Dear Matt,

Actually, my graduate work was in resource economics--but I didn't
finish and  get "the union card."  But I do appreciate empiricism and
science in both the "natural world" and the subsection of the "social
world of man."  But in the vernacular--"figures lie and liers figure."
I presume the Greek philosophers coined that one.   Your points are well
taken about O'Toole and simple pamphleteering.

If one wants to examine a case study of light rail, I would expect they
might study the extensions of the Chicago Transit out the NW and other
roadways.  Misdirected social policies killed the old private light rail
in chicago on the streets  and turned the various lines and companies
into the C.Transit Authority.  The old companies received no subsidies,
but instead were taxed for street use and real estate.  But the
established use of those lines today would make an empirical start,
since the direct subsidies as well as the ridership is known.  And they
follow the same route as the major commuter roads.

But user fees for otherwise "public enterprise" is hardly the same as
private enterprise filling a market need.   I agree with toll roads--but
only if  they have NO public ties to run up the costs or to sway to
political influences.  They should not simply become----"The Wisconsin
State Tollway System" for instance.

When I lived in DC, a neighbor of a friend was a top journalist with the
Washington Post--with a White House pass.  He was assigned to a hot
issue at that time and that was drumming up the confiscation of the DC
Transit Company from the owner family of one O. Roy Chalk.  First they
villainized Chalk and made a hosehold boogy-man of him.  Then they
attacked in full force.  They confiscated his transit company which
served DC, Maryland and Virginia.  This allowed the politicians to move
ahead with grand plans not supported by ridership--but which could only
come from subsidy--and it was not politically possible to subsidize
O.Roy Chalk--at least not for new subways, stations, and what-all.  Now
to my point:  This journalist neighbor was as left wing as his
newspaper, the Washington Post and in most of his conversation could
only talk about that upstart to the right--Ronald Reagan in California,
but he found new respect for privately run--cost driven business "in a
world of scarcity."  He was appalled that at what had been a tiny office
of few employees running this giant bus line for all the commuters in
Washington--immediately had become a gigantic staff and overhead.  O.Roy
Chalk had run two type of buses.  New air-ride GMs for regular daytime
and out in the suburbs, but the rush hour bus number expanded nearly
geometrically by the second fleet of buses dating back in some cases
thirty years.  These White brand buses were re-fitted with English
Enfield diesels like in their double deckers.  He also ran the older
type of 1940s GM buses--but none were air conditioned.  He kept the
fairs low and ran on time.  All that changed---and so did the
perspective of this old-time Roosevelter--the journalist.  He had seen
first hand in his own empirical study.

Early railroads went to town which showed they could support a
connection.   Middleton real estate will get an extra shot in the arm,
even though it has higher status than the Sun Prairie direction.  There
will always be economic interests swaying the routes of rail to boost
shopping areas, new government office constructions or just
subdivisions.  Whatever mistakes killed the North and South shore
Chicago light rail lines in the 1950s, these must be identified and not
repeated.  If the line must make a turn to your "mall of America" (if
you have one) such should be at the head of the list for increasing use.

If the subsidy pie must be increased, that should be a referendum
issue.  But if the pie is to be re-distributed, many political and
non-political factors come into play.

I have not said anything new and often social "science" is more complex
than "physical" science.  One might say that what man does not
understand in either science exercise is enormous, yet "social science"
seems so simple to everybody.  The bottom line is that we live in a
world of scarcity and consequence and deal with this world with the
limited mind of man.

Eric

_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies

Reply via email to