From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Mass Transit vs. Private Cars Re: Question about
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:58:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <183503@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>In article <7995@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@public.btr.com writes:
>|> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>|> |bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
>|> |> I plan to vote libertarian in the upcoming election (due to the clear 
>|> |> lack of any acceptable alternative), but I find myself wrestling with
>|> |> some of what I perceive, perhaps erroneously, to be `good things' for
>|> |> society that the Libertarians appear to be against.

>|> |> The first that is obvious to me is government subsidized mass transit.
       			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> |	That's probably the biggest sticking point.  Why waste money on
>|> |inefficient operators?
>|> |	On the other hand, if mass transit is "a good thing" then enough
>|> |individuals and businesses should be willing to participate in the funding,
>|> |building, and operating of a mass transit system.

Mass transit was essentially, and in some cases completely, a profit-making
and tax-paying activity before WWII.  It might very well have run into some
problems earlier if not for the Depression.  

But many things intervened to reduce its viability, to the point that very
few mass transit systems now pay at all.  The increased number of private
cars, for which good, reasonably cheap, reasonably fast versions came out
essentially at the time of WWI; the advent of the affordable electric
refrigerator in the 1930s, which made long-term food shopping not only
competitive, but economical; the increased value of worker time relative
to goods; and the increased power of electric, and later electronic,
communication.  The building of suburbia started before the Depression,
and the realization that having people go downtown, instead of their
local shopping center, was not efficient also contributed.

>|> But isn't it also true that mass transit's main competitor, private
>|> cars, is also heavily subsidized (roads, traffic cops, paramedics to
>|> clean up after accidents, externalities like pollution)?  Fair
>|> competition would require that the subsidies for both mass transit
>|> and private cars be removed.

The roads were needed before private cars, and would be needed if they
were banned.  I suspect that we would need well over half the paved streets
and roads.  Without private cars, we would need more delivery vehicles.
And a major problem would arise; can we expect to have someone home all
the time so that deliveries can be accepted?  With high unemployment, 
and few working wives, this could be done in the 30s, but not now.

There is a major externality not considered by the advocates of public
transportation; waiting time, and slow travel time, to take into account
stops for numerous travelers.  Add this cost into the externalities, and
it is likely to be the largest.  Rapid transit systems were not all that
common, except in high density areas.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.econ