U.S. car drivers are socialists
Poll
 | 5 votes (38.46%) | ||
| | 3 votes (23.07%) | ||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 3 votes (23.07%) |
13 members have voted
The paragraph above is fiction. Here's the reality: in 2002, $27.9 billion was spent building and maintaining local roads in the U.S. and only $3.1 billion of that was paid for by gasoline taxes, vehicle registration, and toll collection. The rest was subsidized by taxes collected through other means (income tax, sales tax, corporate taxes, etc). In other words, U.S. drivers are getting a free ride. Moreover, politicians are reluctant to raise gasoline taxes & registration fees, so the proportion paid for by user fees has been declining over time. To a certain extent, every American benefits from these roads, because even pedestrians and bicyclists who don't own cars still consume goods delivered on these roads. Nevertheless, non-drivers are disproportionately subsidizing the drivers. [Full disclosure: I drive a Ford and a Toyota and I don't own a bike.]
Everyone wants roads, but no one wants to pay for them. Would you change the system? How?
Quote: renoIn other words, U.S. drivers are getting a free ride.
Q: How many Americans pay no taxes at all?
A: Zero.
It's very simple. Either you pay taxes directly or you pay them indirectly. You can't avoid them, as Ben Franklin aptly pointed out.
Suppose you don't get any money witheld from your paycheck, none, and that you live in a state without a sales tax. Fruther suppose you don't pay property taxes or gas taxes for some reason. Well, one fine day you walk to the store and buy a quart of milk, a loaf of bread and a pound of meat. Part of the money you pay the store will be used to pay the store's taxes. Another aprt will be paid to the distributors that supply the store, and part of that will be used to pay taxes. The distributors will also pay the producers, who will sue aprt of that money to pay taxes.
Now, absent taxes, you'd pay less money because everyone from producer, to distributor, to store would hvae lower expenses.
So you're paying taxes one way or another. There's no getting away from it.
Quote: renoThe paragraph above is fiction. Here's the reality: in 2002, $27.9 billion was spent building and maintaining local roads in the U.S. and only $3.1 billion of that was paid for by gasoline taxes, vehicle registration, and toll collection.
What's your source on this, and how does that source come up with those numbers?
The US consumed 191 billion gallons of gasoline and highway diesel in 2010. I get 187 billion by adding the 3,382,319 thousand barrels of gasoline and the 1,171,880 thousand barrels of low-sulfur diesel fuel and multiplying by by the 42 gallons in a barrel.
http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/PET_CONS_PSUP_DC_NUS_MBBL_A.htm
As a check on this figure, the NHTSA says we travel just under 3 trillion vehicle miles a year. Three trillion divided by 187 billion is about 16 miles per gallon, which seems reasonable when considering all vehicles such as large trucks.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
The average gasoline tax, counting federal and state, is 48.6 cents per gallon. Diesel is a bit higher, but I'll use the gasoline number. This is pretty easy to verify, as numbers in this range are printed on many gas pumps.
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/
191 billion * .486 = $93.0 billion collected in gasoline taxes per year. That's just fuel taxes. So to put it mildly, I disagree with the $3.1 billion number.
I acknowledge building roads carries externalities (use of eminent domain, air and noise pollution, accidents, time lost due to congestion, etc.), but these effects are not unique to motor vehicles.
Quote: 7outlineawayWhat's your source on this, and how does that source come up with those numbers?
I'm talking about local roads, not highways. State and interstate highways are well-funded with gasoline taxes. Allocating this money for highways is perfectly appropriate, but it still leaves local roads underfunded, and taxpayers without cars are contributing almost as much tax money as drivers are. The numbers I quoted can be found on the table on page 6 of this report.
If you eat it, wear it, live in it, use it for power, drink it, and any other means of consumption then you can thank whoever drove the truck it came in on.
And I am NOT Jerry Logan pumping my trucking company. It is a fact of life. Unless non-drivers are somehow walking thru the woods to get where they are going or living as hermits, they are not somehow giving everyone else a free ride.
* First, the report tries to quantify the costs of motor vehicles and the infrastructure surrounding them, but completely ignores their benefits. These include reduced travel times, greater flexibility, ablility to transport goods in addition to people, ability to be used by people who can't walk or bike, preferability in inclement weather, and so on.
