4 ms·

The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For in

The conclusion is total bunk, and you can only reach it by selecting which externalities you want to measure, and which externalities you want to ignore. For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You also have to ignore the externalities that the non-car-owners benefit from. If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners (unless they’re living in the woods or something).

rtlfe 5y ago
> For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
  - rtlfe 5y ago
    > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
    - AmericanChopper 5y ago
      As I said: > If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners I can, and frequently do, walk to my nearest supermarket. But I know for a fact that if cars disappeared for a day then it would be unable to open its doors. These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. I live 9 miles away from my office though, so that would be a lot more difficult. > In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home I’m sure if you wanted to undo 80+ years of economic development, we’d be able to recreate that society… that economic development is of course one of the positive externalities you’re choosing to ignore. So if this is your agenda, I’d suggest you try to figure out how catastrophically devastating that would be for the economy first.
      - rtlfe 5y ago
        > These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. That's completely backward. Here are two different takes on how cities subsidize suburbs and rural areas. https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-cities/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-c... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
        AmericanChopper 5y ago
        That’s really a completely different topic. I’m talking about the positive economic externalities of private vehicle ownership. Those massively beneficial externalities exist for cities whether rural areas exist or not. Any analysis of the externalities of vehicle ownership is simply agenda-driven nonsense if it doesn’t account for that.
        thanatos519 5y ago
        The agenda is not manufacturing more vehicles than we need. Those privately-owned vehicles are idle most of the time. In rural areas, if you need a ride, book it in advance and it will arrive 5 minutes before you need it. In the city, walk 2 minutes to the nearest vehicle, and drive it to your home if you need to pick something up. Public transit should include automobiles.
  - wasmitnetzen 5y ago
    You ignore bikes and usable public transport, which a lot of places in the world have.

rtlfe 5y ago

> For instance the fact that a car owner can travel large distances to work or spend money any time they like is a massively beneficial externality. You shouldn't have to travel long distances to do those things. This is only considered normal in the US because so much was built specifically for the convenience of drivers.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
It takes 10 minutes to drive 5 miles at 30mph, walking that same distance would take a typical person about 90 minutes. 5 miles is a large distance and wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world.
- rtlfe 5y ago
  > wanting to go somewhere that’s 5 miles away is normal for any place in the world In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home, and if your job is farther you can ride a train. Edit - For people familiar with the NYC region, here's a 5 miles radius from midtown. https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo https://imgur.com/a/cfIqOvo This is an enormous area, and my rough guess is that 4 million people live in that circle.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    As I said: > If somebody has managed to situate themselves in an ideal location for them specifically to live without a car, then they almost certainly only managed to do that by benefitting from the positive externalities created by car owners I can, and frequently do, walk to my nearest supermarket. But I know for a fact that if cars disappeared for a day then it would be unable to open its doors. These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. I live 9 miles away from my office though, so that would be a lot more difficult. > In pretty much any pre-car city you can get everything you need on a daily basis within a 10 minute walk from home I’m sure if you wanted to undo 80+ years of economic development, we’d be able to recreate that society… that economic development is of course one of the positive externalities you’re choosing to ignore. So if this is your agenda, I’d suggest you try to figure out how catastrophically devastating that would be for the economy first.
    - rtlfe 5y ago
      > These small areas of hyper-convenience don’t exist without cars. That's completely backward. Here are two different takes on how cities subsidize suburbs and rural areas. https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-cities/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-c... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
      - AmericanChopper 5y ago
        That’s really a completely different topic. I’m talking about the positive economic externalities of private vehicle ownership. Those massively beneficial externalities exist for cities whether rural areas exist or not. Any analysis of the externalities of vehicle ownership is simply agenda-driven nonsense if it doesn’t account for that.
        thanatos519 5y ago
        The agenda is not manufacturing more vehicles than we need. Those privately-owned vehicles are idle most of the time. In rural areas, if you need a ride, book it in advance and it will arrive 5 minutes before you need it. In the city, walk 2 minutes to the nearest vehicle, and drive it to your home if you need to pick something up. Public transit should include automobiles.
- wasmitnetzen 5y ago
  You ignore bikes and usable public transport, which a lot of places in the world have.