Comments on: How to Cut Auto Usage without Social Engineering

By: jabacon@baconsrebellion.com

jabacon@baconsrebellion.com — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 22:11:32 +0000

Point well taken — cars do have externalities, particularly pollution and CO2 emissions. I think the way to deal with those is a carbon tax.

By: Jacob Lynn

Jacob Lynn — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 20:01:24 +0000

Unmentioned but hugely important in a “level playing field” framework is the idea of making cars pay for all of their externalities. Congestion, emissions (carbon and smog), mayhem, noise, etc. Just as important and real is the observed fact that cars make the city less pleasant for everybody around them in a way that pedestrians, bikes, light-rail, etc, do not. (This last one is difficult to quantify, so it’s a bit scary to talk about for someone who wants to maintain the pretense of rationalism.)

On net, car externalities are large and negative; the net externalities for other modes are mostly positive.

If you’re talking about the language used to convince people of certain political stripes to go along, that’s one thing. But economic efficiency point towards aggressively deincentivizing car usage both through ending the various direct subsidies (a pleasant story for libertarians) as well as subsidizing the competition (less comforting but just as necessary).

By: jabacon@baconsrebellion.com

jabacon@baconsrebellion.com — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 18:40:38 +0000

“Suburban sprawl” is also the result of social engineering at all levels of government — federal home financing and tax credits, local zoning codes, state transportation policies. The liberal solution is to compound one form of social engineering with another. Most conservatives defend the “suburbia” status quo without understanding how it arose largely as the perverse result of public policy. Smart Growth conservatives do understand this but believe the answer is to un-do the old social engineering rather than add new layers of it.

By: A Smith

A Smith — Sat, 08 Mar 2014 18:12:45 +0000

“In other words, Badger wants to force me to change my behavior to advance her vision of society”

And what’s the difference here between someone who argues in favor of existing, auto-centric transit policy? Is my behavior not being ‘forced’ into car ownership because this is a prerequisite for life in an economy and built environment designed for cars?

This idea of social engineering is a red herring, just as labels like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are.

By: Tammi Diaz

Tammi Diaz — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:37:15 +0000

” A Good Transit System”
1. A Good Transit System is a Friendly Car-Free & Transit Oriented System.

2. A Good Transit System has Bus System has a Good Bus System.

3. A Good Transit System Helps Individuals Save $5000 a Year on Car Insurance, Gas and Repairs.

4. A Good Transit System Charges for Parking at Park & Ride Lots for Trax and FrontRunner.

5. A Good Transit System has Frequent & Convenient Transportation for All.

6. A Good Transit System Helps Strengthen the Community.

7. A Good Transit System Helps Encourages People to Leave their Vehicles at Home & Help out our Environment.

8. A Good Transit System Helps Individuals become more Physically Fit.

9. A Good Transit System Helps Reduce Poverty & Crime.

10. A Good Transit System Helps Reduce Traffic Grid Lock.

11. A Good Transit System Helps Improve the Economy.

12. A Good Transit System Helps Reduce Road Construction.

13. A Good Transit System Helps Reduce the Cost & Need for Paratransit.

14. A Good Transit System Free Public Transit.

15. A Good Transit System Work on Barrier Free, Benches & Shelters.

16. A Good Transit System Helps Encourages People to take Public Transit to go Shopping, Helps Increase Sale Tax.

17. A Good Transit System makes for a more Educated Population.

By: ValidGarry

ValidGarry — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:24:22 +0000

As it ever is, this is about selecting the proper language for your target audience. The alternatives to cars must seek to answer two of the three – ‘quicker, cheaper, easier’. If an alternative can offer two of the three, it is far more likely to be adopted. Levelling the playing field is the least that should be done to pry the steering wheels from the cold, dead hands of the pro-car lobby.