🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SLAGLE.92Jun4140728@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>
>Incidentally, I think that most motorists would like also to be
>able to limit their payments to the proportional amount that
>automobiles inflict damage.  As it stands, it is my understanding
>that, even with the large fees that they pay, truckers are still
>vastly undercharged for their contribution to the decay of the
>roads.
>

That's my understanding too.  I get a clear demonstration every time I
bike on Skyline and a logging truck goes by.  England too has the problem
that the railroads are expected to pay to maintain their own "roads" but
that truckers get to use (read: destroy) the public highways for a pittance.

>It is sometimes the case that proponents of alternative modes of
>transport assume that because they do not use a car of their own
>for commuting, or at all, that they should not then bear any of
>the cost burden of the highway system.  It seems to me, however,
>that if one lives here and takes advantage of the employment,
>recreational, and other opportunities, that one is deriving a
>great deal of benefit from the system.  The existence of most of
>these benefits depends on the existence of that same highway
>system.  What is your opinion on this?  

This is a good question, and a tough one to answer.  The simple case has
to do with goods that I buy that are transported to the local stores on
"subsidized" roads.  And the simple answer is that I'd be happy to pay
more for them: I'd be happy to pay an amount closer to their actual cost.

Employment and recreation require perhaps more thought than I have time for
right now.  An awful lot of my recreation involves riding my bike on public
roads (more miles in a year than the average driver logs) so clearly I am
deriving benefit from them and ought to pay my share.  But my first reaction
on considering employment opportunities is that, for me at least, the presence
of so many highways and the sprawl and pollution they have engendered makes
this a less attractive place to live and work. You are suggesting, of course,
that Apple and other "hi-tech" companies have thrived here because there are
so many similar companies and that the roads system has allowed them to
exchange employees and ideas in a way they couldn't have otherwise.  Could
be.  I'm afraid I don't know enough history, sociology or whatever to begin
to break the problem down into digestible bites.  Anyone else want to take
a shot? 

-- 
****************************************************************************
Eric House			"My employer doesn't share its opinions with
			   	 me, so I can share only mine with you"