HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2014, 7:42 AM
Boiseguy's Avatar
Boiseguy Boiseguy is offline
Always running Late
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: BOISE
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
But you can't make this stuff up.
its true.. but our current governor.. the one in the suit is who i speak of… yeah.. the one that's been arrested for DUI…
don't let the suit fool you… oh and he's superbly republican in every way you can imagine…and so their spin tactics would apply in this case
even if this information was forwarded to him.. he'd see it as a reason to NOT fund public transportation expansion..because ridership is so low already…that's how twisted it gets
it's low because it doesn't take you anywhere.. it's unreliable, underfunded and not easily accessible…
Our mayor is left to scrounge for any sort of federal money he can get to make something happen..
it's a disgrace…
Soon enough there will be enough people in the metro area to out vote the rest of the state.. when that happens.. idaho will look very different politically...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2014, 3:24 PM
jedikermit's Avatar
jedikermit jedikermit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boiseguy View Post
its true.. but our current governor.. the one in the suit is who i speak of… yeah.. the one that's been arrested for DUI…
don't let the suit fool you… oh and he's superbly republican in every way you can imagine…and so their spin tactics would apply in this case
even if this information was forwarded to him.. he'd see it as a reason to NOT fund public transportation expansion..because ridership is so low already…that's how twisted it gets
it's low because it doesn't take you anywhere.. it's unreliable, underfunded and not easily accessible…
Our mayor is left to scrounge for any sort of federal money he can get to make something happen..
it's a disgrace…
Soon enough there will be enough people in the metro area to out vote the rest of the state.. when that happens.. idaho will look very different politically...
That all sounds very familiar. Except for the DUI. As far as I know. I don't see the scales tipping in Utah anytime soon--and even if there were enough votes in Salt Lake City to put in a democrat governor, they'd hit the wall of the legislature, which would still be slanted toward rural republicans.
__________________
Loving Salt Lake City. Despite everything, and because of everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2014, 5:35 PM
brankrom's Avatar
brankrom brankrom is offline
Transit Advocate
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Liberty Wells-- SLC
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
But you can't make this stuff up.
I wonder what is it about Utah, Idaho and Arizona that brings out the crazy?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2014, 11:36 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
If it just means I will be paying even more at the pumps then no thank you. I don't care where the money is going. All I care about is how much I'm having to spend at the pumps. The cost is TOO HIGH how it is.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2014, 11:57 PM
eastidaho's Avatar
eastidaho eastidaho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: below freezing
Posts: 476
On topic. I look forward to using some of the new transit options in each city as they come on line in the next few years. I would love to see the interior west continue to build on these numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
But you can't make this stuff up.
Off topic: The gentleman in the little hat and vest. He would call in and leave a 45-60 minute ramble on the mayor hotline in Boise 3 or 4 times a week back in 1999-2000. My wife working in the mayor's office while we attended Boise State, had the job of listening and then typing out each phone message left on the hotline. His rants were pretty funny the first ten or so times, but after a while I felt bad for her. The guy has been wack for decades. If you meet him he will show you his official letter from an African tribal leader that saw in vision his becoming POTUS. He will then most likely ask for a donation. Every city has them. Only the Idaho Republican Party puts them on public television for a live debate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 12:15 AM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
It's called inflation, boo. We gots to do this. If we get a big correction with wages to inflation, it won't bite.

