A
Anonymous
Guest
.
dnmun
1 PW
is the tax on parking spaces for those beyond the 10 allowed? i wonder if they would tax public parking garages the same rate. it should increase carpooling into the city, maybe the first 10 spaces would go to carpoolers and then the balance would be paid by individuals with a need for their car. this is on top of $6/gallon for gas. what about motorcycles?
biohazardman
100 kW
Like the song says Tax the rich till there are no rich no more. Sounds like a good excuse to stay home to me. Who wants to go to werq when all the money goes to support those who don't.
Well lets hope Obama doesn't get wind of this. Im sure he would find some way of fast tracking it in without anybody reading it first. What a world we live in these days.
So this is as good as it gets? Or are these the good old days? I gotta get my bike on the road before the voices make me do something bad again. ;^)
Well lets hope Obama doesn't get wind of this. Im sure he would find some way of fast tracking it in without anybody reading it first. What a world we live in these days.
So this is as good as it gets? Or are these the good old days? I gotta get my bike on the road before the voices make me do something bad again. ;^)
spinningmagnets
100 TW
Many different cities are trying various schemes, and they watch each other to see which ideas seem to work better than others. I grew up near Los Angeles and went into the "downtown" section on occasion. I saw the congestion get worse every year, then I resolved to never go again. Once I was required to and rode the bus, but although someone else drove the bus and I didn't need to park, riding a bus that stops at every corner was its own flavor of nightmare.
The federal government can't legally force the states to do certain things, but they can bribe them with tax money. Once a traffic proposal is passed by 51%, we are all taxed in our paychecks, but each state gets no federal matching funds unless thay add some state tax money and then do as they are told. We are federally taxed, but then you must "use it or lose it", so from the list of acceptable projects, LA chose to build a light rail system. Its electric like NYC's subway, but above ground as they have earthquakes there.
Its shaped like an octopus, with the downtown being the center. After it was completed, I had to go downtown again, and tried the light rail. I was pleasantly suprised. It worked well, and prices were kept affordable. Traffic around the center was much lighter as a result. But I noticed one flaw...
The main Los Angeles airport (LAX) in the southwest, had long ago built outlying car parks with bus service to the terminal. To park near the terminal became hugely expensive, enticing most to use the car-park/bus, which brought in significant and steady "revenue". They could have had the light rail end at the terminal, but they had it end at the car-park, so riders had to also pay for a bus to get to the airport. I'm certain the car-park operator was a "friend" of LA politicians...
Once while working in New Jersey (just south of NYC) I rode the train into NYC. Parking a car in NYC is enormously expensive, but the train and subway system is affordable works quite well. As a result traffic is very mild. Those who can afford to insulate themselves from the sweaty unwashed peasants ride in Taxi's or limo's. Every weekend, quite a few people parked in New Jersey and rode the train in for the day (spending their money) but if you raise the rates, people stay home or spend their money elsewhere.
I'm not suprised London is embracing high parking fees, but I am suprised that they are doing it before they install a comprehensive system of outlying car parks. Perhaps with the new costs of driving in and parking, citizens will finally vote to approve such transport projects?
The federal government can't legally force the states to do certain things, but they can bribe them with tax money. Once a traffic proposal is passed by 51%, we are all taxed in our paychecks, but each state gets no federal matching funds unless thay add some state tax money and then do as they are told. We are federally taxed, but then you must "use it or lose it", so from the list of acceptable projects, LA chose to build a light rail system. Its electric like NYC's subway, but above ground as they have earthquakes there.
Its shaped like an octopus, with the downtown being the center. After it was completed, I had to go downtown again, and tried the light rail. I was pleasantly suprised. It worked well, and prices were kept affordable. Traffic around the center was much lighter as a result. But I noticed one flaw...
The main Los Angeles airport (LAX) in the southwest, had long ago built outlying car parks with bus service to the terminal. To park near the terminal became hugely expensive, enticing most to use the car-park/bus, which brought in significant and steady "revenue". They could have had the light rail end at the terminal, but they had it end at the car-park, so riders had to also pay for a bus to get to the airport. I'm certain the car-park operator was a "friend" of LA politicians...
Once while working in New Jersey (just south of NYC) I rode the train into NYC. Parking a car in NYC is enormously expensive, but the train and subway system is affordable works quite well. As a result traffic is very mild. Those who can afford to insulate themselves from the sweaty unwashed peasants ride in Taxi's or limo's. Every weekend, quite a few people parked in New Jersey and rode the train in for the day (spending their money) but if you raise the rates, people stay home or spend their money elsewhere.
I'm not suprised London is embracing high parking fees, but I am suprised that they are doing it before they install a comprehensive system of outlying car parks. Perhaps with the new costs of driving in and parking, citizens will finally vote to approve such transport projects?
At U of Rochester the parking charge was some $50/mo. Those who drove to campus tended to complain about this. However, adding the charge to the tuition would be unfair to (the majority of students) who don't drive. The current challenges at workplaces is that the majority drives. It is therefore difficult to charge the fair cost of parking when the majority would be against this. Maybe tax initiatives like this UK one will change that.
A good idea at Rochester was that one could park a few times per month for free, so those who biked or walked could take the car occasionally when they really needed. I think that the major disincentive to reducing car traffic now is that the incremental cost of using your car is low, while the fixed costs are high. If it was the opposite, and using the car got progressively more expensive, excessive unnecessary use might be cut. Insurance and registration charges based on actual days of usage could help here.
A good idea at Rochester was that one could park a few times per month for free, so those who biked or walked could take the car occasionally when they really needed. I think that the major disincentive to reducing car traffic now is that the incremental cost of using your car is low, while the fixed costs are high. If it was the opposite, and using the car got progressively more expensive, excessive unnecessary use might be cut. Insurance and registration charges based on actual days of usage could help here.
