home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.econ:7498 talk.politics.misc:45589 talk.politics.theory:4193
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin
- From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
- Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
- Subject: Re: Mass Transit vs. Private Cars Re: Question about
- Message-ID: <BuMsKz.14L@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
- Date: 15 Sep 92 17:58:10 GMT
- References: <1992Sep13.223901.4088@desire.wright.edu> <7995@public.BTR.COM> <183503@pyramid.pyramid.com>
- Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (USENET News)
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
- Lines: 55
-
- In article <183503@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
- >In article <7995@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@public.btr.com writes:
- >|> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
- >|> |bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
- >|> |> I plan to vote libertarian in the upcoming election (due to the clear
- >|> |> lack of any acceptable alternative), but I find myself wrestling with
- >|> |> some of what I perceive, perhaps erroneously, to be `good things' for
- >|> |> society that the Libertarians appear to be against.
-
- >|> |> The first that is obvious to me is government subsidized mass transit.
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- >|> | That's probably the biggest sticking point. Why waste money on
- >|> |inefficient operators?
- >|> | On the other hand, if mass transit is "a good thing" then enough
- >|> |individuals and businesses should be willing to participate in the funding,
- >|> |building, and operating of a mass transit system.
-
- Mass transit was essentially, and in some cases completely, a profit-making
- and tax-paying activity before WWII. It might very well have run into some
- problems earlier if not for the Depression.
-
- But many things intervened to reduce its viability, to the point that very
- few mass transit systems now pay at all. The increased number of private
- cars, for which good, reasonably cheap, reasonably fast versions came out
- essentially at the time of WWI; the advent of the affordable electric
- refrigerator in the 1930s, which made long-term food shopping not only
- competitive, but economical; the increased value of worker time relative
- to goods; and the increased power of electric, and later electronic,
- communication. The building of suburbia started before the Depression,
- and the realization that having people go downtown, instead of their
- local shopping center, was not efficient also contributed.
-
- >|> But isn't it also true that mass transit's main competitor, private
- >|> cars, is also heavily subsidized (roads, traffic cops, paramedics to
- >|> clean up after accidents, externalities like pollution)? Fair
- >|> competition would require that the subsidies for both mass transit
- >|> and private cars be removed.
-
- The roads were needed before private cars, and would be needed if they
- were banned. I suspect that we would need well over half the paved streets
- and roads. Without private cars, we would need more delivery vehicles.
- And a major problem would arise; can we expect to have someone home all
- the time so that deliveries can be accepted? With high unemployment,
- and few working wives, this could be done in the 30s, but not now.
-
- There is a major externality not considered by the advocates of public
- transportation; waiting time, and slow travel time, to take into account
- stops for numerous travelers. Add this cost into the externalities, and
- it is likely to be the largest. Rapid transit systems were not all that
- common, except in high density areas.
- --
- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
- Phone: (317)494-6054
- hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
- {purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
-