From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:58:43 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <11322@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> sproven@cs.strath.ac.uk (Simon B Proven IE91) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.132936.2830@lsl.co.uk> snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
>
>>Why is it that you assume walking or bicycling along a toll road is free?
>
>I'd say it was a pretty valid thing to say: the users should pay a charge
>proportional to the damage done to the road (IMH).  For bikes this is
>so tiny it'd be almost pointless to collect the toll.  Same argument for
>walking except more so.

The free market most definitely does NOT work on the basis that people
pay only the cost of production (including labour time and some
reasonable percentage profit).  (I've recently heard that it used to,
some few thousands of years ago, until some clever classical Greek
philosopher realised that instead of charging 'what it cost to make' a
tradesman could charge 'whatever he could get people to pay for it',
and so make more money.)

In this case, motorists don't like cycles and pedestrians -- they are
slow, take up space, and get in the way.  No reason to give them a free
'ride', particularly if it is going to annoy your paying (driving)
customers, who then might take their business to the next road over
where they are not as common.  If you eliminate them, you don't need to
provide extra space (pavements) for the pedestrians, and you make the
motorists happier.  Free market forces mean, therefore, that you've got
to charge them, or disallow them.

>I don't honestly believe that motorways or other heavy roads contribute
>anything to society.  Mobility can be achieved in ways which are far more
>socially and environmentaly friendly than charging down the M6.  It is
>selfish to build a road over someone's property, so that you can drive 
>from Carlisle to Birmingham, when you could get a train which takes up
>far less land space.  It is selfish to expect society to provide roads
>for the minority that own cars (it certainly is a minority in Scotland)
>by making life harder for the people who don't own cars, and then expect
>them (the non car owners) to pay for the privelidge through taxes, costs
>to industry that get passed on to the customer etc.

Sorry, you need to rethink roads.  Rail is good for large shipments
going from one point to another.  It is not good for local distribution
of assorted miscellany to scattered locations.  You still need roads to
get your groceries to your local small shop (ESPECIALLY if you don't
have a private car).  You need them so the fire brigade can get to your
house.  I could go on, but it'll save my fingers to assume that you can
think of more examples now that I've mentioned a couple.  

Even motorways make sense as an adjunct to rail for some sorts of
distribution patterns.  Of course, if they were used in a way which was
better-integrated with other transport methods, they could probably be
made smaller and so more cheaply.  (And, of course, some goods just
don't fit on trains.)  'Roads' as such benefit you and everyone, even
if you personally don't ever set wheel upon them.  Further, even for
non car owners, roads are necessary for practical public transportation
systems.  A better-integrated scheme would change the precise nature of
where and how big the roads needed to be, but it wouldn't invalidate
major trunk roads as a concept, any more than it does local ones.

Now what doesn't benefit you is the current emphasis on 'roads for
private cars', at the expense of public transportation.  You can
certainly complain, totally reasonably, about the way private car usage
is subsidised and encouraged.  However, it's not 'roads' as such which
are to blame.  You do benefit from the roads.  It's the way in which
they are used which is the problem.

>Why should people contribute to society for private transport purposes,
>as opposed to public transport?  Public transport benifits society as
>a whole, while private transport is something that only those with
>money can afford anyway.  Private transport takes from society, so
>car owners should pay society for the privelidge.

No argument there.  But as I said above, this isn't an argument against
roads, it's an argument in favour of an integrated transport system.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132