My bad, I had 2 windows open last night and must have saved the wrong one. Will get both links back up very shortly. Thanks Douglas

Trust me, we’ve only just started.

You clowns have no idea what’s coming your way.

Please see my post to the “Who is Mark Gorton” article.

I don’t understand why you think that social engineering done by private industry is OK while social engineering done by the goverment is not OK. And I also don’t understand what you are saying about streetcarts… Fact is, we *do* have record ridership. New York’s subway system is at a high not seen since 1930. And San Francisco has had to jack up the price on cable cars up to $5 per ride because there is no way to add capacity.

Also, while it’s true that the private auto has a lot of benefits, it’s still not something that should be subsidized unless you can show that it has positive externalities. Would the “economic advantages we enjoy and cultural developments we take for granted wouldn’t be possible without the automobile” somehow disappear if drivers had to pay their way?

Also, in real terms, we are spending more on road infrastructure now than we were in the 50s. Does read spending have to forever increase in order to avoid congestion?

I didn’t say that driving isn’t subsidized at all - I’m advocating for spending on highway expansion and I acknowledge that could be the very definition of subsidy..

But, I don’t agree with your logic. I agree that the government pays subsidies to highways or corn. I don’t understand the point you’re making about paying the taxes that allow the government to give subsidies. I was making a point about income taxes in reference to your comment about externalities.

A portion of the income taxes you pay does subsidize the roads, but it also funds the EPA, so I don’t see how you don’t consider that drivers don’t have to kick in for their externalities. The EPA mandates air and emissions standards, and opposes highway projects through protected areas, just to name a couple of the ways that drivers’ income taxes address their externalities.

I agree to an extent on your privatization point, and I absolutely agree on your point that the roads should pay for themselves. But one of the big problems right now is that states like California take your gas taxes - which are supposed to do just that - and divert them to pay for pet projects.

A great example of a road (and metro line too) that paid for itself is the T-REX project in Denver. I actually just wrote a refernce to it in a post today.

Now, I do have a problem with those tolls continuing in perpetuity once the road is paid for - UNLESS - there is a solid plan for what those funds will go toward - further expansion, maintenance, other transportation projects, etc…

I think you’re mixing apples and oranges with the comparison of corn and highway subsidies. You’re not going to hear any argument from me that the corn subsidy is absolutely criminal - in fact, I support abolishing the entire Department of Agriculture (I think we’ve got a handle on the lessons from the dust bowl).

The problem with that comparison is that if the subsidy for corn goes away tomorrow, there isn’t going to be any problem. If the subsidy for transportation goes away, all forms of transportation would suffer immediately. Infrastructure decisions are exactly the kind of decisions that should be made on usage data because without using it, how would you ever decide what to spend the money on? I mean, forget for a moment that I’m even talking about the automobile, assume you want to build nothing but bike paths - you’re still going to look at usage data to determine where to build them to make them most effective.

Corn subsidies came about for complex reasons - a lot of them were complete BS in my opinion - but well meaning politicians thought they were protecting the American farmer from bankruptcy by price protecting. That’s not really the same thing as trying to provide a road or railroad or canal to move goods.

Now, on your streetcar point, I just addressed this with someone the other day. I agree that GM socially engineered people to like cars vice streetcars, and participated in dismantling the streetcar systems in most major cities. But, that is the nature of competition in a free market economy, and all businesses try to eliminate their competition.

That wasn’t the government … that was private industry. If people want to buy into the product that a company is selling, and they decide it works better than what they already have, why should the government step in to stop that? Why should the government have told people that they weren’t allowed to buy cars, and that they had to stick with streetcars? This is a government by the people for the people. If the people pay for the system, no matter what it is - streetcar, metro, bike trail or highway - why should the government care which one the people find most effective? After all, the people have the incentive to be right since their livelihoods depend on it.

If these streetcar systems are so desireable, then why aren’t we building more? OK, you’ll say well the government has engineered it to make it impossible. Fine, but then why don’t cities that still have them like San Francisco and Memphis experience record ridership on them? These things aren’t used by commuters anymore, they’re tourist attractions.

I concede people don’t always know what they want, or what’s best for them, and part of the function of an elected leader is to exercise judgment about the right path to take. But look, the highways aren’t clogged because it is impossible to unclog them, they’re jammed because we’re trying to cram 2008 traffic volumes down roads that were designed in the 50’s for 50’s populations and built in the 60’s and 70’s with 60’s and 70’s traffic. The decision to go with the automobile was very prudent, it spawned massive economic development, and spawned a great social upheaval. I mean, a lot of the economic advantages we enjoy and cultural developments we take for granted wouldn’t be possible without the automobile.

The idea that driving is not subsidized because drivers pay income taxes is just bunk. Do you feel that corn is not subsidized because corn farmers pay income taxes? The very definition of a subsidy is when you take from a large group (e.g., people with income) to enable or extend an activity (e.g., driving).

I don’t think that all transport should be privatized — though I think we could stand to go further in that direction. Rather, I think that the costs for auto infrastructure should come from auto users — via tolls, gas taxes, registration and licensing fees, and the like. In addition, drivers should have to pay additional fees to cover their externalities, including noise, air pollution, and in some cases even congestion. At present, only about 60% of road infrastructure costs are paid for by drivers, hence the subsidy.

