GPS Tolling without Invading Your Privacy

While gasoline taxes have built most of the nation’s highway network, most experts agree they are on their way out. First of all, they don’t account for the cost of the roads each user drives on. Second, alternative fuels will make them obsolete.

Many of the Antiplanner’s faithful allies, such as John Charles of the Cascade Policy Institute, believe that gas taxes should be replaced by GPS devices that charge people based on where and when they drive. But other people have privacy concerns. Do we really want Big Brother to know everywhere we go?

One solution is offered by a paper from ITS, a U.K. organization promoting intelligent transportation systems. The paper notes that GPS transponders could use one of two different models.

At one extreme, the GPS could transit its location at all times to a central computer. The computer would calculate the charges and send the user a bill. This would have minimal security for privacy.

At the other extreme, the GPS could calculate all the charges itself. It would then periodically report the charges, but not any of the locations, to a central system. Such a GPS would have to include a complete map and navigation system, along with a schedule of charges for using various roads, all of which is periodically updated by a central system.

While a basic transponder costs only about $10, a complete GPS navigation system today costs about $300 to $400. These costs can be expected to decline, but the cost of subscription services of the sort that could regularly update the maps and user fees have historically not been falling.

To reduce those subscription fees, a new paper by the Antiplanner’s faithful ally Gabriel Roth and an engineer named Bern Grush propose an intermediate model that uses the kind of system made for anonymous cell phones. In this model, the GPS transponders send basic data to proxy servers that calculate the user fees and pass that information to a payment operator that matches the billing to either a prepaid account (assuring total privacy) or a credit card (which could let authorities know how much people have spent on tolls but not where or when they spent it). This system would reduce the up-front cost of the GPS transponder and eliminate the need for a subscription service.

Co-author Bern Grush works for Skymeter, a company that has developed the technology that makes this all possible. But the Antiplanner’s faithful ally Peter Samuel, of Tollroads News, says that at least two other companies — Transcore and Siemens — have similar technologies.

Of course, some people are going to resist any form of tolling. “If you believe in freedom, why not believe in free roads?” asks this guy of an imaginary libertarian. But libertarians don’t believe things should be free; they believe people should be free to make their choices as long as they pay for the choices they make. This guy says he doesn’t want “a toll system that begins to charge me the minute I back out of the driveway,” but somebody has to pay for the roads beyond the end of his driveway. Why not the people who use them?

Share

49 thoughts on “GPS Tolling without Invading Your Privacy

  1. the highwayman

    ROT wrote:
    “While gasoline taxes have built most of the nation’s highway network”

    Sorry but, that wasn’t the case, they were built by income and property taxes.

    Though this the GPS tolling stuff is a good idea.

  2. the highwayman

    Even at $300-400 for these GPS units isn’t a big price.

    Just think about how much less taxes we could pay over time, if people got bills from the DOT for how many miles that they drove in a month.

    Let’s say if some one drives 641 miles in given a month and they get a bill for $641, well then. Bring it on!

  3. JimKarlock

    Sorry, Highwayman, the “highway network” also called the interstate highway system, WAS BUILT ALMOST ENTIRELY WITH GAS TAXES.

    In some areas, some non-road user taxes are used for roads (not to be confused with the interstate highway system, unless you go back to early parts of the last century (where planners tend to live).)

    Suppose that ALL roads were paid out of taxes on ALL people. That would be a case of 100% of the people paying for something that most people DIRECTLY use. Pretty close to user pays.

    On the other hand, mass transit IS PAID FOR BY ALL PEOPLE, but only a few directly use it. A CASE OF EVERYONE SUBSIDIZING A FEW (also known as welfare.)

    If we want fair transportation costs allocation, the first step, obvious to anyone who is not brain dead, is to have transit users pay their full cost. In Perfectly Planned Portland that would be about $10 per ride (one way trip) or $20 for a daily round trip commute. Or, about $400/month. Of course this is more than the cost owning & driving a car of about $350/month (including ALL COSTS.)

    thanks
    JK

  4. the highwayman

    As things stand right now, when ever VMT drops taxpayers save money.

