Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Certainly I am willing to kick in a little more. But not nearly what
was
proposed by the kyoto summit, when the subject of global warming and
other environmental impact was discussed, and proposals along the line
of increasing fuel costs as a method to "dissuade" people from using
fossil fuels.

The effect on the economy would be widespread and devestating....

Not if it were focused on areas where ELECTIVE use was predominant. You
DO
know what that means, right? Or do you need help?

Spare me the condescending attitude, and I might enlighten you with a
combination of human nature and free market logic.

Any time you artificially raise the cost of an item (Through a tax or
tariff) you essentially remove it, or reduce its availability, to people
of lesser financial means. So a tax on fuel will become effective at
controlling fuel usage, but based along socio- economic lines. The rich
will just dig a little deeper in their pockets and pay a little more to
continue their lavish lifestyles. While those not so financially well
off, will be forced to abandon or radically change their lifestyles.
This will only add to the rift between the socio-economic classes.

This whole country, and our culture of consumerism, means that a very
big part of our economy is based on elective use (Assuming your context
of the term "elective" means usage which is not necessary). A tax on
fuel would just about put an end to the RV industry, put a damper on
vacations, travel, tourism, etc. Many states (like Florida) raise much
of their working budgets through proceeds from tourism. I'm sure you can
see what would happen if this source was curtailed to any great degree.

Then of course, since the costs to operate a business, and to
manufacture goods, will increase due to taxes on fuel, the obvious
reaction will be a further push to relocate businesses offshore. Surely
you are not in favor of that?

These are only some examples. How many more do you need?

Dave



No increases for heating oil. I believe most people have learned that
keeping the house at 79 degrees is not a good idea. For those who have not,
there's nothing that can be done.

I keep mine at 68.



No increases for fuel used to move freight.

But what about fuel used to power the company or used in the process of
manufacture?

A poll here (Rochester) about 5 yrs back found that over 65% of commuters
would be happy to use mass transportation, if it existed and was run in a
sensible fashion. There is no reason to believe this city is different from
others, so it's safe to assume people feel this way elsewhere.

It would not be cost effective for a municipality to run public
transportation from the "city" out to "the sticks" like where I live.
Besides, I don't work in "the city" either. I run from one suburb to
another. That's part of the problem we are now facing. Many decades of
suburban sprawl, were brought about thanks to the independence that the
automobile has granted us. It allows us to live away from where we work.
But trying to ween us from this lifestyle will not come easy, and will
have financial rammifications. For instance, if measures were put in
place to discourage driving individual cars, the attractiveness of rural
living will decrease along with associated property values. "Urban"
space will increase in value in proportion to the increase in demand,
likely to the point where most middle class people will end up with
little or nothing more than a 2 bedroom flat, for the same cost as their
spacious 4 bedroom suburban home now costs. Of course, where does that
leave the poor? As demand for quality living in the city goes up the
prices will too, and the poor will be forced out and away from the major
job opportunities.


Europeans have been dealing with much higher gasoline prices for quite
some time. They adjust and their societies haven't collapsed.

Europeans have always lived with higher fuel costs, and their societies
have not embraced the automobile in the same fashion as we have. It's a
lot easier for Europeans to make a small adjustment to their already
urbanized living, than it is for Americans, who would have to make
radical changes.


Our country isn't willing to sacrifice jack ****.

Not when it means an end to the lifestyle we've grown accustomed to. If
I were given a choice of living where I am now, and making a 44 mile
commute in my car, versus living in a row home in a city and taking
public transportation to work, I'd opt for what I have now. I never
liked cities, and only financial necessities would force me to move
there (But not without a fight).

Dave

Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to mention
virtually ALL of Europe.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass. Not a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between the major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is about $8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris. Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10. Way to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to B.
Bill

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass. Not a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is about $8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris. Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10. Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT build light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in big
cities feel no need to own a car.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to
mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass. Not
a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is
also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is about
$8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris. Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10. Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT build
light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.



Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of the USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC. Very good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town. Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957. To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5 billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up. Also, if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not want to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill

Calif Bill wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to
mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass. Not
a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is
also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is about
$8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris. Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10. Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT build
light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.



Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of the USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC. Very good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town. Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957. To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5 billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up. Also, if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not want to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill




Ahh, yes...those pesky union contracts that call for decent wages, hours
and working conditions. Perhaps, Bill, you could hire a labor contractor
from India who would hire some daytrippers to run your trains.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to
mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass.
Not
a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between
the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is
also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is
about
$8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris.
Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs
a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10.
Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to
B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't
grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT build
light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people
in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.



Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of the
USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC. Very
good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass
transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town.
Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957.
To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5
billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up. Also,
if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not want
to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent
anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill




Ahh, yes...those pesky union contracts that call for decent wages, hours
and working conditions. Perhaps, Bill, you could hire a labor contractor
from India who would hire some daytrippers to run your trains.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.


In this state, the present governor and his legislature have sold out to the
unions. Make rules that raise the price of construction on public contracts
sky high. Pay levels higher than 95% of jobs requiring a college education.
Bill

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to
mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass.
Not
a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between
the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is
also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is
about
$8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris.
Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs
a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10.
Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to
B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't
grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT build
light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people
in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.



Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of the
USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC. Very
good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass
transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town.
Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957.
To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5
billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up. Also,
if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not want
to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent
anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill




Ahh, yes...those pesky union contracts that call for decent wages, hours
and working conditions.

How is it that foreign auto manufacturers that have set up non-union plants
over give their employees decent wages, hours, and working
conditions...without the pressure from some pesky union?

Unions are a dying breed, and it won't be long before the AFL-CIO, UAW, etc.
are just anacronyms.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:50:12 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

[snip]

Bart ends in my town. Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957.

We should be nicer to each other, Bill, seeing as how we're neighbors!

Joe Parsons
Dublin, CA

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:50:12 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

[snip]

Bart ends in my town. Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957.

We should be nicer to each other, Bill, seeing as how we're neighbors!

Joe Parsons
Dublin, CA


And we share a BART station. Was in Dublin today at Finish Masters looking
for touchup paint for the boat.
Bill