RESCUE Muni listserv - Re: Digest rescuemuni.v001.n120
Donald F. Robertson (donaldrf@hooked.net)
Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:16:05 -0800
rescuemuni-errors@lists.best.com wrote:
>
> -------------- BEGIN rescuemuni.v001.n120 --------------
>
> 001 - "Donald F. Robertson" <do - Re: Digest rescuemuni.v001.n119
> 002 - Thomas Schlegel <thansen@ - Re: Andrew & Richard, Cherry Picking
> 003 - Richard Mlynarik <mly@ado - Competition
> 004 - kevin@lumiere.net - Emilio Cruz on KQED radio tomorrow
>
> The RESCUE Muni Discussion Group
>
> To post a message, send it to rescuemuni@lists.best.com.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to rescuemuni-request@lists.best.com.
>
> --------------- MESSAGE rescuemuni.v001.n120.1 ---------------
>
> From: "Donald F. Robertson" <donaldrf@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Digest rescuemuni.v001.n119
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:28:17 -0800
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> References: <199712300602.WAA20044@lists1.best.com>
>
> Andrew wrote
>
> > Just don't forget that gasoline taxes pay for a big piece of roads &
> > highways - not the whole thing, but a big piece.
>
> I haven't. Dan may have better figures than I do, but it is my
> understanding that gas taxes cover about two-thirds of the direct
> operating costs of the freeways, and little or nothing of the up-front
> construction, land grabs, et cetera. The gas taxes pay some percentage
> of the highway system, but I don't know what that percentage is. Since
> the cumulative costs of the highway system is probably much higher than
> the freeway system (there are a lot more of them), I suspect that it is
> a small percentage. Gas taxes pay little or nothing toward the local
> road system, which, obviously, is by far the most expensive bit.
>
> And, before you tell me that busses need roads, this is true, but bus
> service requires exactly two lanes. All additional lanes should be
> billed to drivers. Likwise, trains need two tracks (or sometimes one),
> each of which, in isolation, is far less expensive than even the most
> rudimentary road for automobiles. A lot of the reason that BART is so
> expensive is that it must be elevated at great cost -- for the sole
> benefit of drivers.
>
> Make drivers pay for the roads they use, and I will gladly pay for those
> that I use, and no more.
>
> Think of it, Andrew. There is nothing in the world more Socialist than
> America's freeway system. It is designed and planned and organized by
> the government, and ultimately for government (read, military)
> purposes. It may be built by private contractors, but only under
> contract to the government. There is no competition; private roads are,
> with a few exceptions, not allowed. Most competing transportation is
> starved or marginalized into non-existance.
>
> In the best Stalinist tradition, these things are built with no concern
> for local wishes. Take a drive along the old highway north of
> Sacramento, which was replaced by I-5, and check out all of the
> beautiful, old, and thoroughly dead towns, economically destroyed when
> they were "bypassed" by the freeway. Then check out the ugly strip
> development along I-5 that replaced them. Or, just look at Oakland, or
> almost any other medium-sized American inner city. Nobody voted for
> these changes, except, ironically, in San Francisco. Mostly, it was
> done by government fiat. Even San Francisco only just escaped this
> fate, and advocates for extending the Central Freeway may yet succeed in
> destroying this city.
>
> -- Donald
> _________________________
> Donald F. Robertson
> San Francisco
>
> donaldrf@hooked.net
> 76217.2066@CompuServe.com
>
> Donald's Space Exploration page:
> http://www.hooked.net/~donaldrf/index.html
>
> The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually
> we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of
> inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to
> reclaim a little more land. -- Thomas Huxley.
>
> --------------- MESSAGE rescuemuni.v001.n120.2 ---------------
>
> From: Thomas Schlegel <thansen@well.com>
> Subject: Re: Andrew & Richard, Cherry Picking
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 01:32:50
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> In-Reply-To: <199712300602.WAA20044@lists1.best.com>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I think your theory that competition in public transit can lead to better
> service has to overcome a great burden of history against it.
>
> Think about the history of public transit in this country in the 20th
> century. I can't think of any situation where the ability of a private (or
> sometimes public) provider to skim high value routes or passengers has not
> been a major feature of contraction in service.
>
> It is worth remembering that competition is a destructive, not a
> constructive force. (Really, think about it.) This doesn't mean you don't
> sometimes want to harness the destructive force to achieve useful social
> goals. But I would suggest that it is a force to be used carefully. Yes
> it could be used to shake out some of the rigidities of SF's public
> transportation. But no, it is not a creative force you can set going and
> expect a positive outcome.
>
> --------------- MESSAGE rescuemuni.v001.n120.3 ---------------
>
> From: Richard Mlynarik
> You get a couple of hundred members to care about fixing Muni; you
> get wars started when you threaten to mess with the cost of oil.)
Good, point. But, we could do things in this city to level the playing
field between autos and everyone else. Stop giving drivers first and
unquestioned priority access to most road space, would be the best
start. This would result in wars, yes, but at least they'd be local
ones, and the benefit to the City could be enormous.
-- Donald
_________________________
Donald F. Robertson
San Francisco
donaldrf@hooked.net
76217.2066@CompuServe.com
Donald's Space Exploration page:
http://www.hooked.net/~donaldrf/index.html
The known is finite, the unknown is infinite; intellectually
we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of
inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to
reclaim a little more land. -- Thomas Huxley.