# Increasing traffic congestion



## Kane (Jul 6, 2004)

According to a report on CNN, "Fifty-six percent [of Americans polled] said they would be willing to pay higher taxes if that would lead to significant improvements in roads and public transportation in their area."

Now, given that 56% of them would object the minute their taxes were actually raised, how should increasing traffic congestion be addressed? [My obvious predicition is that private car ownership and use will continue to increase worldwide.] 

To me, it seems the obvious answer is more public transport, but many Americans seem opposed to that on theological grounds. I am also against too much privatisation: a proliferation of toll roads to wealthy areas is not the answer. Also, existing roads were paid for from public monies, and should not be given to corporations to run (for a profit).

How can congestion be limited? Here are some ideas, More/better public transportation, Privatise!, Steep(er) gasoline/petrol tax, Ban/limit cars from cities, Get an XM radio to pass the time, or maybe somthing else.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 6, 2004)

I like the idea of improving and increasing public transport, and would be willing to pay higher taxes for it, assuming of course that that's where my money actually goes. 

Increasing the price of gas and limiting/banning cars sounds like a discrimination issue waiting to happen; at any rate, as much as they may ***** about it, most people will still pay the gas in order to get where they  need to go. 

So that's what I think.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Jul 6, 2004)

I think it would be best if those who dislike congestion move to where there is less congestion,like Kansas,Iowa,Montana,ect.There is plenty of room on this planet to grow.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 6, 2004)

Ah yes, the dream of endless and unchecked growth.

Entrance ramps and strip malls everywhere, sea to shining. Oh good; let's see if we can't screw up EVERYTHING.

Incidentally, building freeways causes increased trafic jams.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the dream of endless and unchecked growth.
> 
> Entrance ramps and strip malls everywhere, sea to shining. Oh good; let's see if we can't screw up EVERYTHING.
> 
> Incidentally, building freeways causes increased trafic jams.



I think we need to build smart, not more. Building smart is the key to less traffic, building more w/o being smart does cause increased traffic jams, longer commutes, etc.


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 6, 2004)

Building smarter is most definetly the way to go.  When I-81 was put together the estimation was that only 25% or so of the traffic on the interstate would be truck traffic.  It is already up to about 65% truck traffic and more trucks are hitting the road everyday.  The larger the population the more goods need to be trucked, the more trucks are needed etc, etc.  Plan for rush hour and truck traffic and plan BIG.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 6, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I think we need to build smart, not more. Building smart is the key to less traffic, building more w/o being smart does cause increased traffic jams, longer commutes, etc.




Yes, when the engineers design to save money, like building a two lane road and not allowing for a four or five lane in the future wth growth. As well as the left exits on expressways that cause congestion, to save on bridges when they were built, due to low traffic volume. The urban sprawls that build a thousand houses and do not plan for traffic, or other issues like sewers and water, that cost money.

Taxi's and subways seem to work on the east coast were everything is so tight and congested anyways, that they have built up, as well as out to some extent. With just the sprawl efficient and cost effective mass transportation usually is buses, and routes, that support them. So why send a bus route out to a neighborhood that has an average of 2.5 cars per house hold, as it would not be cost effective. Yet, starting somewhere is a good plan, just think of the future.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 6, 2004)

Sorry, not what I meant. I meant that not only can you NOT build your way out of congestion, building freeways actively causes more congestion.

It's insane. We need to a) cut our population; b) quit building cities that endlessly  sprawl in the name of some twisted notion of freedom and the endless frontier; c) ban SUVs, and any other car that gets less than 25 MPG on the highway; d) build public transportation like crazy. It's not going to happen.

I live in SoCal. They DO, "plan big." Guess what the result has been?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, not what I meant. I meant that not only can you NOT build your way out of congestion, building freeways actively causes more congestion.
> 
> It's insane. We need to a) cut our population; b) quit building cities that endlessly  sprawl in the name of some twisted notion of freedom and the endless frontier; c) ban SUVs, and any other car that gets less than 25 MPG on the highway; d) build public transportation like crazy. It's not going to happen.
> 
> I live in SoCal. They DO, "plan big." Guess what the result has been?



