Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: An Argument for Fee-based Roads (long)

Expand Messages
  • Jym Dyer
    ... =v= By Stanley Hart, who s got lots of experience and expertise in accounting for the hidden subsidies of car transportation. He was the one who calculated
    Message 1 of 40 , Apr 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > A few months ago the book "The Elephant in the Bedroom" was
      > mentioned on this list. I recommend it as an economically-
      > and even mildly libertarian- (how's that for a reversal?)
      > oriented book on autos and sprawl.

      =v= By Stanley Hart, who's got lots of experience and expertise
      in accounting for the hidden subsidies of car transportation.
      He was the one who calculated the substantial parts of the
      budgets of police, fire, and emergency medical teams that cars
      require.

      =v= A friend of mine read this book and immediately put it to
      work on the parking situation in our city, pointing out that the
      market rate for parking downtown is $14/day, so all the free
      and even metered street parking ought to be raised to that rate.
      (Though even $14/day is subsidized because of wrong-headed tax
      incentives to encourage off-street parking!)

      =v= I would advise against adhering to the so-called libertarian
      approach, since they have a persistent blind spot in that they
      hold economic forces as laws of nature even above and beyond the
      actual laws of nature. Ecological processes are ignored because
      economics ignores them (as "externalities"). Even when you put
      things in terms of "property rights," which is the the primary
      obsession of so-called libertarians, their answer is to try to
      adapt the loopier tenets of their ideology to it.

      >> The standard argument is that buses can be re-routed as
      >> demand changes.
      > The rebuttal to this, as I understand it, is that fixed
      > systems inspire long-term confidence; people move towards
      > trolley stops.

      =v= Underlying both of these is the question of what underlies
      a change in demand. A transportation infrastructure designed to
      accommodate a change works to *expedite* such change, and as far
      as I can tell the primary reasons for such changes are corrupt
      and do not benefit people living in cities.

      =v= The transportation infrastructure that municipal buses use
      are generally designed on the premise that people will use cars.
      The buses are just a retrofit.

      > Also, there is some (unknown, at least to me) psychological
      > element: people like trains and ride them, but dislike buses
      > and avoid them.

      =v= Trains are generally smoother and thus more comfortable.
      <_Jym_>
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... I m with you up to this point. ... We ve had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to decide right now never to build another one of
      Message 40 of 40 , Apr 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Louis-Luc said:

        >It's relative...
        >Knowing there is an environment spoiled with cars, and
        >an underground city filled with life (Montreal Underground Network), I
        >prefer the subway way over the
        >bus, because you can ride it and walk through the underground city for hours
        >(or repetedly for days), without knowing cars even exist.
        >
        >However, in a city with no car, or where car drivers yield to human-powered
        >traffic both in theory and 100% in practice, then streetcars or buses become
        >much more attractive, because you don't have the stress of walking through
        >car traffic when you ride them and walk in the city.

        I'm with you up to this point.

        >The ideal is a monorail:
        >- it runs in the air (over street level) NONONONONONO!!!!!
        >- it frees the street for human uses true
        >- when you ride it, you see outdoors, true, but not at eye-level
        >but I think it's more vulnerable to the weather than a metro. probably so

        We've had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to
        decide right now never to build another one of the damn things. It's
        true that newer technology is better in this respect than older stuff,
        but it will never be acceptable. (Well, ok, some breakthrough in materials
        that allowed the construction of spider-web thin supports for the tracks
        (or whatever) might change the picture somewhat, but it still is not
        the right way to do it. If you need above-ground transport, trams are
        the way to go. If there's too much traffic from the trams to be acceptable,
        then you HAVE to build a metro, no matter what the cost. If there's that
        much traffic, the cost is not unreasonable (per rider).)



        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... Carfree.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.