Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sidewalks (and bike lanes), like local streets and roads, serve the local public good almost entirely, so there is an argument for those to be provided socially. But, of course, there are limits, and we reach those limits when the public benefit is eclipsed by service to private uses.
The god of LOS, for instance, is one example of how service to private uses can take precedence over service to the public good. LOS puts the movement of vehicles, mostly private ones, above all other users with a disconnect between that priority and the net value to the city and public of that priority.
It's a nuanced, but immensely important distinction that I cannot seem to get you interested in.
As I said to Nei, I don't like subsidies because they make these decisions especially complicated because they distort demand.
But I also recognize the importance of subsidies in serving the public good. I recognize that there are many, many things that ought to be subsidized, like the police and fire departments, EMS, schools, libraries, and the postal service.
So, for example, I'm on board with subsidizing interstates to serve the public good, such as military transport or emergency response. But interstates built only for the public good would be radically different, connecting cities (inter-city) rather than cutting in to them (intra-city) and would be drastically smaller, never more than two lanes in each direction.
But if a person wants something more than that which just serves the public good, then the private market comes in to play. And that's why we have private security, private schools, and UPS, FedEx, and DHL.
If we want our highways and interstates to do more than just be in service to the public good, well, we'd be serving private interests (driving to work or errands or moving goods to be sold on the private market) and, as such, should be funded by cost-recovering user fees (tolls). In that way we only get as much as we're willing to individually pay for, rather than the government pushing down the cost below the market rate and inducing artificial demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
And each of these benefit, at least hypothetically, everyone, blindly and equally. The fire department doesn't give you a different level of service because you are rich or poor. The post office doesn't judge your Forever stamp by your socio-economic status.
But the private market has strong incentives to serve some but not others, or to serve some better than others. UPS can absolutely choose not to serve you because you'd be unprofitable. A security company can absolutely say no to serving an individual.
Taken together-this is some real mental gymnastics there, darkecon! I'd give you a perfect 10 for that mental tumbling routine!
You don't think the USPS serves individuals and private businesses? Think again! chirack did address UPS well. If you want to mail a package and it meets their criteria (size, in an area where they deliver, etc,) they can't turn you down b/c they don't like your looks or whatever. They don't do letters and the like because it isn't profitable to them. But, I worked for a small business. We sent bills via USPS! How horrible! We should have been made to hire a private "runner" or something to get those bills to those people, since we were profiting. Often, when you order something from a catalog, you have a choice of USPS or UPS or whatever. If you live out in the Boonies, you probably don't get a choice and have to go with USPS b/c UPS won't go where they can't be profitable. I don't know what you're getting at re: a security company. That's not what we're talking about here. Sure, they can turn down a business if they don't think they can secure it. Is there an equivalent public service? NO! That's not the function of the police.
Just like Archimedes, I have an epiphany in the bathtub this morning. Some people can be so rational 99% of the time, and yet just "off the wall" that 1%. I don't get your beef with interstate highways. I've tried six ways from Sunday to explain they're just the modern version of "The Oregon Trail", or even Native American footpaths. And "CityLab"! They can find an excuse for subsidizing railroads, but not highways! Gimme a break!
Well what I suggest you do is drive to the nearest mall. The "Problem" you mentioned was a major reason why the State Street(in Chicago) and likewise Time Square declined in the 60ies thru the 80ies. Certain types of retail do not do well without free parking(movie theaters come mind). Some stores actually offer free or discounted shopping at certain lots if you buy something. What happened to both is redevelopment away from business that depend on customers coming in from around town to business that served downtown workers, tourist ect.
Why should I have to drive to the nearest mall if what I want is in the city? That's putting an unfair burden on motorists. It is pure anti-car zealotry that areas like the Loop in Chicago or Manhattan are allowed to exist with so little free parking. What if I want to go see a Broadway show? They are hurting us poor motorists by not providing us what we want for free. They need to get out the bulldozers in these "high density" areas and keep putting in parking spaces until anyone can park there for free.
This is what happens when we demonize driving and don't subsidize it enough.
Why should I have to drive to the nearest mall if what I want is in the city? That's putting an unfair burden on motorists. It is pure anti-car zealotry that areas like the Loop in Chicago or Manhattan are allowed to exist with so little free parking. What if I want to go see a Broadway show? They are hurting us poor motorists by not providing us what we want for free. They need to get out the bulldozers in these "high density" areas and keep putting in parking spaces until anyone can park there for free.
This is what happens when we demonize driving and don't subsidize it enough.
Not really. I live in Chicago. It actually is faster and nearer for me to drive to the burbs to shop than to go downtown. When I lived on the west side it was about 15 mins to a major indoor mall in the burbs(with free parking) vs. 15 mins. to downtown(and parking costs!) guess which one won out. Malls with free parking also were built in other parts of town.
