Do you want to social engineer mass transit? Let me first make my philosophy clear. I think that is a bad idea. I have been attempting for some time to draw one transit advocate into a discussion of the "greater benefits of mass transit" because when you pin them down on the non cost-effectiveness of transit, they generally flee to another thread leaving in their departing wakes claims of secondary benefits of transit on energy efficiency, air pollution, social justice, and whatever. Rarely do they make any real attempt to debate these, assuming that everyone will accept these as "givens" or at least enough of a distraction that they can depart the stage without having to admit the irrationality of their pro-transit biases.

Now while I donUt think that social engineering is an appropriate mission of government, I can tell these pro-mass transit social engineers how to get a cheap short term victory (cost you dearly in the long run, but then, most social engineering attempts do).

LetUs start with a question: WhatUs the most widespread and economically efficient mass transit system in the nation? UhIIuh????? ThatUs embarrassing isnUt it? YouUre a mass transit social engineer, and YOU DONUT KNOW!

Let me provide you with a little assistance: ItUs the school bus system. School buses carry about 85% of the passenger miles that regular transit does, mainly in nine months a year. Excepting the summer months, they equal or exceed the passenger miles of what we normally refer to as transit, every day. And little wonder. This is, after all, one of the few remaining sizable transit dependent populations (unable to drive). The amazing thing is that they do it REAL CHEAP with spartan buses and relatively low wage/benefit (and part-time) drivers. And they can do this because THEIR CUSTOMERS DONUT HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE.

Until high school, that is. School bus ridership drops off abruptly at around 10th grade and in the last two years is quite low. The same routes are being driven at the same hours, but once kids start to get their licenses, they just donUt use the bus much. If it werenUt for this drop-off, the number of passenger miles traveled annually by school bus in NINE months would nearly equal the number of passenger miles traveled on conventional transit in TWELVE months. I donUt know of anything that more accurately reflects the reality that mass transit doesnUt have a SUPPLY problem, it has a DEMAND problem.

But this is an area where you social engineers have some advantages in your goal of FORCING people to use mass transit. HereUs what you suggest:

1. Eliminate student parking lots at all high schools (ItUll save tax money, reduce sprawl, help to control cutting classes.). 2. REQUIRE all students eligible to ride the bus to ride the bus (Make maximum efficient use of taxpayer provided services, decrease cruising, unsafe driving practices, drag-racing, etc.). 3. DONUT LICENSE people until they graduate from high school (discourages drop-outs, encourages learning).

You could back this up by a "chaff and flares" campaign, and much of this is even true: a. Air pollution: Most trips to school are short trips. 80% of air pollution from commuters comes from "cold-starts" the initial period of operation when the engine and catalytic converter are cold. ThatUs why park n rides donUt make any sense from an air pollution standpoint. The marginal polluting youUll do AFTER the commute to and from the park n ride really isnUt any more than you do riding the bus from park n ride to destination and back. But this situation is, if anything, worse for the high-school student. They may well get to school before their cars even warmed up. b. Air pollution: LetUs face it, a lot of high school kidUs donUt have the greatest cars. ItUs usually the oldest one the family has, and typically the most polluting. c. Safety: Despite all the hubbub about people bringing weapons to school, school related violence doesnUt approach the morbidity and mortality of 16 year old driving. The MEDIAN 16 year old with a license will be in an MVA his/her first year of driving. d. Economics: Ever seen the liability premium for a 16 or 17 year old male? Nuff said! e. Academics: Have you seen the minimum wage no-benefit jobs that high school kids take to feed their autoUs appetite for fuel and insurance. They could be spending this time studying. f. Social equity I: Why should there be two classes of students, those WITH personal transportation, and those without? g. Social equity II: As long as students are going to take these jobs, just to feed their autos, how can we expect wages to rise to where people can get off welfare? h. Social Engineering 101: We must teach the next generation to be independent of automobiles.

Politically, this plan might work, because it attacks the politically impotent: a. Voting: Not very many 16 and 17 year olds that vote. Matter of fact, voting rates are quite low even in college. We can hammer them, theyUre unlikely to hammer back. b. Money: When was the last time a candidate got a major campaign contribution from a high school junior? They spend all their money on their cars, their clothes, and their booze/drugs. ItUll be EASY to demagogue these people. c. Public relations: Who has more charisma, one of YOUR highly paid media people, or a pimply-faced teenager whining about "ItUs NOT FAIR." Most of them used up all their credibility, even with their own parents, by the time they were sophomores. You can demagogue the heck out of this group. They can't defend themselves.

