Of course Ryan Avent is right to say that you can't fully grasp the stupidity of the Bush line against energy conservation without mentioning the subject of externalities. When you burn coal or oil, or take up space on the road, current policy lets you get away with not paying the full cost of those endeavors. Under the circumstances, there are more coal plants and cars on the road than is socially optimal. Price this stuff correctly and people will use it less and we'll all be better off.
« Aguanomics | Main | Time Change »
Externalities
17 Jul 2008 12:57 pm
Comments (78)
When you burn coal or oil, or take up space on the road, current policy lets you get away with not paying the full cost of those endeavors. Under the circumstances, there are more coal plants and cars on the road than is socially optimal. Price this stuff correctly and people will use it less and we'll all be better off.
Current policy also lets you get away with riding transit and Amtrak without paying the full cost. May we assume you favor pricing that "stuff" "correctly" also? You'd probably stop riding Acela to New York if you were required to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing that service.
Similarly Mixner, would you drive your car as much as you do if you had to pay knowingly anything remotely close to the true cost of constructing and maintaining the road and traffic system?
You're such a freaking idiot.
Similarly Mixner, would you drive your car as much as you do if you had to pay knowingly anything remotely close to the true cost of constructing and maintaining the road and traffic system?
Probably, yes.
You're such a freaking idiot.
You're an ignorant fool.
Current policy also lets you get away with riding transit and Amtrak without paying the full cost. May we assume you favor pricing that "stuff" "correctly" also? You'd probably stop riding Acela to New York if you were required to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing that service.
The stupid. It burns.
Matt's talking about pricing externalities. Externalities can be positive as well as negative. The evidence suggests that there are large POSITIVE externalities for transit.
This is therefore a case FOR transit subsidies, not against them.
To give one example, much of the success of transit in the Tokyo metropolitan area can be explained by two things: little or no "free" parking, and the fact that rail companies are also real estate developers they use rails to feed their housing and retail developments, and vice versa.
Incredibly, pricing the NEGATIVE externalities of "free" parking, together with capturing the POSITIVE externalities from transit and transit oriented development resulted in a completely different equilibrium, where the automobile is not supreme.
But I imagine you'd say it's really just all down to inscrutable little Asian people or something.
Similarly Mixner, would you drive your car as much as you do if you had to pay knowingly anything remotely close to the true cost of constructing and maintaining the road and traffic system?
Since gas taxes (more than) pay for the roads, I think it's safe to say the answer is yes.
"jack lecou"
The stupid. It burns.
Ah, you're DMonteith. I thought so. You're also an utter moron.
Matt's talking about pricing externalities. Externalities can be positive as well as negative. The evidence suggests that there are large POSITIVE externalities for transit. This is therefore a case FOR transit subsidies, not against them.
Then produce this alleged evidence, and your quantititive analysis showing that the huge level of transit subsidies is commensurate with the value of the positive externalities transit allegedly provides.
What's that? You don't have any evidence? You don't have any studies? You're just pulling claims out of your ass? But we already knew that, didn't we?
Since gas taxes (more than) pay for the roads
Not when asphalt is selling for $716.9 per ton over $287.1 in January and around $120 in 2001. Road maintenance is a whole new game these days.
Since gas taxes (more than) pay for the roads, I think it's safe to say the answer is yes.
Completely false.
For example, a second's worth of googling produces this page, apparently produced by the Texas DOT:
Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.
And this does not even begin to address congestion or parking externalities. (Congestion alone costs on the order of hundreds of billions a year.)
That transit has positive externalities, i.e., reducing the number of cars on the road and therefore congestion, seems too obvious to need proof.
No, I don't have any studies, but I have seen news coverage of the paralysis crated in various big cities by transit strikes.
But Bush wasn't asked about a carbon tax, which is a good idea.
He was asked about "conservation programs," which invariably take a MUCH more heavy handed, micro-managing approach. I actually agree with him about that, and so does Matt:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/the_personal_and_the_political.php
This is really amazing. It's inanity built upon confusion. Why won't anyone actually look to see what the question was? Matt and Ryan can go on and on about a conservation program and externalities, but Bush was asked about why he wasn't hectoring the American people to use less gas. Not that that would stop this ridiculous grandstanding. How sad to see supposedly bright people practically bragging about their ignorance and laziness.
Ah, you're DMonteith. I thought so. You're also an utter moron.
