Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

Post by MrMorden » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 11:54 PM UTC

ken wrote: post #65

so33 wrote: post #41

City Observatory is a publication that lobbies for urbanism. So you have to take that into context when considering their argument. Their argument is not that removing roads doesn't reduce quality of life – their argument is that cities _adapt_ and that tearing away infrastructure for cars in favor of housing and "human-scale" neighborhoods won't necessarily result in doom and gloom. Of course removing a highway will…

This is basically the Invisible Hand, and I don't see it. Seattle (at least anywhere within 30 minutes of downtown) is being taken over by tech workers making huge salaries. They're building condos, not stores. The stores that are being built are high-revenue specialty stores, like cannabis. When transportation becomes impractical, it first becomes impractical from the bottom (like artists and service workers) -- the…

Post by closeparen » Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

romwell wrote: post #53

closeparen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you make this argument against any public service? We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost. We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian. The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer mor…

>Can't you make this argument against any public service? >The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer more mobility at the same price point. So, yes and yes?

Post by closeparen » Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #36

closeparen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you make this argument against any public service? We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost. We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian. The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer mor…

Yes, you can make that argument against any public service. And it is worth discussing for any public service. All public services have benefits, and all of them are capable of being overprovisioned. In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education. The benefits are diffuse enough that it is worth subsidizing...although we're probably hitting diminishing returns on t…

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 11:18 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #74

TeMPOraL wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can. But roads (the public service) are a separate concern from people moving around (private decisions). I want the roads to be built ahead of and shaping demand. But I also want emission costs to be fully internalized be the drivers. I expect this would cut down demand for excess commuting quite sharply. I don't mind people traveling in general, as long as we can sustainably afford it. Right now, we can't susta…

The theme of TFA is that they are not separate. The provision of roads influences how much people move around. What's to say we can sustainably afford current levels of public transport? Should construction costs and associated disruptions to the city be fully internalized by riders?