So hereUs your opportunity, all you social engineers. HereUs your foot in the door. WhatUs your downside risk? Having these people find out what social engineering is really about BEFORE you get them in to Soc 110 in college. My guess is you could win this battle for about ten years, the

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 23, 2000

Answers

My guess is you could win this battle for about ten years, then you lose the war.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 23, 2000.

Hmmm, so you are for leveling the playing field and ELIMINATING the GAS TAX?

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), January 23, 2000.

"Hmmm, so you are for leveling the playing field and ELIMINATING the GAS TAX? "

From whence came THAT assumption???

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 23, 2000.

Dedicating 90% of all transportation dollars to ROAD BUILDING is ANOTHER form of social engineering. Isn't it!

How about forcing inner-city residents to pay for suburban sewer lines and highways? That's SOCIAL ENGINEERING, too!

And building car-oriented environments instead of people-oriented? SOCIAL ENGINEERING!

And how about spending more money on ADDITONAL roads, instead of taking better care of the roads we already have? SOCIAL ENGINEERING!

What about schools built so far away from homes that you have no other choice but to drive or take a bus? SOCIAL ENGINEERING!

Oh yeah. What about neighborhoods that FORBID duplex apartment houses next to single-family residential homes? SOCIAL ENGINEERING!

etc. etc. . .

You see, there are countless forms of social engineering from both sides of the fence. The AUTOMOBILE CULTURE has been the best social engineering tool of the past 100 years. We all know that. So you guys calling so-called transit buffs "social engineers" is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Besides, nobody's out to stop you from driving your beloved car in your beloved suburbs to your beloved McDonald's and Wal-Marts and then back again to your beloved ranch houses which are 60 miles away from your beloved office. Your drive your beloved kids to school (because they can't walk) and when you pick them up they are confined to your beloved ranch house because it's impossible for them to go anywhere without you driving them yourself in your beloved minivan.

Knock yourself out.

My only contention is you guys allow US to build neighborhoods where we don't NEED a car! Where you can WALK to school and WALK to the grocery and WALK to a park. . . and they're all pleasant walks, too!

And I'll tell you what: You don't have to fund OUR chosen lifestyle as long as we don't have to fund YOUR choices. Doesn't that sound fair? I thought so. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, let's draw up a new Constitution, whereby:

Article 1. Through user fees and high fares, mass transit shall be funded only by the people who use it and any private dollars that happen to come in. No tax dollars shall ever be used for mass transit again.

Article 2. Through user fees and high tolls, ROADS shall be funded only by the people who use them and any private dollars that happen to come in. No tax dollars shall ever be used for road building again.

Article 3. Through user fees only, new sewer lines shall be funded only by the developers who will use them (likely passed on to the tennants of the new development). Developers shall also pay to the wastewater district the appropriate reimbursement for the additional volumes that development will cause. No tax dollars shall ever be used to build new sewer lines again.

We can of course draw up more articles, but you begin to see my point. . . .

You want to see social engineering? Look in the mirror!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

CS-

Waah-waahing aside, what do you think about the proposal for making high school kids use school buses?

And as for your proposals, If you truly tried to make transit self- supporting, the systems would implode. A FIVE-FOLD increase in fares (that's what it would take) would dramatically decrease ridership which of course would dramatically decrease revenue from fares. You now either raise fares again (to offset the decreased revenue), decrease service (to decrease costs), or a combination of the two. Anyway you slice it, it decreases ridership (and farebox revenue) further, and transit winds up going away.

That's one of the problems of being adversely leveraged. Anytime you have the vast majority of the costs of something being paid for by THOSE WHO DO NOT USE IT, you are vulnerable. The vast majority of road and auto costs are paid for by those who DO use it (since 98% of passenger miles are non-transit). The increase in road cost that a driver experiences is MORE THAN OFFSET by no longer having to subsidize YOUR transit. The decrease in costs that a transit rider would experience from no longer subsidizing roads (except to the extent that transit uses roads too) is more than offset by having to pay full price for transit.