* Even if you accept that "local roads" (which the report never really quantifies) are MOSTLY subsized outside of direct taxes on car drivers, pedestrian and bike facilities are COMPLETELY free of direct costs to their users. I'm not aware of any juristiction with a "sneaker tax" or a tollbooth across a sidewalk or a bike path.
* It is telling the report completely ignores public transportation. Public transit is far more socialized than private cars are! No public transit agency in the US is anywhere close to breaking even from fares. How do the authors propose we get across town, much less across the country, in our little pedestrian utopia?
I'll also note road building, maintenance and car-related facilities (gas stations, repair shops) do create a tremendous number of jobs, which I continue to believe are mostly paid for directly by road users.
I lived in Chicago for 14 years, and for most of them, didn't have a car. I spent about half my years there biking to work, and the other half walking after I moved closer to my job. Living this way had enough benefits from reduced costs, reduced stress and improved fitness. I'm not sure what the authors here want, other than to proclaim themselves as the whiny bicyclist douchebags they are.
Quote: 7outlineawayother than to proclaim themselves as the whiny bicyclist douchebags they are.
Bicyclists and runners really bug me. They act soooooo superior
to the rest of us, always throwing in our faces that the run 10
miles a day or bike everywhere. Running is ultimately bad for
you, the older you get the more likely it is something will get
injured. Knees, hip joints, tendons, a myriad of things can
plague you. How many people a year drop dead while running,
that could have lived for years longer if they hadn't overdone
it.
Quote: 7outlineawayI'm not sure what the authors here want, other than to proclaim themselves as the whiny bicyclist douchebags they are.
It is an old ploy for this type to say they "do not use the roads" or "do not use oil."
Had it happen in college almost 20 years ago, first Gulf War. Some long-haired-dope-smoking-maggot-infested-FM-type was so against the war and said, "I (he) don't use petroleum or petroleum products." I easily picked this apart, citing even the computer he was using was made of plastic. He went on a rant about the elites controlling the world or something. I eventually found most of the people who worked at the computer center hated him. He was nearly ejected a few times.
Quote: AZDuffmanI easily picked this apart, citing even the computer he was using was made of plastic.
There's an ep of 'Madern Marvels' called 'Oil' and the number
of things we get from crude oil is mind boggling. Its used in
every facet of our lives, even the drugs we take. Literally
thousands of products and uses.
Quote: WizardIn my opinion, this country would be a more pleasant place to live in if gas was as expensive as it is in Europe, and we balanced that out by lower income and corporate taxes.
I actually agree with this. The key for me is that it be revenue-neutral. You'd have positive side effects such as less traffic congestion and slower deterioration of roads, and higher prices of goods should be balanced out by higher after-tax disposable income. But if you're gonna slap another $3 on the price of gas, I sure as hell don't want $2.50 of it going to bike paths.
Quote: EvenBobThere's an ep of 'Madern Marvels' called 'Oil' and the number
of things we get from crude oil is mind boggling. Its used in
every facet of our lives, even the drugs we take. Literally
thousands of products and uses.
So true. I think that if we didn't even use a drop for motor fuels we would still need to import some.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo true. I think that if we didn't even use a drop for motor fuels we would still need to import some.
Please carry on doing so... keeps me in socialized health care ;)
But less sarcastically, oil is a wonderful thing and we use it very effectively for all sorts of stuff, not just for creating a series of small explosions to push around...
Quote: thecesspitPlease carry on doing so... keeps me in socialized health care ;)
But less sarcastically, oil is a wonderful thing and we use it very effectively for all sorts of stuff, not just for creating a series of small explosions to push around...
We will see what happens with compressed natural gas. I can only abstract the title for one well at a time, but give me a few years to get them drilling........
Quote: 7outlineawayPublic transit is far more socialized than private cars are! No public transit agency in the US is anywhere close to breaking even from fares.
Agreed. But drivers get another huge subsidy: the U.S. spends billions each year maintaining military bases in the Middle East. Excluding Iraq & Afghanistan, most of these bases existed before 9/11, so their purpose was not to combat terrorism, their purpose was to protect the flow of oil. (The real scam is that this is a subsidy for other oil users like Japan, who benefit from American taxpayer spending on oil security.) If the Persian Gulf's main export was pineapple, would America really have all these military bases?
Quote: renoIf the Persian Gulf's main export was pineapple, would America really have all these military bases?
