In California, Cars Drive You
Brian Doherty | September 21, 2006, 11:58am
California filed a lawsuit against the six largest automakers operating in the United States, contending that car and truck emissions are causing global warming, injuring the state's environment, economy and endangering public health.
Further down in that news report (from Washington Post via San Jose Mercury News site):
The complaint blames global warming for raising sea levels along the state's coastline, increasing ozone pollution in big cities, increasing the threat of wildfires and reducing the fresh water flowing from mountain snow packs.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer pegged current damages at ``tens of millions of dollars.'' He said the amount could grow as the lawsuit fight continues over time.
``Money is being spent in our regulatory system preparing for small disruptions in the water supply due to the smaller snow pack, saltwater intrusion of the water supply, beach erosion,'' Lockyer said in an interview Wednesday. ``There is a lot of spending that is already ongoing that we are claiming. The point is, taxpayers shouldn't pay for those damages, the industry should.''
Obviously, incredibly complicated questions of causation and blame are involved here (which, we can confidently predict, may or may not be handled with exquisite precision and justice as this lawsuit proceeds and the amount of cash involved, as Lockyer predicts, grows) but an early step along the path ought to be answering the question...who is driving the cars? As a California driver, I'm pretty sure it isn't any of the automakers currently being sued. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that the problems that Lockyer insists California taxpayers should not be paying for may--in some cases--be caused by California taxpayer themselves.
James Anderson Merritt | September 21, 2006, 1:10pm | #
As a lifelong resident of California, I am amazed (not to mention more than a little bit disgusted) that Mr. Lockyer decides to sue about this, while declining to lead the charge in defense of our own Prop. 215 medical marijuana initiative.
Lockyer's complaint alleges that California's millions of automobiles constitute a PUBLIC NUISANCE.
Has there ever been a case, in which something has been declared a PUBLIC NUISANCE, when it has been so pervasively, enthusiastically embraced by the public (despite the fact that less copiously emitting alternatives, such as public transit, exist)? This sounds like the rankest kind of doublespeak to me.
Lockyer's suit neglects to mention that we're not talking about rolling CO2 generators, here. These are conveyances, providing the important public good of transportation. Transportation provided by automotive vehicles helps California's economy be flexible and nimble, and directly creates to the wealth that is taxed to handle the consequences he cites. In other words, no public good comes without a price, and Mr. Lockyear is declaring that he wants to stick the car companies with much of that bill.
Did you know that two average cows produce as much CO2 in a year as one average car? The choices of beef-eating, dairy-consuming automobile drivers in CA are responsible for quite a bit of CO2 production, not to mention methane (a worse, yet lucikly less plentiful greenhouse gas). If Mr. Lockyer is successful in his suit against automobile manufacturers, will he next go after beef ranchers and dairy farmers? How about strict curbs on immigration and reproduction? After all, 20 people exhale as much CO2 in a year as the average car produces, and California's population is growing by leaps and bounds.
In the end, whatever CO2 balance exists does so because of the mere existence of millions of people, along with their lifestyle choices. This is a problem of "overpopulation" exacerbated by "lifestyle." If California doesn't address overpopulation and the lifestyle choices of Californians, it cannot hope to be effective in this matter; but if it DOES address overpopulation and the lifestyle choices of Californians, what is to distinguish it from, say, the government of China?
rob | September 21, 2006, 4:28pm | #
"No, smarter laws would be more appropriate since it was government regulation that created an economic incentive towards sprawl." - Neu
joe, is that you posting under a psudonym? Ok, probably not, but still...
Seriously, though, how are you going to get smarter laws when in a democracy people are allowed to vote in the gov't that creates an economic incentive towards sprawl? You know, that's what's going to happen when people naturally prefer to live somewhere other than downtown.
Loaded question #1: "However, think about what you have seen outside of downtowns – the congested roads and highways, the endless strip malls, the big box stores with their seas of parking lots, the never-ending rows of chain restaurants and fast-food joints (that are pretty much the same everywhere in the nation), and all those cookie-cutter subdivisions covering hills, valleys and once beautiful farmland. Is all of that 'wonderful?'"
It is for the people who enjoy living in these places that are so detested by people who think that living on top of one another is somehow closer to "man's natural state." Rural areas have less crime, I suspect, because the closer people live to one another the more they tend to be violent. (Animals will fight to the death for space. The less space the more they fight. I learend that from watching crawfish during 6th grade science class.)
