The Antiplanner is in St. Louis today on behalf of the Show-Me Institute to talk with people about high-speed rail. Tomorrow I’ll be in Springfield, Illinois, doing the same for the Illinois Policy Institute.
Before someone asks why free-market think tanks hate trains, the answer is: we don’t. In fact, many of us love trains. Men have faced this difficulty for a long time, you may have become over familiar with the partner and develop a feel of erotic india generic tadalafil dissatisfaction. Sometimes the discomfort from the online viagra canada stamps shall wake you up in the middle of the night. This could mean a washing laundry space adjacent the main bed room, or pantries next to the garage area to store large items or something as little as a place next to the kitchen to keep important factors and cell mobile phones.Home Builders in Montgomery can simply leave their spouse’s company name off of their practical application. cheap levitra online I deposit the same amount of buying viagra in uk money on the medications. What we hate are subsidies. We oppose subsidies to highways, subsidies to transit agencies, subsidies to airlines, and subsidies to Amtrak. No one happens to be proposing to spend $102 billion dollars (and possibly as much as $1 trillion) of general taxpayer funds on highways, but they are proposing to do so on high-speed rail. So today we focus on high-speed rail.
I have yet to see a thorough critique of the US transportation system as a whole (from all levels of government) from you our any group you represent. Talk is cheap!
The Autoplanner: Before someone asks why free-market think tanks hate trains, the answer is: we don’t. In fact, many of us love trains. What we hate are subsidies. We oppose subsidies to highways, subsidies to transit agencies, subsidies to airlines, and subsidies to Amtrak. No one happens to be proposing to spend $102 billion dollars (and possibly as much as $1 trillion) of general taxpayer funds on highways, but they are proposing to do so on high-speed rail. So today we focus on high-speed rail.
THWM: You’re complaining after the fact, the government has already built the freeway system, plus allowed private transit systems & railroad infrastructure to be destoryed.
Even if highways were built with 100% private money, they are still fed traffic from roads that are not being judged on a profit or loss basis for their existance.
Then there are the zoning things like forced parking requirements.
With civil aviation, the USAF has spent tons of tax money on R&D and airports.
So unless you want to move to Somalia, you’re not going to escape direct, indirect & cross subsidization.
I have yet to see a…critique…from you or any group you represent. Talk is cheap!
A critique isn’t just more “talk”?
You’re complaining after the fact, the government has already built the freeway system
And yet Randal’s opposition to subsidies is still consistent. But you’ve got a good point: I think we should allow ruinously expensively public rail networks to be built up in the interest of fair play. And what better time than now?
The Railwayman: You’re complaining after the fact, the government has already built the freeway system
Dude, you need to learn about the sunk cost fallacy. Money spent and gone does not figure 1:1 against money proposed to be spent in the evaluation of a decision to fund a project. In fact, even if there weren’t a legitimate military justification for the highway system (there is), claiming that we had to spend $Xb on rail to “even things up” against roads would be the very definition of “throwing good money after bad.”
Or else DON’T learn the sunk cost fallacy, but please play against me in a game of poker. 🙂
What about indirect subsidies? What about internalizing costs? Gasoline and suburban subdivisions are subsidized to the extent that the government intervenes so that consumers do not have to pay the true cost of such commodities.
Also I have been a loyal blogger here for 3 years now. To my knowledge O’Toole has not posted a critique about road/highway, or suburban sprawl subsidies that exist all over our great country, with in that time frame. If he has it’s only happened rarely, while rail subsidies are a discussion that happens 3,4, maybe 5 times a week. Talk is cheap! O’Toole obviously has problems with NU style development and rail transit that extend way beyond subsidies they receive. Otherwise he would give more that cheap lip service to other subsidies that go to support things that he “likes” (not saying that he likes the subsidies).
You faithful opposer’s are not going to let you have your cake and eat it too O’Toole. You can’t just say your against ALL subsidies and then only critique one or two types throughout the year.
Mike said: Dude, you need to learn about the sunk cost fallacy. Money spent and gone does not figure 1:1 against money proposed to be spent in the evaluation of a decision to fund a project.
THWM: That still distorts things, there are 100,000+ miles of rail line missing in the USA, the costs for that infrastructure were already sunk.
