive or not with 'oil' as the excuse. The hidden ones they don't realize they are paying them until they quit driving. The others? Well that is the political system we have now and it is the same for just about everything. Oil, sugar, corn, banking, etc.... even the money itself are all part of this theft game through government. On May 10, 6:23 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > To say a person who doesn't drive does not > benefit from having a road near his property is just silly. To say a person who doesn't use transit does not benefit from having transit near his property is equally is silly. I don't know about your assertion, but being near a train station raises one's property value due to the convenience. I also know that the cost of maintaining local streets for modern automobile and heavy truck traffic is much more than people think. > On May 10, 6:23 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To say a person who doesn't use transit does not benefit from having > transit near his property is equally is silly. Transit has to STOP near one's property and GO where the person NEEDS it to go for it to be useful. The road does not have these political conditions on it. > I don't know about your assertion, but being near a train station > raises one's property value due to the convenience. But not everyone can be near the trainstation, but everyone has to pay for it. If you put train stations near everyone a long the line it would be uselessly slow. > I also know that the cost of maintaining local streets for modern > automobile and heavy truck traffic is much more than people think. So they have that perception... wooptie do da day. >1. Roads do not pay their way in user fees [...] >The total collected in gasoline tax and registration fees is significantly >less than the amount spent directly spent on road construction and >maintenance. The difference widens if you consider the fraction >of public services (the time of the police and fire departments, etc.) >that are indirectly devoted to roads. Whoa, penalty on the play. 1) The first statement is false. Total receipts from highway user fees in 2006, $116,425 million. Total outlay for road constuction and maintenance, $119,102 million. That's only 2% less. Personally I'm in favor of increasing gas taxes to cover the shortfall, but only if diversions to transit and other non-road sources are frozen or reduced. 2) Adding in public services without considering revenues from said "public services" is stacking the deck. 3) Adding in indirect expenses without adding indirect revenues is further stacking the deck. >It widens further when you >consider the environmental costs of driving and the political costs >of oil consumption. Yeah, adding a number which can only be determined by plucking out of thin air (or one's nether regions) helps a lot. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 10, 9:41 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <5eff918a14d078ca80c68d3ea...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 3) Adding in indirect expenses without adding indirect revenues is > further stacking the deck. What revenues? My property taxes pay for unreimbursed fire/rescue services on the Interstate. is that being counted? By the way, that cost is higher than our contribution to the regional transit network, which gets nothing from gas taxes. Also, when highways expand, privately owned land is removed from the tax rolls. Further, the taxes on businesses shut down is gone as well. I as a taxpayer have to make that up. Is that counted anywhere? >On May 10, 9:41=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >What revenues? Traffic fines and fees -- police who write tickets for said fines and fees, of course, being the majority of the "public services" counted as a road expense. >Also, when highways expand, privately owned land is removed from the >tax rolls. Further, the taxes on businesses shut down is gone as >well. I as a taxpayer have to make that up. Is that counted >anywhere? Right along with the increased tax revenues from the new businesses served by the expanded highways. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 12, 2:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > >What revenues? > > Traffic fines and fees -- police who write tickets for said fines and > fees, of course, being the majority of the "public services" counted > as a road expense. I didn't know fire trucks and ambulances wrote tickets. When there's a crash on a major highway, multiple police cars are deployed to investigate the crash and reroute traffic. Someone I doubt the revenue from one ticket, presuming a ticket was even issued, would come close to paying the cost of the cops and their vehicles servicing the crash. > >Also, when highways expand, privately owned land is removed from the > >tax rolls. Further, the taxes on businesses shut down is gone as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Right along with the increased tax revenues from the new businesses > served by the expanded highways. What new businesses? It's a net LOSS of business. In any event, we're talking about costs, not revenues. If you want to talk about revenues, you can also discuss the businesses that locate in and near transit stations to serve their riders, but nobody counts that. >On May 12, 2:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >in and near transit stations to serve their riders, but nobody counts >that. Actually people advocating TOD do and trumpet it LOUDLY. The Portland streetcar is a case in point. I also vaguely recall a study on this related to the Washington Metro> > On May 12, 2:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would come close to paying the cost of the cops and their vehicles > servicing the crash. Lol. more creative accounting. The vast majority of traffic tickets go to safe drivers who caused no hazard what-so-ever. The traffic tickets are so profitable it's how police officers are judged for their job performance. Even small towns can make millions of dollars on traffic tickets. >> On May 12, 2:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > performance. Even small towns can make millions of dollars on traffic > tickets. Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone usage, messing with the radio, etc. Some idiots manage to do many of those things at once. A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours, causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality. > Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I > find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is > something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various > factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone > usage, messing with the radio, etc. The problem is that police almost exclusively focus on speeding. Since speeding is defined by a limit that is, for all practical purposes, universally ignored (many urban interstates that have 70 mph traffic flow with a posted limit of 55 mph), it really has no correlation with risk (unlike some of the other factors you mentioned). So, enforcement of such a limit only serves to bring in more revenue for the locality without addressing any of the underlying safety issues (distracted driving). >> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, >> I find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > flow with a posted limit of 55 mph), it really has no correlation with > risk (unlike some of the other factors you mentioned). It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether speed limits are enforced or not. > So, enforcement of such a limit only serves to bring in more revenue for > the locality without addressing any of the underlying safety issues > (distracted driving). I don't disagree. It's about the only thing they can focus on, unfortunately. (Though I know some people who get caught not wearing seatbelts. Usually they're chronic offenders who refuse to follow that law.) >> The problem is that police almost exclusively focus on speeding. >> Since speeding is defined by a limit that is, for all practical >> purposes, universally ignored (many urban interstates that have 70 mph >> traffic flow with a posted limit of 55 mph), it really has no >> correlation with risk (unlike some of the other factors you mentioned). > It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether > speed limits are enforced or not. It doesn't. When speed limits were increased from 55 to 65 mph on rural interstates for several years after 1987, crash and fatality rates declined. They continued to decline after the NMSL was repealed in 1995 and states increased their limits from 65 mph. Also, out of all the crash and fatality rate statistics I've gone through over the years, I haven't been able to establish a positive correlation with increased enforcement and reduced crash and fatality rates. > It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether > speed limits are enforced or not. False. Demonstrated false by about 60 years of data. >> It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether >> speed limits are enforced or not. > > False. Demonstrated false by about 60 years of data. 60 years of data contradicting the laws of physics? >>> It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether >>> speed limits are enforced or not. >> False. Demonstrated false by about 60 years of data. > 60 years of data contradicting the laws of physics? If you're referring to the likelihood of being injured or killed in a crash, then it goes up with increased speeds. But just because traffic is moving faster doesn't mean that collisions are more likely. If they were, then crash and fatality rates would be *increasing*, not decreasing. >>>> It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, >>>> whether speed limits are enforced or not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is moving faster doesn't mean that collisions are more likely. If they > were, then crash and fatality rates would be *increasing*, not decreasing. I am definitely not an expert (other than as a driver) on the mater, but I do believe that "risk" is an actuarial term, not a physics term. And the risk of an accident does indeed seem to be unrelated to the speed. The severity (a physics matter) does seem to increase with differences in speed (e.g. fast moving car collides with slow moving truck, or fast moving car collides with slow moving bridge). SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/ > And the risk of an accident does indeed seem to be unrelated to the speed. > > The severity (a physics matter) does seem to increase with differences in > speed (e.g. fast moving car collides with slow moving truck, or fast > moving car collides with slow moving bridge). Studies have shown that the biggest risk is