Besides which, do you really think that an argument that bases itself on the idea that restricting economic freedom and forcing people to live in a hive-like apartment complex is going to win any fans on this forum?
"Right now business interests have too much freedom to make money from sprawl, including land developers, home builders, real estate agents, road builders, and chain stores and restaurants."
Here's the funny part, "For consumers, what the sprawl issue ultimately is all about is freedom – freedom to choose housing and a community that does not sap our time, heath and money."
Yeah, because people can't ALREADY choose to live in an apartment complex downtown. So what we REALLY need to do is LIMIT their ability to choose to live in the suburbs.
Bah.
The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2006, 5:18pm | #
Wow, Reason's server is ahead of schedule today, only three hours to get this posted. I actually wrote it when there was only one comment.
Hospers made the argument 30 years ago that it was appropriate to mandate smog controls on vehicles because the harm was measurable yet widely dispersed.
Yes, you could sue each driver individually, but like requiring mufflers, it is incredibly more cost effective to go to the source of the problem for remedy.
Many of my libertarian friends in other parts of the country say
screw that, your remedy is to move somewhere where the air is cleaner.
And, there is something to the argument that a gross polluter driving around Montana isn't doing much measurable harm whereas trillions of gross polluters driving I-5 every day are choking us all.
Fact is, pollution from vehicles in Ca is 25% of what it was in the bad old days.
Now, to the problem at hand, California is way out to lunch on this lawsuit (on any number of levels) and, as Brian points out, if the idiots in Ca government want to be consistent, then, let's just make it illegal to drive cars here. Batta Bing, problem solved.
rob | September 21, 2006, 5:32pm | #
"I said nothing about forcing people to live in high density urban neighborhoods." - Neu
Except for the stated desire to change legislation to discourage it.
"I would posit that smarter land-use laws would require those living in the suburbs to pay their own way rather than relying on economic subsidies from the population centers (paying for the roads to their community via tolls would be an example)." - Neu
There are compelling arguments that this is simply false: http://americandreamcoalition.org/automyths.html
"The Subsidy Myth: Autos are popular only because they receive huge government subsidies
Reality: More than 90 percent of highway costs have been paid by highway user fees.
The federal and state governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on highways in the last fifty to eighty years. Auto opponents often label this spending "subsidies" and claim that it justifies spending more billions on public transit. But the vast majority of spending on highways has come out of gasoline taxes and other taxes and fees that are explicitly collected as highway user fees.
During the 1990s, highway user fees equaled or exceeded highway spending by both the federal and state governments. Local governments did spend more on roads than they collected in user fees. When everything is totaled, however, user fees account for more than 90 percent of highway expenditures. Moreover, American roads are so heavily used that the remaining subsidy is tiny when measured per vehicle mile or passenger mile. The subsidy per passenger mile is typically around 0.1 to 0.3 cents each. By comparison, transit subsidies average 45 cents per passenger mile, 150 to 450 times as much. For the past thirty years, U.S. subsidies to transit have far exceeded subsidies to auto driving, especially when it is considered that, unlike transit, highways also carry nearly a trillion ton-miles of freight each year. If there are any imbalances in transportation funding, then they are tilted in the direction of transit, not roads."
"Also getting rid of zoning rules that force developers to provide parking spaces for those that choose to live too far from work to walk/bike would put a more realistic market price on parking spaces. There are lots of ways rules can be improved in this area." - Neu
Right. Because there are employers out there whose required skill pool is so small that they can afford to hire only the people who live within walking distance of their place of employment. While this might fit your ideal world of company town-style housing in the inner city, I'm willing to bet that corporations would rather build a parking lot than only hire people who live within a 15-minute walk/bike from work. I'm sure that would work great if everyone who worked at that business was also between the ages of 18-40, and suffered no physical disabilities that would prevent them from travelling under their own power. Tell that to my co-worker who drives to work because if he travelled via WHEELCHAIR he'd spend more time commuting than working and sleeping combined. What utopian BS have you succumbed to in which everyone is capable of shuttling to and from work under their own power?
"So, here is a market question for you. Why does it cost more to buy/rent a house in a big city than in the suburbs? Isn't that a market saying that the city offers value the suburbs can't equal?"
No. You first. Based on your iron grip on what economics, subsidies, zoning and legislation can and cannot accomplish, I can't wait to hear your rationale.
Neu Mejican | September 21, 2006, 5:48pm | #
Rob,
You so touchy...
User fees pay for 90% = 10% break to users.