No. But I'm beginning to think he or she has the right approach to your inanity. We're well past the point where 'stupid' is not an insult, merely an accurate description. Maybe you'd like for me to link folks to the ridership/load factor thread again?
In this post you either fail to understand externalities at all, or assert without evidence that transit externalities are non-existent or negative.
Then produce this alleged evidence, and your quantititive analysis showing that the huge level of transit subsidies is commensurate with the value of the positive externalities transit allegedly provides.
What's that? You don't have any evidence? You don't have any studies? You're just pulling claims out of your ass? But we already knew that, didn't we?
Precise numbers are largely irrelevant. As Roac says, the fact that transit involves large positive externalities is too obvious to require proof. I believe I provided a perfectly legitimate case study for Tokyo. Matt and Ryan have also posted titles of various books you can read.
Otherwise, I don't particularly feel the need to bottle feed a troll. (Particularly one who has demonstrated such a very low aptitude for understanding transit dynamics, modeling, and basic mathematics.)
A study of the impacts of transit reducing automobile VMT is located at www.apta.com/research/info/online/land_use.cfm. This study demonstrated that for every passenger mile traveled by transit, approximately two automobile vehicle miles is supressed, e.g., about 100 billion VMT per year. Assuming all direct costs and negative externalities of auto travel add up to $1.00 per mile, this results in about a three to one benefit/cost ratio.
There is also David Lewis and Fred Laurence Williams, Policy and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in the United States,(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999)
jack lecou to SamChevre,
Completely false.
It may or may not be false, but your link obviously doesn't resolve the question. It only addresses roads in Texas, a very large state with a low population density. Traffic density on Texas roads is probably significantly below the national average. In states with higher traffic densities, gas tax revenues may cover or exceed the costs of roads.
Still waiting for your evidence of the alleged "large positive externalities" of transit, and your quantitative analysis showing that the huge level of transit subsidies is commensurate with the value of these alleged positive externalities.
Any response from Mixner or Sam to jack lecou's link to the Texas DOT page?
You people are such morons.
"Since gas taxes (more than) pay for the roads, I think it's safe to say the answer is yes."
Posted by SamChevre
No, they don't. Federal, state and local expenditures on highways runs about $110 billion per year, revenues from gas taxes, fees, fines and tolls etc. runs about $86 billion per year.
That's a $24 billion dollar per year subsidy to drive cars, in addition to ignoring some of the externalities.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/government_transportation_financial_statistics/
Mixner, are you literate? The Texas page describes a section of road IN HOUSTON. Low population density my ass. Also, the quoted portion stated "that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees.
Still waiting for Mixner's evidence that he's not full of shit, and his quantitative analysis of how the one particular trend he adores will go on for ever and ever, amen. Still waiting for Mixner to work to the standard of proof he demands of others. Still waiting for Mixner to admit his past lies here. Still waiting for Mixner to enter the human race.
Good find Njorl. Here is additional evidence that gas taxes do NOT pay fully for roads:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/20/delucchi-study-finds-that-us-motorists-do-not-pay-their-way/
"[A]ll levels of government combined spent considerably more building and managing roads in New York State than they reaped from gas taxes, road tolls and traffic tickets. For every dollar expended on the road network by government, drivers kicked in just 65 cents. The other 35 cents -- a cool $2 billion a year -- was paid for out of general revenues, primarily property taxes collected by cities, towns and counties"
From an article noting how far behind we are on highway and bridge maintenance: "The $75 billion in annual spending by federal, state, and local governments combined falls short of levels needed just to maintain the status quo. Most of the available money comes from gasoline taxes."
Just posted this on the farecards thread, but I thought it bore reposting here:
I have a theory that Mixner is Petey's Transit Troll alias. He completely disagrees with whatever Matt says, and whenever anyone challenges him in comments (or he decides to pick on anyone), he has the same obnoxious habit of requoting their post sentence-by-sentence just to shoot them down.
roac,
That transit has positive externalities, i.e., reducing the number of cars on the road and therefore congestion, seems too obvious to need proof.
Er, congestion works both ways. Transit systems are often congested at rush hour. Building more roads allows more people to drive instead of using mass transit. That relieves mass transit congestion.
It is a trivial exercise to produce a list of both positive and negative externalities for both driving and transit. The important questions with respect to the economic justification for subsidies have to do with the values of those externalities. To show that the massive subsidies transit receives are economically justified, you need to produce an analysis showing that the net value of transit's externalities is positive and commensurate in magnitude with the amount of subsidies transit receives.
