Comments

1
Interesting... In the "Cumulative Net Difference" chart, there is a flat spot starting early in the Clinton administration (or late in the 1st Bush administration), lasting until around the turn of the century. Was there a short moment of balance (or moderately less imbalance) in transportation funding during that time?
2
Great photo from those halcyon days when Portland still had its own battleship! Nobody messed with us, that's for damn sure.
3
Finally getting some media attention. As a non-car-driving person who pays property taxes, I subsidize car infrastructure I don't use such as parking spaces and freeways. That's right: cyclists subsidize motorists, not the other way around.

Every investment in light rail etc. is an investment in reducing the need for expensive wide freeways or expanding roads. It costs more to build one mile of urban freeway than Portland has spent on bike-related infrastructure in its entire history.
4
I was going to point out that anyone who isn't a yeoman farmer or a starving shut-in probably benefits from highways, but then I realized that a good portion of the Merc readership probably falls into either or both of those categories.
5
@organic.brian - Well, I don't ride a bike, and the city is building plenty of bike paths with my tax money. So when you say "...not the other way around"...? Isn't it, well, both ways?
6
gas prices should be double what they are now, at a minimum.

pay to play, baby.
7
Every time the price of fuel goes up, the government does the wrong thing to curb fuel use. They do everything they can think of to keep the price low and usage high. With less use wear, and tear on the roads will be reduced and the frequency and overall cost of repairs will go down. It's common sense. Also, the petroleum-related costs built into consumer goods will force people to think more about what they buy. It's common sense, but sense isn't very common when it comes to petroleum. Yet.
8
I'm totally behind the idea of raising gas prices. It should reflect the true cost of driving, whatever that should be.
9
And with no foreseeable living wage for many families in the near future, I'm sure rising food prices will mean nothing except an opportunity to contemplate consumer choices.
10
Oh come on any talk about taxes/federal budgets is nonsense without acknowledgement of the historically low taxes on upper income brackets and historically high defense spending.

If you want to have a conversation about how highways affect commodity distribution and pricing, that's interesting! But acting like our system doesn't have some very large externalities affecting the end consumer makes your talk meaningless.
11
"Exhorbitant" was the word you wanted there.

Yes, I'm an asshole because I'm telling a person who is lucky enough to write for a living how to spell words in the language she grew up speaking and writing.
12
@rich bachelor: Oh, I think you're going to be wishing Blogtown had a "delete comment" function...
13
@rich bachelor: you win the asshat of the week award.
14
Yeah, I know. "Drunk at the beach" category, too.
15
While public transit, walkways, and bikeways do receive public funding, it seems miniscule compared to what roadways receive, doesn't it?

Thanks so much for highlighting the PIRG report and this important issue. I’ve shared it with my No Car Go readers:

http://nocargo.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/hi…

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.