Americans traveled 3.7% less in May 2008 compared to 2007 - record drop

[zete]

Originally Posted by K-1

I traveled 0% less. The only places I drive to are work, the grocery store, and the golf course. Do people really drive that unnecessarily that they can cut miles out of their daily lives?

I know a lot of folks who would effectively live at the cottage during the summer. This year they're not doing that. They've decided to go for a month, then come back, as opposed to using it as a summer home from which to commute to/from work. I'm sure a lot of folks have done similar things.

And some folks are inefficient when it comes to doing errands. Instead of planning to do a slew of them at once, they go, come back, go back for something else, come home again, etc. I've seen some of my neighbours do that and it's ridiculous. I go out, do all the shopping I need to, and head home. Last thing I want to do is be driving back and forth like some forgetful fool.

I'm not sure about where everyone else lives, but I've noticed "fuel surcharges" on a bunch of service calls. We're doing some renos and some of the trades charge a fuel surcharge on their work. They said it was "raise the price or charge the surcharge so long as fuel prices are up". I fully understand, especially considering the vehicles they have to drive.

[zete]

Originally Posted by steinravnik

From north of Baltimore to Richmond? That is a 4 hour trip with no traffic. With traffic, it's 3 hours just to DC.

I was working from memory. I remember it being very very long commute. Down from Glen Airy (spelling?), around Baltimore, down the 95, around DC, across the bridge, to his place of work just north of Richmond. And he did this day-in and day-out for 2 years. It was crazy.

I think I'm remembering the right place, it's just across the river from DC on the Virginia side. It was a haul.

I told him I would never do this commute.

He used to work in the Pentagon, so I guess to him it was just "a bit further" to his new job.

[emh]

Originally Posted by Orbit Orange

But by placing an importance or emphasis on mass transit and urban transportation over rural infrastructure, you are saying that urbanites are somehow more vital or important than ruralites.

Why do you keep going back to urbanites vs rurals? My point was about ROI. Why is it that UPS and FedEx don't deliver to some rural areas? It's not becasue their management hates rural folks -- it's because it's not profitable. Same applies to infrastructure. If rural folks want good infrastrusture, they should pay more local taxes -- according to your own arguments.

And just for a point, I'd be willing to bet if you added up miles of urban roads/streets/highways and urbans railways VERSUS rural roads/streets/highways and rural railway/track. There would be more rural mileage of these than urban.

Absolutely. And fewer people per mile of rural roads and track to pay for it. Exactly why I find it ironic that someone from that perspective is making a huge fuss about paying for "other people's" infrastructure.

I'm just trying to show some people here that there is a mindset other than that of the urbanite and it is JUST as valid.

I'm not saying at all that the non-urban view point isn't valid. But urban people have been contributing to rural infrastructure all along, and will continue to do so in the future. So why make a big fuss at the possibility of things going the other way temporarily (if at all)?

[zete]

Originally Posted by Hurricane

I work with people who commute to DC from Fredericksburg and Baltimore - some even as far as from West Virginia or Pennsylvania - but a commute from Baltimore to Richmond is insane! Why not just move to Richmond - it isn't nearly as costly as living inside the (DC) beltway...

Ultimately, he moved to Raleigh with his job. I hear he intends to retire in the Richmond area.

He had a beautiful house north of Baltimore, but the commute was stupid. I just didn't get it. I still don't.

I remember working in that area -- over in Gaithersburg, Glenwood, Columbia, etc. -- and always ensuring I parked myself very close to where I'd be working. That trip when I commuted with my friend was where I stayed at his place and commuted, figuring "how bad could it be". I learned quickly "bad".

I really like that whole area in and around DC-Baltimore. I still have a lot of friends down there. Don't see them that often anymore, unfortunately. But the traffic was nuts.

[Orbit Orange]

It would not. The price of gasoline is dependent on the world supply of oil and its relation to world oil demand, with adjustments for taxes and any government subsidies/surcharges. People use the most convienient way to get from A to B. In the urban areas, subway/bus/rail/taxi because of the lack of parking are more convienient than owning a car. In my city, it costs me almost as much to use the bus to get to work as it does to drive a car (when you factor in the time element).

Thank you for reiterating my point. Saying increasing MT will drop gas prices will ONLY work if done GLOBALLY. I think Wes is either forgetting this or conveniently ignoring it. I'm not sure but he seems intelligent so I'll guess the ignoring part. So reducing gas prices is not a valid argument. Reducing pollution would be valid. Reducing C02 would be valid. But not reducing gas prices significantly. What we don't buy the Chinese and Indians will purchase. Sorry but I think we've got you on that one wes.

The federal government does not have a responsibility to pay for every mass transit project in the country. Pay for them yourselves out of the revenues generated by the users of the service (just like business).