According to the most recent BTS data, transit receives a federal subsidy of about $160 per thousand passenger-miles. Total transit subsidies will be higher than this, since state and local governments also subsidize transit. But show me how you have determined that transit has a positive externality value equal even to the federal subsidy, let alone the total subsidy.
"jack lecou"
Precise numbers are largely irrelevant.
You haven't even come up with any rough numbers, let alone precise ones. If transit has a net externality value significantly less than +$160 per thousand passenger-miles, then we are massively oversubsidizing transit even with just the federal subsidy, let alone the total subsidy. So where are your numbers?
Building more roads
Where? Underground? Into the 8th dimension?
A study of the impacts of transit reducing automobile VMT is located at www.apta.com/research/info/online/land_use.cfm. This study demonstrated that for every passenger mile traveled by transit, approximately two automobile vehicle miles is supressed, e.g., about 100 billion VMT per year.
Your link doesn't work. Of course, number of passenger-miles travelled is not an externality anyway.
Where? Underground? Into the 8th dimension?
I assume from his past droppings, he means into the desert. Its true that congestion in Phoenix is due, in part, to road infrastructure not keeping pace with growth. Its quite the meme out there. However, in places like Atlanta and LA where congestion is a big problem, building more roads is impractical to say the least. And expensive as I indicated earlier.
Njorl,
That's a $24 billion dollar per year subsidy to drive cars, in addition to ignoring some of the externalities.
No, it's a $24 billion dollar per year subsidy for highways. Highways serve private passenger cars and trucks, commercial (freight) trucks, transit buses and intercity buses.
Your source also shows a $20 billion dollar per year subsidy for transit. From this BTS document, we see that for the same year (2001), total passenger-miles for highways was 4.6 trillion, and for transit was 49 billion.
So the total public subsidy per thousand passenger-miles was about $5 for highways and about $405 for transit.
Now explain to us how you have determined that the difference in externality costs between highways and transit is $400 per thousand passenger-miles. Or even remotely close to that number.
Among the many things Mixner doesn't understand is that externalities have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So there is no such thing as the externalities associated with modes of transportation in the abstract. Rather, one has to evaluate the externalities associated with particular modes of transportation as applied to specific cases.
Of course whenever someone tries to show Mixner an evaluation like that, he will dismiss it as being just about that one case. Which again just shows he doesn't actually understand the concept of an externality.
Look, I don't have to show you no stinking studies in order to demonstrate what is obvious to everyone but you. I ride the bus to and from work. The bus carries an average of 40-50 people. If the bus disappeared, and each of those people started driving to work over the same route, I guarantee that average travel times for everyone would go up dramatically. How's that for an externality?
Alleviating the congestion by building additional roads is not an option. There is a daily backup where the ramp from Route 50 to the Roosevelt Bridge goes from two lanes down to one. The ramp could be widened, but the engineers see no point in doing so as that would merely move the backup onto the streets of downtown DC. There is simply no way to get more vehicles into DC without creating permanent gridlock.
DTM,
Among the many things Mixner doesn't understand is that externalities have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So there is no such thing as the externalities associated with modes of transportation in the abstract.
Among the many, many, many things DTM doesn't understand is that we're not talking about "modes of transportation in the abstract." We're talking about modes of transportation in the real world. And more specifically, in the United States. The BTS numbers indicate that we subsidize transit in the United States to the tune of $400 more per thousand passenger-miles than we subsidize highways. What is the justification for this hugely disproportionate level of subsidy? Show me how you have determined that the difference in externality costs between highways and transit is even remotely close to $400 per thousand passenger-miles.
You can't, can you? Because like all the other transit proponents here, you have no serious empirical justification for your position. It's all just faith-based wishful-thinking bullshit, same as it always is with you.
Mixner,
Thank you for proving my point.
roac,
Look, I don't have to show you no stinking studies in order to demonstrate what is obvious to everyone but you. I ride the bus to and from work. The bus carries an average of 40-50 people. If the bus disappeared, and each of those people started driving to work over the same route, I guarantee that average travel times for everyone would go up dramatically. How's that for an externality?
Whether or not the particular bus service you use to get to work is economically justified, based on your description it is not representative of commutes in general and therefore is irrelevant to the issue of transportation policy in general. On average, commutes by public transportation take almost twice as long as commutes by car. Even in New York, which has the most extensive and comprehensive transit systems in the country, commutes by transit still take longer on average than commutes by car. And in the newer, low-density cities of the south and west, where most of the growth in population and new infrastructure is occurring, the time-advantage of driving over using transit is even greater.