As for the employee pool argument (and the handicapped) that's just not the issue you make it to be. People will get to the job if they need it/want it...Employers will buy parking spaces for their employees if needed. Current rules in many many cities REQUIRE them to spend the money on parking. Who is the libertarian here?
Here are some words from people who put more energy into this than I do...
"Sustainable transportation requires designing communities around people, not cars: rethinking land use so that we needn't travel so much. This in turn requires an end-use/least-cost policy framework, where the desired end use is not mobility per se but access—to jobs, goods, services, and recreation. Such policies should foster fair competition between all modes of access, including those that displace the need for physical mobility, such as already being where you want to be.
Creative public-policy instruments can introduce market mechanisms to a transportation system long crippled by lopsided subsidies and top-down central planning. Most developing countries are following that bad example. But needed innovations are starting to emerge: ways to make parking and driving bear their true costs, improve competing modes, and substitute sensible land-use for physical mobility.
Urban congestion is largely caused by the overprovision of apparently free downtown roads and parking. There are two kinds of roads and parking: tax-support and user-supported. There are no free roads and parking. Pretending that there are creates a fantasy-world of destructively irrational behavior.
All around us rises a tide of insupportable costs caused directly by the failure to charge motorists the true price of their driving. The obligations of building and maintaining roads and other auto infrastructure are causing tax revolts in sprawl-ridden communities and squeezing the availability of private capital.
The link between traffic and parking is less obvious but no less important, most of all in the United States. A third of all U.S. household road mileage is for commuting to work, where employees usually park free in spaces requiring up to several times the square footage of their office space—a hidden but powerful subsidy to driving. Similarly, most American building regulations require developers to provide as much parking for each shop, office, or apartment as people would demand if parking were free. This daft rule diverts investment from buildings into parking spaces, directly contributing to shortages of affordable housing.
Yet "congestion pricing" for road use does work, as Singapore's daily user fees demonstrate. Such fees not only discourage driving, but also raise money to pay for the mass transit that must obviously be provided as an alternative. Federal legislation in the United States known as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is beginning to enable public funds to be diverted from road-building to mass transit based on least-cost analyses.
Initiatives by California's South Coast Air Quality Management District and other jurisdictions may soon introduce fair competition to office parking, requiring (for example) employers to charge fair market value for parking and pay every employee a commuting allowance of equal after-tax value.
Physical redesign can augment proper pricing. Zoning and land-use planning can provide comprehensive market-based incentives to reward co-location of housing, jobs, and shopping. From Europe to Australia, "traffic calming"—slowing cars with narrow streets set with trees and planters—is emerging as an effective art for discouraging driving and reclaiming neighborhoods. Converting existing highway lanes to high-occupancy-vehicle lanes is one of many incentives for moving the same people in fewer cars.
Other policies could help rebalance the economics of driving and access. Mortgage and tax rules can be changed to encourage people to live closer to where they work: "location-efficient mortgages," which qualify buyers for more debt if they don't have to commute as far, are already being tested by Fannie Mae. A program being promoted (so far unsuccessfully) in California would create "pay-at-the-pump" car insurance; making it work would be complicated, but essentially it would ensure universal insurance coverage and at the same time make the true cost of driving more apparent.
Such simple concepts of signaling honest prices and maximizing competition can be elaborated. Electric and water utilities are already starting to make markets in "negawatts" and "negagallons": making saved resources into fungible commodities subject to competitive bidding, arbitrage, futures, options, secondary markets, etc. If it's cheaper to save the resource than to supply it, entrepreneurs can thereby be rewarded for doing the cheapest thing first. Why not similarly make markets in "negamiles" and "negatrips"? Then we could discover what it's worth to pay people to stay off the roads so we needn't build and mend them so much. If people could make money from ways to get access that are socially cheaper than driving cars, wouldn't we all drive a lot less?"
rob | September 21, 2006, 6:12pm | #
"User fees pay for 90% = 10% break to users." - Neu
No argument that there is a 10% break to users, IF you'll posit that considering how much is being paid by the users for auto property taxes, licensing fees, and emissions testing by the average taxpayer, it makes a 10% kickback look like highway robbery. Literally.
Compared to the subsidies already being paid for public transit? Whew!
And yet... the users are willing to pay all of this exorbitant nonsense because the benefit of owning a vehicle STILL outweighs the cost increased by the boondoggle you're referring to. And that doesn't even REMOTELY take into consideration the parking fines and traffic tickets that have become the life blood of many municipal organizations.
"As for the employee pool argument (and the handicapped) that's just not the issue you make it to be."