Oh the loop until recently had very few people living there and still is the least populated area in Chicago. As for a Broadway show, well the problem is that Metra(commuter rail) stops running at about 11pm(and on some lines earlier) depending on schedule and so dinner and a show could leave you stranded. Therefore lots of people are forced to drive in from the burbs. People are also willing to pay for parking for the fests in Grant park. What people were not willing to pay for is parking for a Grocery store(it was big news when one opened in the loop a few years ago) or for general shopping(the stores downtown a dependant on downtown workers and tourist) or for movies.
Given the land in those high density areas is privately owned, bull dozing in the name of public parking isn't likely but any time developers decided to build new buildings parking should be included. Sears tower and John Hancock in Chicago had parking.
Not really. I live in Chicago. It actually is faster and nearer for me to drive to the burbs to shop than to go downtown. When I lived on the west side it was about 15 mins to a major indoor mall in the burbs(with free parking) vs. 15 mins. to downtown(and parking costs!) guess which one won out. Malls with free parking also were built in other parts of town.
Oh the loop until recently had very few people living there and still is the least populated area in Chicago. As for a Broadway show, well the problem is that Metra(commuter rail) stops running at about 11pm(and on some lines earlier) depending on schedule and so dinner and a show could leave you stranded. Therefore lots of people are forced to drive in from the burbs. People are also willing to pay for parking for the fests in Grant park. What people were not willing to pay for is parking for a Grocery store(it was big news when one opened in the loop a few years ago) or for general shopping(the stores downtown a dependant on downtown workers and tourist) or for movies.
Given the land in those high density areas is privately owned, bull dozing in the name of public parking isn't likely but any time developers decided to build new buildings parking should be included. Sears tower and John Hancock in Chicago had parking.
What do you mean not really? Those people who want to see a Broadway show have to drive in from the burbs, and then they will probably have to pay to park since free parking is hard to come by in these high-density areas. That's a complete injustice!!!!
Your idea that any new buildings should have parking included is a start, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. There would still be existing buildings that will be there for decades to come without free parking. We have to stamp out this idea that lack of parking is acceptable. Pass a law requiring free parking everywhere, and if the private owners don't bulldoze in the name of public parking, sue their pants off under this law.
Oh the loop until recently had very few people living there and still is the least populated area in Chicago. As for a Broadway show, well the problem is that Metra(commuter rail) stops running at about 11pm(and on some lines earlier) depending on schedule and so dinner and a show could leave you stranded. Therefore lots of people are forced to drive in from the burbs.
There's still plenty of people living within say, 5 miles of downtown Chicago. CTA transit runs later though some not driving would choose take taxis/Uber.
If you don't have a car, it's far easier to shop downtown than rely on rides to suburban malls even if living in suburbs [did that a few times in high school]. LIRR runs 24 hour, passengers on the 1:42 am on weekends tend to be loud...
Quote:
Given the land in those high density areas is privately owned, bull dozing in the name of public parking isn't likely but any time developers decided to build new buildings parking should be included. Sears tower and John Hancock in Chicago had parking.
Can't office workers just take the train? Seems like adding lots parking to skyscrapers would make downtown more congested.
Well, I give up. I'm not conceding that I'm wrong--I'm not--but I clearly can't construct a compelling argument that defines what's in the public interest, what's a private interest, and the distinction between the two.
On a per-passenger mile basis, every form of public transportation is subsidized more than the automobile... a lot more.
As it should be. Good public transit is a boon to any urban area and any nation/state for that matter. It's an enhancement for the business community, higher education, and city residential areas; lessens the need to use up valuable urban property for parking lots and gas stations; makes cities safer, and is a boon to the suburbs that are served (as opposed to exurbs, which will always be automobile-dependent).
Well, I give up. I'm not conceding that I'm wrong--I'm not--but I clearly can't construct a compelling argument that defines what's in the public interest, what's a private interest, and the distinction between the two.
Well you could start by changing your definition of "public good". "Public benefit" is not limited to goods or services that only serve other governmental bodies or agencies as you suggested concerning roadways. Public transit, for example, would never be a "public benefit" because it isn't being used predominately for EMS, police, fire, etc. to get to trouble sites but rather by the general public - like roads.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 03-01-2017 at 05:49 PM..
As it should be. Good public transit is a boon to any urban area and any nation/state for that matter. It's an enhancement for the business community, higher education, and city residential areas; lessens the need to use up valuable urban property for parking lots and gas stations; makes cities safer, and is a boon to the suburbs that are served (as opposed to exurbs, which will always be automobile-dependent).
Please provide some documentation for the bold.
I'm not opposed to PT, indeed I've gone on record here as saying I think PT should service some areas of low ridership just to provide service, but I'm not so sure it's the Holy Grail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