    Last year VMT was around aprox. 2 trillion miles, just imagine if the DOT had collected $2 trillion during that time?

    City streets need to stay public and should not be operated on a for profit basis as they are important to our civil liberties, though the financial burden that motorists load onto roads needs to be better accounted for.

  5. C. P. Zilliacus

    JimKarlock wrote:

    Suppose that ALL roads were paid out of taxes on ALL people. That would be a case of 100% of the people paying for something that most people DIRECTLY use. Pretty close to user pays.

    Most people? Jim, I respectfully disagree – slightly. All people use the roads, even if they do not own a motor vehicle. Everyone eats and presumably throws out refuse. Things we consume arrive by truck on the street and highway network, and trash is taken away by truck.

    On the other hand, mass transit IS PAID FOR BY ALL PEOPLE, but only a few directly use it. A CASE OF EVERYONE SUBSIDIZING A FEW (also known as welfare.)

    I would say the above as mass transit is paid for by all highway users.

    Amtrak, on the other hand, is subsidized by all federal taxpayers.

    Who is the real beneficiary of such subsidies? Employees of the transit systems and Amtrak come to mind.

    If we want fair transportation costs allocation, the first step, obvious to anyone who is not brain dead, is to have transit users pay their full cost. In Perfectly Planned Portland that would be about $10 per ride (one way trip) or $20 for a daily round trip commute. Or, about $400/month. Of course this is more than the cost owning & driving a car of about $350/month (including ALL COSTS.)

    Should the current system of highway users funding most or nearly all transit capital costs, and, in many parts of the United States, 50% or more of transit operating costs?

  6. D4P

    Of course this is more than the cost owning & driving a car of about $350/month (including ALL COSTS.)

    Would Mr. Karlock care to share his calucations of ALL COSTS, which presumably include dollar figures placed on pollution, bombing Iraq every decade, accidents and related fatalities, congestion, road rage related stress, etc.?

  7. Francis King

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “While gasoline taxes have built most of the nation’s highway network, most experts agree they are on their way out. First of all, they don’t account for the cost of the roads each user drives on. Second, alternative fuels will make them obsolete.”

    Taking these in reverse order.

    Second, there are no alternative fuels. Electric cars and hydrogen fuel cars are still a technological fantasy – which is why the cars sold in dealerships burn fossil fuels. There’s this new scheme in California to get 1 million electric cars on the road. Well, we’ll see their reaction when they see the price sticker on the electric car in the showroom.

    It is possible to build hybrid petrol/electric cars, but these have worse fuel consumption, higher cost, and inferior driving characteristics compared to a modern high-pressure diesel car. High pressure diesel cars are what the US car driver should be buying now, getting 60mpg rather than 20/30 mpg. The only benefit of a petrol/electric hybrid car (Toyota Prius) compared to a high pressure diesel car is a higher smugness quotient.

    First, the main reason for road pricing – payment per journey – is to deter people out of their cars, usually prior to forcing them onto the same transit that they rejected when they bought their cars in the first place. There is usually talk about making cars pay their full way, or the problem of road congestion, as camouflage for the raid on the car drivers bank accounts – to pay for new transit, which will be good for them.

    Libertarian, it isn’t.

    If the fuel tax isn’t high enough, increase it. It will still be cheaper than fuel in the UK. :)

  8. JimKarlock

    the highwayman said:
    Wow, Karlock you’re a bigger socialist than I first thought.

    the highwayman said:
    Speciba Comrades CPZ & Karlock for standing up for your fellow proletariats in Amerika.

    JK: So typical of planners. They have no sane answer, so they just start name calling. Too bad they never learned to read and to look at facts.

    Thanks
    JK

  9. D4P

    They have no sane answer, so they just start name calling

    This from a person who routinely refers to planners as “idiots”.

    Yet another double standard around here.