a high _range_ of speeds in traffic. A road with speeds ranging from 60mph (speed limit) to 80mph (speeders) has more accidents than one where all traffic is going 80mph. Raising speed limits from the old 55mph and 65mph national limits has generally reduced accidents, at least in uncongested areas. S SignatureStephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking > Studies have shown that the biggest risk is a high _range_ of speeds in > traffic. A road with speeds ranging from 60mph (speed limit) to 80mph > (speeders) has more accidents than one where all traffic is going 80mph. > Raising speed limits from the old 55mph and 65mph national limits has > generally reduced accidents, at least in uncongested areas. Going 80 mph on an open road is no problem because there is nothing to hit AND plenty of room to recover from any driver error. In other words, if one isn't paying attention and drifts into the next lane, you won't hit anything because nothing will be there, and you can swerve back. But a great many roads today are congested and don't have that luxury. Most traffic follows too closely and drives too aggressively which is why we have frequent massive chain reaction crashes. It's why car insurance is higher in dense areas. In other words, if you drift into the next lane you'll likely hit someone. When you try to correct, you'll hit someone on the other side since another driver will see you move and rush in to take your space. Speed demons claim the "85%" is the sole way to set speed limits. But there are crappy congested roads that are death traps, with high _rates_ of accidents and deaths because the road and volume simply can't accomodate the high speeds. The engineering code explicitly states that trafic volume is a factor in setting speed limits, speed demons conveniently ignore that principle. Another problem, especially on congested roads, is the great variety of driver skills and vehicles. A motorist panics at something and slams on their brakes when they shouldn't have. But that happens all the time. Since people need to drive in order to survive, we will need to be very open in accepting all levels of driver skills. > Speed demons claim the "85%" is the sole way to set speed limits. But > there are crappy congested roads that are death traps, with high > _rates_ of accidents and deaths because the road and volume simply > can't accomodate the high speeds. Talk about strawmen, insults, and ignorance all in the same paragraph. I've driven in 90mph dense traffic on the autobahn in Germany. It is some of the safest driving I've ever experienced. The problem is not speed, it's general idiotcy. The difference about the autobahn is that the general idiotcy is well practically non-existant. high rates of collisions are generally due to some defect of the road design or a hidden hazard. Under the 85th percentile method a lower than normal speed limit is to serve as an indication of a non-obvious hazard. However, since the speed kills folks have put underposted speed limits practically everywhere, it's like the boy who cried wolf. > The engineering code explicitly states that trafic volume is a factor > in setting speed limits, speed demons conveniently ignore that > principle. No, you speed-kills central control freaks don't want to see the real problem and will latch on to anything you can to sell low speed limits that achieve nothing or reduce actual safety. r.a.d regulars are well aware of the entire 85th percentile _method_ and your mischaracterization above is not it. You want congestion? underpost the speed limit. > Another problem, especially on congested roads, is the great variety > of driver skills and vehicles. A motorist panics at something and > slams on their brakes when they shouldn't have. But that happens all > the time. Since people need to drive in order to survive, we will > need to be very open in accepting all levels of driver skills. Driving properly is not difficult. There is no excuse for not being able to do so. > I am definitely not an expert (other than as a driver) on the mater, but > I do believe that "risk" is an actuarial term, not a physics term. > > And the risk of an accident does indeed seem to be unrelated to the speed. The faster you go the more distance you need to stop. The faster you go the less control you have over your vehicle. The faster you go the more chance you will tip over. The faster you are moving if you hit something the greater damage there will be. That is all physics, but it translates to risk. If you are going 75 mph, you will need more distance to stop than if you are going 50. Don't forget human reaction time does not change, and it is longer than most people realize. That extra distance could mean the difference between a crash or not. Further, even when this is a crash, the faster you're going will make damage worse. >> I am definitely not an expert (other than as a driver) on the mater, but >> I do believe that "risk" is an actuarial term, not a physics term. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > difference between a crash or not. Further, even when this is a > crash, the faster you're going will make damage worse. LOL. thank you joan claybrook. You know what is safer with that 'logic' than 50? 30. What's safer than 30? 10. What's safer than 10? ZERO. Just stay in bed and don't ever move. Here in the real world, speed vs. collision involvement shows that those who are in crashes the most are the very slowest followed by the very fastest. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/safety/pubs/speed/images/fig1.gif http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif Furthermore, the autobahn is safer than the US interstate despite much higher speeds: http://www.americanautobahn.com/americanautobahng1.jpg http://www.americanautobahn.com/americanautobahng2.jpg > LOL. thank you joan claybrook. You know what is safer with that 'logic' > than 50? 30. What's safer than 30? 10. What's safer than 10? ZERO. Just > stay in bed and don't ever move. That doesn't do much good, statistically speaking. You have to take charge and everybody else to stop moving the make a difference. Remember--it is the _difference_ in speeds that kills. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/ >> LOL. thank you joan claybrook. You know what is safer with that 'logic' >> than 50? 30. What's safer than 30? 10. What's safer than 10? ZERO. Just >> stay in bed and don't ever move. > > That doesn't do much good, statistically speaking. That is what I was illustrating by extending the argument I was replying to. That's why I followed it up with actual results from data. > You have to take charge and everybody else to stop moving the make a > difference. Enforcement of that level is not possible. Even with an oppressive central control. > Remember--it is the _difference_ in speeds that kills. No, it's rapid deacceleration that kills. > No, it's rapid deacceleration that kills. How do you get a rapid deceleration without a difference in speed. Oh. Wait. Maybe you are a troll. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/ >> No, it's rapid deacceleration that kills. > > How do you get a rapid deceleration without a difference in speed. That's a change in speed. A difference in speed is meaningless. I'm driving much slower than the plane overhead. So what? The guy in the lane next to me is going 20mph slower. So what? The bridge is moving zero, so what? There can be all sorts of differences in speed, it doesn't matter. It's the rapid change in speed that actually does the killing. > Oh. Wait. Maybe you are a troll. Maybe you're just a moron. (or moran as they say on fark) >>> I am definitely not an expert (other than as a driver) on the mater, but >>> I do believe that "risk" is an actuarial term, not a physics term. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/safety/pubs/speed/images/fig1.gif > http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif If you're being chased by a flood of molten lava, you might be more likely to die if you drive slowly too. So you're talking about deviation from average speed. That's not the same thing as just going faster independent of any other variables. If a highway is totally empty, and you decide to go 85 instead of 65, you're still more likely to lose control. Maybe not a lot more likely, but the risk is there. And it's even higher for inexperienced drivers, or drivers who think they have really, really giant cocks. It also doesn't mean going 55 on a windy, rural 2-lane throughway is safer than going 45 or 35. It also doesn't mean that going 45 in a 25 residential zone is safer. > Furthermore, the autobahn is safer than the US interstate despite much > higher speeds: > > http://www.americanautobahn.com/americanautobahng1.jpg > http://www.americanautobahn.com/americanautobahng2.jpg German drivers are also considerably better trained than American drivers. At least traditionally they didn't hand out licenses like candy to 16-year-olds there. >>>> I am definitely not an expert (other than as a driver) on the mater, but >>>> I do believe that "risk" is an actuarial term, not a physics term. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > So you're talking about deviation from average speed. That's not the > same thing as just going faster independent of any other variables. Speed limit signs have VERY little effect on travel speeds. > If > a highway is totally empty, and you decide to go 85 instead of 65, > you're still more likely to lose control. The only way I am losing control on a road suitible for 85mph travel is if there is something like an asteroid strike or a serious equipment failure. 85mph or 65mph doesn't matter. There is no such thing as spontaous loss of control by crossing a particular numerical speed or an increased likelyhood to loose control at higher speed alone as you speed kills folks try desperately to paint it. The reality is, someone is either going too fast for conditions or not. Driving 60mph when conditions allow for 90mph doesn't make one 'safer' or less likely to lose control in any significant way. > Maybe not a lot more likely, but the risk is there. If I am to worry about risk differential that small I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. It would be too risky. > And it's even higher for inexperienced drivers, > or drivers who think they have really, really giant cocks. Most people don't drive speeds where they are likely to lose control even without speed limit signs where nannies tell them what to do. Your outlier drivers would completely ignore any number on the sign. > It also doesn't mean going 55 on a windy, rural 2-lane throughway is > safer than going 45 or 35. It also doesn't mean that going 45 in a 25 > residential zone is safer. Strawmen. >> Furthermore, the autobahn is safer than the US interstate despite much >> higher speeds: >> >> http://www.americanautobahn.com/americanautobahng1.jpg >> http://www.americanautobahn.com/americanautobahng2.jpg > German drivers are also considerably better trained than American > drivers. At least traditionally they didn't hand out licenses like > candy to 16-year-olds there. The point is that speed does not kill, poor driving does. Thanks for agreeing. >>> It still correlates to risk. Higher speed means higher risk, whether >>> speed limits are enforced or not. >> >> False. Demonstrated false by about 60 years of data. > > 60 years of data contradicting the laws of physics? 