The time penalty alone would probably be enough to doom transit to just a tiny share of the total commuting market in most U.S. metropolitan areas. And when you add in the discomfort, inflexibility, and inconvenience of using transit compared to driving, it's hardly surprising that the vast majority of people choose to drive instead, even though driving is significantly more expensive and even if they face road congestion on their commute.
Since there is no point to talking to the amazing subject-changing Mixner, I will make the following points to the world at large:
* For me to commute by car would be enormously expensive, because I would have to: buy another car in addition to the one my wife drives to work, and then pay for parking which costs God knows how much.
* The bus picks me up three blocks from my house and drops me off outside my office. I never have to wait more than 10 minutes.
* The bus gets me there faster than a car would, because when there is a backup at the Roosevelt Bridge ramp, it goes around the backup and cuts in.
* I can read on the bus.
My original point -- which was Matt's point in the original post -- about how the "speed, comfort, and convenience" of the car commute would disappear if all the transit riders bought cars and got on the road, I take as accepted, since Mixner didn't address it.
We're talking about modes of transportation in the real world.
Including the 100mpg cars that I know will be on the roads in ten years, since in the real world, I can travel in time.
roac,
For me to commute by car would be enormously expensive ...[blah, blah, blah]
Then don't commute by car. If transit works better for you personally, use transit. In case you hadn't noticed, Matthew's post isn't about you personally and your personal commute. It's about transit vs. driving in general. As I just told you, based on your description your personal commute is not representative of commuting in general. It's even less representative of cars vs. transit in general. So why you keep going on and on about it as if it tells us anything meaningful about transportation policy in general, I have no idea.
My original point -- which was Matt's point in the original post -- about how the "speed, comfort, and convenience" of the car commute would disappear if all the transit riders bought cars and got on the road, I take as accepted, since Mixner didn't address it.
Since no one has argued that "all" transit riders should switch to driving instead, this is another total nonsequitur. You do seem to have a hard time following the issues that are actually in dispute, don't you?
Shorter Mixner: commuting by car is always an expression of personal preference, and commuters who hate driving and would like options are a figment of the imagination. Unlike 100mpg cars powered by the cuteness of kittens, which my recent visit to 2018 established beyond any refutation.
Similarly Mixner, would you drive your car as much as you do if you had to pay knowingly anything remotely close to the true cost of constructing and maintaining the road and traffic system?
Since Njorl has now kindly provided BTS figures for total subsidies by transportation mode, I can change my answer to this question from "probably" to "definitely." Based on the BTS data, if all government subsidies for highways were completely eliminated, and the costs were passed on to drivers, it would increase driver costs by a whopping $5 per thousand passenger-miles. That's half a cent per passenger-mile. Such a trivial increase in driving costs would probably have only a negligible effect on driving.
"[I'm] not talking about 'modes of transportation in the abstract.'"
Oh really? From just two of your posts:
". . . commutes in general . . ."
". . . the issue of transportation policy in general . . ."
". . . transit vs. driving in general . . ."
". . . commuting in general . . ."
". . . cars vs. transit in general . . ."
". . . transportation policy in general . . ."
And so on.
Ignoring specific cases and trying to draw conclusions about modes of transport "in general" is your whole shtick, Mixner. But the very idea of trying to evaluate modes of transportation "in general" is just silly.
It's all just faith-based wishful-thinking bullshit, same as it always is with you.
Ooooh, Mixner's breaking out the four letter words -- I'm getting all tingly inside. Do you think his little head will explode if Obama wins the election? Perhaps he'll just move to Estonia.
DTM,
Oh really?
Yes, really. You do know that "in general" doesn't mean the same thing as "in the abstract," don't you?
Have you managed to find any serious empirical justification for that $400/thousand-pm transit subsidy yet, DTM? Or is it still a matter of your faith-based wishful thinking?
Mixner,
Again, thanks for demonstrating my point. Externalities, and thus subsidies, have to be evaluated case by case. So every time you ask that question, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the concept.
It may or may not be false, but your link obviously doesn't resolve the question. It only addresses roads in Texas, a very large state with a low population density. Traffic density on Texas roads is probably significantly below the national average.
The link deals with Houston -- a large city with a much greater population density than either Texas or the United States.