If you say so, it must be true. But I'd like to see some evidence that everyone you need to hire you can hire within walking/biking distance.
"People will get to the job if they need it/want it..."
Your compassion for the elderly and handicapped is overwhelming. In your world we'd chuck those people down the drain to support your anti-car utopia, kind of like Logan's Run, right?
"Current rules in many many cities REQUIRE them to spend the money on parking. Who is the libertarian here?"
Ok, reality check. I don't support zoning. Why would I support a zoning law that forces an employer to build parking? But since we're both anti-zoning, it pretty well defeats your argument that we should create zoning laws that are "automobile-hostile." Maybe I'm not the purest anarcho-libertarian in the world, but I can definitely tell that YOU are not the libertarian in this dialogue.
rob | September 22, 2006, 11:02am | #
"You think in NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc. that mass transportation would deteriorate if the gov't got out of it. People would decide within three years that their 3 to 4 hour commute is so much more pleasant than their hour train ride because they are in their own car! Juh?" -high number
No, you must have mis-read the bit you quoted. Mega-cities like Boston, NY, etc. I believe would still have public transit. There are enough people, enough density, and enough time & financial incentive for those lines to function at a profit. But to export that model elsewhere where it will be a subsidized drain on the tax base is a bad idea.
"I never claimed that. Read again. I said people and employers would work that out." - Neu
And how do you think they'd go about that? You don't even have a suggestion for how that would go other than to make it auto-hostile.
"When did I advocate automobile hostile laws? I said get rid of rules that encourage automobile usage. That is a far different position." - Neu
You won't admit that this is what you want, but that's essentially what it boils down to. Your desired result is less private transportation. I can guarantee you that removing the relatively minor subsidies to highways is not going to achieve that.
Look, if I mis-read your position, my bad. What rules would you like to change and how would you like them changed?
"As for the market taking care of the automobile/public transportation debate...public transportation will only win in areas with enough traffic density for it to make sense." - Neu
I agree with you.
"This would include transportation to and from suburbs to those high density areas where most people from the suburbs work (e.g., park and ride)." - Neu
If the high density area is auto-hostile enough, yes. If not, then probably not. But people will still want to live in the 'burbs rather than downtown.
"But if those commuting from the suburbs had to choose between paying the full cost of building and maintaining a hiway to their suburb, and building and maintaining an commuter rail service...some would choose trains." - Neu
Some people would choose apples. Some would choose oranges. Others MIGHT even choose grapefruit. This isn't a point that can be debated, because given a big enough group some people will ALWAYS choose a minority position. But I doubt that if downtown areas are auto-friendly people would choose public transit.
"But they can only base that decision on the real costs if we change the current rules. " - Neu
Ok, let's remove all subsidies from public transit and see which collapses in on itself first. As a percentage of operating cost, public transit gets far more in subsidies, though, so I don't think this is going to go where you'd like it to.
While I agree that gov't intervention is bad and I'm for privatization of both highways and public transit (which would make it mass transit), the level of subsidies being routed to public transportation as a percentage of total overall value is overwhelmingly in favor of public transit. And yet, public transit ONLY works at a profit to and from (and in) extremely high-density areas where it is time and money-prohibitive to travel privately.
"As for the cost of parking and traffic tickets: take some driving lessons and those go to Zero dollars." - Neu
No, they don't. Because driving is like playing the lottery, eventually you will get a ticket - the incentive for tax collectors, er, I mean traffic enforcement officers to meet their quotas is too strong. Couple that with a nearly 100% conviction rate? It's essentially a taxation lottery system. But that's a beef I have with the way gov't does business, not of private transportation.
"I am not a libertarian." - Neu
No kidding. Really? (Sorry, my sarcastic streak gets the better of me occasionally.)
rob | September 22, 2006, 5:43pm | #
"You claimed, apparently, that mass transit in those cities would be 'seriously limited' if gov't didn't prop up the systems." - high number
Uh, no. What part of what I said here doesn't make sense to you: "Mega-cities like Boston, NY, etc. I believe would still have public transit. There are enough people, enough density, and enough time & financial incentive for those lines to function at a profit. But to export that model elsewhere where it will be a subsidized drain on the tax base is a bad idea."
Maybe you're confused by the idea that public transit, once privatized into actual mass transit, might be forced to shut down lines that don't operate at a profit? Hence a line that no one actually rides would go away and ones that actually go places it doesn't currently go to might be introduced based on demand.