The idea that infrastructure decisions are based on “usage data” doesn’t really make any sense. You could just as easily say that we should continue to subsidize corn because after all, corn is used in industrial processes all over the place. But to make such an argument is to miss the point: Corn is as prevalent as it is because of the subsidy, not the other way around. Every major city in the united states used to have a perfectly effective streetcar system. These systems weren’t demolished because nobody used them, they were demolished as a result of the very kind of social engineering you complain about.

But I can promise you no one in the “Urbanist club” would let me in with my minimum wage job and crappy clothes.

G-d bless.

SEE YOU AT IHOP.

Mr Kaag.

I agree that the government makes choices about what transportation to subsidize, but this is based on usage data, not government social engineering. If more people want to ride subways than drive on roads, then the government should absolutely enable that, but most people don’t because it’s not as flexible.

I won’t go over all of Judd’s points again, but I also disagree with your point that automobile drivers don’t pay for their externalitites. They pay income taxes, gas taxes, sales takes on the cars, car personal property taxes, tolls, and registration and licensing fees.

That’s one perverse subsidy system.

Any other form of transportation has it’s own externalities that everyone else pays for - as you point out, all other forms of transportation are also subsidized.

It’s tempting to agree with you that the government shouldn’t be in the business of transportation at all, but I think there are bigger overarching issues here. It’s not just about the commute, it’s also about the economy, national defense, industry, etc… Now, I support efforts to cut back government spending wherever possible, but I don’t think that privatizing all of these modes of transportation is going to help the common man.

If every road suddenly has a new toll and fares on the metro double so new management can make ends meet, I don’t think that will really help the problems with congestion, and it will only force more pain onto working class Americans.

Americans don’t necessarily have a choice about their commute, but I think your argument overlooks the fact that they made other choices that affect their choice of transportation.

Mass transit won’t ever exist in rural areas - at least not under current operating models.

In cities, I agree that the automobile is omnipresent, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s government social engineering. You said it yourself, the automobile influenced the infrastructure decisions because of its utility and commonality - not because the government forced it down people’s throats.

But I totally agree that we need more transportation choices.

My ideal “end state” is better use of public space. To be able to walk, bike and live my life without constantly being bombarded with cars. I’ve chose an urban lifestyle, in part because it’s possible and comfortable to live without owning a car. My neighbors who own cars (a minority) depend on everyone who lives without a car to make their car possible — there physically isn’t enough space to store or operate even one car per household. My reward in return for my “gift” to my neighbors is noise, pollution, fear of being hit — even the loss of my right to travel on foot unhindered as I wait at every intersection for cars to pass. Others use of cars imposes a cost on me, monetarily, through my taxes, and through these externalities which I’ve just mentioned.

This is the beauty of congestion pricing — it discourages driving by shifting some of these costs directly to those participating, rather than forcing everyone to take part. I also support market-rate on-street parking for the same reason.

So, my ideal city is simply one with less space devoted to cars where people who choose to use one pay a fair price in exchange for the benefits they are receiving.

It’s not for free. Drivers pay income taxes to the government, which uses the money for roads (as well as subways, buses, sidewalks, etc).

Have you actually calculated that private automobiles take up a majority of public space in New York City? Are you just looking at just roads, or are you adding subway and train lines, parks, etc. into the equation?

I agree with you that when gas reaches $6, $7, $8 and so forth, less people will drive. Then again, if we shift to electric cars down the road, you’re going to have the same congestion problems in NY that you currently do now.

So again, what is your end state? What exactly are you hoping to achieve? “Balance” is very vague.

Where I live, it’s way out of balance. A minority of the residents are given (for free) a majority of available space for the storage and operation of their own private property. So my end state is balance. Sounds awful, eh?

J. Mork

P.S. The math is getting better and better. Plug $6/gallon into your equations.

I get the concept that a person driving a car (or riding in a taxi) takes up more public space than a person inside a fully loaded bus or subway, riding a bike, or walking on the sidewalk.

There are, however, benefits to driving a car or riding in a taxi. You can often get from point A to point B much quicker in a car or taxi than you can by riding a bus, subway, bike, or walking. This is why people drive their own cars or ride taxis. It’s human nature to take the shortest, least time-consuming route.

What’s your end state here? Do you want to ban private cars or use taxes, fees, fines, and tolls to force enough cars off the road to the point where only buses, subways, bikes, and pedestrians remain?

Let’s be honest – you really don’t stand a chance of making that happen. This whole walkable-bikeable movement is very very small and it’s unlikely that you’ll ever get anywhere with any of this. Your tactics are not good. You essentially want to jam a set of attitudes and behaviors down the throats of people who don’t want to go along willingly because it’s not in their best interests. You want to tax, toll, fine, or surcharge a large number of your own community, thus creating enemies. And as you put it, many of them are wealthy, so even if you can jam some kind of congestion pricing through the NY legislature, you won’t be able to raise the prices high enough to get enough cars off the road to make a difference. You’ll just make life miserable for a lot of drivers, thus creating even more enemies.

Also, the math is against you. There just aren’t enough people that care about your movement to ever bring about any significant change in New York. I’m not writing this in a mocking or derisive manner (as I do in my posts). This is just the cold, hard truth about the walkable-bikeable movement. It’s very small and for the most part ineffective.

But there’s another way to reduce traffic congestion that we probably both agree on. New York city government – and by this I mean the politicians, bureaucrats, and government workers – need to get their act together and modernize, expand, and clean-up the NY subway system. Right now it’s a sagging, inefficient, disgusting mess.

Incentivize people to move from cars to the subway by giving them an efficient, clean, non-threatening service. That’s how you win.