After writing a paper showing that rail transit is a waste of energy, the Antiplanner discovered that UC Irvine economist Charles Lave had written a similar paper for The Atlantic Monthly way back in 1979. So I’ve been quoting him as often as possible. Now comes the sad news that he has passed away. From his vita I infer that he was about 69.
The Antiplanner never had the privilege of meeting Lave, but I’ve always been fascinated by his work. Some of his papers can be found on line with other papers by faculty with the University of California Transportation Center (UCTC). He also wrote numerous articles analyzing data for the UCTC’s semi-annual Access magazine, all of which issues can be downloaded for free.
Among the articles I found instructive and amusing were:
- “Cars and Demographics,” showing that, despite high taxes and the same sort of anti-auto policies advocated by planners here, Europe was relying more and more on cars and less on transit each year (in Access 1);
- “Clean for a Day,” about how annual air pollution inspections did not keep the air cleanr (in Access 3);
- “Love, Lies, and Transportation in LA,” showing that Los Angeles is not as “auto dependent” as many other U.S. citiesr (in Access 4);
- “It Wasn’t Supposed to Turn Out Like This,” about how federal subsidies reduced transit productivityr (in Access 5).
Methyl sulfonyl methane is added to perk up the flow of blood to the cardiac, but it increases with age. levitra online order http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CODE-OF-INTERNAL-PROCEDURES-AND-CONDUCT-FOR-REGULATING-MONITORING-AND-REPORTING-OF-TRADING-BY-INSIDERS.pdf for Erectile Dysfunction The symptoms associated with Erectile Dysfunction can also be a side-effect of using certain medications or drug use. Therefore, metal powder supplier must be prepared to do labor protection and sanitation works. sildenafil online uk you can try these out All necessary herbs are found in the best selling herbal viagra pfizer 100mg supplement now. It is important for people to buy viagra 100mg make sure that the product is first class.
Most of these articles were based on lengthier UCTC papers, but Lave turned reviews of dry data into amusing and instructive lessons in policy analyses. Lave was also the scourge of rail fans who wanted to build a light-rail line in Orange County and is frequently quoted by rail skeptics to this day. The world will be poorer without him.
Lave’s writings are just as bad as yours. They don’t go into any context relating to “Transport Policy”. He mentioned BART, though at the same time there is no mention of the Key System that use to have trains running across the Bay bridge.
At the end of World War One the government started pumping money into roads, while at the same time it didn’t give any tax brakes to private sector streetcar or railroad companies and it’s been that way since.
Tax the tracks, free for all roads.
No wonder Randal comes off as being a hypocritical clown!
Soon after that there was a gas tax which paid for the roads.
Highwayman,
Why do you suggest that streetcar operators should have been given tax breaks?
Streetcars were operated as concessions from public sector regulators. Owners were both the beneficiaries of regulations as well as victims. Fares were regulated tightly, so operators were allowed to branch out into other, more profitable lines of business (e.g. land development and electric power generation). There is no question, however, that streetcars would eventually be superseded as a mode of urban transportation. Over a century of experience has shown us that rising incomes have brought with them the demand for faster, more flexible transportation services.
Secondly, BART is a loser. Lave is hardly the only one to come to that conclusion. Lave only focused on the energy consumption aspects of it. The Atlantic Monthly piece is just a shorter version of a paper he published in the Transportation Research Record in 1977, with some of Lave’s comments on the silly energy policies that were being adopted then (e.g. rationing, windfall profits tax). Many other reviews have been critical of BART, especially the series of reports published during the 70s by UC-Berkeley researchers on the full costs of urban transportation. Melvin Webber, who also died recently, wrote an influential review the BART experience that was published in the journal The Public Interest.
“Transport policy” is essentially the broader failure that gave us many of these mistakes. The inability of politicians to respond to market failure conditions with the right incentives only leads to further distortions and greater wastes of resources. To my knowledge, the Bay Area still suffers from crippling traffic congestion, heavy transit deficits and marginal air quality. To Lave’s credit, Orange County has not yet built a light rail line.