Mike:In fact, even if there weren’t a legitimate military justification for the highway system (there is), claiming that we had to spend $Xb on rail to “even things up†against roads would be the very definition of “throwing good money after bad.â€
THWM: There were plenty of roads across the USA before the interstates(Route 66, etc), but other wise bringing up the use of military is still socialism.
Mike: Or else DON’T learn the sunk cost fallacy, but please play against me in a game of poker.
THWM: Sorry Mike, I’m not Lady Gaga.
bennett:“You faithful opposer’s are not going to let you have your cake and eat it too O’Toole. You can’t just say your against ALL subsidies and then only critique one or two types throughout the year.”
ws:Agreed.
http://marketurbanism.com/category/free-market-impostors/.
ROT believes in free-markets almost as much as Bush was fiscally conservative.
ws,
Thanks for the link. Never knew that there was an anti-antiplanner.
“ROT believes in free-markets almost as much as Bush was fiscally conservative.” – ws
Have anything to back that claim?
I have yet to see a thorough critique of the US transportation system as a whole (from all levels of government) from you our any group you represent.
This site has an “archives” link. I’d suggest starting there.
Mike: Or else DON’T learn the sunk cost fallacy, but please play against me in a game of poker.
The Railwayman: Sorry Mike, I’m not Lady Gaga.
Never heard of her.
(/Mike looks her up in Wikipedia.)
Soooo… what you’re saying is that poker players are, by definition, LGBT-activist musicians?
Do you even read the crazy crap you type, or are you just, like, “using the Force?” I said it to Dan and I’ll say it to you: you may wish to seek the help of a licensed mental health professional. There is a synapse misfiring somewhere in that nugget of yours. Everyone is aware of it except, apparently, you.
MJ:This site has an “archives†link. I’d suggest starting there.
ws: This is a blog, I was more referring to papers he writes and publishes. But sure, please point me to some blog posts that show true free-market beliefs in land-use and transportation. Otherwise, he’s just an pseudo-libertarian.
prk166: “Have anything to back that claim?”
ws: Yeah, just read through his writings. ROT credits reduced pollution from cars (and their technological advancements) but fails to realize that so many of auto’s technological advancements, including reduced pollution and higher mpg standards are not a free-market endeavor. It was forced regulation by the government not even wanted by the industry.
Randall will further criticize new-urbanism and smart growth standards, but won’t ever critique forced MINIMUM density requirements by suburbs, minimum parking standards by municipalities, and overly designed street design standards that generate sprawl in the first place. Maybe there’s a few rumblings here and there, but hardly a thorough analysis of the entire Trans/LU system at hand.
A true free-marketeer would admonish smart growth, but would also criticize the non-market intervention of local governments into the built environment that makes sure our auto’s movement and storage is unimpeded at the cost of pedestrianism taking root by natural market forces.
ws: pedestrianism taking root by natural market forces.
How does pedestrianism take root by natural market forces? Where’s the market? How do I invest?
Mike said: Do you even read the crazy crap you type, or are you just, like, “using the Force?†I said it to Dan and I’ll say it to you: you may wish to seek the help of a licensed mental health professional. There is a synapse misfiring somewhere in that nugget of yours. Everyone is aware of it except, apparently, you.
THWM: For that matter you’re a John Galt worshiper!
Andy Stahl: “How does pedestrianism take root by natural market forces? Where’s the market? How do I invest?”
ws:You can’t see how getting rid of maximum density limits, single-use zoning, and minimum parking requirements would aid in better pedestrianism? Reduce some of the government codes and regs. that impede such design and you will see more developments that does not cater to the automobile.
What the hell do you think a parking lot that is almost 5-8 acres area in front of stores going to do to surrounding houses? That right there is telling them to walk because you’ve just increased their A to B walking path by 500 feet. It’s hard enough to convince lard-asses to walk 5 minutes somewhere.
Sure, you’d still see the large parking lots for the Costcos / Wal-Marts. Their business is dependent on large auto-traffic movement. But not all businesses have the same needs, but under the municipal codes lots of different businesses are lumped into the same categories.
Market forces = businesses mostly choosing their parking needs, assuming it does not adversely affect surrounding areas.
THWM, if you knew anything about Objectivism you would know that “worship” is the last thing any Objectivist ever does… to anything or anybody. And now you have me feeding a troll. Whatever.
Having an objective, is not the same as being objective.
Just be reasonable, that’s all.