--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> And yet: too many people drive into the city. That
> must mean they are
> stupid? Unable to see the attractiveness of it?
[WS:] I am afraid that it is you this time who needs to read for comprehension. I explicitly mentioned in my posting the endowment effect which is well established in reserach. That effect causes people to irrationally stick to what they already have and reject alternatives which they otherwise would judge as attractive. Read for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect
In order to overcome that effect it is necessary to make driving less attractive, even if attractive alterantives are available. This has nothing to do with being stupid or not seeing the alternatives - it just part of the "human nature."
You said it yourself that you are in favor of making driving less desirable if attractive alternatives are available. I gather that we agree that NYC has such alternatives. So how on earth do you expect to make driving less desirable if not by increasing its MARGINAL cost (fixed cost will not do) through some form of user/congestion fee? By waterboarding drivers?
Furthermore, I specifically said that I agree with you on funding transit via general taxes - yet you keep repeating that funding transit vis user fees is ineffcient. So let me reiterate - I AGREE.
However, I am arguing a different point - one of using fees to make driving less attractive. The efficiency measure in this case is whether the user fees make driving less convenient - and you seem to agree that they do by claiming that they impose extra burden on drivers if they chose to drive, and they create congestion at collection points.
So I cannot help but conclude that we agree on most issues, namely that (a) creating transit alternatives to driving should precede any effort to make driving less attractive in order to make people drive less; (b) such alternatives should be funded by general tax;
(c) such alternatives exist in some parts of the US, e.g. NYC, but not in all parts; (d) user/congestion fees make driving less attractive by imposing extra financial burden on drivers and creating more congestion at collection points.
Where we seem to disagree is that you object to implementing user fees on some apparently emotional grounds, whereas I have no such objections and in fact I see it as an opportunity to use my car more efficiently (avoid congestion) if I am willing to pay the price. Since this is a value judgement issue, I am afraid that we have to agree to disagree on that.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com