60 years of real world data showing that people in general pick safe speeds for the conditions and don't need you nanny staters treating them like children. > Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I > find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is > something of a risk. And the odds of an accident go up based on various > factors, such as speeding, iPod fumbling, driver smoking, cell phone > usage, messing with the radio, etc. Some idiots manage to do many of > those things at once. Nice anti-car blather there. Nothing is zero risk. Buses and trains are not zero risk either. The metra and CTA here in chicago kill a goodly number of people every year. Although a fair number are due to their stupidity, but since you include the stupid darwinizing themselves in the auto total so should they be included in the transit total. Now if Amtrak and freight are considered rail wise there are disasters that no auto collision can come close to. > A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours, > causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of > dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of > accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality. And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit making practices. >> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I >> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Amtrak and freight are considered rail wise there are disasters that no > auto collision can come close to. Was that anti-transit blather? Of course buses and trains aren't zero risk. Blather aside, they're considerably lower risk because they're operated by professionals. >> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours, >> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit > making practices. Is this anti-officialdom blather? >>> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I >>> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > risk. Blather aside, they're considerably lower risk because they're > operated by professionals. No it wasn't. Your cars-are-dangerous routine however.... And as far as 'professionals' go, I'm sorry you have to have your faith in authorities. >>> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours, >>> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of >>> dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of >>> accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality. >> And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit >> making practices. > Is this anti-officialdom blather? Only through your centralized control glasses. On May 13, 12:57 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > No it wasn't. Your cars-are-dangerous routine however.... And as far as > 'professionals' go, I'm sorry you have to have your faith in > authorities. Cars are ten times as dangerous as other modes. > On May 13, 12:57 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cars are ten times as dangerous as other modes. Pulled out the a.s of the same person who thinks the massive revenue collection of small towns by issuing traffic tickets needed a cite. >>>> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I >>>> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 'professionals' go, I'm sorry you have to have your faith in > authorities. I don't know what "faith" in authorities has to do with anything. Tens of thousands of people die in car crashes every year. Realizing that cars are dangerous is necessary to operating them safely - those who deny that fact are probably bad drivers, at best. >>>> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours, >>>> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Only through your centralized control glasses. You have a lot of faith in your own fantasies, I see. >>>>> Not to say ticket writing isn't abused (especially in southern states, I >>>>> find), but "safe drivers" aren't zero risk. Driving is, by itself, is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I don't know what "faith" in authorities has to do with anything. You keep bringing it up as authorities running things for us being benefical. >Tens > of thousands of people die in car crashes every year. Realizing that > cars are dangerous is necessary to operating them safely - those who > deny that fact are probably bad drivers, at best. People die in great numbers while doing all sorts of things we consider safe. >>>>> A single accident can back up a moderately busy artery for hours, >>>>> causing thousands of man hours of lost labor and possibly thousands of >>>>> dollars in wasted fuel. The economics of minimizing the risk of >>>>> accidents are probably pretty compelling to a locality. >>>> And yet known engineering best practices are ignored in favor of profit >>>> making practices. >>> Is this