If you build it they will come?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 6, 2004)

Improving public transportation, and making it less costly would help.  I also believe improving the job market would help.  I would SO prefer not to drive 25 miles to work every day.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2004)

Well, after reading all of that... my only question is.. how come *you* guys aren't the politicians sitting up on the (Captial) hills? Probably because you're not like what John Lennon sang...(Fool on the Hill).
Politicians, city engineers/planners go and build/plan aribtrarily without giving real thought and consideration to what the public wants/needs. Oh sure they have their little open city council meetings, they poll the voters, they go out and listen to the voters and bla bla bla BLA BLA :barf: . Who are they really listening to? The guys who are taking bribes from private contractors at the DOT, and so forth... (the list is endless). 
So who's fault is it?  :idunno: 
OURS.  :xtrmshock Yeah, because we talk about it but don't actually vote these S.O.B's out of office when they're not getting their jobs done. (Politicians voice: oh but it takes time to get things done...Me: what, *FOUR* years and that's not enough time??? Oh excuse me I forgot to tell you the Rolls Royce dealer called said that they were able to order the deluxe leather seat edition for your new car...just hope you can make the payments huh?   )
They don't fire the city engineers who spend thousands of dollars on useless and prolonged city "surveys" and studies and planning and organization and all of that. Because after all of that studying... we still got congestion and problems and so on. 
Me thinks they're waiting for the checks to clear is all. 

There is going to be  :EG: corruption where-ever there is power, but "We the people" have the ability to control it as guaranteed by the same document that puts these idjits in office in the first place, the same document(s) that allows discussions like these to go on without censorship. 
We need to start VOTING smarter for our respective cities and our country.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 7, 2004)

I use public transportation daily, and have for the last several years.  

Metrolink is a great option... no sitting in traffic, cuts my commute time in half, and I get to do something relaxing like read a newspaper.

In about 5 weeks, I'll be quitting work to start law school.  I live five minutes from the school, and will be taking surface streets and won't be clogging up the freeways.

Life's too short to sit in traffic!


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 7, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Well, after reading all of that... my only question is.. how come *you* guys aren't the politicians sitting up on the (Captial) hills?


Because we're not rich and we're not corrupt.  And with all the events I've been reading about, I've come to the conclusion that THAT is what it takes.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 7, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> In about 5 weeks, I'll be quitting work to start law school. I live five minutes from the school, and will be taking surface streets and won't be clogging up the freeways.


Greetings, fellow new law student.  I, unfortunately, don't live as close to the law school, and will have to drive.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's insane. We need to a) cut our population...


Got two question on this.  First: by what means?  Second, which particular group of our population, if any, would you deem needed to cut?


----------



## Spud (Jul 7, 2004)

<>Couple of observations from an engineer working in highway transportation:

 If you build it, they will come; is pretty much a truth. Extra lanes and capacity are a short-term fix that generally results in more user trips gobbling up the extra capacity in short order.

 <>The engineers arent the ones calling the shots. The technical people can generate piles of reports showing the construction, right of way, maintenance and user costs (public stuck in non-flowing traffic), but the selection of alternatives and prioritizing of projects is generally left to elected officials or political appointees.

 Our society has embraced the auto as a means of social mobility and what was once a luxury is now a necessity. As a kid, I went to little league games on my bike, walked to school and rode my bike to friends. Now kids have soccer leagues across town, and are dropped off to friends and school in an auto. As an adult, I have two martial arts schools within walking distance of my home, but have chosen to drive 20 minutes each way to train at another dojo.

 My preferred solution is $6/gallon gas - then people will prioritize their car trips and consider returning to alternative transportation. [font=&quot]  
 [/font]


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 7, 2004)

the other problem is that it's perceived as not safe to just let kids roam all over the neighborhood anymore.  Mom and dad want to see them safely to their destination.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 7, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Got two question on this.  First: by what means?  Second, which particular group of our population, if any, would you deem needed to cut?


Well, we could follow the suggestion of William Shakespeare but that would not be beneficial to _you _ now would it.  :uhyeah: (just kidding)
Cutting the population is NOT the answer. We're going to populate whether it's good or bad no matter what. Besides we cut the population down well enough already... called Wars, and pretty soon it's going to be from chemical and biological wars if we don't stop what we're doing.  :angry: Those will trim our world population pretty good.
Can you imagine the world's population if we didn't have any wars at all. I mean think about all the "survivors" and think about the number of children they "would've" had and then think of the number of children *they* would've had. Talk about congestion.  :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 7, 2004)

We do not have to endlessly crank out kids, since (among other things) poverty and educational level correlate very highly with family size. We do not have to build endless, mindless shopping malls and highways and housing developments and Taco Bells and all the rest of the crap. We choose to, collectively. And market forces drive it all. 

