Dear Matt Logan, There was much information in the Benjamin Ross article you recommended this GROUP to read. Benjamin Ross states he is President of of a PAC on transportation.
But Benjamin Ross described many alternatives used around the world and attempted to place these variations in their own contexts. But "making points" implies conclusions. Certainly he implied with words and the spacing of his examples his favored actions, but he fell short of making "points" as conclusions. Whereas socialists were not described with that word, Ross liked "left of center." But "right of center" was described with all sorts of names. I found his scholarship was flawed in that manner and along with his article title, reverted into pamphleteering politics. I did learn of many examples and empirical results new to me, though. Certainly I would agree with Ross that subsidized government planning has lead to our distorted and troubled American transportation system. (This is how Ross described it:) ["Decades of highly subsidized automobile use have introduced vast economic distortions in American transportation and land use. They impose an increasing price in economic inefficiency, environmental damage, and loss of livable communities. But the misguided policies of the past have been built into the landscape, and they will not be easily undone."] So, how could anybody conclude that further government intervention and subsidization will "fix the problems" of either transportation allotment or of "smart coercion of land uses?" Ross makes the point that politicos of all flavors have advocated pay as you go transport as toll roads and bridges. Even the most socialist of countries use toll in their central cities. But as his refutation to market people, Ross cites some examples where the added infrastructure to create toll lanes makes a situation which will have the toll inconvenience, yet never become economically viable. Ross is not consistent in that example. If the changes will never become paid, it is not a free market solution. So, why bring such up as advocated by market people and an example of their wrong-headed thinking? I would doubt if "free market people" are against any particular forms of transportation. They are certainly not against rails, above--on--or under the ground. The opposition is against artificially attempting to create a need at public expense in an economy of scarcity. It seems the socialists say, "Let us build what people SHOULD want--and they will come!" Individualists phrase the same as, "Let us build what people have spoken for." Which brings back the question of ridership on a proposed light rail between Sun Prairie and Middleton. Is that on the drawing board? How will such a rail go through Madison and the Isthmus? Will such a rail have just one route? My Dad's PhD dissertation was an inductive economic study on the Obsolescence of Buildings. His school was Northwestern and the city--Chicago. He pointed to all the reasons for the building of street car lines and other forms of transportation. High on the list of reasons was to supply transportation for the real estate interests. Nevertheless, in those days before the CTA, ridership was still important. I would expect that a light rail to both Middleton and to Sun Prairie would boost land values in both cities even though it might run at a big loss with few riders except as a backup system to the automobile. Eric Westhagen ------------------------------------------------------- Matt Logan wrote: > In a perfect world, rail opponents would understand the points made in > this article: > > Stuck in Traffic: Free-Market Theory Meets the Highway Lobby > By Benjamin Ross > http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=658 > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
