<DrumBeat: December 15, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: December 16, 2006>

255 comments on A few more transit stats

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Luis de Sousa on December 15, 2006 - 5:35am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Hi Stuart,

Very interesting graphs, thank you. They in fact spell a bitter tendency because they encompass years of higher energy prices, where people unfortunately didn't abandon private transport for mass transit.

But again you use the single Liberal view point where mass-transit is private and gets subsidies from the State to penetrate the market. And you continue to compare mass-transit to private transportation on that basis - which is ill formulated because it will always cost more to the State. I don't think that Liberalism will ever suit politics towards mass-transit.

Finally you can't possibly assume that in a post peak environment people won't use mass-transit because they aren't using it now. American folk still have wages above most of the countries' folk, and in fact can still afford for expensive private means of transportation. When (if) they loose that capacity they'll have to use mass-transit.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luis de Sousa on December 15, 2006 - 5:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
BTW, do you sleep?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
InfinitePossibilities on December 15, 2006 - 1:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Liberalism and conservatism have nothing to do with the success or failure of mass transit. Only people who are blind on both eyes while walking through cities where it actually works will ever raise such claims.

Here is the short list of places where mass transit systems work:

  1. Cities which have too few parking lots to accomodate commuter cars, e.g. New York, London, Tokio. You can drive in but then you have to drive your car back home because there is no place to stop.

  2. Cities which levy 100% luxury tax on cars and gas, e.g. Singapore.

  3. Cities which have too few parking lots and levy a 100% luxury tax on cars and gas. That would be Singapore.

Everywhere else in the world mass transit is an addition to automotive transportation, not its replacement.

It is refreshing to see thought that once in a while someone shows up who just don't get it and still tries to make it a political matter. It is not. Mass transit is simply a matter of urban design. Some urban planners get a fighting chance to implement working mass transit systems and most don't. It does not matter how many billions of dollars get spent on a system. If it is in the wrong place, it will fail.

Now... that does not mean there should be none in places where they fail. There should be. They are simply a public service to those who can not or do not want to keep a car. Availability of cheap public transportation is simply a matter of quality of life. And quality of life, again, is independent of political affiliation. If a town sucks, it sucks for both, liberals and conservatives.

 

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on December 16, 2006 - 12:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Everywhere else in the world mass transit is an addition to automotive transportation, not its replacement.

Not in Bulgaria and most of Easter Europe AFAIK. Living there gives the distinct feeling that the various forms of mass transit are the primary mode of transportation, while personal cars are considered a luxury (as opposed to necessity) and are accordingly taxed. It is the design of the cities (compact, walkable) which is guiding this policy as well as the cost of energy which has always been high. The mass transit is truly mass - meaning that the majority of the population is using it for most of the trips.

Personally I never missed having a car over there. Having seen both extremes (currently in suburban Atlanta) I can say that if I could choose it will be somewhere in the middle - which is to a great extent achieved in West european countries. I would love if I could take the train to work here and have some free time while travelling instead of being stuck in congestions and risking my life on the highway. I would have still kept the car of course for leisure trips or shopping.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on December 15, 2006 - 2:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Liberal and Conservative labels do little for examining the  facts in transit. My grandfather was the head of Senior Citizens for Nixon (I Know, a dark family secret) in 1968. He was a friend of President Eisenhower, and spent his carrer as the head of the Lumberman's association.In other words, he was an old fashioned conservative. He rode the bus fro Houston's suburbs downtown every day to work in Houston, and not because wasn't wealthy. During the 1940's in Houston, and nationwide, people's expectations and desires were very different.
My grandparents owned one automobile, as did my parents until the mid 1960s.I rode city busses to schoole until my graduation from High School.
  Cars are fantasticially expensive. Depreciation, fuel, insurance, extra expense for driveways and inside parking, maintaince-I bet if we add it all up then the IRS 0.445 cents per mile deduction looks too low. Thats $5,000 or $6,000 a year for most automobiles and even more for luxery cars like Hummers or $60,000 dually pickups.
  We subsidise automobile with huge streets, highways, bridges, and tax credits on many wastefull automobiles. They make subways look pretty cheap, and thats not counting the CO2 or emmissions problem. Our national security is a farce when we are importing 70% of our energy.
  So be a chump. Label yourself and others Conservative and Liberal rather than take a look at reality-anyone who does this with the peak oil situation is just stupid and gullible. Its an old totalitarian trick-divide and conquer.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
toilforoil on December 15, 2006 - 3:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I believe Luis was using the term 'liberal' in its historic reference to an economic policy perspective.  Many if not most businesspeople who describe themselves as conservatives adhere to this outlook, while today's 'liberals' are associated often with the idea of the advantages of the welfare state.  John Stuart Mill could provide more insight into the classic liberal view.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slx on December 15, 2006 - 3:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
For the readers' information, "liberal" in Europe has in the first place the connotation of "free market". Liberal in politics usually means striving for less restrictions both in economic and ethical matters, what would rather be called "libertarian" on the other side of the pond. A liberal over there, center-left in the political spectrum, would be called a socialist or social-democrat or occasionally a christian-democrat in Europe.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on December 15, 2006 - 7:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My bad, Luis. I guess I'm just overly sensitive from listening to the morons who call themselves consevative and try to tye all kinds of extraneous issues to the original proposition in order to discredit it by association.
  I guess its time to confess to my dark secret, Rove is my ex-husband-in-law. His first ex-wife was my third ex-wife. This is a relationship recognised on the Jerry Springer show and in any trailer park in Texas. It makes me overly sensitive to neocons.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on December 16, 2006 - 1:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
They used to say the Plantagenet Kings of England were descended from the Devil Himself

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Rulers/norman.html

William the Conqueror down to Edward III.

Your story is almost as good!  

I remember his ex wife was a Dallas oil heiress, and that brought him to Texas?

The man is the political genius of his age, although the strategy of 'divide and rule' hasn't quite played out: they vacated the political centre and the Democrats have, for the mo' at least, occupied it.

If they hadn't invaded Iraq, then I think things might have come out very differently, so you could say Rove was in part ruined by the materials (ie GWB) that he had at hand, rather than the strategy itself.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on December 17, 2006 - 7:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
the problem with mass transit is a simple one.

The benefits aren't capturable (entirely) by the operator and user.

If you use public transport, I benefit because I can drive to work more quickly, there is less air polllution, etc.

It's an uncaptured positive externality problem.

Interestingly, in the UK, when new roads are proposed, they are allowed to calculate the uncapturable externality (ie benefit to society as a whole) in the cost-benefit equation.

This is not the case when new rail systems are proposed.

In a true Libertarian perspective, ie an economic efficiency one, you would want a system that captured the benefits of taking public transport, for the operators of public transport systems.

Taxes such as the London congestion charge are a first step down this road.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.