We could junk the big cars, pay the taxes we should be paying, educate people decently, do something about the ridiculous fantasy that if you just accumulate enough worthless stuff--including cars--you'll be happy. 

We could, in ther words, grow up. 

As far as I'm concerned, the endless freeway construction is just a bigger, uglier, more-dangerous version of little boys playing with Tonka trucks in a sand-box.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 7, 2004)

Heck worked for the Chinese right??


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> We do not have to endlessly crank out kids, since (among other things) poverty and educational level correlate very highly with family size. We do not have to build endless, mindless shopping malls and highways and housing developments and Taco Bells and all the rest of the crap. We choose to, collectively. And market forces drive it all.
> 
> We could junk the big cars, pay the taxes we should be paying, educate people decently, do something about the ridiculous fantasy that if you just accumulate enough worthless stuff--including cars--you'll be happy.
> 
> ...



True, very true. Soooo... how do you propose we do this? It's what being a politician is all about. Having an idea or at least listening to ideas to make this country/world a better place. 
Paying the taxes we should be paying. Great idea and I'd be all for it. Just the thought of it makes me leery because the monies I'm shelling out of each paycheck isn't going exactly where _they_ say it would be going to. Thus folks try to get out of it best as they can. 
They're going to continue to build endless/mindless shopping malls and mini-malls and super Walmarts and so forth because "We the People" aren't complaining enough and hard enough to the right people. So they are going to do what is in their best interests... namely their wallets.  

What to do?  What to do? Oh my my what to do?  :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 7, 2004)

> We do not have to endlessly crank out kids, since (among other things) poverty and educational level correlate very highly with family size. We do not have to build endless, mindless shopping malls and highways and housing developments and Taco Bells and all the rest of the crap. We choose to, collectively. And market forces drive it all.
> 
> We could junk the big cars, pay the taxes we should be paying, educate people decently, do something about the ridiculous fantasy that if you just accumulate enough worthless stuff--including cars--you'll be happy.
> 
> We could, in ther words, grow up.


Very nicely said, I think.

Planning is the way to go.  And, although many (including myself) may enjoy the luxoury of suburbia, the horrendous sprawl that most suburban areas engender is too high a cost.  Public transportation is one of the big answers - but people have to have lives amenable to using public transit - i.e., the Metro or T can take them to work, home, and grocery shopping, among other things, or those things have to be within walking distance.  A fair number of people in big cities already live like this, although it's not always "fun" or by choice.  It's so much nicer to hop into your air-conditioned car all by yourself rather than commuting with hundreds or thousands of other people.  But the latter is far, far more efficient and wise.

This country has been fixated with the automobile for too long.  And realize that as I say this, I mean me too.  My car takes me everywhere.  It's a key to freedom.  But it's also not always necessary, and I would be in better shape (financially, environmentally, and physically) if I were able to walk more places I need to get to.  

What would I do if I had political power?  Create incentives for urban renewal ("gentrification" of old neighborhoods is sometimes a very touchy subject, but important sometimes); create incentives for neighborhood planning that limits the need to hop in a car every 5 minutes (i.e. build near or in conjunction with public transit); create incentives for people who can and do commute in alternative ways.  The last option may not seem "fair" to some people - some people live too far away to bike or walk or Metro to work - but it will be effective.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 7, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> the other problem is that it's perceived as not safe to just let kids roam all over the neighborhood anymore. Mom and dad want to see them safely to their destination.


Why do Mom and Dad think the neighborhood they live in is not safe?

I admit, I was guilty of this. When we bought our house (6 years ago), the children could only travel in the neighborhood ... These streets ... no more ... Don't cross Taylor St.

What a damn fool was I. When my younger daughter lost the priveledge of taking the bus to school (long story - she goofed), she did not know how to get to the school from our home (approximately 3 miles in a small city). Well, I changed my attitude. Despite the Evening Fear report, I made the young tyke (12 years old) walk to school. We live in a nice town; voted twice in the last dozen years as one of the 10 best cities to live in.

Now, it's 'Get the hell out of the house, kid' - I don't care where you go ... just go ... have fun ... explore ... don't do anything stupid.

To answer my own question .. I think it is the 'Fear Culture' brought on by the 'If it bleeds, it leads' mentality of the evening news.