If you think this is an exchange that transit riders can win, you know nothing about basic economics.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 24, 2000.

Common Sense,

In case you have been too busy to respond to the thread "The greater benefits of Transit" it still awaits your response. You can find it here:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Kya

I really hope you can find the time to respond. I am interested to see your response.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

>"If you think this is an exchange that transit riders can win, you know nothing about basic economics."

And you, my friend, know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

BTW, there are no "winners" or "losers" in my scenario, except for the triumph of a TRUELY free market: One that would likely result in more utilitarian neighborhoods (or at the very least, people would CHOOSE more mixed-use walkable neighborhoods instead of sprawl, because mass transit AND car transportation have become prohibitively expensive).

Without "social engineering" in place on EITHER side, a TRUELY free market would make bus/rail transit AND automobile transportation BOTH increadibly expensive, and people would want to make as many daily trips as they could - such as school, work, and groceries - without the need for any vehicle at all.

Therein lies my primary point. But you auto-centric social engineers might not be able to see it.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

Craig, You mentioned making high school kids ride school buses. Great idea. We fund the buses already. Just think how much crime and accidents it would prevent. I'll go you one better. Raise the driving age to 18. That would really cut down on the congestion. It would cut down on the cost of building schools because they would only need parking lots large enough for the staff.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

Common Sense,

My philosophy....

Politics and Government policy remind me of a pendulum. In regards to Transportation, I think the pendulum has reached it's maximum swing to the left. I usually hope that the pendulum lingers awhile somewhere near center, but the force that was used to keep it to the left was excessive, so the law of motion indicates it would need to swing to the right with more force and speed.

Recent research shows that regardless of polical affiliation, the majority of all voters are moderate. I believe this to be true. Any time Politicians get carried away and force the pendulum one way or another, a backlash of voters results. Tax us too high, I-695.

While it does seem simplistic, I think it is closer to reality than most political theories I have heard, and far more acceptable to me than your views.

I am trying to help the movement of the pendulum away from the left. If more politics remained near center, we would have far less social engineering on both sides, and more real problems solved. Am I auto- centric? I think everyone in the middle is. I post in this forum to keep those who push the pendulum too far left of center from succeeding. I think it is important for you to realize your views are too far left of the average moderate voter, and therefore not contributing much in the way of solving any real problems.

You may think you know the "value" of something, but what you really know is the "value" you place on it. Your "value" and mine differ. I "value" my freedom to choose versus being dictated to.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

"Without "social engineering" in place on EITHER side, a TRUELY free market would make bus/rail transit AND automobile transportation BOTH increadibly expensive, and people would want to make as many daily trips as they could - such as school, work, and groceries - without the need for any vehicle at all. "

CS- you truly don't understand economics. The net per capita costs would not increase without social engineering (although they might decrease somewhat, due to more efficiency from the market than from the politicians). For the vehicle operators who are currently funding 99%+ of the roads and 78% of transit a free market system will reduce their total transportation costs. For the transit users who are currently funding less than 1% of the roads (despite putting 2% of the miles on them) and less than 22% of the costs of their transit operating costs, a free market will INCREASE their total transportation costs.

You are going to incur transportation costs, even if you just sit there, to get the expendables (food for instance) you need to you. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer (difficult in Seattle, but not impossible, as a few of the homeless will attest) you WILL need mechanized transportation of some type, and more than just what transit can provide since it carries few goods from origin to Seattle.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 24, 2000.

>"You are going to incur transportation costs, even if you just sit there, to get the expendables (food for instance) you need to you."

Agreed. But don't you think transportation costs would be much CHEAPER all together if we didn't sprawl out so much?

In a TRUELY free-market system, we'd all live closer together in order to save on transportation costs (no matter if that's the transportation of ourselves from point A to point B, or the transportation of goods to our homes and markets). Our homes would be closer to the market, and closer to schools, and our work office, etc. etc. no matter WHICH form of transportation you choose.

BTW, I don't agree with your other point that in a TRUELY free market auto driving would be cheaper than it is currently. At the very least, achieving a consensus for road alignments is impossible without some form of social engineering (i.e. by the golden rule: "He who has the gold. . . .").

