FAA On User Fees: "The piston thing is not going to happen." Divide And Conquer?

Well, the automobile "gas tax" seems to be going well...

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
And a real weapon can be used to remove the control on the traffic flow.

Well, maybe not. Suppose it's as simple as control over traffic lights
(with an EZPass type device to sense cars and extract payment)... the
computer system to control them is probably networked and spread out all
over Saudi Arabia, and the lights themselves are quite numerous. Take out
the lights and you have gridlock.

I'm trying desperately to keep that song "Convoy" out of my head...

Jose wrote:
I agree. What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll
roads, bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum
traffic flow to optimum revenue flow.

Further, control of traffic flow can easily be used as a weapon.


If this clueless guy's a teacher, no wonder our kids are so f*cke*d in the
head.

Further, control of traffic flow can easily be used as a weapon.
If this clueless guy's a teacher, no wonder our kids are so f*cke*d in the
head.

You don't think control of traffic flow can be used to the detriment of
the country by those who control it? =That's= pretty clueless. Not all
weapons are weapons of destruction.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:03:36 -0700, "gatt"
wrote in
:

What bothers me about the idea of privately-owned toll roads,
bridges, etc is that the emphasis switches from optimum traffic flow to
optimum revenue flow.

What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
not revenue flow?

What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
not revenue flow?

The lack of a direct, or even a non-convoluted connection between
revenue flow =to= the controlling authority, and traffic conditions.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:17:20 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
not revenue flow?

The lack of a direct, or even a non-convoluted connection between
revenue flow =to= the controlling authority, and traffic conditions.


Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
revenue stream. If that weren't their intent, they'd show themselves
conspicuously on the highway, not hide behind "billboards" with there
invisible LIDAR guns.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 21:17:20 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

What gives you the idea that the current emphasis of non-toll roads is
not revenue flow?
The lack of a direct, or even a non-convoluted connection between
revenue flow =to= the controlling authority, and traffic conditions.


Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
revenue stream. If that weren't their intent, they'd show themselves
conspicuously on the highway, not hide behind "billboards" with there
invisible LIDAR guns.

I don't think revenue generation is the main reason for this. The
reason is to try to get people to obey the law ALL of the time, not just
when the cops are visible. If you know they will always be visible,
then human nature generally is to only obey the law when you see the
cop. If you know that they may be hiding anywhere, there is much more
incentive to drive sanely and obey the law ALL of the time rather than
just when you see the cop car.


Matt

Rest assured that traffic laws enable LEOs to generate quite a fat
revenue stream. If that weren't their intent, they'd show themselves
conspicuously on the highway, not hide behind "billboards" with there
invisible LIDAR guns.





I don't think revenue generation is the main reason for this. The reason
is to try to get people to obey the law ALL of the time, not just when the
cops are visible. If you know they will always be visible, then human
nature generally is to only obey the law when you see the cop. If you
know that they may be hiding anywhere, there is much more incentive to
drive sanely and obey the law ALL of the time rather than just when you
see the cop car.




Some years back I worked for a company that did sales and warranty work for
Kustom Signal, a major producers of high end traffic radars.

When the PD was told it would take a week or two to get their radar back I
was generally hit up for a loaner. The reason given for needing a loaner was
always revenue loss----NEVER traffic safety.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A

"Tri-Pacer" wrote

When the PD was told it would take a week or two to get their radar back I
was generally hit up for a loaner. The reason given for needing a loaner
was always revenue loss----NEVER traffic safety.

In my town, there are two cars that only work traffic, as in tickets for
speeding and parking.

As long as the PD department does not lay them off, stop paying benefits,
and stop paying for the cars, the revenue is needed.

If they did not mind, and were able to stop paying for all of those things,
the revenue of having the working radar would not be needed.

The argument of whether there should be radars being run for public safety
is a different issue.
--
Jim in NC