Thanks for listening - Mike

P.S. $6.00 / gallon gasoline is a great idea.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 7, 2004)

$6 a gallon is a horrible idea.

Do you think the wealthy 1%, and oil Sultans like the Bush family cares if they have to pay a little extra for gas? By the looks of those Cadillac SUV's, no they don't.

So, who suffers? The poor college kid who works 2 jobs and goes to school, and has to DRIVE far because of the spread. The lower and upper middle class mom or dad who have to outragously commute every day to their jobs, to their kids schools (because bussing transportation has been cut), and to the "strip malls" so they can buy medicine and groceries for their family.

$6 a gallon will not help us...

That's all I have to contribute...carry on with the real topic!  :wink1:


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 7, 2004)

The highways are clogged because the jobs are in the city and the roads can't handle the volume because they were probably designed 2 or more decades ago.

So long as the jobs stay in the city and the population keeps growing, it's going to get worse.

Trouble is, just adding lanes doesn't fix the problem. Massachusetts is notorious for its faultering bridges and poor intersections. It'll take big bucks to fix this mess.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 7, 2004)

Decrease traffic congestion by working at home!!!!  Most congestion we have is two on the stairs at one time.  Heavy commute up and down.  Beats California 3 1/2 hrs from Santa Monica to Ventura Co.  I had to do my exercise class in between to cut it up.  Everyone move to a less congested area if you don't like the traffic.  Lots of them. TW


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 7, 2004)

TigerWoman, excellent idea too, if possible.

MrMike, I'd say the answer (and granted, this would take a great deal of effort and $) would be to either move the commuters to designed neighborhoods closer to the city, or make the work less centralized.

Again, these are broad plans, not something you could just do tomorrow.  But a solution nonetheless.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> They're going to continue to build endless/mindless shopping malls and mini-malls and super Walmarts and so forth because "We the People" aren't complaining enough and hard enough to the right people. So they are going to do what is in their best interests... namely their wallets.


"We the People" are also the reason that the Wal-Mart Supercenters and shopping malls are succeeding, and thereby multiplying.  It's strange how so many complain about the big, faceless conglomerate stores driving out all the mom-and-pops', but it's the consumers who decide that, yes, buying the same item from the Fox Books for half the price is worth watching the Shop Around the Corner go bye-bye (yes, a "You've Got Mail" reference, so shoot me).  

But it's interesting to see how shopping malls and Wal-Marts are involved in a discussion of traffic congestion.  So Robby, just have people stop "cranking out kids" is the method of population reduction you were referring to?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why do Mom and Dad think the neighborhood they live in is not safe?
> 
> To answer my own question .. I think it is the 'Fear Culture' brought on by the 'If it bleeds, it leads' mentality of the evening news.


Well, possibly because there are dangers to be worried about, especially when involving your kid who you love and, frankly, have invested a lot into.  

I don't mean to imply that kids should be shut in from the world, nor should mommy and daddy do everything for them (I've seen the results of such parenting strategies--not good).  But no, if I had a 10-year-old kid wanting to go to soccer practice, I'd rather see them to and from the park safely.  

Can and does the media overhype the dangers?  Certainly.  But that shouldn't mean we should deny or ignore the dangers that do exist.  The 6:00 news may blow a child kidnapping out of proportion, but they don't make them up; kids do get kidnapped on seemingly safe and trustworthy paths.  So in a long-winded conclusion, I really don't think it's unreasonable to want to take your kids to soccer practice, or wherever else they need to go.  Unless, of course, you don't mind being called up by the chief of police three days after your kids gone missing just to be told they've been found in a gutter somewhere.


----------



## sma_book (Jul 8, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Can and does the media overhype the dangers?  Certainly.  But that shouldn't mean we should deny or ignore the dangers that do exist.  The 6:00 news may blow a child kidnapping out of proportion, but they don't make them up; kids do get kidnapped on seemingly safe and trustworthy paths.  So in a long-winded conclusion, I really don't think it's unreasonable to want to take your kids to soccer practice, or wherever else they need to go.  Unless, of course, you don't mind being called up by the chief of police three days after your kids gone missing just to be told they've been found in a gutter somewhere.



Of course bad things happen, and it would be imprudent to ignore the possibility that such events could occur. But, to be reasonably prudent, is the issue, how many kidnappings take place compared to how many children are there in the country? I believe it is foolish to be over sensitive to possible threats.