I sure hope so:
First, municipal funding always comes primarily from Property Taxes, Sewer, and Water bills (if operated locally) with a great deal of funding also from state (provincial) and federal governments depending on the projects. It is impractical for each municipality to assess a gasoline tax and attach it to their pumps. This would create unfair competition as a gas station would just need to be open in the unincoporated area outside of the local government. Collection would also be a nightmare.
Roads, Fire, Police, Sewers, Water (including water treatment), Transit, and Parks are all major parts of the municipal government budget. School taxes are also collected as part of property taxes and distributed to the schools within the region. Of course, it is possible to recover some user fees from each of these divisions. It's amazing how many assets that the municipality owns and must keep care of, all done with your tax dollars. Roads, Sewer, and Water funding also comes from community developers.
Roads budgets are usually divided into maintanence vs Capital budgets. Capital budgets are usually planned a few years in advance as they know what roads are reaching the end of their useful life and what roads need to be built and expanded (or retired). These budgets are paid for by depositing some of the property taxes into a reserve account and then using that reserve to fund the project.
My general opinion on roads funding for local roads is that it's fair to be included in property taxes. The owner of the property is presumed to use roads in their community. Your house has an address - police and fire need to use that road. That road needs to be cleared in the winter. Sidewalks are maintained. Lampposts are maintained. You need to get in and out of your community - whether you use the sidewalk and walk or drive, you are using your road. Mail is delivered. Cable is installed. All of these use road accesses. You may feel slighted if you don't use the roads. I feel slighted paying for school tax when I don't have any children living at home. The assumption however of "if you live in our community, you are free to use our services" I feel is valid. I don't want another layer of tax to pay for my local services, and I never supported local sales tax either.
I may not use the library, for example, but I value literacy and am happy to pay a portion of my property tax to support literacy.
Quote: boymimboIt is impractical for each municipality to assess a gasoline tax and attach it to their pumps. This would create unfair competition as a gas station would just need to be open in the unincoporated area outside of the local government. Collection would also be a nightmare.
Ok, this makes sense. But couldn't a gas tax be collected on a county by county basis?
I know this an old thread, but some people will find it. (I just did.) So: I was car-free for 27 years, as the Wizard can attest. During that period, I can't count how many times drivers in online forums would get apoplectic that as a bicyclist I had no right to the road because I wasn't funding them. They had it exactly backwards because, as reno pointed out, non-drivers subsidize local roads for drivers. Those drivers also miss is that *most* bicyclists also drive, so they're still paying gas taxes anyway (well, at least they were before electric cars). The point is not how *many* people are car-free, just that those who are, aren't getting a free ride, and the ubiquitous criticism of them for supposedly not contributing to the cost of local roads is wrong.Quote: FaceI'm not flaming, but really, who "does not drive"? I'm quite ignorant on the subject, what with me being so rural, but in a great part of US, I couldn't see living without a car. NYC comes to mind, as you'd be kind of daft TO own a car, but who are these other "non-drivers"? link to original post
Quote: MichaelBluejayI know this an old thread, but some people will find it. (I just did.) So: I was car-free for 27 years, as the Wizard can attest. During that period, I can't count how many times drivers in online forums would get apoplectic that as a bicyclist I had no right to the road because I wasn't funding them. They had it exactly backwards because, as reno pointed out, non-drivers subsidize local roads for drivers. Those drivers also miss is that *most* bicyclists also drive, so they're still paying gas taxes anyway (well, at least they were before electric cars). The point is not how *many* people are car-free, just that those who are, aren't getting a free ride, and the ubiquitous criticism of them for supposedly not contributing to the cost of local roads is wrong.Quote: FaceI'm not flaming, but really, who "does not drive"? I'm quite ignorant on the subject, what with me being so rural, but in a great part of US, I couldn't see living without a car. NYC comes to mind, as you'd be kind of daft TO own a car, but who are these other "non-drivers"? link to original post
link to original post
My complaint is about the amount of throttle I see being used on the bike trails. Literal motorcycles. I don't care about e-bikes, but if I wanted to be drag racing against a Honda 350 I'd be on the street and not the UPRR Trail.
Those bikes all lack plates and as I've been told, they're mostly stolen and they are being used for deliveries to and from the developments around the trails, and no I don't mean Grubhub, and I don't mean DoorDash.
Quote: billryanAs a driver who doesn't use gas, I thank my fellow drivers for keeping my roads in good shape.
link to original post
... and that is why I've been saying for years that "fair" needs to involve periodic odometer reports.