Er, congestion works both ways. Transit systems are often congested at rush hour. Building more roads allows more people to drive instead of using mass transit. That relieves mass transit congestion.
Because, as everyone knows, when a train is standing room only it can only move at 1/10th its normal speed...
It is a trivial exercise to produce a list of both positive and negative externalities for both driving and transit.
Go for it.
DTM,
Externalities, and thus subsidies, have to be evaluated case by case.
You haven't provided any evaluation of transit externalities and subsidies for even a single "case," let alone for transit in general.
You simply wave your hand, utter your secret word "externalities," and declare that no further analysis is necessary. Apparently, you seriously believe that that nonsense constitutes a serious argument for your position. It's a joke. You don't have any evidence. You don't have any facts. You don't have any quantitative analysis. Just endless repetitions of your wishful thinking and faith-based policy prescriptions.
"You haven't provided any evaluation of transit externalities and subsidies for even a single 'case,' let alone for transit in general."
The first part is a lie, because I have directed you to such studies before.
The second part, "let alone for transit in general," again just displays your ignorance of the concept.
Dmonteith....sorry, I mean "jack lecou" (you can drop the act now)
I'm still waiting for you to produce even rough numbers, let alone "precise" ones, to justify the hugely disproportionate subsidies transit receives. Do you have any or don't you?
By the way, just out of interest, how many more handles are you posting under to try and hide your obsession with me?
Deep Thought:
Mixner is extremely well-fed.
Re: Since gas taxes (more than) pay for the roads, I think it's safe to say the answer is yes.
Completely false.
So what? Roads do not build themselves. Ultimately the people who use the roads do pay for them. (It's not like the money that builds and maintains them falls from Heaven). And let's be clear on one thing: EVERYONE without exception uses the roads, whether directly as a driver, or indirectly as a passenger (including a bus passenger) or a beneficiary of goods and services that are transported on the roadways. So I really don't see a justice issue here. We all use the roads, we all pay for them. In fact, since people who drive a lot end up paying more (because they uy mroe gas), the cost is even roughly proportional.
As to parking: beware the law of unintended consequences. Parking is already pretty pricey in most cities. Here in Baltimore downtown and inner harbor parking is $6/hr during the day, or $10. during "events" like Orioles games. If you make it too expensive to park, you drive people away from downtowns and they end up driving farther (=more emissions, more gas usage) to get to the sorts of businesses they need to go to. At the edtreme if downtown businesses lose too many customers they will close and everyone, even people who live near enough to downtown to walk, will have to drive more.
Also in regards to transit: you want free parking near train stations, and suburban express bus pick-up locations-- lots and lots of it. Not too many folks live (or will ever live) close enough to walk to the stations. Most drive to a nearby station and leave their car all day, taking the train to their ultimate destination. Make it more expensive to do this and fewer people will be taking the train.
Thus ought to be common sense, but there's a strain of irrational car-hatred on these threads that can't see these simple points.
DTM,
I have directed you to such studies before
Ah yes. The old "I've already produced what you asked for" nonsense. Another DTM favorite. Where are they, DTM? Where are these alleged studies?
Deep Thought:
Southpaw has a horrible deformity.
Mixner,
One of the ones I have provided to you multiple times before is this one:
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/mwrri-economic.pdf
Generally, there are going to be studies like this for every major transportation project. Which you would know if you were actually interested in transportation issues.
Somebody please point out to Mixner, since I am not talking to him, that I have already provided an analysis of the benefits of subsidizing transit in the Washington, DC area. To recapitulate:
1. The roads in the District, and the bridges feeding into it, are at capacity. The land does not exist for a substantial increase in capacity.
2. Yesterday, Metro reported 830,470 subway boardings, and 461,223 bus boardings, for a total of 1,291,693 individual riders. (The total figure is exaggerated, of course, as those transferring from bus to rail, or vice versa, are counted twice.) A large fraction of those trips were made into or out of the district at rush hour.
3. If existing subsidies were suddenly withdrawn, the trains and the buses would stop running. Thousands and thousands of people would have to try driving to work. The consequences would be unimaginable; the city would cease to function.
4. Therefore, whatever the current subsidy level is, it is absolutely justified..
That relieves mass transit congestion.
Umm, Mixner, a crowded bus moves just as fast as an empty one. And indeed, more popular routes are generally better experiences for the riders because the buses come more often. The bus I ride into work now comes so often in the mornings (about every 4 minutes) that I never have to sweat about catching a particular bus, as the next one will be coming right behind it.