Every body stock up on Plastic and Duct Tape; be on alert for suspicious looking individuals; call John Ashcroft if you see a naked breast.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> $6 a gallon is a horrible idea.
> 
> Do you think the wealthy 1%, and oil Sultans like the Bush family cares if they have to pay a little extra for gas? By the looks of those Cadillac SUV's, no they don't.
> 
> ...


Certainly, $6.00 per gallon of gasoline is a *regressive* concern. It affects those at the lower end of the income spectrum more than it affects those at the higher end of the income spectrum.

Giving a bit more thought to the issue, how would we arrive at $6.00 per gallon is also a bit of concern. It certainly would not serve any good if the reason for the price increase was increased cost of raw material. If a barrel of crude oil goes to $160.00, then only the Bushs and the Cheneys will benefit from price change.

If however, the price increase is because of additional taxes being levied, societal changes would occur (not before there was a great deal of pain). We would find that 'Sprawl' would cease to exist - *conserving* one of the country's most precious resources; open space. We might find that we car pool more often; which might help to build community among the citizens. High fuel costs would restrict the savings created by running huge factory farms, which might help the local farmer become a viable member of the economy again. We would develop alternative fuel systems, which would spur economic growth in new industries.

Certainly, there would be some pain. But there would also be a number of pluses to increased fuel costs. Of course, due to the slim possibility of taxes on gasoline ever passing our legislature, it is nice to dream of the benefits, while ignoring the detriments.

Some may say that taxes shouldn't be used to drive behavior, let the 'market' lead the way ... to which I would respond; society has always used taxes to drive behavior ... why do you think mortgage intrest is tax deductible? why is the most common mortgage a 30 year term? 

Things that make you go .... Hmmm. - Mike


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> Of course bad things happen, and it would be imprudent to ignore the possibility that such events could occur. But, to be reasonably prudent, is the issue, how many kidnappings take place compared to how many children are there in the country? I believe it is foolish to be over sensitive to possible threats.
> 
> Every body stock up on Plastic and Duct Tape; be on alert for suspicious looking individuals; call John Ashcroft if you see a naked breast.
> 
> Mike


Very well, so taking your kids to the soccer game is too paranoid an action.  What, then, would be a prudent way to address the possibility?  Give the kid a can of mace for security, then let them be on their way?  

Two notes.  As kids get older, obviously you can trust them to handle themselves better on their own; I'm not saying drive your 15-year-old down the street to band practice.  Also, is this getting too far off topic?


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 8, 2004)

I heard that with all the efficient cars coming out, congress is thinking of taxing people by the amount of miles they travel.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 8, 2004)

Sorry, but I take this absurd worry over, "what if my kid gets kidnapped?" as part of the problem with what Lasch called, "the culture of narcissism," and, I might add, the culture of unreason.

First off, nearly all, "kidnappings," well over 90%, are either a) abductions of some sort by a family member/close friend, b) runaways. 

Second off--whose kids are we worried about? How  'bout all the kids who grow up in ruined communities in shadows of freeways? How about the leftover lead and other, newer pollutants? 

We choose this madness--and we choose it in the name of the Great God, "convenience," and we choose it because of of phenomena like, "white flight."


----------



## Spud (Jul 8, 2004)

I wonder what actual numbers are on assaults against minors from strangers as the kid is on his way to an event compared to assualts committed by coaches, choir directors, scout masters etc at the kids actual destination.


----------



## Spud (Jul 8, 2004)

[font=&quot]Good points on $6 per gallon gas being regressive. However, gas at $2.00 a gallon without adequate mass transportation to serve lower income families is also putting an enormous burden on lower income people.  Arguably, our existing car-oriented transportation system is a regressive tax. [/font]


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I heard that with all the efficient cars coming out, congress is thinking of taxing people by the amount of miles they travel.


If this comment is not sarcasm, where did you hear this?

My fear is they will start taxing multi-syllabic words, then Robert and I (and a few others here) are truely fornicated!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> We choose this madness--and we choose it in the name of the Great God, "convenience," and we choose it because of of phenomena like, "white flight."


Please enlighten me as to how being fearful for your childrens' safety, whether well-founded or not, is some form of convenience?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 8, 2004)

Well, I'll try.

It's, "convenience," because it's the fast-food approach to protecting kids: instead of working for a fair society, decent cities, full employment, universal medical care--all of which cost money, take time, and would do a far better job of really protecting kids--we buy cars and build freeways.