  10. JimKarlock

    D4P said: This from a person who routinely refers to planners as “idiots”.
    Yet another double standard around here.
    JK: What else do you call people who falsely believe that:
    *> High density reduces traffic congestion
    *> High density saves money
    *> Transit costs less than driving.
    *> High Density reduces pollution
    *> High Density will reduce your commute time.
    *> High Density will give us affordable housing.
    *> Mass transit saves time
    *> Mass transit saves money
    *> If we become more like Europe, people will switch from cars to transit.
    *> Automobiles are massive subsidized. (They aren’t, transit is.)
    *> Light rail causes development.
    *> Light rail is safer than cars
    *> A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway
    *> GM Destroyed the Streetcar Industry
    *> Density increases social interactions

    How do you suggest that I characterize a “profession” that peddles unadulterated crap like the list above?
    I suppose I could call them fools or liars instead of idiots? Liars would give then credit for at least knowing reality, while denying it.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. The Antiplanner Post author

    the highwayman,

    You say, most of the nation’s highway network “were built by income and property taxes.” What is your evidence for this?

    My evidence is table HF210 from the 1995 summary of Highway Statistics plus tables HF10 of the annual Highway Statistics reports since 1995.

    These tables show how much money was spent on highways out of user fees and how much out of income, sales, and property taxes back to 1921. In the first few years, gas taxes were only in a few states and so other taxes outweighed them. But add up any series of years since about 1935, and gas taxes and other user fees outweigh income, sales, and property taxes — generally by more than 2 to 1.

    Let’s stop calling each other names and stick to the facts (and that goes for Mr. Karlock as well as the highwayman). If you have different facts, present them, but don’t make them up or make assertions without backing them up.

  12. ode

    highwayman said:
    “Here’s a question for you VL guys. Why do you fear or hate railroads and mass transit so much?”

    answer: We don’t.
    How many times has it been mentioned?
    100% user fee for all, let the chips fall wherever they may.

    Here’s a question for you.
    Why do you keep on asking the same question when it has been answered numerous times already.
    You’ve been on here longer then I have highwayman but even I have heard the question answered numerous times already.

  13. Walt Brewer

    Why GPS? All that counts is energy used. For an electric car that is Kilowatt-hours just as gas or Diesel cars measure in gallons of fuel. So all that is needed in the easy KWH measurement in the electric car transmitted by cellphone like means . With the car identified but no need to know where or when, the billing can be done. As electric cars phase in use KWH for them and continue gas tax as gas/Diesel phase out. Privacy issue goes away.

  14. The Antiplanner Post author

    Francis King,

    The main reason for road pricing is to pay for the roads. The main reason for variable road pricing is to smooth out the peaks and troughs in travel demand. The goal is not to get people out of their cars but to encourage some people to travel at less congested times of the day.

    As I’ve explained here before, the cordon charges described in the San Francisco Chronicle article you cite are not variable road prices. Cordon charges don’t work very well because they don’t vary by time of day so in the long run they do nothing to eliminate congestion.

  15. the highwayman

    ode wrote:
    “How many times has it been mentioned?
    100% user fee for all, let the chips fall wherever they may.”

    Now what if the road in front of your residence can’t cover all it’s costs, from people driving on it?

    Even when the tolling of roads reached it’s peak in the UK during the 1700 & 1800′s, still 80% of the roads in the UK remained toll free.

    For that mater freeways make up less than 2% of the roads in the US.

  16. JimKarlock

    The Antiplanner: (and that goes for Mr. Karlock as well as the highwayman).
    JK: Sorry.

    To everyone: Any suggestions as to a single word to describe a “profession” that consistently presents its dreams and fantasies, pure untruths as established facts (see list in my previous post)?

    Thanks
    JK

  17. t g

    JimKarlock wrote:Any suggestions as to a single word to describe a “profession” that consistently presents its dreams and fantasies, pure untruths as established facts?

    I beleive they’re called economists.

