3 ms·

> So some people like to drive: That doesn't oppress you. I love driving too. But relative to walking or public transit, driving is hugely resource-intensive,

by davmre 13y ago

> So some people like to drive: That doesn't oppress you. I love driving too. But relative to walking or public transit, driving is hugely resource-intensive, it has high environmental costs, you get traffic problems if too many people do it, and it requires costly investments in public and private infrastructure -- road construction and maintenance, along with huge amounts of real estate devoted to parking -- that end up being paid for by drivers and non-drivers alike. In an (economically) ideal world, we would properly tax all the negative environmental externalities, ban free parking, and charge a small fee for the use of public roads. Then everyone could make an informed individual decision about whether their enjoyment of driving is worth the costs. With the huge subsidies drivers currently enjoy, that's pretty much impossible.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
>In an (economically) ideal world, we would properly tax all the negative environmental externalities, ban free parking, and charge a small fee for the use of public roads. Totally on board with you! Of course, there are supposedly large subsidies to public transport as well - and just think of the Muni busses, which would get the double whammy of having to internalize all of the costs you list PLUS the government subsidies! Until the externalities are internalized, though, there's no need to go on an anti-suburbia anti-car crusade. Maybe suburbia would become more popular with all of the externalities fixed: Private busses could take much toil out of long distance car commutes.
- davmre 13y ago
  The two major subsidies for cars are gas (which should cost several times its current US price) and parking (which is often provided free by businesses using otherwise-valuable real estate). Neither of those subsidies really apply to public transit, even buses, though transit does receive relatively minor subsidies of its own. > Until the externalities are internalized, though, there's no need to go on an anti-suburbia anti-car crusade. Precisely the opposite: once the externalities are internalized, how anyone spends their money is no one else's business. But until that point, cars still have huge negative externalities, i.e. they are actively hurting society, so it's perfectly reasonable to crusade against them!
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    1. Parking provided by businesses is not free. It's already internalized. Only free city parking is not internalized. 2. You show only that the governments are failing to internalize these costs. Don't punish the users: punish the governments. They're the ones in the wrong.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Governments are controlled by people (at least with democracies), people want cheap subsidized private transportation, so the people get what they want until its not tenable anymore.
    - davmre 13y ago
      1. Free parking at businesses, housing developments, even single-family homes is quite often mandated by regulation. In many cities, if you build a new apartment building, shopping mall, etc., you're required by law to also construct a proportional quantity of parking, even if that goes against your judgement as to the best use of space and resources. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.ht... and http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988 http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/18848299.... 2. No one's calling for the guillotine for all car owners (that would include me!). But democratic governments are a function of their citizens. If externalities are not being internalized, it's because there is some powerful faction -- drivers, in this case -- that benefits from the status quo. Yes, the US govt is dysfunctional, but go ahead and try surveying the US public about a carbon tax that would raise gas to $10/gallon. It's not just some abstract 'government' that favors subsidies here -- it's pretty much the entire citizenry.

by davmre 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

>In an (economically) ideal world, we would properly tax all the negative environmental externalities, ban free parking, and charge a small fee for the use of public roads. Totally on board with you! Of course, there are supposedly large subsidies to public transport as well - and just think of the Muni busses, which would get the double whammy of having to internalize all of the costs you list PLUS the government subsidies! Until the externalities are internalized, though, there's no need to go on an anti-suburbia anti-car crusade. Maybe suburbia would become more popular with all of the externalities fixed: Private busses could take much toil out of long distance car commutes.

davmre 13y ago
The two major subsidies for cars are gas (which should cost several times its current US price) and parking (which is often provided free by businesses using otherwise-valuable real estate). Neither of those subsidies really apply to public transit, even buses, though transit does receive relatively minor subsidies of its own. > Until the externalities are internalized, though, there's no need to go on an anti-suburbia anti-car crusade. Precisely the opposite: once the externalities are internalized, how anyone spends their money is no one else's business. But until that point, cars still have huge negative externalities, i.e. they are actively hurting society, so it's perfectly reasonable to crusade against them!
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  1. Parking provided by businesses is not free. It's already internalized. Only free city parking is not internalized. 2. You show only that the governments are failing to internalize these costs. Don't punish the users: punish the governments. They're the ones in the wrong.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Governments are controlled by people (at least with democracies), people want cheap subsidized private transportation, so the people get what they want until its not tenable anymore.
  - davmre 13y ago
    1. Free parking at businesses, housing developments, even single-family homes is quite often mandated by regulation. In many cities, if you build a new apartment building, shopping mall, etc., you're required by law to also construct a proportional quantity of parking, even if that goes against your judgement as to the best use of space and resources. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.ht... and http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988 http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/18848299.... 2. No one's calling for the guillotine for all car owners (that would include me!). But democratic governments are a function of their citizens. If externalities are not being internalized, it's because there is some powerful faction -- drivers, in this case -- that benefits from the status quo. Yes, the US govt is dysfunctional, but go ahead and try surveying the US public about a carbon tax that would raise gas to $10/gallon. It's not just some abstract 'government' that favors subsidies here -- it's pretty much the entire citizenry.