Jordan Hayes:
>Well, in terms of energy and noise per unit locomotion, they are
>much better than, say, airplanes or ferry boats. And they are much
>cheaper than, say, BART.
Bullshit, with all due respect. Gasoline-powered car use less than 30% of the energy they consume for locomotion, the memaining two thirds is wasted as heat. Electrically powered BART is ceratinly more efficient than that. Moreover one-person-per-car mode of transportation creates waste of infrastructure (6-lane freeway versus 1 track), congestion, etc. For an average commuter, his/her car is idle while he/she is at work, whereas BART cars are still utilized during that time. BART is safer than the car because the probability of someone making a fatal mistake on a busy freeway is much much greater than the probability of someone making a fatal mistake on a BART system. Thus, the cost of externalities (property loss, injury, death) is lower for BART than the car-based transit.
The MARGINAL cost of using a car (basically, the cost of gas) is certainly less than the marginal cost of taking BART (fare), but when you factor in all your overhead expenses - the cost of the car itself, interest on your car loan, car insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. you end up with at least 30 cents per mile for a cheap car (such as Saturn) and probably twice as much for more expensive and less fuel efficient models. So when you consider the overall cost, a 10-mile ride costs you between 3 and 6 bucks, comparing to about 2 bucks on BART. That does not include the cost of highways and their maintenace and policing - which in this country is subsidized BIG time by Uncle Sam. In fact, the US is the only industrialized country with a highway welfare system - in all other countries roads are paid for in full by user fees (e.g gasoline taxes).
Max Sawicky:
>ample and free mass transit. But the plain fact is that
cars are often preferred by those who can afford it because
they are . . . preferable. Fetishism, SUVs, and dead squirrels
have nothing to do with it.
>
Max, but what is it exactly what makes them preferable, if not the lack of alternatives which were purposefully destroyed, and sex appeal?
As far as the dead squirrels are concerned, if I were to choose, ceteris paribus, between junking a car and killing a squirrel, i'd most likely opt for the former. And that is a rational, not just a sentimental, choice. Ceteris paribus, there is a greater harm resulting from killing a squirrel than junking a car, except that this harm is externalized and thus not counted in most cost-benefit calculations. Cars do not feel pain, squirrels do.
>The only way to penalize car use is to make it more expensive --
gas tax, license, etc. If car costs are regressive, so too would
This is not the matter of penalizing but ending public subsidies. The US is the only developed country that publicly subsidizes private cars - in all other countries users pay for this luxury (mostly through gasoline taxes). If you want to get an idea of the size of the automobile welfare in the US - compare the prices of gasoline in Western Europe and the US - what the Europeans pay for the liter, we pay for the galon (3.6 liters) and Uncle Sam subsidizing the rest.
>penalties be. By all means make public transit cheaper --
there will be more room for us on the road. In the end,
more people will take trips and accomplish some purpose,
all to the good, but the roads will probably look much
the same.
>
Expanding the public system would certainly make the marginal cost (fares) lower - but that requires a political will to do so (which is clearly lacking in this country). Coupling that with ending the automobile welfare state and requiring car users to pay the full cost of their luxury (including the cost of building, maintaining, and policing roads and highways, cleaning environmental pollution, and operating the registration system) would definitely tip the cost/benefit balance toward public transit.
Jim heartfield:
>That's what makes cars attractive, though, that people decide for
>themselves where to go. Maybe the idea of lots of people making their
>own decisions upsets you. It doesn't me.
Jim, since I value most of what you post to this list, I wonder if you are serious when you write such bullshit. People deciding for themselves???? Gimme a break. Have you tried to drive a car to New York City or Washington DC during a business day? It's hell!
It is precisely because of the freedom of movement why I usually pay $130 for the train instead of driving for about $40 (including tolls) to New York. Aside the fact that the train trip takes about 2 hrs and 40 minutes which I can use for reading or relaxing, instead of 3.5 hrs (or more if traffic is bad) I must spend on nothing but driving, the lack of a car in New York gives me the following freedoms:
- the freedom from worrying how to avoid gridlocks and jams on bridges, tunnels and streets; - the freedom from worrying about damaging my car on potholes (e.g. $60 for wheel alignment, $200 for the replacement of the exhaust system); - the freedom from having to find a parking space in the reasonable distance form my destination (in fact, the cost of parking in NYC or Washington DC can be twice the minimum hourly wage); - the freedom from worrying about my car being towed or ticketed (tickets run about $50 a piece, towing is about $200-$250 per incident); - the freedom from worrying about my car being broken into, vandalized, or stolen (e.g. the cost of side window is about $100-$150, the windshield or rear window, much more) - the freedom to party and get "under the influence" without worrying how i will be able to drive.
I am not denying that in small towns and rural areas car is a necessity that actually increases the freedom of movement - but in big cities it actually restricts that freedom. Ok, small towns and rural areas are the promised land for most US-ers, but for chrissake, progress and civilization thrive the cities - "rural idiocy" is a sure way to kill them both. Why would a marxist like yourself want to measure progress by the transportational needs of a rural population or petty bourgeoisie?
Another aspect of car ownership is restriction on constitutional freedoms and rights. In the US, having a car is basically tantamount to renouncing your basic constitutional rights and freedoms: the right to a jury trial, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a due process. If you drive a car, any cop can stop it, demand that you take a sobriety test, search the car without a warrant, and confiscate it if he "finds" drugs in it. And that is perfectly legal, according to a Supreme Court's ruling. Even if you are later aquitted on drug possession charges, you cannot get your confiscated property back.
Moreover, automobilie redefines your "freedom of movement" from a right to a government-granted privilege. Driving is a privilege that government grants to you and can revoke it at any time - not just for your traffic violations, but for nonpayment of certain fees as well. So if you get drunk and try to return home - which is legal - but get caught driving - you loose your driving privilege and effectively, your right to domestic travel is severely restricted.
This is the same principle as in x-USSR where domestic travel was subject to government approaval. In x-USSR you could not travel wihtout a government-issued pass, in the US you cannot use the most common and often only available) means of transportation without government permission. Although the means differ, the effects are the same - restrictions on domestic travel.
In fact, travel restrictions are an important factor in land use politics in the US. As a rule, suburban communities resist public transportation in order to restrict access of "undesirable" people to their areas. Not having a car or a licence to drive is tantamount to being barred from socially desirable places - just as not having a travel or residence permit barred people from socially desirable places (big cities) in x-USSR - with one important difference: the US-style restriction allows maintaining the facade of democracy and individual freedom.
It comes to me as a big surprise that otherwise intelligent people can be so easily duped by such petty bourgeois hogwash.
wojtek