Remember, the gas tax isn't like other taxes, we aren't talking about higher percentages but rather raising it a set amount of cents per gallon. When you have a tax like that it needs to be adjusted for inflation. The Federal and State government hasn't raised it since the early 90's. It's time.
It's more like "control inflation" Why do you think everybody else has to jack up their prices? Everything has to be shipped by trucks that run on gasoline. And these truckers have to pay more at the pumps, hence these trucking companies have to charge more to ship their items, hence stores have to pay more to have their items shipped, hence they now must rise their prices on food and what ever else that are sold in these stores. All roads lead back to greedy big oil and they are the number one reason why we have inflation. Demand might come in as the 2nd reason. Point is, big Oil has NO reason to keep jacking up the price of oil as much as they have been during the last ten years. And while I get that prices have to go up somewhat, how the hell is it that gas that has been in the market for 100 years that has for about 90 years stayed below $1 per gallon has since then jumped up 3 MORE dollars per gallon in only about 14 years? Sure they can come up with all kinds of BS of basically each time somebody sneezes that's a good enough reason to jack up prices again. But no way in hell is oil/gas worth as much as what you and I pay at the pumps. We really should be paying somewhere between $2.50-$2.75 per gallon, NOT $4 dollars a gallon for god sakes.
Meanwhile our government does nothing to regulating these ridiculous prices since big oil can come in and pay off anybody who dares to challenge them. Just a bunch of greedy powerful rich people who can say or do whatever they want. Before our government wants to take more money out of our pockets with higher taxes ( in this case gas tax ), maybe they should do their job at better controlling the oil industry with their greed.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 2:32 AM
Scottk's Avatar
Scottk Scottk is offline
Denver
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
If it just means I will be paying even more at the pumps then no thank you. I don't care where the money is going. All I care about is how much I'm having to spend at the pumps. The cost is TOO HIGH how it is.
I would argue the cost is far too low. The higher the cost of gas, the better IMHO.

We as a country consume far too much oil and release ridiculous amounts of global warming causing greenhouse gasses.

Higher gas taxes would reduce the incentive to drive, increase public transit usage, and also increase the amount of funds available for infrastructure. Seems like a win win to me.

The sooner we can wean ourselves off oil the better
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 4:19 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
I can't support forced weaning until we build viable alternatives. It's not a chicken and egg situation. There is no reasonable argument in favor of forcing people on to transit that will double their commute times. That's bad for the economy, for families, for nearly everything except perhaps polar bears. Too great a sacrifice if we're not also willing to dramatically densify.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 7:31 AM
Boiseguy's Avatar
Boiseguy Boiseguy is offline
Always running Late
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: BOISE
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
It's more like "control inflation" Why do you think everybody else has to jack up their prices? Everything has to be shipped by trucks that run on gasoline. And these truckers have to pay more at the pumps, hence these trucking companies have to charge more to ship their items, hence stores have to pay more to have their items shipped, hence they now must rise their prices on food and what ever else that are sold in these stores. All roads lead back to greedy big oil and they are the number one reason why we have inflation. Demand might come in as the 2nd reason. Point is, big Oil has NO reason to keep jacking up the price of oil as much as they have been during the last ten years. And while I get that prices have to go up somewhat, how the hell is it that gas that has been in the market for 100 years that has for about 90 years stayed below $1 per gallon has since then jumped up 3 MORE dollars per gallon in only about 14 years? Sure they can come up with all kinds of BS of basically each time somebody sneezes that's a good enough reason to jack up prices again. But no way in hell is oil/gas worth as much as what you and I pay at the pumps. We really should be paying somewhere between $2.50-$2.75 per gallon, NOT $4 dollars a gallon for god sakes.
Meanwhile our government does nothing to regulating these ridiculous prices since big oil can come in and pay off anybody who dares to challenge them. Just a bunch of greedy powerful rich people who can say or do whatever they want. Before our government wants to take more money out of our pockets with higher taxes ( in this case gas tax ), maybe they should do their job at better controlling the oil industry with their greed.
well,
there have been numerous efforts to get our economy more and more away from being oil based… but those are the loony people fox news likes to make fun of… it's not something that can happen overnight but it needs to start somewhere..


