6 ms·

I don't understand why you make the claims that you do. Why is it bad that people are "less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway"? Is

I don't understand why you make the claims that you do. Why is it bad that people are "less likely to use the state of the art elevated train and subway"? Is it because they're "state of the art"? That hardly seems compelling. Is it because the train and subway are faster or cheaper? Sounds like they're not, otherwise more people would take them. Why is train and subway usage important if no one wants to use them? It sounds like you're advocating forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and I don't understand why you're advocating that.

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the city needs. The trains are faster in many cases (provided you're starting / ending close the line) but they're not cheaper. Making cabs more expensive would change this. Take a look at what Singapore does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing to keep cars off the road. It might seem a bit draconian but it's effective.
- blake8086 14y ago
  Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? It sounds like the city has as many cars on the road as the city wants to have. If the trains aren't cheaper, why should that be the cars' problem? Why not make the trains a better alternative instead of making cars worse? Why would you advocate something that "seems draconian" to you?
  - yread 14y ago
    Pollution? Safety? Things that unregulated free market isn't all that good at handling.
  - mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
    Pretty clear case of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The shared resource in this case is traffic capacity. It's proved ineffective to regulate traffic by making cars expensive in this market. That's because cars are not profit centers for people -- they give mostly intangible benefits (increased comfort, status, etc). Taxis on the other hand are cars that are used for profit and therefore will respond efficiently to regulation (if that regulation increases capital or operating costs).
    - thaumasiotes 14y ago
      In a classic tragedy of the commons, you might have a common field, on which sheep graze. Everyone takes their sheep there, the sheep deplete the grass, and after this process has been in place for a while, the total capacity of the common field to support sheep is lower than it might be otherwise. That diminished level of sheep capacity is the "tragedy". What's your model here? That if there were fewer cars on the roads of Bangkok, it would be able to support more cars? What would there be more of, in total, if you confiscated a bunch of people's cars? Would you advocate banning most people from a popular public beach on the grounds of overcrowding? Would you justify that as preventing a "tragedy of the commons"?
      - Kliment 14y ago
        More fresh air. Less dust. Less noise. Shorter transport times for everyone. Congested traffic makes everyone's trip longer and less convenient. Any individual gains from using a car as opposed to not using a car as long as the traffic is not congested. Too many individuals doing what personally benefits them make it worse for everyone. This is the definition of tragedy of the commons. In the sheep example, every shepherd benefits from using the field, but if too many sheep use the field, it's ruined and noone can use it. Same with congested traffic.
      - Arelius 14y ago
        I couldn't say for sure since I haven't studied it properly, but I think due to traffic, at some point we have a lower capacity to move people in a timely fashion. So perhaps the thing that there could be more of, in total, is "amount of people moved per unit time". Again, I just hopped into here, and haven't much evidence to back that up, but it's the sort of thing that seems likely.
        mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
        Yeah it's called a traffic jam. As the total number of cars on the road per unit of distance increases, the speed at which those cars can travel decreases. It's not linear of course but, well, I think you get the picture.
  - grey-area 14y ago
    Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? If you'd ever been to Bangkok you'd know why it needs fewer cars. Pollution is terrible, and traffic is appalling - often a journey which should take 20 minutes takes hours, and safety standards are very low - the most popular form of taxi is a pick-up truck with bench seats in the back which is really unsafe in the event of an accident. They desperately need to encourage more public transport and get rid of some of the cars/trucks on the road to prevent rush-hour gridlock and massive pollution. The easiest way to clear up the roads for public transport is to make driving more expensive and use some of that money for improvements in the public infrastructure. I doubt they'll ever do it, but they could do worse than follow the example of London with a congestion charge for central areas, and use the money to subsidise public transport, which is underused at present (because the train is so expensive, and the buses are so slow due to all the other traffic).
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Huh? The most popular form of taxi in Bangkok is a typical sedan. The Songthaews are more like mini-busses and actually are a pretty affordable form of private small-scale mass transit. They definitely aren't safe, but without them most of the poorer folks in Thailand would be screwed. Driving is already fairly expensive in Thailand: cars and gas are both pretty expensive. Taxis in Bangkok are much more expensive than they are where I live (tourist areas are even worse with their taxi mafias). Bangkok already has a public transportation system that is much better than other cities in the area (barring Singapore), they aren't doing that poorly.
      - grey-area 14y ago
        Yes, there is a mix of taxis and probably the cars outnumber trucks (depends what you're doing, if it's long distance you wouldn't want to take a taxi because of cost, and I guess they have tuk tuks too). Neither are great because of the traffic and pollution caused by all the other road users. So Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which needs more taxis, as if you want to go any distance at rush hour they are terrible, and they cause all sorts of problems (pollution, noise, traffic) - it's one of the worst cities I've been to for traffic. The public transport there is good (what there is of it), but the BTS and MRT are both expensive and therefore underused by anyone other than tourists and business people - most people don't use it and it's not as extensive as other cities. At least when I've been there the skytrain is remarkably quiet compared to the streets given how quick and easy it is. It's a shame they won't tax the cars more in town and use the money for improving public transport instead IMHO, and Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which needs less regulation - they need far more regulation on their taxis and traffic in general in order to manage it as at the moment it is bedlam at rush hour, partly because of all the taxis, motorbike taxis and trucks. It is a great example of the free-for-all which results from unregulated capitalism though.
- Almaviva 14y ago
  > Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the city needs. Yes, so that I can drive faster.

