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

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

Expand Messages
  • Robert Hines
    ... I m a first year student, so could you clear something up for me before I give opinions based on confusion. When you are talking about sunk costs, you mean
    Message 1 of 40 , Apr 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > What's wrong with your argument? It assumes that sunk costs should be
      > paid for in the exact same way that marginal costs are paid for. And
      > in fact they shouldn't because they can't.

      I'm a first year student, so could you clear something up for me before
      I give opinions based on confusion. When you are talking about sunk
      costs, you mean fixed costs for the initial infrastructure? And marginal
      costs derived only from the portion of variable costs, not total costs,
      used to provide service for one customer? From my understanding of what
      marginal costs are, they include both fixed and variable costs.

      Rob Hines
      108814008
      robhines@...
      100 Riverdale Drive
      Sydney NS B1R 1P4
      Canada
    • 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.