Quote: DieterQuote: billryanAs a driver who doesn't use gas, I thank my fellow drivers for keeping my roads in good shape.
link to original post
... and that is why I've been saying for years that "fair" needs to involve periodic odometer reports.It is impractical to expect private individuals to log and report mileage by jurisdiction, which is why fuel taxes are attractive.
link to original post
I would have no problem if the State charged an odometer-based fee in lieu of gasoline tax.
Quote: billryanAs a driver who doesn't use gas, I thank my fellow drivers for keeping my roads in good shape.
link to original post
As a hybrid driver, you are half welcome.
Quote: billryanQuote: DieterQuote: billryanAs a driver who doesn't use gas, I thank my fellow drivers for keeping my roads in good shape.
link to original post
... and that is why I've been saying for years that "fair" needs to involve periodic odometer reports.It is impractical to expect private individuals to log and report mileage by jurisdiction, which is why fuel taxes are attractive.
link to original post
I would have no problem if the State charged an odometer-based fee in lieu of gasoline tax.
link to original post
New Mexico will want a cut if you use their roads.
Assuming your registration is in Arizona, how do you pay the vig?
What is to stop everyone from registering in Montana, to save on fees?
Quote: billryanQuote: DieterQuote: billryanAs a driver who doesn't use gas, I thank my fellow drivers for keeping my roads in good shape.
link to original post
... and that is why I've been saying for years that "fair" needs to involve periodic odometer reports.It is impractical to expect private individuals to log and report mileage by jurisdiction, which is why fuel taxes are attractive.
link to original post
I would have no problem if the State charged an odometer-based fee in lieu of gasoline tax.
link to original post
I don't like it. Just one more way for the government to get up in your business. My car is mine, and as long as I'm not endangering anyone how I use it and how much I use it is supposed to be all up to me.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyA motor fuel tax is a regressive tax intended to soak the working class. Those who cannot afford to live close to where they work, those who have to drive in the course of the workday, those who cannot afford the newest and most efficient cars. It also shows up in the retail cost of everything that has been on a truck- extravagant luxury items such as food and clothing, and that price increase makes more of a difference to the plebs than to the class of people who tend to support gas taxes.
link to original post
A motor tax is ‘intended’ to raise tax revenue. The fact that it tends to be regressive does not mean it was ‘intended’ to soak ‘the working class’.
Let’s eliminate motor fuel taxes by just increasing tariffs! Or increasing real estate taxes! Or income taxes! Or dog registration fees! Or cigarette taxes! Or taxes on gambling winnings! Or taxes on streaming services! Or even the California net worth seizure!
I'd also impose a 3% windfall tax on all annual income over $5 million, and a use fee every time a private jet is used. Let's say $500 goes into a fund to buy fuel for low-income families.
Quote: billryanI'd collect a 2% fee when people begin withdrawing from their retirement accounts. If you have a million saved, UncleSam takes $20,000 as an origination fee. I'd set a minimum, perhaps $500,000, at which it kicks in. I'd also charge a 1% transfer fee on a retirement account when the owner dies, and it passes to anyone other than their spouse. If you die with $5,000,000 in untaxed funds, your estate pays $50,000, and your kids inherit the rest tax-free.
I'd also impose a 3% windfall tax on all annual income over $5 million, and a use fee every time a private jet is used. Let's say $500 goes into a fund to buy fuel for low-income families.
link to original post
So you want to charge them a fee for withdrawing money they already paid taxes on?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: billryanI'd collect a 2% fee when people begin withdrawing from their retirement accounts. If you have a million saved, UncleSam takes $20,000 as an origination fee. I'd set a minimum, perhaps $500,000, at which it kicks in. I'd also charge a 1% transfer fee on a retirement account when the owner dies, and it passes to anyone other than their spouse. If you die with $5,000,000 in untaxed funds, your estate pays $50,000, and your kids inherit the rest tax-free.
I'd also impose a 3% windfall tax on all annual income over $5 million, and a use fee every time a private jet is used. Let's say $500 goes into a fund to buy fuel for low-income families.
link to original post
So you want to charge them a fee for withdrawing money they already paid taxes on?
link to original post
What taxes have been paid on money in IRA's?
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AutomaticMonkeyA motor fuel tax is a regressive tax intended to soak the working class. Those who cannot afford to live close to where they work, those who have to drive in the course of the workday, those who cannot afford the newest and most efficient cars. It also shows up in the retail cost of everything that has been on a truck- extravagant luxury items such as food and clothing, and that price increase makes more of a difference to the plebs than to the class of people who tend to support gas taxes.
link to original post
A motor tax is ‘intended’ to raise tax revenue. The fact that it tends to be regressive does not mean it was ‘intended’ to soak ‘the working class’.