Traffic congestion, on the other hand, doesn't work the same way.
DTM,
One of the ones I have provided to you multiple times before is this one:http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/mwrri-economic.pdf
You're nothing if not a constant source of amusement. I ask for studies supporting your claims about transit, and in response you link to a study about intercity rail. You do understand that these are not the same thing, don't you? And even the study you cite contains no analysis of externalities and subsidies.
Umm, Mixner, a crowded bus moves just as fast as an empty one.
It most certainly does not. Crowded buses will need to stop for longer periods to allow passengers to board and exit the bus. The more crowded the bus, the longer this process is likely to take, as passengers have to squeeze past each other to get to and from the doors. Also, if the bus stops only on request, it will not stop at all if it is empty until it arrives at a stop with someone waiting to board it. But I have no idea what you think this has to do with the statement of mine you're responding to anyway.
And indeed, more popular routes are generally better experiences for the riders because the buses come more often.
Huh? Service frequency may be higher, but the bus is also likely to be more crowded. On popular routes at rush hour, it may be standing-room only. Maybe you think having to stand in a crowded bus is a "better experience" than being able to sit in a half-empty one, but I doubt most riders would agree with you.
Good luck trying to persuade people that using transit is a pleasant experience. Yes, there's nothing like having to walk to and from a bus stop in the pouring rain, snow, or hail. Nothing like standing there at the bus stop waiting for the bus, not knowing when it will arrive, especially in the stifling summer heat of, say, Phoenix, or bitter winter cold of, say, Chicago. Nothing like standing there in the noisy, smelly bus, packed like sardines in the rush hour crush, with people farting or belching or emitting body odor next to you. Yes, it's a thoroughly joyous experience.
"And even the study you cite contains no analysis of externalities and subsidies."
That is definitely proof that Mixner doesn't understand what an externality is.
By the way:
"Public transport, public transportation, public transit or mass transit comprise all transport systems that transport members of the general public, usually charging set fares."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit
So intercity rail is a form of public transit, something Mixner would understand if he actually was interested in transportation issues.
That said, here is another study not limited to intercity rail:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/docs/finalreports/05-14tranbenefits-f.pdf
Of course Mixner won't be able to figure out what in that study involves externalities, because he actually doesn't know what an externality is.
I swear Mixner is Judge Doom from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
DTM-
What Mixner wants is something like "the benefits of a bus stop at the corner of Main and Ivy.". Which is a fine college paper, intern project, or think tank lackey task. Not a transit study that aggregates these and other data. Mixner, use the Google. Any large transit system worth it's salt will have things you could read. As you are disputatious in this forum on the matter it falls to you to find a study, debunk it, and demonstrate the lack of positive externalities to publically funded transit. Stop insisting DTM does your homework.
Ladies & gentlemen, I believe Mixner's true objection to transit has surfaced. and it's the same as his objection to cities: They're full of - shall we say - poor people!
By the way, the bus my wife takes back and forth from work every day is faster than driving would be at rush hour.
Just saying.
RoboticGhost,
I normally agrre with your transit posts, but in this case I have to respectfully disagree. Mixner lacks the intellectual honesty necessary to actually want anything in particular. For that matter, he also lacks the basic conceptual understanding he would need to even formulate such a desire. And I happen to know exactly what he would do if you actually did provide a study of the benefits of a bus stop at the corner of Main and Ivy--he'd claim the corner of Main and Ivy was not "representative" of the nation as a whole.
By the way, on that subject, one of the most hilarious things that happened (Mixner-wise) in this particular thread is the exchange regarding Houston and Texas. True to form, Mixner in a later post articulated his traditional view that only the South and West count, and the rest of the country can go screw itself because it isn't representative of the South and West. But since someone cited a study from Houston/Texas, Mixner was forced to also claim that Texas was non-representative of the country as a whole. So at this point, it now appears that according to Mixner, there is in fact no part of the United States that is actually representative of the United States.
Which is Mixner's goal, I guess. Apparently now no facts from anywhere in the United States count, and there is nothing Mixner would like better than a world without inconvenient facts.
DTM,
So intercity rail is a form of public transit, something Mixner would understand if he actually was interested in transportation issues.