I think we all get what you're saying.. but for some reason you strike me as someone that goes to the ballot box and votes for the candidates that continue to cause you the very grief you express…maybe I'm wrong?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 7:33 AM
Boiseguy's Avatar
Boiseguy Boiseguy is offline
Always running Late
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: BOISE
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
I can't support forced weaning until we build viable alternatives. It's not a chicken and egg situation. There is no reasonable argument in favor of forcing people on to transit that will double their commute times. That's bad for the economy, for families, for nearly everything except perhaps polar bears. Too great a sacrifice if we're not also willing to dramatically densify.
this I would agree with…

Even transporting.. we moved away from trains to trucks because oil was cheap.. now it's not.. and we've abandoned our rail yards and infrastructure in many cities.. a good example here in idaho is the city of Pocatello…
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 2:19 PM
brankrom's Avatar
brankrom brankrom is offline
Transit Advocate
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Liberty Wells-- SLC
Posts: 292
More whining about fuel prices. Roads and Single Occupancy driving has been heavily subsidized for decades in the US. Look at the list of other countries and continue bitching about fuel prices. SLC is especially susceptible to the concerns of burning fossil fuels thanks to the inversion. Personally, I'm in agreement prices (and taxes) should be higher to take into account the real cost of driving on the environment and infrastructure which the US still doesn't do. Look at the examples with good infrastructure of countries in the EU and see what they are paying. Look at their infrastructure and economy, high prices aren't hurting them. Its nice to see that actual costs of the wasteful US suburban lifestyle is finally at least partially starting to lose its subsidy and catch up to people, but there's a long way to go.

I was as guilty as anyone. I commuted 90 miles round trip per day for 5 years back in the sub $2 days and decided I wasn't going to pump hundreds of pounds of carbon into the air and sending thousand of dollars a year to the UAE.


Handy graph to show what the rest of the world is paying compared to the sheltered American public.
http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/#USA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 5:24 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
I can't support forced weaning until we build viable alternatives. It's not a chicken and egg situation. There is no reasonable argument in favor of forcing people on to transit that will double their commute times. That's bad for the economy, for families, for nearly everything except perhaps polar bears. Too great a sacrifice if we're not also willing to dramatically densify.
No matter what is done, there will be a great deal of pain. The question is whether the pain lasts a long time- i.e., chronic pain, or whether the pain is short lived, and excruciating.

This identical argument was used in the TBTF argument in 2007-2008.

I am of the school of thought that the Country needs to get the pain over with, with the key understanding that not doing so very likely could result in chronic multi-decade national pain bandaided with short term debt service pain relievers.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 6:31 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Look, we're never going to have viable alternatives to the auto for 80% of the population. So you're talking permanent pain. That ship sailed long ago. Our metro areas are already double the size of their European counterparts. Even if every single square foot of development starting today was in the form of infill, we'd still be more spread out than transit can effectively serve. And that's not realistic, given that so much area given over to single family development is not at all amenable to redevelopment. The only good purpose in my mind for increasing the gas tax is to fund infrastructure - that is logical. It makes no sense to use it as a sin tax in favor of...what alternative?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 6:48 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,987
If you are going to add a gas tax for transit, you are just pissing off drivers. Then when a sales tax for transit bill comes on the table, you will lose since most of your voter base are drivers. Don't piss off your voters!

I say find alternate ways of funding transit. Shaming drivers for driving is a big no-no in my book and the shamers are obnoxious cult-like people, it's kind of scary. Give drivers a good alternitive to driving. Educate them, read them bed-time stories, whatever, but it has to be a reliable alternitive that doesn't add more than 10-15 minutes each way to their morning commute.