  18. bennett

    JK,

    I can only speak for myself as a planner so here goes…

    JK: What else do you call people who falsely believe that:
    *> High density reduces traffic congestion I don’t. Nothing relieves congestion other than a severe economic downturn.
    *> High density saves money. Spending money rarely saves it.
    *> Transit costs less than driving. For those who can’t afford a car. Yes, subsidies I know.
    *> High Density reduces pollution. Maybe one day.
    *> High Density will reduce your commute time. The only thing that will reduce your commute time is living closer to your destination. More likely in high density environment? Probably.
    *> High Density will give us affordable housing. I’ve never heard anybody say this outright. It’s ridiculous. There are affordable housing strategies for both low and high density scenarios.
    *> Mass transit saves time. If you don’t have use a car.
    *> Mass transit saves money. If you can’t afford a car. Subsidies, I know.
    *> If we become more like Europe, people will switch from cars to transit. No doubt. Look at the sentence. If we become more like Europe we will be more like Europe.
    *> Automobiles are massive subsidized. (They aren’t, transit is.) Bull S#!%. They are and have been both massively subsidized. Anyone arguing that either is not is a damn liar.
    *> Light rail causes development. In many contexts it has. In some it hasn’t. The important question why would we want to spur development with light rail as oppose to serve existing communities. I think politicians are to blame for this not planners.
    *> Light rail is safer than cars. In may respects driving is one of the most dangerous activities in America, next to smoking, and being a fat yuppie.
    *> A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway. At one moment in time maybe.
    *> GM Destroyed the Streetcar Industry. They did their best.
    *> Density increases social interactions. For sure. The quality of such interaction is still up for debate.

    Bottom line. Your understanding of what planners believe is shallow. You have some idea; you just stop short of hearing what we are saying.

  19. Dan

    bennett:

    o the data are clear and nearly unequivocal that density reduces TPD and VMT. “Congestion” is a result of multiple factors and the question framed in this way indicates deception.

    o Higher density reduces per capita emissions. This is important to understand.

    One must not take ululating evidenceless assertions at face value with some commenters. Their statements are often deceptively framed. Deconstruct them first.

    DS

  20. Francis King

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “The main reason for road pricing is to pay for the roads. The main reason for variable road pricing is to smooth out the peaks and troughs in travel demand. The goal is not to get people out of their cars but to encourage some people to travel at less congested times of the day.”

    The peaks and troughs get smoothed out because some car drivers are deterred (i.e. bullied) by the cost. They don’t have any choice about when to drive, because they’re taking the kids to school, or going to work. Congestion charging and road pricing is not new, and politicians keep trying it on in my country. They know that it will be a vote loser, but bless ‘em, they keep trying.

    Money raised in this way is then spent on major projects – and it’s more likely to get spent on inappropriate transit projects, than on the roads. Which, after all, is how the USA (and Britain too) got into this mess. We have some beautiful potholes.

    A while back, Antiplanner was in favour of road tolls – if you want to use the road/bridge/tunnel, you’ve got to pay some of the debt. If you don’t want to pay, there are other (possibly less attractive) alternatives. This seems like a much better way of doing things. Only people using the facility pay, which is fairer. The project can also be run by a private company, with no recourse to the public purse. The only objectors are people who think that everything should be free.

  21. JimKarlock

    Dan: o Higher density reduces per capita emissions. This is important to understand.
    JK: It is also important to understand that higher density puts the emissions where the people are concentrated, thus increasing pollution for people and reducing it for un-occupied areas. Is that good public policy? But that is what you just said. Planners stress the reduced per capita emissions while “forgetting” to tell us that those emissions will be concentrated where we live – they lie by intentionally giving us a false impression.

    Same for VMT. Total VMT goes down SLIGHTLY. But the planners never tell us that the increase in the capita concentrates the , slightly less per capita, VMT where those capitas are, resulting in dramatic increases in road usage per unit area and that is the root cause of congestion. So, most planners do indeed lie about this by selling the reduced VMT while hiding the fact that the congestion will go up.

    Dan: One must not take ululating evidenceless assertions at face value with some commenters. Their statements are often deceptively framed. Deconstruct them first.
    JK: Good advice when listening to any planner.