In addition, how would you afford roads in the suburbs if they were funded only by those who used them? Those who live in low-density suburban sprawl may find the costs of maintaining that long aimless road to their 'ranch' infinately more expensive than in the city, and thus they'd have only dirt roads - if any at all. In the city, or at least in dense mixed-use neighborhoods, a greater urban population base can help make your local paved road more affordable. In a TRUELY free-market economy, mixed-use high density neighborhoods win again!!

But this is getting WAY off the subject. . .

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

common "In a TRUELY free-market system, we'd all live closer together" That is not a free-market system. That is an egragarian sytem. And if we were truly free we would not allow orselves to be forced into corrals like cattle by people like you and the government

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

>"If we were truly free we would not allow orselves to be forced into corrals like cattle by people like you and the government"

That's the beauty of a TRUELY FREE-MARKET DEMOCRACY: nobody's forcing you to do anything!

If you CHOOSE to live on a ranch out 200 miles out in the country, accessible only by car, than you can! Nobody's stopping you!. . . AS LONG AS YOU PAY YOUR OWN WAY TO IT!!!!!!!!! Isn't that what FREE MARKET is all about? Doesn't that sound fair?

To put it another way: YOU don't pay for MY Transit and I won't pay for YOUR road that leads ONLY to YOUR ranch house! Agreed?! Fair? Good!

As you can see, you'll quickly find that your chosen way of life isn't so delightful once you have to pay for it on your own. YOU CAN STILL LIVE ANY WAY YOU WANT, as long as you pay for it yourself!

And THAT's all I'm talking about!

Indeed, people aren't be FORCED to live in utilitarian neighborhoods: they WANT to! Because functioning utilitarian (alternately called "mixed use" but I hate that term) neighborhoods are CHEAPER, more PROFITABLE, EASIER, FASTER, MORE SOCIABLE, and LESS TIME CONSUMING than sprawl.

But if you wish to CHOOSE more expensive, less profitable, harder, slower, less sociable, and more time consuming sprawl, than you still have that choice. You Can! But don't make ME pay for it! Pay for it on your own, okay?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

"Agreed. But don't you think transportation costs would be much CHEAPER all together if we didn't sprawl out so much? "

No I don't. Transportation costs are LEAST for hunter-gatherer societies. The higher the density, the more transportation and other logistics costs you generate. PEOPLE HAVE TO BE FED. THEY HAVE TO HAVE WATER. THEY NEED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FECES. These are all easier with a dispersed population than with a concentrated one. The only way you could live the idyllic life you dream about is in a LOW density society. The fact that your logistics needs in a city are not readily apparent to you (particularly if you don't know where to look) does NOT mean they don't exist.

Remember the old saying, "All roads lead to Rome"? That was because of the necessity of SUPPLYING road, which was done from throughout the Med. The granaries of Egypt and the vineyards of Spain, Germany, and England (yeah, they had vineyards then. The Earth was in a hot cycle) all were used to supply a town of one million people in the pre-industrial age. It took slaves and conquering armies in the pre- industrial age.

If you are truly anti-technology you should at least have the integrity of your fellow anti-technologist, Ted Kazynski. He lived in an unheated, unplumbed, no electricity, cabin in Montana, and restricted his use of technology to a bicycle (and explosives of course).

But basically your answer is NO. Sprawl decreases logistics problems. It gets the population much closer to the food and water sources.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 24, 2000.

"Indeed, people aren't be (sic) FORCED to live in utilitarian neighborhoods: they WANT to! Because functioning utilitarian (alternately called "mixed use" but I hate that term) neighborhoods are CHEAPER, more PROFITABLE, EASIER, FASTER, MORE SOCIABLE, and LESS TIME CONSUMING than sprawl."

Yep, hereUs the change in central city population density for the last four censuses. They average P44% since 1950. We can all see that people are just FALLING ALL OVER THEMSELVES TO GO TO THEM GREAT "HIGH DENSITY" Utilitarian living areas.