“There is no question, however, that streetcars would eventually be superseded as a mode of urban transportation. Over a century of experience has shown us that rising incomes have brought with them the demand for faster, more flexible transportation services.”
I can’t speak about US streetcars, but the UK version that we call trams were replaced by buses. The reason was that trams were expensive, had a horrid ride quality, and hard wooden seats. Buses have soft upholstered seats and pneumatic tyres, and were cheaper too!
This is still a BS argument. The street in front of your residence is not being judeged on a profit or loss basis.
Also Mr. King buses once had wood seats too. Do you think that Ford is still making Model T’s today?
The street in front of your residence is not being judeged on a profit or loss basis.
Nor is it subsidy-free.
Yes, it is likely subsidized. I suggest all of you who live in cities that pave-repave-fix-fund local access roads via the General Fund move away immediately. Not sure to where, as many cities do this.
Shucky darns.
DS
Did the Highwayman mean local, state or federal when he said “At the end of World War One the government started pumping money into roads,…” But since all the county, state and federal money was poured into rural routes it’s hard to see how this could have impacted on streetcars. California was particularly slow to give municipalities a share of state gas taxes, waiting until after WWII when most of the streetcar systems had succumbed to old age and asset stripping corporate raiders.
Test post.
Francis,
The exact same thing happened in the US. Yet here some still cling to cospiracy theories about collusion by the auto, rubber and oil industries to explain the demise of streecars. Government is usually assigned a role of somewhere between co-conspirator and not-so-benign neglect.
In fact, the ride quality on most modern buses in the US is quite high. There many amenities (e.g. air conditioning, comfortable seats) that can be added to just about any vehicle. The same can be done for streetcars, of course. The point is that type of vehicle matters little, if at all. Charles Lave tried to make this point on many occasions. Needless to say, few who had enough power to make changes listened.
Highwayman and Dan,
Since you insist on trotting out the the local road example again, here are some thoughts.
First, local roads have both of the characteristics of a pure public good. They are non-excludable, except at prohibitively high cost. They are also non-rival: few local access roads carry enough traffic to ever become congested. Thus, it makes perfect sense to finance them out of general revenues. Additionally, since auto ownership is at levels of 90+% in most regions, expenditures and benefits are closely aligned.
Second, local roads provide land access. Without it, urban land would lose all (or nearly all) value above its agricultural land rent.
Third, whether they admit it or not, all citizens use local roads. Even if they are not driving, they are using either the road or its adjoining right-of-way (in the case of sidewalks and bike paths). Only people who never leave their house would not use them, but even then they would still need to have goods delivered to them. Again, without access, their property would lose its value.
Nothing BS about that argument.
MJ still what you are avoiding in saying is that there is a double standard between rail and road.
“What government does for one it should do for all;
What government does not do for all it should do for none.”
Highwayman,
There is no double standard here. In fact, government does does do for all what does for one.
Everyone does receive a minimal level of access, with further consumption linked to use of higher levels of the transportation network (e.g. limited-access highways). These links are financed primarily by fuel excises and other user taxes.
Also, use of publicly subsidized transit systems is guaranteed for everyone. When I board the bus and pay the nominal fare, the bus driver does not ask me for proof of my income.
Lastly, I don’t think you really believe the “What government does for one…” mantra. After all, why do we have income redistribution programs? These programs, regardless of how poorly targeted, do not serve the entire population. Nor should they. I wouldn’t assume that you would propose abolishing these programs on the grounds that they don’t benefit everyone.
MJ you keep avoiding the point.
You might as well have said to me that Hitler wanted to kill Jews, since he view them as a burden.
What exactly is your point? I suspect many around here are curious, as well.
That you are full of crap like Mr.O’Toole, basing stuff with moving goal posts.