    Thanks
    JK

  22. the highwayman

    JimKarlock wrote:
    “To everyone: Any suggestions as to a single word to describe a “profession” that consistently presents its dreams and fantasies, pure untruths as established facts (see list in my previous post)?”

    That’s easy, they’re called big business CEO’s. First they buy politicians and then from that they tell “planners” what to plan for an area. It could very well include transit, though most of the time it’s only roads.

  23. ode

    bennett said:
    “A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway. At one moment in time maybe.”

    Name one light rail line anywhere in the USA that does this.

  24. JimKarlock

    the highwayman said: That’s easy, they’re called big business CEO’s. First they buy politicians and then from that they tell “planners” what to plan for an area.
    JK: And what do the planners tell people to get people to go along? Answer: The above list of “un-truths”

    the highwayman said: It could very well include transit, though most of the time it’s only roads.
    JK: Are you still promoting wasteful transit? Or only ordinary buses?

    Thanks
    JK

  25. bennett

    “Name one light rail line anywhere in the USA that does this.”
    There isn’t one, it was a hypothetical answer (hence the “maybe”). I guess I don’t really care that a ten lane highway carries more people. My argument for rail transit has always been about serving the will of the community and providing a choice (even if it is a publicly funded service).

    Dan said:
    “One must not take ululating evidenceless assertions at face value with some commenters. Their statements are often deceptively framed. Deconstruct them first.”

    Good point. I tend to get caught up in the hype. I suppose it pisses me off that so many assertions are made around here about the beliefs of planners. I think it is hard to get consensus among the planning community on most of these topics. It’s easier for me to take the bait then to deconstruct the argument. Thats my problem with posting here.

  26. Dan

    Some of our publics (or small subsets of certain publics) take these deceptively-framed talking points as truth, common sense, gospel. It is important to know how to respond to such deceptive framing.

    DS

  27. ode

    bennett said:
    “There isn’t one, it was a hypothetical answer (hence the “maybe”). I guess I don’t really care that a ten lane highway carries more people.”

    Then why mention it hmmm? Why is it that whenever this topic is brought up EVERY single rail advocate likes to say, “oh oh oh but a single LRV line can carry the equivalent of 8 or 10 Lanes of freeway traffic” —> When you’ve just admitted it, NO such system exists in the USA.
    Isn’t that being a little intellectually dishonest?
    It’s as if you are *suggesting* that if a LRV system is built we’re going to hit these numbers.
    Which of course is TOTALLY false.

  28. the highwayman

    ode wrote:
    “Then why mention it hmmm? Why is it that whenever this topic is brought up EVERY single rail advocate likes to say, “oh oh oh but a single LRV line can carry the equivalent of 8 or 10 Lanes of freeway traffic” —> When you’ve just admitted it, NO such system exists in the USA.”

    I’ve never brought that up, though there are places(Toronto) where tram lines have more through put than autos on the same streets.

    Even with the Linclon tunnel with it’s time of day bus lanes often ends up with bus jams and that’s without even having any stops!

  29. ode

    highwayman said:
    “I’ve never brought that up,…”
    Thank Goodness, I salute your honesty. We need more of it on the internet.

    highwayman said:
    “…though there are places(Toronto) where tram lines have more through put than autos on the same streets.”
    I do not deny that. However you’re going off topic.
    This website is NOT a rantfest against public transportation around the world.
    I’m certain there are many successful, well utilized, high ridership public transit systems ALL over the world
    but….not in the USA. (except for a handful of big cities)
    If you’re curious the busiest LRV line in the world is in Manila, Philippines.

    There’s a saying in the USA
    98% of the population believes they should pay taxes so the other 2% uses it.
    I think that’s the best description of public transit in the USA I’ve ever heard, seriously.

  30. JimKarlock

    highwayman said: That’s easy, they’re called big business CEO’s. First they buy politicians and then from that they tell “planners” what to plan for an area.
    JK: You left out the next step:
    The planers have to implement the insane ideas of the politicians (who got those ideas from planners). To do that they should honestly go to the public and say we have wonderful plans for your neighborhood. It will become more polluted, the streets will become gridlocked and you won’t be able to afford the rent.