Have you ever done a reality check on the propaganda you spout or if reality interferes with philosophy do you just ignore reality?

http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uac.htm#4 Urbanized Areas: Change in Central City Population Density Urbanized Area 1950-90 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 Atlanta -67.6% -57.5% -1.0% -13.8% -10.7% Baltimore -22.5% -1.2% -3.5% -13.1% -6.5% Boston -28.3% -13.0% -8.0% -12.2% 2.0% Buffalo -46.2% -8.1% -17.4% -24.5% -6.1% Chicago -29.9% -9.0% -5.2% -12.3% -7.4% Cincinnati -30.6% -2.8% -11.1% -15.0% -5.5% Cleveland -47.5% -5.5% -14.3% -26.5% -11.8% Dallas-Fort Worth -37.5% -28.9% 6.8% -14.4% -3.9% Denver -54.1% 18.8% -32.0% -18.2% -30.5% Detroit -44.4% -9.7% -9.5% -20.4% -14.5% Fort Lauderdale --- --- 17.6% 9.3% -8.9% Houston -24.7% -23.2% 8.4% -7.5% -2.2% Kansas City -75.6% -35.1% -42.6% -3.9% -31.8% Los Angeles 69.8% 24.7% 11.4% 4.9% 16.5% Miami 36.2% 17.3% 14.7% 3.6% -2.3% Milwaukee -48.7% -36.1% -7.3% -12.2% -1.3% Minneapolis-St. Paul -23.2% -4.4% -6.5% -13.8% -0.2% New Orleans -15.7% 10.2% -5.9% -8.9% -10.8% New York -7.2% -1.4% 1.5% -10.4% 3.5% Norfolk -37.5% -20.9% -5.0% -13.3% -4.1% Philadelphia -28.5% -3.3% -4.2% -17.8% -6.0% Phoenix -62.5% -62.3% -0.0% 3.9% -4.0% Pittsburgh -46.3% -10.8% -15.5% -18.5% -12.7% Portland -46.5% -4.7% -22.7% -17.4% -12.1% Riverside-San Bernardino -60.6% -15.3% -21.1% 9.5% -46.1% Sacramento -52.6% -43.7% -40.9% 6.4% 33.7% San Antonio -51.8% -37.3% -2.7% -15.9% -5.9% San Diego 1.6% -11.5% 9.2% -3.0% 8.5% San Francisco-Oakland -7.4% -6.4% -2.8% -5.5% 7.7% San Jose -18.2% -33.6% 3.2% 4.0% 14.9% Seattle -46.0% 0.6% -4.8% -46.0% 4.5% St. Louis -53.7% -12.5% -17.1% -27.2% -12.4% Tampa-St. Petersburg 19.8% 26.8% 8.1% 3.2% -15.3% Washington -24.3% -4.7% -0.9% -15.7% -4.9% All Areas -44.7% -21.4% -10.0% -16.0%

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 24, 2000.

>"Sprawl decreases logistics problems. It gets the population much closer to the food and water sources."

HA Hee HA HA HA HA HA Hee HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

Last time I checked, no place on Earth is "close" to EVERYTHING. No single city or suburb has its own complete services of orange farms, TV manufacturers, auto manufacturers, pinapple growers, beef slaughterhouses, auto manufacturers, dairy farms, drug manufacturers, garment manufacturers, chemical companies, oil refineries, steel mills, paper mills, etc.

And in the West, including Washington, NO SINGLE city or sprawl center has complete natural resources of water AND food AND consumable goods. It's usually one of the above. Or a few of the above. But NO SINGLE place has them all.

Nope.

That's ONE reason why we have centers of commerce and trade (called "cities"). But do I REALLY need to explain the economic benefits of a centralized trade center, Craig? I figure that since you're SUCH a self-proclaimed expert on economics, geography, transportation, planning, poetry, geometry, fencing, debate, politics, sports, World Cultures, levitation, Greek, physics, Movies starting with 'L', and basket weaving, you already knew that, didn't you?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.

HA Hee HA HA HA HA HA Hee HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ?

Craig, I hate to tell you this, but this character is definatly not educable!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.

I concur Marsha. But everyone has a roll in life, if only as comic relief. Rather ironical bulletin board name he chose for himself though, don't you think?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 25, 2000.

Oops: I concur Marsha. But everyone has a role in life, if only as comic relief. Rather ironical bulletin board name he chose for himself though, don't you think?

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 25, 2000.

"fencing"

Don't know about Craig, but I was First Foil in college, decent with the saber. Sucked with an epee' though.

Want to fence?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.

I sure wish Craig would post a link to wherever he sells those handwoven baskets.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.

"http://www.dwbaskets.com/default.html"

Mention my name, get a discount (right!)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 25, 2000.

The harvest basket is nice. I think I will place an order....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.