And it's "convenient," to do so, because it gives us an excuse not to think about what our lives and society are, and what it would take to fix them. 

And it suits a "convenience," society, because all this guff about "protecting," kids is really all about buying new stuff and inventing new markets.

That better?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

Couple problems here.  

Last time I checked, we were discussing the tangent topic of whether it is reasonable or simply paranoid to fear for children's safety and thereby drive them to wherever they need to get.  So the issue is driving them, not building more roads.  This is excluding, I suppose, the aspect of making smaller cities, thereby making band or soccer practice closer.  But point being, I was thinking the "fast-food" approach to protecting kids that you're criticizing is driving them to wherever, not building roads to do so.

The other thing is that yes, working towards the lofty goals of creating a great wonderful fair society that encourages safety and community would, in the long run, probably do much better at ensuring kids safety, but that's in the long run.  What about the right now?  And it's not as if it's an either-or situation between the "fast-food" approach and the "long-run" of building better society; we can still, in the meantime, spend the 1/2 hour it takes to actually go with them.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I'll try.
> 
> It's, "convenience," because it's the fast-food approach to protecting kids: instead of working for a fair society, decent cities, full employment, universal medical care--all of which cost money, take time, and would do a far better job of really protecting kids--we buy cars and build freeways.
> 
> ...



Oooo....that WAS much better!


----------



## Spud (Jul 8, 2004)

Perhaps Im missing something. Extra driving trips to deliver kids is a component in the whole issue of crowded roads and the demand for extra traffic capacity. Am I mis-reading RP700s post? Not trying to be flippant, Im confused by the post. 

I see a false sense of safety if we must drive our kids 3 miles because the roads are too busy for them to bike or we have sprawling retail centers with no sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. 



   [font=&quot]
 [/font]


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If this comment is not sarcasm, where did you hear this?
> 
> My fear is they will start taxing multi-syllabic words, then Robert and I (and a few others here) are truely fornicated!




Shhh! Don't tell anyone......but I think I was listening to NPR (hehehe)

I'm pretty sure that's where I got it. Whereever it was, they just mentioned that the idea has already rolled off the lips of some congressman/woman. I don't know if there are any bills in the works.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 8, 2004)

two fundamental logical problems:

a) Are you seriously arguing, let's not plan ahead or consider consequences, let's not think about what we want as a society, let's just keep being short-sighted and throwing together quick patch jobs?

b) Highway construction is hardly, "short-term." It takes many years.

c) And, we've been trying to build our way out of these probnlems for what, fifty years? Does it seem to be working to you?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Shhh! Don't tell anyone......but I think I was listening to NPR (hehehe)
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's where I got it. Whereever it was, they just mentioned that the idea has already rolled off the lips of some congressman/woman. I don't know if there are any bills in the works.


Well, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was supposed to work that way, 
Tax on mileage ... longer you are on the road, higher the toll, at least until they paid off the bonds used to build the highway. I think they paid those bonds off in the late seventies ... Still got tolls East of Springfield, though, don't they? 

But the real eye-opener here is that MisterMike was listening to NPR ... wow ... becareful, it could be habit forming.

Mike


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> two fundamental logical problems:


You listed three things, Berty.  :lol:



> a) Are you seriously arguing, let's not plan ahead or consider consequences, let's not think about what we want as a society, let's just keep being short-sighted and throwing together quick patch jobs?


Nope.  I believe I said that, while trying to address all the social ills you listed, we'd still have things to worry about in the meantime.  Something along the lines of instead of using the "quick patch job" of going with kids instead of all these lofty long-term approaches, simply escorting our kids in the meantime.  Not instead of.  



> b) Highway construction is hardly, "short-term." It takes many years.


As compared to embracing the socialist dream of yours to idealogically restructure society into the happy world you envision we'll have without capitalism?  Which one's gonna take longer to construct, the road or the society?  Again, I thought we were talking about the off-shoot topic of escorting kids because of fear of others, not building roads.  



> c) And, we've been trying to build our way out of these probnlems for what, fifty years? Does it seem to be working to you?


You mean are building roads working?  For what goals?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 8, 2004)

Spud said:
			
		

> Perhaps Im missing something. Extra driving trips to deliver kids is a component in the whole issue of crowded roads and the demand for extra traffic capacity. Am I mis-reading RP700s post? Not trying to be flippant, Im confused by the post.