    Instead they lie to sell the plan.

    Thanks
    JK

  31. JimKarlock

    bennett said:
    I can only speak for myself as a planner so here goes…
    *> High density reduces traffic congestion I don’t. Nothing relieves congestion other than a severe economic downturn.
    JK: Or building lane miles at a rate that matches demand. Houston is proving that it works.

    bennett said: *> High Density will reduce your commute time. The only thing that will reduce your commute time is living closer to your destination. More likely in high density environment? Probably.
    JK: Then why are commute times so long in NYC & Hong Kong, two high density poster childs. Don’t low density suburbs have lower commute to work times? (Note that most jobs are in the burbs, so commuting to the city is not a major factor.)

    bennett said: *> High Density will give us affordable housing. I’ve never heard anybody say this outright. It’s ridiculous. There are affordable housing strategies for both low and high density scenarios.
    JK: But high density is almost always more expensive.

    bennett said: *> Automobiles are massive subsidized. (They aren’t, transit is.) Bull S#!%. They are and have been both massively subsidized. Anyone arguing that either is not is a damn liar.
    JK: Automobiles MAY be subsidized a few percent, mass transit is subsidized 80%. Big difference. No lie.

    bennett said: *> Light rail is safer than cars. In may respects driving is one of the most dangerous activities in America, next to smoking, and being a fat yuppie.
    JK: Look at the numbers! Light rail kills people at TWO – THREE times the rate of automobiles. By your claim, that must make light rail the most dangerous activity in America!

    bennett said: *> GM Destroyed the Streetcar Industry. They did their best.
    JK: You need to refresh you knowledge on this one. Start with: The Roger-Rabbit Myth and Why It Persists at http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=30

    You dodged these, so I assume you agree:
    bennett said: *> Mass transit saves time. If you don’t have use a car.
    JK: You dodge the question.

    bennett said: *> Mass transit saves money. If you can’t afford a car. Subsidies, I know.
    JK: You dodge the question.

    bennett said: *> If we become more like Europe, people will switch from cars to transit. No doubt. Look at the sentence. If we become more like Europe we will be more like Europe.
    JK: You miss the point: most planners think that most travel in Europe is by mass transit, while the fact is that 78% of person-kilometers in Europe is by automobile.

    bennett said: *> Transit costs less than driving. For those who can’t afford a car. Yes, subsidies I know.

    We Agree On These:

    bennett said: *> High density saves money. Spending money rarely saves it.

    bennett said: *> High Density reduces pollution. Maybe one day.

    bennett said: *> Light rail causes development. In many contexts it has. In some it hasn’t. The important question why would we want to spur development with light rail as oppose to serve existing communities. I think politicians are to blame for this not planners.

    bennett said: *> A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway. At one moment in time maybe.

    Tally:
    4 Agrees, 4 dodged the question and 6 Disagrees.
    It appears that you agree with me on 8 of the 14 items. Now review those 6 and see how many you may want to reconsider.

    bennett said: Bottom line. Your understanding of what planners believe is shallow. You have some idea; you just stop short of hearing what we are saying.
    JK: I hear a great deal of mis-information from planners. Even you show this in your claim that the auto is more deadly than LRT, and your GM & the Streetcars belief. Check your facts!

    Thanks
    JK

  32. the highwayman

    JK: “I hear a great deal of mis-information from planners. Even you show this in your claim that the auto is more deadly than LRT, and your GM & the Streetcars belief. Check your facts!”

    Wow JK, you really are full of shit!

  33. JimKarlock

    highwayman said: JK: Automobiles MAY be subsidized a few percent, mass transit is subsidized 80%. Big difference. No lie.
    BULLSHIT!
    highwayman said: JK: “I hear a great deal of mis-information from planners. Even you show this in your claim that the auto is more deadly than LRT, and your GM & the Streetcars belief. Check your facts!”