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago

Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the city needs. The trains are faster in many cases (provided you're starting / ending close the line) but they're not cheaper. Making cabs more expensive would change this. Take a look at what Singapore does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing to keep cars off the road. It might seem a bit draconian but it's effective.

blake8086 14y ago
Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? It sounds like the city has as many cars on the road as the city wants to have. If the trains aren't cheaper, why should that be the cars' problem? Why not make the trains a better alternative instead of making cars worse? Why would you advocate something that "seems draconian" to you?
- yread 14y ago
  Pollution? Safety? Things that unregulated free market isn't all that good at handling.
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  Pretty clear case of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The shared resource in this case is traffic capacity. It's proved ineffective to regulate traffic by making cars expensive in this market. That's because cars are not profit centers for people -- they give mostly intangible benefits (increased comfort, status, etc). Taxis on the other hand are cars that are used for profit and therefore will respond efficiently to regulation (if that regulation increases capital or operating costs).
  - thaumasiotes 14y ago
    In a classic tragedy of the commons, you might have a common field, on which sheep graze. Everyone takes their sheep there, the sheep deplete the grass, and after this process has been in place for a while, the total capacity of the common field to support sheep is lower than it might be otherwise. That diminished level of sheep capacity is the "tragedy". What's your model here? That if there were fewer cars on the roads of Bangkok, it would be able to support more cars? What would there be more of, in total, if you confiscated a bunch of people's cars? Would you advocate banning most people from a popular public beach on the grounds of overcrowding? Would you justify that as preventing a "tragedy of the commons"?
    - Kliment 14y ago
      More fresh air. Less dust. Less noise. Shorter transport times for everyone. Congested traffic makes everyone's trip longer and less convenient. Any individual gains from using a car as opposed to not using a car as long as the traffic is not congested. Too many individuals doing what personally benefits them make it worse for everyone. This is the definition of tragedy of the commons. In the sheep example, every shepherd benefits from using the field, but if too many sheep use the field, it's ruined and noone can use it. Same with congested traffic.
    - Arelius 14y ago
      I couldn't say for sure since I haven't studied it properly, but I think due to traffic, at some point we have a lower capacity to move people in a timely fashion. So perhaps the thing that there could be more of, in total, is "amount of people moved per unit time". Again, I just hopped into here, and haven't much evidence to back that up, but it's the sort of thing that seems likely.
      - mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
        Yeah it's called a traffic jam. As the total number of cars on the road per unit of distance increases, the speed at which those cars can travel decreases. It's not linear of course but, well, I think you get the picture.
- grey-area 14y ago
  Why does it "need" fewer cars on the road? If you'd ever been to Bangkok you'd know why it needs fewer cars. Pollution is terrible, and traffic is appalling - often a journey which should take 20 minutes takes hours, and safety standards are very low - the most popular form of taxi is a pick-up truck with bench seats in the back which is really unsafe in the event of an accident. They desperately need to encourage more public transport and get rid of some of the cars/trucks on the road to prevent rush-hour gridlock and massive pollution. The easiest way to clear up the roads for public transport is to make driving more expensive and use some of that money for improvements in the public infrastructure. I doubt they'll ever do it, but they could do worse than follow the example of London with a congestion charge for central areas, and use the money to subsidise public transport, which is underused at present (because the train is so expensive, and the buses are so slow due to all the other traffic).
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Huh? The most popular form of taxi in Bangkok is a typical sedan. The Songthaews are more like mini-busses and actually are a pretty affordable form of private small-scale mass transit. They definitely aren't safe, but without them most of the poorer folks in Thailand would be screwed. Driving is already fairly expensive in Thailand: cars and gas are both pretty expensive. Taxis in Bangkok are much more expensive than they are where I live (tourist areas are even worse with their taxi mafias). Bangkok already has a public transportation system that is much better than other cities in the area (barring Singapore), they aren't doing that poorly.
    - grey-area 14y ago
      Yes, there is a mix of taxis and probably the cars outnumber trucks (depends what you're doing, if it's long distance you wouldn't want to take a taxi because of cost, and I guess they have tuk tuks too). Neither are great because of the traffic and pollution caused by all the other road users. So Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which needs more taxis, as if you want to go any distance at rush hour they are terrible, and they cause all sorts of problems (pollution, noise, traffic) - it's one of the worst cities I've been to for traffic. The public transport there is good (what there is of it), but the BTS and MRT are both expensive and therefore underused by anyone other than tourists and business people - most people don't use it and it's not as extensive as other cities. At least when I've been there the skytrain is remarkably quiet compared to the streets given how quick and easy it is. It's a shame they won't tax the cars more in town and use the money for improving public transport instead IMHO, and Bangkok is a terrible example of a place which needs less regulation - they need far more regulation on their taxis and traffic in general in order to manage it as at the moment it is bedlam at rush hour, partly because of all the taxis, motorbike taxis and trucks. It is a great example of the free-for-all which results from unregulated capitalism though.
Almaviva 14y ago
> Because favoring the trains would mean fewer cars on the road, something the city needs. Yes, so that I can drive faster.