Abnormality Arises

This article seems to ignore some of the economics behind transit systems. Now, I’m far from an expert…. I’m studying this stuff right now. But the theory goes like this: transit is subsidized not out of a sense of social justice, but because subsidies are A) necessary to optimize the transportation system as a whole, and B) compensation for positive externalities.

Drivers cause more cost (pollution and congestion delay to others) than they incur (in operating costs and delay). Partially that’s because we already subsidize driving with free roads, extensive infrastructure, and cheap, plentiful parking. And partially that’s the nature of single-occupant vehicle transportation: no economies of density.

Transit users provide more benefits to society than just the personal benefits they receive. Transit users cause less pollution & energy usage per user than cars. Transit makes possible land use densities necessary to make interesting & economically powerful places. The length of time of a transit trip imposes an upper bound on the delay that will occur on a parallel auto route. Transit gets cheaper per person when more people use it…. economy of density.

The transportation network is really concerned with the flow of people, not vehicles. More flow is possible when more people choose the most efficient method. Cars may be efficient for diffuse travel, but to sustain large flows into and out of dense places, especially during peak-periods, transit is needed.

Subsidizing transit, reducing its user costs, incentivizes the efficient behavior AND compensates transit users for the positive externalities they generate.

Social justice? Just a great bonus! (Or maybe another positive externality….)

(Just to tack on to my comment.
When I say drivers cause more costs than they incur, I mean in congested situations.
And I don’t mean to disparage provision of road infrastructure either… clearly the government (i.e. society) pays for it because it makes possible lots of economic activity. Transit should be viewed in the same way, for urban areas that achieve large enough size and density.)

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl told Arizona radio station KTAR that he thought Obama’s speech was “low-brow“:

“His speech was not high-brow, it was more low-brow and a bit surprising in that regard,” said the Senate Minority Whip. […]

He took exception to Obama’s call for “an end to petty grievances” and a political truce in Washington.

“If the idea is we have to avoid controversy by getting in line behind his proposals, that’s not patriotism,” Kyl said. “If he is asking that everybody agree with him and thereby have a truce, that’s not going to work.”

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.</a>

This from a guy who has unceasingly accused those who disagreed with Bush's policies of rooting for America's failure. Hard to get more hypocritical than this.

The point of talking about these two jackasses? We should remember, when nitpicking starts, that no matter how sensible some of it seems, it comes from the same place of rabid, party-over-country mania as these comments.