Since there seem to be plenty of near-empty busses, I think it more likely that lines will go away than that lines will multiply (especially for lines that were political boondoggles to begin with), particularly when you consider that even with gov't subsidization most mass transit systems operate in the red rather than the black. That's basic business sense.
(My personal lexicon might be confusing you... Public transit = inefficient, gov't system subject to political whims rather than market needs. Mass transit = privatized for-profit system that operates according to supply and demand.)
"These commmuters would rather have a traffic free trip on a consistent timetable with 30-45 minutes of free time. Metra ain't going anywhere if the state privatizes it (which they should)." - high number
Like I said, as long it's auto-hostile enough, that's definitely the case. Downtown areas in major cities tend to be that way. Other, smaller cities, not so much...
rob | September 22, 2006, 7:00pm | #
"Given that in the USA both roads and public transit systems are supported by your money, wouldn't you want that money to be spent on the system that gives you the best bang for the buck" - Neu
Actually, I'm willing to pay for the freedom to go where I want, when I want. Without standing in a snowdrift waiting for a bus. However, if I have to choose between subsidizing something I don't use and something I do use, then I selfishly choose the highway system.
Regarding your transit subsidy #'s: If transit ISN'T highly subsidized, it can do without that subsidy, right? Why not take the high ground and do it privately, then? You'd have my support - to the point that I'd start screaming loudly about how wrong highway subsidies are!
"That efficiency can be greatly enhanced by having local regulation regarding development maximized to support public transit options over the more costly road construction." - Neu
I knew eventually you'd get around to advocating auto-hostile regulation and development. Sigh...
"Advocate the government doing nothing if you want." - Neu
I do. All the time!
"But given the fact that they are going to be involved in transportation, why wouldn't you support them doing it in the smartest way possible?" - Neu
I think the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest amount of people is a pretty good way to go.
"Requiring parking spaces moves this congestion off of the public roads. In this way, the requirement is a subsidy to the public road system, off loading some of the captial investment needed to the private land developers." - Neu
Let me see if I've got this right... It's a subsidy for the highway system for a business to build a private parking lot to encourage people to shop there? I think your definition of subsidy needs work. In fact, a zoning regulation requiring this seems to be a means of ensuring that public gov't DOESN'T subsidize their business... It's like "Through The Looking Glass" in here all of a sudden.
"Are you telling me that I am wrong in interpreting your words to mean that you believe that without public monies mass transit in even the densest population centers would be 'seriously limited'"? - high number
Yep. One last time: I think that in the hypothetical presented, the political boondoggle lines will go away as will any others that are not profitable. The remaining lines would be those that are capable of making a profit. I'm pretty certain, given my experience of sitting in traffic next to empty busses, that many lines would go away. At the very least the schedule for those lines would be adapted to target peak times for riders rather than just peak traffic. What about my saying this is so confusing to you?
"I think you need to take a deep breath, re-read what you have written on this page, and then forget all of it and move on." - high number
Wow. You TOTALLY got me there. You're right. I'm TOTALLY through for the week, and I'm heading home - sadly, I will not be utilizing privatized mass transit because only subsidized public transit is available and I don't have enough political pull to get a bus route past my house in the sticks yet.
rob | September 22, 2006, 7:06pm | #
Forgot to link to this for Neu:
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/econ/highway_subsidy.html
It talks in-depth about the very question of subsidies:
"If one searches the Internet for the answer to the question of highway subsidy, one finds a number of sites that claim that there is high subsidy for highways. The implication of this is that since highways are heavily subsidized, it's OK to also subsidize other modes of transportation such as mass transit and Amtrak. The fallacy of such reasoning is that one wrong doesn't justify another (or two wrongs don't make a right). If highways are subsidized and this subsidy is wrong, it doesn't justify subsidy to other modes of transportation which may also be wrong."
And a quick poke at the Utah "model":
http://www.rppi.org/utahtransit.shtml
"In truth, cities across the nation have been building rail lines they know to be cost-ineffective, and this is due in large part to generous federal subsidies that shift costs away from local communities and towards the nation as a whole.
Left to their own devices, municipalities have greater incentive to find cost-effective transit solutions, rather than simply following the latest transit trend endorsed by the Sierra Club.
It is indeed true that UTA will lose money because of this proposal, just like virtually every other transit agency across the country. However, it will become a better, leaner transit agency as a result.
Ultimately, then, this issue boils down to is a simple maxim: Fairness is not the same as equality. Giving equal funding to transportation projects that yield unequal results is grossly unfair to taxpayers. It isn’t fair to the people of Utah who have often been maligned by federal land grabs and generally ignored in Washington."