Amen brother. Again this is a problem solely CAUSED and CONTINUED by the urban American. It's a case of "We broke it, now I want you to help fix it." Not the way I was raised.

[Orbit Orange]

Why do you keep going back to urbanites vs rurals? My point was about ROI. Why is it that UPS and FedEx don't deliver to some rural areas? It's not becasue their management hates rural folks -- it's because it's not profitable. Same applies to infrastructure. If rural folks want good infrastrusture, they should pay more local taxes -- according to your own arguments.

Yep no problem. Just don't get too hasty when prices of foodstuffs start to shoot up due to greater transportation difficulties with food coming out of these rural areas. For the second part I would assume someone living somewhere where UPS or others doesn't deliver probably really doesn't care about that anyway.

Absolutely. And fewer people per mile of rural roads and track to pay for it. Exactly why I find it ironic that someone from that perspective is making a huge fuss about paying for "other people's" infrastructure.

Please read post #50 the last line. That pretty well sums up why I object over paying for something that is "CAUSED AND CONTINUED" by urbanites. It is a problem, started, made worse and continued by a group of people and should be PAID FOR by that group of people. If my community effs up and dumps a bunch of contamination in a nearby river, my community should be expected to pay for it and FIX that problem. Not some Johny Metroguy living in lower Manhattan. Responsibility.

[Carver]

Originally Posted by emh

Personally, I draw my line based on ROI, not some selfish "do I get any use of it" test. So I'd prefer my federal tax dollars be spent where it benefits the most people, even if it's not me. That's usually urban areas -- sot some under-used rural roads.

This is the best policy. We are all part of a SOCIETY, though some conservatives don't want to admit that. We all pay taxes for things we do not directly use, but there are usually indirect benefits.

In a nutshell, economic activity and prosperity beget more economic activity and prosperity. If the infrastructure in one part of a state can be improved that will likely have trickle-down effects to other parts of the state. If Chicago becomes wealthier, with better infrastructure, and is an attractive location for businesses, then the companies in Chicago will be more prosperous, they will do more business with downstate employers and they will pay more taxes to the state government (and some of that money will be spent downstate).

Simply asking, will I use this new project is shortsighted. The question to ask is, as emh said: What is the return on investment? What is the cost/benefit relationship and what are the cost/benefit relationships of possible alternatives.

We're a society guys, a society.

[emh]

Originally Posted by Orbit Orange

Yep no problem. Just don't get too hasty when prices of foodstuffs start to shoot up due to greater transportation difficulties with food coming out of these rural areas.

I'm fine with that. Main cargo delivery routes can (and probably should) be maintained by private enterprises with an interest in them. Large produce companies and logging companies already do this to some extent.

For the second part I would assume someone living somewhere where UPS or others doesn't deliver probably really doesn't care about that anyway.

Actaully, no -- they rely on USPS to deliver to them at a loss.

Please read post #50 the last line. That pretty well sums up why I object over paying for something that is "CAUSED AND CONTINUED" by urbanites. It is a problem, started, made worse and continued by a group of people and should be PAID FOR by that group of people.

Urbanites cause these "problems" just like rural folks cause wear and tear on their roads.

If my community effs up and dumps a bunch of contamination in a nearby river, my community should be expected to pay for it and FIX that problem. Not some Johny Metroguy living in lower Manhattan. Responsibility.

You know pretty darn well that's not how it gets handled. Chemical spills are cleared up with state funds. Forest fires are put out with state or federal funds. It's impractical and inefficient to require each community to be prepared to pay for all possible incidents.

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic. We'll just agree to disagree.

[vcs2600]

The urban versus rural question is somewhat of a false dichotomy.

For example, the California High Speed Rail project (on the ballot this Nov.) will improve transportation in the 'rural' Central Valley farming regions as well as improving the mass transit lines in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Ideally it will also improve freight rail capacity, which will decrease the cost of shipping farm product and consumer goods.

Similar to the interstate highway system: downstate Illinois has a lot of interstates connecting various small and medium sized towns, but a big reason that's valuable is because they improve access to the big cities of Chicago and St Louis and thus help the rural areas economically.

Finally, it's kinda pointless to talk about transportation subsidies when the big white elephant in the middle of the room is the farm subsidy program.

[Orbit Orange]

We're a society guys, a society.

Yes a DEMOCRATIC Society, not a SOCIALIST Society. Big difference even with how hard the Democrats are trying to pull us that way. But that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax that is best left alone.

Anyway, this is my last post on this topic. We'll just agree to disagree.

Too bad it has to end this way but if I planted any seed it was worth it. Think I'll check out of this topic as well as both our sides have put up our points.