CityLab Article- "Do not demonize driving, just stop subsidizing it" (definitions, highway)
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.
No, I'm saying forum discussions typically reference non-rural areas. I don't dislike some discussion of them. I thought we mostly talk about interstates in cities here?
Isn't "how to get a job in urban planning " very on topic?
I think when the discussion about interstates gets started and rural areas come in is because so much of the system goes through places where there is nothing but miles and miles of miles and miles. All of which has to be maintained by that state using highway user funds.
Also, most of the *****ing and moaning about how roads are "subsidized" comes from urbanites.
I think when the discussion about interstates gets started and rural areas come in is because so much of the system goes through places where there is nothing but miles and miles of miles and miles. All of which has to be maintained by that state using highway user funds.
True, but the land use by interstates is usually a discussion of space consumed in cities or the amount needed to be demolished.
True, but the land use by interstates is usually a discussion of space consumed in cities or the amount needed to be demolished.
The lengthy discussion about interstates we had on this thread was a discussion of the proper use of the interstate highway system. Like we were supposed to pay taxes for this system that was to be used only by the military, when the last war fought on US soil was ended in 1865.
You tell me, then. You're the engineer! Electric cars are advocated like that b/c a lot of "environmentalists" think electricity comes pollution-free at the flip of a switch. The pollution they cause is disconnected from the vehicle.
Perhaps you could find a source showing electric vehicle pollute just as much internal combustion vehicles? I'm not an engineer.
Perhaps you could find a source showing electric vehicle pollute just as much internal combustion vehicles? I'm not an engineer.
I thought you were an engineer. Oh well. I'm not saying the above. I'm saying a lot of people think electric vehicles don't pollute b/c they don't burn gasoline.
I thought you were an engineer. Oh well. I'm not saying the above. I'm saying a lot of people think electric vehicles don't pollute b/c they don't burn gasoline.
Kind of a tangent, but it appears electric cars are only cleaner than a hybrid if the power source is clean; they average about the same with the current US electric generation. But even an electric car powered by a coal plant is still better than a non-hybrid gas car:
By air pollution, it might be healthier for the pollution source to be moved to a power plant that few living within a few miles rather than cars which pass by lots of people. Electric trains vs diesel trains look a bit clearer, maybe a 1/3rd cleaner but I only skimmed. Did find this:
In July 2007, it was decided to use electric instead of diesel propulsion over speed and air pollution concerns
The lengthy discussion about interstates we had on this thread was a discussion of the proper use of the interstate highway system. Like we were supposed to pay taxes for this system that was to be used only by the military, when the last war fought on US soil was ended in 1865.
don't remember any discussion on military but your reply this morning to darkeconomist was about land use
Kind of a tangent, but it appears electric cars are only cleaner than a hybrid if the power source is clean; they average about the same with the current US electric generation. But even an electric car powered by a coal plant is still better than a non-hybrid gas car:
By air pollution, it might be healthier for the pollution source to be moved to a power plant that few living within a few miles rather than cars which pass by lots of people. Electric trains vs diesel trains look a bit clearer, maybe a 1/3rd cleaner but I only skimmed. Did find this:
In July 2007, it was decided to use electric instead of diesel propulsion over speed and air pollution concerns
don't remember any discussion on military but your reply this morning to darkeconomist was about land use
Here are a few I found with a quick search. It's hard because you can't just use the term "military" to find them all. There are many more.
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Well, in many arguments about subsidies or socialized services we see this misunderstanding of what kinds of goods and services should be provided privately or for a fee and what kinds should be subsidized or provided socially.
Schools, police, fire, and the post office are all examples of services for which it makes sense to have a strong, universal public option.
Even local roadways, which facilitate local commerce and allow for the functioning of our schools and emergency services, make sense to provide socially.
But something like an interstate, well the "public benefit" (emergency services, military response) portion is quite small compared to the benefit to private users, so it makes sense to use the market to price the allocation of interstate lane-miles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
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
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but Eisenhower didn't intend for interstates to go through cities. The intention was to go to the edge of or tangential to cities. They were envisioned as a way to move men and materiel quickly from city to city (inter-city, inter-region), but not within cities (intra-city).
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
I do know. As Eisenhower envisioned it, he wanted something like the Autobahn, as a useful tool for quickly moving men and machinery across the country in case of war. He envisioned them ending at outer ring roads, not penetrating the city itself. The urban freeway came later, by others, as a tool to allow access to jobs from the burgeoning suburbs.
Again, it bears repeating as many times as necessary, tolling interstates and freeways does not kill them, it brings their use and scale in line with the perceived benefits of the user.
Last edited by nei; 03-16-2017 at 10:33 AM..
Reason: put old mass-quote in spoiler
And part of that is understanding that people can and will drive and that some accommodation must be made for that fact.
But the benefit is accrued by private entities--individuals and organizations. So, at least with regard to restricted access freeways and interstates, that "accommodation" ought to also be funded by direct road users.
2. Car ownership should be discouraged. Use the trendy Uber/Lyft. The H*ll with issues like transporting a family of four and all their equipment somewhere. The response to that is "live more simply". Go on vacation with the clothes on your back and a backpack, etc.
Has anyone here said, directly, that you should be denied a car? I know I haven't. My argument has been quite the opposite, that the car, as a tool, is well-suited to that situation, but that the private individual is receiving that benefit and it is not society's responsibility to ensure easy access to everywhere at all times.
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.