anti-officialdom blather? >> Only through your centralized control glasses. > You have a lot of faith in your own fantasies, I see. Lol. I'm not the insane one thinking that more government intervention will solve the problems of government intervention. (operational definition of insanity here is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results) On May 12, 2:02 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 2:32 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > performance. Even small towns can make millions of dollars on traffic > tickets. But it is not enough to pay the cost of the "service". It does cut down on the amount of taxes that would be required without them though. Harry K > On May 12, 2:02 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > down on the amount of taxes that would be required without them > though. Huh? It makes the police department a profit center. On May 12, 5:02 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Lol. more creative accounting. The vast majority of traffic tickets go > to safe drivers who caused no hazard what-so-ever. The traffic tickets > are so profitable it's how police officers are judged for their job > performance. Even small towns can make millions of dollars on traffic > tickets. Citation, please. > On May 12, 5:02 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Citation, please. You must be kidding... do you live in a cave? googled "small town ticket revenue" First match: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2305.asp "Louisiana: Proposal Bans Speed Traps, Limits Cameras Louisiana proposal would limit speed trap revenue to between 10 and 35 percent of a municipal budget. Speed cameras limited to high profit locations." <...> " Towns like Baskin, Georgetown, Lillie and Robeline made more than 85 percent of their general budget revenue from traffic citations. Baskin was the top speed trap with $1719 in per capita speeding ticket revenue" <...> "Downs' would accomplish its goal by prohibiting any small town from earning more than 35 percent of its budget from traffic tickets. The state would pocket any excess funds generated by exceeding this cap. Larger towns with between one and three thousand residents could earn twenty percent of their revenue from ticketing. For municipalities with more than 3000 population, only ten percent of revenue can come from traffic cops." ------------------------------------------------- You know the scam is bad when another government steps in and says it's too much or demands a cut. And now from a cop website.... an AP story: http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Oklahoma-Cities-May-Get-Caugh t-in-Their-Own-Speed-Traps/1$21874 "OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The state Department of Public Safety is investigating up to five alleged ''speed-trap'' communities across Oklahoma, but so far none of them has lost the right to write traffic tickets along highways, authorities said. New legislation approved by the legislature last year allows the department to investigate communities that gain 50 percent or more of their operating revenue from writing tickets on state highways or interstates." <...> "The Tulsa World looked at Roland's ticket-writing practices more than two years ago. The Tulsa World's analysis discovered that Roland police officers wrote tickets on 3,099 stops in 2002, generating more than $1 million in revenue." --------------------- You can further google 'the sky is blue' on your own time. Hello Brent, > "Louisiana: Proposal Bans Speed Traps, Limits Cameras > Louisiana proposal would limit speed trap revenue to between 10 and 35 > percent of a municipal budget. Speed cameras limited to high profit > locations." > <...> Oregon has a "kicker" law whereby any tax revennue collected that is more than 2% of the tax estimated is returned to the votors. It is a terrible (but popular) law that makes it impossible for the state to save any money when times are good for when they aren't. However, although that application is bad, I would love to see something similar applied to traffic tickets. All ticket revenue would be returned anually to the taxpayers, and none would go to municipalities and police departments. That would remove the incentive for police officers to write tickets to get revenue. Instead, they would focus on where peoples driving is the least safe, which, more often than not, is in areas other than speeding. Greg Gritto > All ticket revenue would be returned anually to the taxpayers, and > none would go to municipalities and police departments. That would > remove the incentive for police officers to write tickets to get > revenue. Instead, they would focus on where peoples driving is the > least safe, which, more often than not, is in areas other than > speeding. A simpler solution would be to get rid of fines and court costs entirely and rely solely on drivers license demerit points for traffic offenses. Municipalities wouldn't bother enforcing speed limits on limited access highways running through their jurisdiction since it will not yield any sort of financial benefit. > Oregon has a "kicker" law whereby any tax revennue collected > that is more than 2% of the tax estimated is returned to the votors. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Instead, they would focus on where peoples driving i |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message