--- Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com> wrote:
> However there is one grain of truth in Jame's
> assertion. The U.K. has
> penalized motorists a great deal and car use has
> increased. Because at
> the same time in put all these penalities in place,
> the U.K. still
> neglects it's non-motor transport infrastructure.
> Nor has it done much
> to encourage the use of electric cars in spite of
> having a population
> willing to use smaller cars than the U.S. Compare
> car usage in the
> U.K. to car usage in nations with similar gas taxes,
> but which invest
> in rail and non-auto infrastructure. Yes the UK use
> energy more
> efficienctly than the U.S. ( Again price signials
> don't have zero
> effect, just not sufficient in energy.) But public
> investment and
> regulation have greater effects.
Gar, this discussion starts looking like flogging a dead horse, so let me start with reiterating what I see as a consensus.
I fully agree with you that changing the supply side i.e. availability of various modes of transportation is of pivotal importance in usage. After all it was changes in the supply side - availability of automobiles, cheap gas and roads and systematic killing of transit alternatives by the Detroit gang that got us into this mess in the first place. Likewise, changes in the supply side are necessary to change the status quo. It is not just alternative modes of transport, but also different land use patterns, and different organization of time (work, leisure, etc.) that are needed - no doubt about that.
However, I also think that you will agree with me that we cannot ignore the demand side i.e. the "uses and gratifications" of variouus modes of transportation by the consumers. People use various modes transportation for a number reasons, many of which have nothing to do with getting from point A to point B in the most efficient manner. Those other reasons include an array of *perceived* (which typically is not the same as actual) costs and benefits. Such perceptions of costs may include cognitive focus on the cost of gas while "filtering out" other auto-related cost - anything from the cost of the car and financing (which many people often do not consider as their cost of commuting) to "externalized" costs of road construction and maintenance, law enforcement, pollution, etc. The perceived benefits include personal comfort level, social status, convenience, feeling of safety and security, sex appeal or, for that matter, a place for having sex. I am pretty sure that motor-buffs like James Heartfiled have some kind of emotional attachment to cars (like having first sex on the back seat? ;)) that trumps utilitarian mertits and demerits of this mode of transport.
Mere changing the supply side is insufficient to change the behavior - changes on the demand side are equally important. The Detroit gang did not merely started cranking up automobiles in greater numbers, it - and its allies - also unleashed an avalanche of cultural messages glamorizing the automobile. Even after the automobile became practically the only means of transport in the US, the industry is still inundating the airwaves and the print media with a deluge of car propaganda (car commericals top any other form of advertisement). Why do you think they keep doing it? Obviously, there may be several reasons, but one of them is that mere supplying the junk is not enough - you also need to manufacture the demand for that junk.
This is the ABC of monopoly capital - spelled clearly and convincingly by Baran and Sweezy (_Monopoly Capital_) - the whole US economy operates in that way.
Once the demand for a any particular product, or a mode of tranport, has been manufactured and instilled in popular consciousness, you cannot simply change the supply structure and expect people's behavior to adapt. You need to work very hard to change the demand side - an making people pay more for choices that add strain to social and natural environment is one of perfectly legitimate means to that end.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com