Neu Mejican | September 22, 2006, 7:41pm | #
Rob,
That is an informative link, but seems to say, as far as I read it, that roads are subsidized currently. What it neglects is the economic impact on the community. The benefit per dollar for funds spent on public transit is larger than that spent on the roads. In otherwords, since the driver benefits from the public transit dollar, you shouldn't deduct that from the subsidy for roads. The reverse case doesn't work. More money for roads does not benefit the public transit system and does not have a greater benefit to the land owner than the public transit system would.
Like I said before. Your impression that there is equivalent public financial support for the two models is not supported by facts.
"I knew eventually you'd get around to advocating auto-hostile regulation and development. Sigh..."
You have a stange way of viewing my statements. I am not advocating auto-hostile regulations. I advocate getting rid of the current regime which is auto-centric. Let us say I advocate getting rid of the current pedestrian-hostile model, but I do not advocate making the new system auto-hostile.
Taking away favors is not the same as limiting freedom. You seem unable to see the difference. You want the freedom to use a private vehicle on my dime. I say I would rather spend that dime on something that is more efficient for a larger number of people. . . again I ask how you seem to think you are the libertarian here.
http://www.rep.org/opinions/op-eds/6.html
You rely on a model which does not take into account all the costs on the community that result from a car-centric regulatory regime. The society within which the transportation system is embedded is complex. If and when top-down decisions are made, they should be made in ways that maximize benefits across systems (transportation and other systems). No modern transportation system would make sense without a role for automobiles. But placing the automobile at the center transportation system is not the most efficient way to move people around our country.
http://www.walkablestreets.com/transit.htm
We will continue to disagree on this, I believe.
I hope you take the time to read further on the topic so that your opinion is informed by data from multiple perspectives.
rob | September 26, 2006, 4:14pm | #
"You have a stange way of viewing my statements." - Neu
Ditto.
"Let us say I advocate getting rid of the current pedestrian-hostile model, but I do not advocate making the new system auto-hostile." - Neu
Fair enough, then we agree. Unless I'm misunderstanding your earlier posts, your answer is to change the levels of subsidies. I'd like to see subsidies cut out for both mass transit and private transportation. My approach is actually fair, yours (as I read it from above) seems more like a re-allocation of subsidies.
"Taking away favors is not the same as limiting freedom. You seem unable to see the difference." - Neu
I agree with the first sentence. The second is your opinion, and not accurate in my opinion.
"You want the freedom to use a private vehicle on my dime." - Neu
Anything but! I say eliminate subsidies period!
"I say I would rather spend that dime on something that is more efficient for a larger number of people. . . again I ask how you seem to think you are the libertarian here." - Neu
Because I'm the guy who has never met a subsidy he liked.
"You rely on a model which does not take into account all the costs on the community that result from a car-centric regulatory regime. The society within which the transportation system is embedded is complex." - Neu
I don't think it's all that complex, frankly. I think that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors that are intended to make it SEEM complex, but the reality is that if you remove subsidization and let the free market handle it, it becomes VERY simple.
"If and when top-down decisions are made, they should be made in ways that maximize benefits across systems (transportation and other systems)..." - Neu
That's just trying to make it SOUND complex. Logistics is not that complicated a field, though accomplishing it well can be a minor miracle.
"But placing the automobile at the center transportation system is not the most efficient way to move people around our country." - Neu
I'm willing to cut all subsidies to private and mass transit and see what would happen. Are you? If so, then we have total agreement on this subject.
"Maybe I'm dense, but I think I figured it out:
You are putting me on." - hn
No, you're just dense.
"Even within your own statements, logic seems to take a vacation. " - hn
Just because it seems counter-intuitive to you doesn't mean that it's my logic that is faulty.
"Example: 'At the very least the schedule for those lines would be adapted to target peak times for riders rather than just peak traffic.' "Cleverly, you follow that up with a question: 'What about my saying this is so confusing to you?'""
Ok, let me spell it out: because peak times for mass transit riders and peak times for car traffic are NOT always the same. Often, they are. But when they're not, why add an empty bus to the traffic snarl? Again, what about this doesn't make sense to you? I await what will surely be, this time, a vastly more clever response to my question.
"By the way, the name is not 'high number.'
It is 'highnumber.'" - highnumber
Petty much? DUDE, it's not even your REAL NAME. It's not like your name is Buddy and I keep calling you Bubba. It's ONE SPACE. Sheesh.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