Let’s eliminate motor fuel taxes by just increasing tariffs! Or increasing real estate taxes! Or income taxes! Or dog registration fees! Or cigarette taxes! Or taxes on gambling winnings! Or taxes on streaming services! Or even the California net worth seizure!
link to original post
When politicians enact such a tax, I don't believe they are oblivious to whom will be bearing the brunt of it, and when it's the class of people who generally aren't politicians or their patrons- just a coincidence?
The Georgist taxation system is a fun thought experiment. That's where the only tax is a land tax, per square foot, and everybody pays the same rate no matter what. So if a town wants to build a road they owe the levels above them the universal rates on the land area of that road. If the Federal government claims a piece of land, they owe the tax to themselves, they don't get anything. One who owns a sprawling estate would pay a lot, but units in a highrise would pay very little. Golf might get expensive. But it would encourage efficient use of land, and being US farmers already are very efficient compared to others we'd have an advantage in implementing that.
This. It is not coincidence. Just like it's not coincidence that the tax system in Texas is regressive.Quote: AutomaticMonkeyWhen politicians enact such a tax, I don't believe they are oblivious to whom will be bearing the brunt of it, and when it's the class of people who generally aren't politicians or their patrons- just a coincidence? link to original post
I am reporting myself for making a political comment.
Quote: billryanI don't know a politician or their patrons who doesn't travel by car or have things delivered by truck.
link to original post
Of course. But when your car is $250K and comes with a chauffeur, you don't notice the price of gas. When you're the kind of person who is sometimes looking under the seats for quarters to get gas to get home, you are painfully aware of it.
The included cost of transportation for some good is roughly proportional to the price per pound. A Rolex, that's really expensive per pound so the cost of transportation is negligible. But bananas are 50 cents per pound or less and shipping costs being what they are, most of that has to be transportation from the banana farm to the store. Everyone who touches them is getting paid, but a significant part of the cost is fuel, and a significant part of fuel costs in the US is tax. Very greedy of them, taxing my bananas.
Strange that you mention bananas. The people who perfected how to transport bananas made a fortune.
Quote: billryanQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: billryanI'd collect a 2% fee when people begin withdrawing from their retirement accounts. If you have a million saved, UncleSam takes $20,000 as an origination fee. I'd set a minimum, perhaps $500,000, at which it kicks in. I'd also charge a 1% transfer fee on a retirement account when the owner dies, and it passes to anyone other than their spouse. If you die with $5,000,000 in untaxed funds, your estate pays $50,000, and your kids inherit the rest tax-free.
I'd also impose a 3% windfall tax on all annual income over $5 million, and a use fee every time a private jet is used. Let's say $500 goes into a fund to buy fuel for low-income families.
link to original post
So you want to charge them a fee for withdrawing money they already paid taxes on?
link to original post
What taxes have been paid on money in IRA's?
link to original post
If it is a Roth tax on the income was paid before deposit. Tax-free upon withdraw is part of the deal. If a traditional it is taxed as regular income.
So, I ask again, you want to charge tax on money that has already been taxed?
Quote: billryanA regular IRA is not taxed until you begin to withdraw the money. I'm not sure which taxes you think were already paid.
link to original post
I just explained it to you. You somehow want people to pay MORE tax on their IRA because…..well I can’t figure out why.
We need to encourage more IRAs not punish them.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: billryanA regular IRA is not taxed until you begin to withdraw the money. I'm not sure which taxes you think were already paid.
link to original post
I just explained it to you. You somehow want people to pay MORE tax on their IRA because…..well I can’t figure out why.
We need to encourage more IRAs not punish them.
link to original post
Yes, I want people and corporations to pay more taxes. With our national debt approaching forty gazillion dollars, raising taxes is a necessity.
A lot of slot attendants are out of work because of the increase in the W-2G threshold to $2,000. The paperwork burden for those who still get a stack of W-2Gs is basically unchanged.
There should be a one-time tax of 10% on any gambling win (casinos or lotteries) of $1 million and all other activity tax-free, and just forget the notion of deducting losses if your only wins are that huge. The IRS collects very little in gambling tax revenue compared with the paperwork and record-keeping burden. It's not like the Uber drivers and Doordashers (a previously "je dure tax-free activity"), because they actually make money. So few gamblers actually make money, and most of them just pennies, relatively speaking, it's just pointless.