No, it doesn't. Something DTM would understand if he weren't so gullible as to think everything he reads in Wikipedia is true and accurate information. The terms "transit" or "mass transit" are generally understood to refer to public transportation systems within a metropolitan area. That's why the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics explicitly distinguishes the category "Transit" from the category "Intercity Rail." DTM might realize this if he had a clue what he was talking about.
Of course Mixner won't be able to figure out what in that study involves externalities, because he actually doesn't know what an externality is.
DTM is so utterly clueless that not only does he think a study on intercity rail supports a claim about transit, but he doesn't even realize that the study he cites doesn't even mention externalities, let alone discuss them quantitatively in relation to subsidies.
What Mixner wants is something like "the benefits of a bus stop at the corner of Main and Ivy.".
No, I want what I asked for: a study that shows that the externality costs of highways are higher by $400 per thousand passenger-miles--or some value even remotely close to that--than the externality costs of transit. Because that's the difference in the level of subsidy we provide for transit vs. highways, and morons like DTM keep asserting, without any evidence whatsoever, that this huge disparity in subsidies is justified on the grounds of "externalities."
You obviously have no such study. DTM has no such study. No one has produced any study even vaguely supporting the assertion that transit's massively disproportionate subsidies are justified by differences in externalities. It's all just the same old wishful thinking and faith-based bullshit that we've seen before.
From the BTS dictionary:
Transit: Another name for "public transportation."
http://www.bts.gov/dictionary/list.xml?letter=T
"Public Transportation: Transportation by bus, rail, or other conveyance, either publicly or privately owned, which provides to the public general or special service on a regular and continuing basis. Also known as "mass transportation", "mass transit" and "transit."
http://www.bts.gov/dictionary/list.xml?letter=P
And Mixner, seriously, you don't know what an externality is.
DTM
I aquiesce to your civil rebuke. We both have mixered it up and moved on in the past only to jump back in when someone who could know better starts drinking his Cato Kool Aid. His central argument teeters on data from 2001, which might as well come from 1972, 1910, chocolate chip cookie sales in England, or the liklihood of penguins writing poetry for all the good it does. Beyond that it's all the spiritual cousin of intelligent design. But he does pitch a fine vintage of snake oil if your interests don't coincide. So it's worth holding him to task on occasion.
Keep up the good fight.
DTM,
You really seem determined to keep proving how ignorant you are. Take a peek at BTS Table 1-37: U.S. Passenger-Miles. Note the separate categories for "Transit" and "Intercity Rail." Transit includes only "heavy rail," "light rail" and "commuter rail." Transit explicitly excludes "intercity rail."
As I said, you don't have the remotest clue what you're talking about. Have you found a study on transit externalities and subsidies yet?
]No, I want what I asked for: a study that shows that the externality costs of highways are higher by $400 per thousand passenger-miles--or some value even remotely close to that--
A Journal of Economic Literature study came in at $2/per gallon in negative externalities. By the time you've emptied a 12 gallon tank you have created $48 worth of nuisance, pollution and congestion.
Mixner,
And your chart says "Rail" above "Intercity / Amtrak", so clear Transit doesn't include any rail.
Except it does.
Maybe it is not the best idea in the world to rely on inductive definitions from chart headings.
By the way, both studies I cited above discuss externalities. You just don't know what an externality is.
Two other points. Mixner covered how the highways and roads serve more than just the Lefty-demonized planet-polluting motorist - who if "pure" would just bicycle..They serve everybody by allowing rapid, efficient distribution of goods and services.
The first point draws from that - completion of the Interstate Highway system worked so well for the economy that it boosted American productivity 25%, worker standard of living 20%. The single highest gain of any infrastructure improvement besides electricity - more than rails, more than the common computer, more than the Internet. In this, the Interstate has paid for itself dozens of times over, and the cost of maintenance is best not seen as "only for people that evilly cause global warming with their filthy cars" but as a price to maintain that productivity gain.
The second is that it is called the National Defense Interstate Highway System for a reason. Because amateurs about the military study tactics or the laws protecting precious terrorist rights. But generals study logistics.
Eisenhower saw the German autobahn as the greatest advance in military logistics since the rail, then canal locks, and before that the network of Roman roads.
That important. It put everything a military needed in terms of resources and labor withing 3 days of anywhere else in CONUS.
Any discussion of the roads must also add not just value to motorists and the overall economy, by their huge role in national defense. Which all taxpayers justly pay a piece of, just like with rails and rail bridges.