This is coming from a guy who's about 70% transit / 30% car in a 98% car dependant neighborhood.
__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2014, 8:12 PM
kidboise's Avatar
kidboise kidboise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottk View Post
I would argue the cost is far too low. The higher the cost of gas, the better IMHO.
THANK YOU. Couldn't agree more.
__________________
"I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2014, 4:05 PM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Look, we're never going to have viable alternatives to the auto for 80% of the population. So you're talking permanent pain. That ship sailed long ago. Our metro areas are already double the size of their European counterparts. Even if every single square foot of development starting today was in the form of infill, we'd still be more spread out than transit can effectively serve. And that's not realistic, given that so much area given over to single family development is not at all amenable to redevelopment. The only good purpose in my mind for increasing the gas tax is to fund infrastructure - that is logical. It makes no sense to use it as a sin tax in favor of...what alternative?
Sometime you need to see real suffering. I had the misfortune of seeing poverty first hand. Too much poverty is not theoretical. It is dangerous and inevitably produces inceased state and interpersonal violence.

No, I am talking about how human nature actually works. People change when they HAVE too. Otherwise, nothing changes much in terms of changing how people live.

A few romanticize Depressions, as they have not been in one (yet). But, often, cities, states, and, nations need to be galvanized into actually dealing with problems, as most of the time a large enough percentage of the population is doing well enough to maintain the status quo.

Does someone want to loose weight when he or she appears to be doing, Ok, health wise? What happens when that same person is told by his or her doctor that if he or she does not loose a LOT of weight, that he or she just might die this year, medications or not?

Of course, I am an optimist. I am, afraid, however, that most of the herd will look up from their food troughs only when the "man" quits putting food in front of them.

Add $1.00 per gallon tax, and, eliminate income taxes of any kind on the first $50,000 per person, inflation adjusted. That would change things in a hurry. Naw, won't happen unless the US really is confronted by those that want an alternative to the Dollar as world currency. So, I am hedging my bets.
__________________
Good read on relationship between increasing number of freeway lanes and traffic

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2014, 8:18 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Why? Why are cars and gasoline such a bad thing that what you're deceiving sounds like a good idea? You're starting from an assumption that gasoline automobiles are evil, which is not a starting point most people share, myself included. What is the problem you're trying to solve?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2014, 8:57 PM
kidboise's Avatar
kidboise kidboise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Why? Why are cars and gasoline such a bad thing that what you're deceiving sounds like a good idea? You're starting from an assumption that gasoline automobiles are evil, which is not a starting point most people share, myself included. What is the problem you're trying to solve?
I love cars. I read about them, know about them, and enjoying working on mine. But even I accept that internal gasoline combustion is NOT sustainable. For selfish and impractical reasons, I will be sad to see oil-burning personal vehicles eventually disappear, but they need to and they will. I beg you not to be so short-sighted as not to see that they rely on an infrastructure that is doomed, even on a relatively short timescale, such as 50-100 years.

You can either be upset, or find it interesting, that we are living in a time when we must begin (and have already begun) to plan for their replacement. But you cannot deny it. My advice would be to adjust your starting point.
__________________
"I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2014, 9:34 PM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidboise View Post
I love cars. I read about them, know about them, and enjoying working on mine. But even I accept that internal gasoline combustion is NOT sustainable. For selfish and impractical reasons, I will be sad to see oil-burning personal vehicles eventually disappear, but they need to and they will. I beg you not to be so short-sighted as not to see that they rely on an infrastructure that is doomed, even on a relatively short timescale, such as 50-100 years.

You can either be upset, or find it interesting, that we are living in a time when we must begin (and have already begun) to plan for their replacement. But you cannot deny it. My advice would be to adjust your starting point.
Whether or not they use gasoline, and whether or not we remain the driver, we will still have cars for well into the foreseeable future.
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2014, 10:28 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd View Post
Whether or not they use gasoline, and whether or not we remain the driver, we will still have cars for well into the foreseeable future.
This is true, but those are legitimately three vastly different questions. Saying we need to ween ourselves off gasoline is not mutually exclusive with saying cars are useful tools that we can and should continue to have. Nor is it mutually exclusive to say that we should try to reduce (not eliminate) our over-reliance on cars gradually over time.

I'd be surprised if anybody here fundamentally really disagreed with any of those concepts.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.