And back on topic, while I was riding my bike back home from work this morning, I was thinking -- if everyone rode a bike, we would need to build wider bike paths to accomodate the need for space. But it doesn't have to built to the same weight-bearing standards as your typical local road. It could be paid for fairly easily by the general budget. Roads for cars (especially the EVs as they are heavy) are what cost a lot more to construct, and they require re-paving more frequently. A bike path will last far longer before it needs maintenance because it doesn't have to support thousands of pounds for the vehicle.
This. Since the net of all Americans' gambling activity every year is a loss for the players, there's no actual income to tax anyway. Therefore, best would be to not tax gambling at all (like Canada, U.K., etc.), but a reasonable compromise would be to tax only mega jackpots and not any smaller wins. The cost of compliance for the IRS, casinos, and players with the current system is immense and not worth it.Quote: KevinAAThere should be a one-time tax of 10% on any gambling win (casinos or lotteries) of $1 million and all other activity tax-free, and just forget the notion of deducting losses if your only wins are that huge. The IRS collects very little in gambling tax revenue compared with the paperwork and record-keeping burden....So few gamblers actually make money, and most of them just pennies, relatively speaking, it's just pointless.
Yes, there is way more bang for the buck with building bike paths. They can be built for a fraction of the cost per mile as a roadway. Recently Austin just completed a "bike highway" to a neighboring city. This isn't a bike lane on the same roadway as cars, it's its own path, taking a completely different route. The Netherlands have had these for decades, I rode one of them.Quote: KevinAARoads for cars (especially the EVs as they are heavy) are what cost a lot more to construct, and they require re-paving more frequently. A bike path will last far longer before it needs maintenance because it doesn't have to support thousands of pounds for the vehicle. link to original post
Quote: billryanQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: billryanA regular IRA is not taxed until you begin to withdraw the money. I'm not sure which taxes you think were already paid.
link to original post
I just explained it to you. You somehow want people to pay MORE tax on their IRA because…..well I can’t figure out why.
We need to encourage more IRAs not punish them.
link to original post
Yes, I want people and corporations to pay more taxes. With our national debt approaching forty gazillion dollars, raising taxes is a necessity.
link to original post
How much more do YOU want to pay?
Quote: KevinAA
And back on topic, while I was riding my bike back home from work this morning, I was thinking -- if everyone rode a bike, we would need to build wider bike paths to accomodate the need for space. But it doesn't have to built to the same weight-bearing standards as your typical local road. It could be paid for fairly easily by the general budget. Roads for cars (especially the EVs as they are heavy) are what cost a lot more to construct, and they require re-paving more frequently. A bike path will last far longer before it needs maintenance because it doesn't have to support thousands of pounds for the vehicle.
link to original post
But most of us can't. My commute is 10 or so miles each way, far too long to bike. It will usually be too hot, cold, or wet. Even if it was not I would be sweaty and smelly when got there.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: KevinAA
And back on topic, while I was riding my bike back home from work this morning, I was thinking -- if everyone rode a bike, we would need to build wider bike paths to accomodate the need for space. But it doesn't have to built to the same weight-bearing standards as your typical local road. It could be paid for fairly easily by the general budget. Roads for cars (especially the EVs as they are heavy) are what cost a lot more to construct, and they require re-paving more frequently. A bike path will last far longer before it needs maintenance because it doesn't have to support thousands of pounds for the vehicle.
link to original post
But most of us can't. My commute is 10 or so miles each way, far too long to bike. It will usually be too hot, cold, or wet. Even if it was not I would be sweaty and smelly when got there.
link to original post
One of the offices that I rented in a strip mall by the Las Vegas airport had a bathroom with a shower which is very unusual for strip mall offices. I later found out that Mike Tyson had rented that office because it was close to his house and he would do some workouts there, hence the shower.
AZDuffman is right. Showers are just as important as bike lanes in getting people to commute by bike. The availability of showers makes it five times as likely that people will bike to work. (From my article on bicycle facilities. Y'all didn't know I was a bike advocate? Back when I was active I was probably known for that way more than I've ever been known for my Vegas/gambling writing.)Quote: AZDuffmanIt will usually be too hot, cold, or wet. Even if it was not I would be sweaty and smelly when got there. link to original post