Well, we kinda got into a different topic, concerning whether it's legitimate for parents to be fearful of their kids being abducted or something. Somewhat related to the traffic congestion issue. Sure, the parents driving their kids to soccer practice or whatever adds to the traffic on the road, but that's not what I was addressing. 




> I see a false sense of safety if we must drive our kids 3 miles because the roads are too busy for them to bike or we have sprawling retail centers with no sidewalks and pedestrian crossings.


 
Yeah, that wasn't my point at all. Guess I should better start writing things out first on Word or something before posting.


----------



## Pacificshore (Jul 8, 2004)

In the small town that I now reside in, I've seen the traffic increase 10 fold.  The main intersection use to be controlled by 4-way stop signs, and now is controlled by traffic signal lights.  My little town has grown into a bedroom community for those who have to commute to work because the town they work in is over priced in terms of owning a home.  With the sudden growth, and housing available, the costs of homes here are driven up just the same.  If I want to sell my place, there's no way I can actually buy back in, and I'd have to move to a more undesirable place.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 8, 2004)

> As compared to embracing the socialist dream of yours to idealogically restructure society into the happy world you envision we'll have without capitalism?


I didn't really get the full flavor of a burgeoning socialist dream, but other people (like me) HAVE suggested that some restructuring is what it's going to take to solve some of these insane traffic problems - especially as our global oil supply (finite) dwindles.  I hope we can keep making plastics in the future, which are useful, rather than burning it all for our transportation.

And, another aside, capitalism does not equal democracy, and wanting to change society doesn't mean rejecting capitalism.  It's a pet peeve of mine - if I (and I realize I am not the target of your comment) want to change or prioritize something differently than we currently do, sometimes I'm accused of rejecting capitolism.  If I thought that's what we had in this country, that's one thing.  But we have an oligarchy (I believe that's the word I'm looking for) of big business.

BUT!  that is not the point of this thread.

It does seem that vehicles are certainly these little moving realms of safety - I believe part of the SUV-buying boom in the 90's was in part spurred on by single women who wanted to feel "safe" (driving their stylish version of a tank, I guess).  

I think it's (obviously) a lovely thing when people are concerned for their children's safety.  Sometimes knowing your neighbors and being present in the community will help - knowing what's out there, knowing what the neighborhood is like.  I guess a lot of it depends on where you live.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2004)

Dear Random:

1. I listed two logical fallacies, and something else altogether. That's why I began the sentence with the word, "and." I realize it is pleasurable to think that you've caughgt me out, but I'm afraid I've been writing--probably, anyway--longer than you've been alive.

2. Socialist dreams have zip to do with it. I was simply remarking that if one thinks that slapping together new highways is the short-term solution, it's probably best to remember how long it takes to get new highways planned, approved and built.

3. "Rhetorical question," dude. We've been building and building these damn things since Eisenhower, and traffic gets worse. What can we learn from this? Are we learning yet?

As for those socialist dreams, I confess to the illogical idea that people, if they try, can make logical, informed, decisions about important things if given a chance. Silly me: I'd thought that was the hope not only of democracy, but of martial arts. Shame you have no faith in either.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I listed two logical fallacies, and something else altogether. That's why I began the sentence with the word, "and." I realize it is pleasurable to think that you've caughgt me out, but I'm afraid I've been writing--probably, anyway--longer than you've been alive.


Ahh, I see.  So the third point had nothing to do with any logical fallacy (?), my mistake.  As for you having been writing longer then I've been alive, very impressive, but just remember, so has Jerry Falwell.  



> 2. Socialist dreams have zip to do with it. I was simply remarking that if one thinks that slapping together new highways is the short-term solution, it's probably best to remember how long it takes to get new highways planned, approved and built.


Well, building new, or preferably improving current, highways has certainly been a big help for areas around where I live.  And it's strange how building a new highway, as a process, is both lengthy in planning and slapped together at the same time.  



> As for those socialist dreams, I confess to the illogical idea that people, if they try, can make logical, informed, decisions about important things if given a chance. Silly me: I'd thought that was the hope not only of democracy, but of martial arts. Shame you have no faith in either.


Strange, I don't remember saying that people couldn't make logical decisions, or that you're whole idea of restructuring society so that people could send their kids out onto the streets without fear would never happen.  As for martial arts, again, I DONT PRACTICE THEM.  All I said was that it would certainly take a damn long time to address the culture of fear that "Bowling for Columbine" illustrates, and in the meantime, there's still parents with kids that they're worried about.


----------