    Wow JK, you really are full of shit!
    JK: AM I? Read on:

    Auto vs tranist
    Externalities:
    Auto: 6.9 c/mi avg.
    Transit Bus 40 c/mi avg.
    LRT: appears to be even more.
    See: Mark Delucchi, ACCESS NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000, page 12 (portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm)

    Since the entire amount spent on roads was $161.1 billion (line 66), subsidies were about 16 percent of the total. This is more than usual — historically, the average has been about 12 percent, but it has gone up in the past couple of years. By comparison, transit gets about 73 percent of its funds from tax dollars and only 27 percent from user fares. (bold added)
    What about Highway Subsidies? ti.org/antiplanner/?p=500

    THE PUBLIC COST OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES.
    urbantransport.org/costcomp.pdf

    GM & the Streetcar,
    The key thing to know is that although General Motors bought a number of streetcar companies, companies that GM DID NOT buy also converted to bus.

    Buses attracted new ridership because they were much faster and more comfortable than streetcars, particularly after the introduction of the heavy-duty pneumatic “balloon” tires during the early 1920s.Buses were also safer since they could pull in to the curb to discharge passengers, whereas streetcars had to let passengers off in the center of the street. … The public looked upon buses more favorably than the streetcars.
    (Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 51. No. 3 Summer 1997 (45-66)) lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf

    Also see: The Roger-Rabbit Myth and Why It Persists at ti.org/antiplanner/?p=30

    LRT DOES kill at a higher rate than cars.
    Portland LRT death rate: 1.14 per 100 million passenger-miles
    Portland Automobile death rate: 0.46 per 100 million passenger-miles
    See portlandfacts.com/Transit/MaxDeathDetails.htm

    Once agin a “professional” planner shows his lack of knowledge about the basics of his own profession. Do you now have a better understanding of why I sometimes call planners liars, fool and idiots?

    You probably should educate yourself a bit more on the shortcomings of your profession. I suggest starting with PortlandFacts.com . Avoid the many sites funded by the transit industry and enviro groups – they lie.

    Thanks
    JK

  34. JimKarlock

    JK: This thread has provided an excellent look at three different planners (bennett, Dan and highwayman) and how all of them have serious mis beliefs about reality. Although a small sample, due to their silence, it appears that close to 100% of the planners on this forum have similar beliefs.

    The sad part is that they are actively spreading these misbeliefs around the country (and some Portland planners travel the world spreading such misbeliefs.)

    As Randal, Wendel and others have pointed out, millions of people are being hurt by these lies. Their standard of living is being reduced as they are forced, by planner led public policy, to waste valuable time in congestion, and pay more for housing and food.

    In view of this I wonder if I am being too kind to planners? Shouldn’t such purveyors of harm put on trial for their crimes against humanity (like some advocate for climate deniers.)

    Thanks
    JK

  35. the highwayman

    Mentioning a highway lobbyist like Cliff Slater, wow that’s more bullshit. Even he contradicts him self way too much like you, Cox & O’Toole.

    You want a “free market”(nothing in life is for free), but work against such concepts with your very own think tanks(Cato, Reason & etc).

    You guys are addicted to so much Pork it’s pathetic. You need big government to survive!

    No wonder you’ve attacked mass transit and railroads for almost the past 100 years, you see them as threats to your highway welfare system.

    Your whole property rights thing is a sham too, as long it just relates to your property, your neighbors property or rights be damned.

    Portland isn’t perfect, the city needs a suburban train system too. Also the UGB thing is sad, though this is the result of the problem that people aren’t paying for every mile that they drive and a need for more park land.

    Also I’m not an urban planner, I fight urban planners my self, though when they do dumb things, like expanding freeways to no where.

  36. Pingback: The Antiplanner :: Markets vs. Privacy :: http://ti.org/antiplanner

  37. Pingback: The Antiplanner :: Vehicle-Mile Fees Without GPS :: http://ti.org/antiplanner

  38. Pingback: The Antiplanner :: Vehicle-Mile Fees Without GPS :: http://ti.org/antiplanner

Leave a Reply