 |
Re: Lots of sources to support my claims
Author: The spotter of the Indoctrinated
Date: 04-18-2015 - 10:38
The Exchequer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The spotter of the Indoctrinated Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Exchequer Wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me if the external costs of
> > > automobile usage (environmental pollution,
> > > destruction of urban neighborhoods, loss of
> tax
> > > base in cities, public costs of deaths and
> > severe
> > > injuries) are added to existing gasoline
> taxes.
> >
> >
> > Straight out of the Greenie Handbook, without a
> > single fact check on the so-called
> > "externalities".
> >
> > Remember: Objectivity > Subjectivity
>
> What is this "Greenie Handbook" to which you refer
> and where can I get a copy?
>
> Seriously pal, if you bothered to do a little of
> Internet research, you'd find plenty of sources
> which back up my claims.
>
> Overall cost summary
>
> Environmental Impacts
>
> (I'll leave it to economists to monetize the
> environmental costs)
>
> Destruction of urban neighborhoods - This is
> well-documented. For example, read Robert Caro's
> book The Power Broker (1974) about Robert Moses
> and the damage his highways caused.
>
> Loss of tax base in cities - In Pittsburgh, 2,000
> homes & business were cleared for a new highway.
> A loss of that scale would have a major negative
> impact on any community's finances.
>
> Costs of deaths and injuries due to highway/road
> accidents ($871 billion in 2014)
>
> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
>
> There is plenty, plenty more on the Internet.
> Prior to the Internet, much of this was documented
> in hard copy, like the Power Broker.
>
> It's you, not me, who is indoctrinated.
So ... you're using variations of the Greenie Handbook (aka The Power Broker you cited) to support your claims .... not at all surprised. What did you think was meant by my reference to the Greenie Handbook? Did you think it was an actual publication and not a metaphor for all greenie propoganda? LOL!!
Hint: You're using your so-called sources as absolutes to support your point. Do all highways plow through urban neighborhoods? Of course not. Are all transit proposals absent of such possibilities? Again, no. Your Pittsburg example is just silly - did the number of available homes just shrink due to that highway project, or were new homes simply built elsewhere to make up for the loss? Didn't the county as a whole gain a new tax base with the improved commute?
The main problem with most big cities losing tax base is that the policies of the (usually) leftist/Democrat politicians that run such cities are lacking in fiduciary qualities, and people tend to leave for less oppressive pastures in such cases. Spokane is likely to lose population to the surrounding county areas if they keep pushing such idiotic costly notions.
And if you point to the North-South freeway as another example of "urban destruction", remember that there were alternative routes available that would have encircled the metro area rather than going straight through it, but businesses in the Freya/Hillyard corridor wanted something where access to their businesses would be more visible and intimate. That's why I-90 goes right through the heart of Spokane rather than around the city. That's why I-5 was routed right through the heart of Seattle rather than being routed around the east side (still rural back then) of Lake Washington.
Objectivity > Subjectivity.
Monetizing environmental costs is also a very subjective excercise. Those who assess such costs usually omit identical cost curves that are associated with so-called "green" proposals, not to mention forgetting that autos do not just disappear if a highway proposal is tabled. Very few people can actually take advantage of greenie proposals such as commuting to work by bike instead of driving, and not have similar costs associated with (1) time (2) convenience (3) weather (4) endangerment aka unprotected bicycles vs steel-encased autos. Go back to the government safety statistics, and you'll see that people are more likely to die while riding a bicycle than driving a car on a per/mile basis. If head-in-the-clouds cyclists want separate "safe" bikeways (with grade separations), then cyclists should pay for them, not motorists who are doing the pragmatic thing. It's the same thing per government bodies wanting the railroads to pay for grade separation projects rather than using road monies.
