5 ms·

Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. Instead, they adopt anti-car policies to force people to behave

Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. Instead, they adopt anti-car policies to force people to behave like they want them to. See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? Could it be that people value the freedom and privacy of having a car and living in the suburbs? Of living in quiet suburbs free of street crime and roving gangs of ne’er-do-wells? Of being free from the inherent restrictions to freedom that come with being in closer proximity to others?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field The idea that they should do so badly misses the entire justification for a public service. > If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? The main reason to have a public service rather than a private one provided by the free market is to address an externality (either of benefit with the public service or of harm with the private service it displaces.) Competing with the private service on a level playing field is, in that case, contrary to the purpose of having a public service.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jcranmer 8y ago
> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. You're right. We need to insist that drivers pay as much for their privilege to use public roads as we insist that public transit users pay to use public transit. > See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. Oh. You want the government to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle even more than it does so. SOV cars have very large demands on space, and in urban settings, space is at a premium. Free parking, or even mandatory parking minimums, are essentially taxing everyone for the benefit of drivers. The normal "user fees" for roads--gas taxes and car taxes--simply do not cover the actual costs even of maintenance for roads, let alone the capital costs of expanding them. This means that those funds come from general revenue, again causing everyone to subsidize drivers, whether or not they actually use them.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  I see your point, and it’s a very valid observation. But I think it’s different when the overwhelming majority of people want cars and want to live in the suburbs. Organizing public goods to serve the collective desires of the vast majority is different than socially engineering society by forcing them to abandon their preferred way of life because a powerful minority thinks it’s backwards and unenlightened.
  - ocschwar 8y ago
    People might "want cars and want to live in the suburbs." That does not mean that my city should be torn apart with freeways to accommodate them.
  - francisofascii 8y ago
    Maybe you are right, but I would challenge the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people want cars and want to live in the suburbs. Many lament having to live there, but have little choice due to factors such as cost, schools, crime, etc. It is interesting to see how many American's choose for vacation, a high density hotel, condos, cruises, etc. Maybe Americans prefer living in villages and higher density communities more than people realize.
francisofascii 8y ago
In the US we have the opposite. The pro-car policies have "forced people to behave like they want them to." Most Americans live in sprawling areas where people are forced to have to buy cars to do normal activities like getting to work, but groceries, or get their children to school. People are no longer free to walk and bike where they choose due to speeding traffic and highways everywhere.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field The idea that they should do so badly misses the entire justification for a public service. > If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? The main reason to have a public service rather than a private one provided by the free market is to address an externality (either of benefit with the public service or of harm with the private service it displaces.) Competing with the private service on a level playing field is, in that case, contrary to the purpose of having a public service.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jcranmer 8y ago

> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. You're right. We need to insist that drivers pay as much for their privilege to use public roads as we insist that public transit users pay to use public transit. > See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. Oh. You want the government to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle even more than it does so. SOV cars have very large demands on space, and in urban settings, space is at a premium. Free parking, or even mandatory parking minimums, are essentially taxing everyone for the benefit of drivers. The normal "user fees" for roads--gas taxes and car taxes--simply do not cover the actual costs even of maintenance for roads, let alone the capital costs of expanding them. This means that those funds come from general revenue, again causing everyone to subsidize drivers, whether or not they actually use them.

marcoperaza 8y ago
I see your point, and it’s a very valid observation. But I think it’s different when the overwhelming majority of people want cars and want to live in the suburbs. Organizing public goods to serve the collective desires of the vast majority is different than socially engineering society by forcing them to abandon their preferred way of life because a powerful minority thinks it’s backwards and unenlightened.
- ocschwar 8y ago
  People might "want cars and want to live in the suburbs." That does not mean that my city should be torn apart with freeways to accommodate them.
- francisofascii 8y ago
  Maybe you are right, but I would challenge the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people want cars and want to live in the suburbs. Many lament having to live there, but have little choice due to factors such as cost, schools, crime, etc. It is interesting to see how many American's choose for vacation, a high density hotel, condos, cruises, etc. Maybe Americans prefer living in villages and higher density communities more than people realize.

francisofascii 8y ago

In the US we have the opposite. The pro-car policies have "forced people to behave like they want them to." Most Americans live in sprawling areas where people are forced to have to buy cars to do normal activities like getting to work, but groceries, or get their children to school. People are no longer free to walk and bike where they choose due to speeding traffic and highways everywhere.