From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:02:33 GMT

-Mike Vandeman (mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM) wrote:
-: -: Re: A Simple Way to Save the Economy, and the Planet, Too!
-: -: 
-: -: Gentlemen:
-: -: 
-: -:      Believe it or not, there is a simple way to save our economy,
-: -: restore social equity, and save the planet, with one act!
-: -: 
-: -:      The answer is simple. We already know that the automobile and
-: -: its relatives and accoutrements (e.g. roads, CFC-containing air
-: -: conditioners, used tires, etc.) constitute the world's greatest
-: -: threat to our environment and quality of life. We also know that
-: -: the rich own and operate motor vehicles more than the poor. 
-: -
-: -	In the discussion of the gas tax, it was noted that it's
-: -not an equitable tax because the poor- and middle-class are more
-: -constrained to use their cars than the upper class.   Whereas your
-: -position is well-reasoned and reducing our reliance on the car is
-: -a useful goal, I think that your statement that the "rich" own and
-: -operate motor vehicles more than the poor is in error.  The super-
-: -wealthy don't even need to commute!
-: 
-: Not if you read the census reports. The poor have fewer cars
-: available, & use them less. Isn't that obvious?
-
-	IT'S NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL.  In Washington, those that can afford
-the high price of housing in or quite near the city, or in the
-suburbs, pay it and then take the Metro in to work.  Good -- it reduces
-the number of cars.  However, those that can't afford the housing
-live further out, and drive in.  There are West Virginians driving over
-60 miles to Washington to do carpentry, roofing, etc., because they
-can't afford to live in the suburbs.  Directly in the city, which is
-predominantly low-income, transit use is higher, I'll admit that.  That's
-where those misleading census numbers come in.  (Like I'm going to live
-in downtown D.C. and wear a bulletproof vest under my suit.  Yeah, right.)

People who can afford to drive 60 miles to work at $.39/mile or more
are not poor! I also doubt that there are very many people willing to
submit to such torture.

-	Washingtonians commute from Frederick, MD (30 miles to the
-north) and Fredericksburg, VA (45 miles to the south).  Many of them
-are commuting to the suburbs.  A new rail service from Fredericksburg
-was started this year, in hopes of taking 6,000 - 9,000 commuters off the road.
-Roughly 10%.  What are you going to do about the other 90%, Mike?

Increase their gas taxes, until they switch to transit or move near
their work, or any number of other solutions that are better than driving
long distances.

-	Both the Tysons Corner-Reston region and the Montgomery
-County-Rockville region are high-density suburbs.  The ONLY link between
-the two is the legendary Beltway, which has a bridge over the inconveniently
-located Potomac River.  In the case of Maryland to Northern Virginia
-commuting (the higher volume), and the reverse, the Beltway is the only way.
-How does your proposal address the thousands of people who have just this
-route to their occupations?

Who cares? They made their bed (so as to destroy the environment). Why
shouldn't they lie in it (or remake it)???

-	Washington is NOT alone in having this type of problem.  The
-growth of the suburban business core confounded urban planners, who
-truly wanted to make mass transit work!  Read "Edge City"!
-	Do you get it, Mike?  Hard-working middle and lower-income
-Americans would be hit by your proposal -- not the rich.  But read on:
 
You are missing the point. The effect is progressive -- it would
affect the well-to-do more than the poor. And so what? The environment
is more important than human wealth, because the latter is impossible
without it!

-: -	It is currently cheaper (in most urban areas) to commute
-: -via car than to use other means, and furthermore, most areas are
-: -underdeveloped with regard to mass transit.  Suburb-to-suburb mass
-: -transit is woefully undeveloped, and due to the growth of the
-: -suburban business district and the decay of the central city business
-: -core (read "Edge City"), suburb-to-suburb commuting is at least on
-: -the same level as suburb-to-core.  Until this inequities are addressed,
-: -simple taxing of car usage will only further add to the burden on the
-: -poor- and middle-classes.
-:  
-: I'm not falling for that chicken-&-egg stuff. Making it more expensive
-: to drive will cause some ex-drivers to begin asking for better 
-: transit etc. Now, they ignore it because it's "not their problem".
-: It is cheaper to use transit than to drive. $.39/mile, according to
-: the latest from the IRS (or the EPA?).
-
-	Cheaper:  for those fortunate few for whom transit is convenient.
-And many of those "fortunate few" are the unfortunate who live in the
-inner cities and use the transit systems, which are primarily
-designed for city transit only.
 
Where most of the poor live. get it?

-	For a lot of commuters, the hours-long waits in slow-moving
-traffic have them already asking for better transit.  It IS their
-problem.  But even plans not yet completed (outlying Metro stations,
-especially one near me!) don't address the whole problem.
 
They made their bed. Choose to live near work & transit, as I did, &
you have no problem.

-	Read what I said, bud.  "Until this inequity/these inequities
-are addressed" is stated.  (Poor grammar, though.)  I happen to advocate
-raising the gas tax for most of the reasons you gave.  It would
-burden me, because I have no other alternative than to drive or
-carpool to work.   I stand by the statement that simple taxing of car
-usage will further add to the burden on the poor and middle classes,
-and be only a minor inconvenience to the rich.

You have no other alternative? I don't believe that. Why don't you
live near transit or your job?

-	In my personal case, if I attempted to use mass transit,
-my direct commuting cost would double and I would lose an hour a day getting
-to and from pick-up points.  And still have to drive 5 miles one-way to the
-nearest train station.
 
Why? If cost is important, bicycle to the station. Transit is cheaper than
driving, if you are honest. And it SAVES time, because transit time can
be used as you wish. 

-: -	Simple answers require complex understanding.
-: 
-: No, I think you are complicating what is very simple.
-
-
-	Mike, I was just in San Francisco for a convention.  The Bay
-Area transit system, including the bus system which I used to get to
-a swimming practice at USF, is remarkable, and transit in the city
-exemplary.  With the exception of Oahu, I've never seen a better bus
-system.  The Chicago and Northwestern railroad system in Chicago is
-also a very good suburb-to-core commuting system.  I think transit
-can work -- but realize, taxing car use doesn't inconvenience
-Donny Trump, Bill Gates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Madonna (examples
-of people who probably have lots of cash).  They don't commute!
-They may have 10 cars in the garage - Arnie's got a HUMVEE that gets
-1/4 mile to the gallon!  Like he cares?  Taxing car use will hit
-the lower and middle-classes -- get it?
 
My purpose is not to inconvenience Madonna, but to get the money
to improve transit. Get it?

-	It may seem a simple answer, but to make it work you've got
-to understand it.

I do.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13822 sci.systems:198