Objectivity > Subjectivity
I notice you didn't comment on my observation of the greenies demanding the removal of the UP and GN grade/viaduct over and alongside the Spokane River back in the 70's, and then complaining today of the lack of bike-friendly crossings over the river and through to the core of the city. It's humorous (at least to me) of how environmentalists can end up being their own worst enemy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The spotter of the Indoctrinated Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Exchequer Wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me if the external costs of
> > > automobile usage (environmental pollution,
> > > destruction of urban neighborhoods, loss of
> tax
> > > base in cities, public costs of deaths and
> > severe
> > > injuries) are added to existing gasoline
> taxes.
> >
> >
> > Straight out of the Greenie Handbook, without a
> > single fact check on the so-called
> > "externalities".
> >
> > Remember: Objectivity > Subjectivity
>
> What is this "Greenie Handbook" to which you refer
> and where can I get a copy?
>
> Seriously pal, if you bothered to do a little of
> Internet research, you'd find plenty of sources
> which back up my claims.
>
> Overall cost summary
>
> Environmental Impacts
>
> (I'll leave it to economists to monetize the
> environmental costs)
>
> Destruction of urban neighborhoods - This is
> well-documented. For example, read Robert Caro's
> book The Power Broker (1974) about Robert Moses
> and the damage his highways caused.
>
> Loss of tax base in cities - In Pittsburgh, 2,000
> homes & business were cleared for a new highway.
> A loss of that scale would have a major negative
> impact on any community's finances.
>
> Costs of deaths and injuries due to highway/road
> accidents ($871 billion in 2014)
>
> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
>
> There is plenty, plenty more on the Internet.
> Prior to the Internet, much of this was documented
> in hard copy, like the Power Broker.
>
> It's you, not me, who is indoctrinated.
So ... you're using variations of the Greenie Handbook (aka The Power Broker you cited) to support your claims .... not at all surprised. What did you think was meant by my reference to the Greenie Handbook? Did you think it was an actual publication and not a metaphor for all greenie propoganda? LOL!!
Hint: You're using your so-called sources as absolutes to support your point. Do all highways plow through urban neighborhoods? Of course not. Are all transit proposals absent of such possibilities? Again, no. Your Pittsburg example is just silly - did the number of available homes just shrink due to that highway project, or were new homes simply built elsewhere to make up for the loss? Didn't the county as a whole gain a new tax base with the improved commute?
The main problem with most big cities losing tax base is that the policies of the (usually) leftist/Democrat politicians that run such cities are lacking in fiduciary qualities, and people tend to leave for less oppressive pastures in such cases. Spokane is likely to lose population to the surrounding county areas if they keep pushing such idiotic costly notions.
And if you point to the North-South freeway as another example of "urban destruction", remember that there were alternative routes available that would have encircled the metro area rather than going straight through it, but businesses in the Freya/Hillyard corridor wanted something where access to their businesses would be more visible and intimate. That's why I-90 goes right through the heart of Spokane rather than around the city. That's why I-5 was routed right through the heart of Seattle rather than being routed around the east side (still rural back then) of Lake Washington.
Objectivity > Subjectivity.
Monetizing environmental costs is also a very subjective excercise. Those who assess such costs usually omit identical cost curves that are associated with so-called "green" proposals, not to mention forgetting that autos do not just disappear if a highway proposal is tabled. Very few people can actually take advantage of greenie proposals such as commuting to work by bike instead of driving, and not have similar costs associated with (1) time (2) convenience (3) weather (4) endangerment aka unprotected bicycles vs steel-encased autos. Go back to the government safety statistics, and you'll see that people are more likely to die while riding a bicycle than driving a car on a per/mile basis. If head-in-the-clouds cyclists want separate "safe" bikeways (with grade separations), then cyclists should pay for them, not motorists who are doing the pragmatic thing. It's the same thing per government bodies wanting the railroads to pay for grade separation projects rather than using road monies.
Objectivity > Subjectivity
I notice you didn't comment on my observation of the greenies demanding the removal of the UP and GN grade/viaduct over and alongside the Spokane River back in the 70's, and then complaining today of the lack of bike-friendly crossings over the river and through to the core of the city. It's humorous (at least to me) of how environmentalists can end up being their own worst enemy.