Its nice to see that Mixner has time to come over to this thread and complain about me rather than respond to my devastating takedown of his idiocy over in the "Dude, Where's My Oil" thread.
(I actually would prefer to leave it to others to judge whether it's "devastating" or just run of the mill, but I'm trying to provoke him into a response. The humor/depravity factor's pretty high but I'd like to see if it goes to 11.)
I also seem to recall a recent complaint on Mixner's part that I was stalking him, but I think we can see that the obsessive shoe is on the other foot now. Cheers!
That relieves mass transit congestion.Umm, Mixner, a crowded bus moves just as fast as an empty one.
You obviously do not take the bus.
When the bus I ride is more crowded, it makes more stops, and takes longer for people to get on and off at each stop. Honolulu's bus system on-time record is down to somthing like 65% due to the increased ridership since the gas spike. (per the ads that are advertising support for the rail system- I do not know what it was before)
oops, if i would have read beyond the first line, i would see that you took take the bus; my apologies.
still, it is still undeniable that a more crowded bus is slower. true, after a certain level, they may add more routes, (or more busses to the same route) which is what i see what your point was.
(actually, i wish they would do the opposite in honolulu. most of the routes, especially to windward, that are coincident for a good portion of the journey, all clump up around the stops they have in common at the same time each hour, rather than be staggered evenly around the hour as I would like)
When the bus I ride is more crowded, it makes more stops, and takes longer for people to get on and off at each stop.
This is undoubtedly true (even though Mixner also said it).
Some would see this as a reason to increase service. Mixner, of course, sees it as a reason to do away with buses entirely.
To be blunt, the interstates are not a major part of "defense", never have been, and never will be. Anyone who thinks they are has a very poor grasp of military logistics. They were called "defense highways" to steamroller opposition, and indeed, for a time people thought they could flee the atomic bomb by getting in their car and leaving the city.
The Cuban missile crisis, however, convinced most thinking people that in a nuclear war they would end up as considerably less than toast, trapped in a monster traffic jam when everybody tried to flee the cities.
I'm not revealing any military secrets when I say the north Kitsap peninsula has two major naval facilities and they are both served by rail, in an area where rail never served private enterprise or public transportation needs. It's a purely military railroad, you almost never see military traffic on the roads here, and the military have never shown any interest in the strategic needs of road transportation here. Probably because military stuff is generally too heavy to move by road unless you actually need to do so for fighting.
By the way, I wanted to note that in my view, the purpose of pointing out that roads are the recipients of large public subsidies is not to support the conclusion that we should stop subsidizing roads. Transportation infrastructure does tend to lead to large positive externalities, so public subsidies make sense, and that includes for roads where they are likely to be the most efficient solution. Rather, the point is just to remind those who complain about subsidies for other modes of transportation about our similar subsidies for roads and the rationale for doing so.
Now, some of those people may then advocate cutting off all public subsidies for transportation infrastructure, including roads. But in my experience there is a nontrivial number of people who end up being fine with continuing our subsidization of roads. And those people should then stop objecting in principle to the idea of subsidizing other modes of transportation.
Your source also shows a $20 billion dollar per year subsidy for transit. From this BTS document, we see that for the same year (2001), total passenger-miles for highways was 4.6 trillion, and for transit was 49 billion.
So the total public subsidy per thousand passenger-miles was about $5 for highways and about $405 for transit.
I was merely pointing out that you were wrong about gas taxes. I don't really have a dog in this fight.
I think your point about relative subsidies gets blurred by boondoggle politics. The highway budget is big enough that it doesn't get swamped by pork. The public transit budget is small. A few congressmen demanding that their essentially sightseeing trains be kept running skew things considerably. Regardless, judging relative efficiencies in a system that has been designed for cars is not really valid. It does mean that it is valid to count the costs of transformation against a prospective system that relies heavily on public transit though.
If we can find a way to make cars go cheaply (about like now, and $4.000/gallon really is cheap) it would probably be best to keep things like they are. If we can't, we're going to need to cut down on transportation. We'll need to increase locallized population densities. It might very well be a good idea to alter conditions now so that we're working towards that state, since infrastructure changes much more slowly than commodity prices.
Subsidized public transit, when not done as a pointless boondoggle, promotes increased population density. It doesn't have to be efficient in the short term to be worthwhile.
Comments closed July 31, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Gah, the format of that blog is terrible. It's like reading an article written on a tongue depressor.
Posted by Jake H. | July 17, 2008 1:17 PM