This is not a Physics Blog, in my humble opinion. I can’t find anything about that in the about page. It is a blog that happens to be written by physicists. Some physicists are interested in things beyond physics. Those who don’t like that can stop whining and simply use the categories under which we classify our posts to look for what they want, and filter out what -and who- they don’t want. Or they can just go away.
‘Nuff said.
So. On I go with the irrelevant. Time for an update on Public Transport issues, which as everyone knows is not just about my own travel choices and eccentric lifestyle. It is about environment, health, and the future of our planet, just to name a few things. You’ll recall my delight in the new, bigger, generally excellent buses that were introduced on my route earlier this year. See this post. Well, about a month afterwards, they put flat screen tvs on the buses. Three or four in each bus! I was all prepared to be huffy and hissy about this. Can’t people be left alone to read a book or have a conversation with their neighbour without now having to deal with the noise of tvs advertising stuff at them? C’mon MTA people, I’m grading homeworks, writing film scripts and midterms here – this is my office – do you mind?!
Well, sure, there is advertising (not as much as I would have thought), but there’s actual news -even international news- and weather updates, and they do not have the volume up very high at all. I grudgingly admitted that it was not so bad.
Well, imagine my surprise one day when they started showing educational material! I looked up, and there were pictures of galaxies from the Hubble Space Telescope. Another day they had something on extrasolar planets…. wow! If people insist on staring at moving images on a screen instead of talking or reading a book, why not put something educational on the screen? I’d like to shake the hand of the person who thought this up and made it happen.
This morning I snapped a shot for you to see:
[Update: Just to be clear on what I'm saying about this, I drop in part of a comment I made to a reader:
What I am saying is that it is indeed an evil, but given the way they chose to implement it right now it is not nearly as bad as it can be; someone had the idea of at least trying to make the "evil" do something good, and not just be blaring advertisements. Just trying to see the positive side here. Frankly I'm still shocked to see Hubble pictures on a public bus anywhere. On my way back just now there was another -different- program showing lots of nebulae of various sorts (from supernova remnants to stellar nurseries), and showing their names. There were so many I'd never seen or heard of before...and all so beautiful of course. Might capture the imagination of some kid...or a parent who would tell their kid. Or just a random member of the public. Goodness knows where that could lead.
]
In other transport news: Recall my post on the Expo Line, which starts construction this year? If not, see this post for information, and also information on the existing public transport infrastructure (which exists, is excellent in places, but overall is not used as much as it ought to be because people conveniently cling to the myth that you can only get around by car in this city). Well, some of the neighbourhoods through which the line will run are getting excited. They are getting together and planning how things ought to look near the stations. Discussions about schools, restaurants, supermarkets, pedestrian walkways (and hopefully bikeways?) are taking place in the community. One such community meeting, arranged by the community near the La Brea station, is tonight at the Dorsey High School auditorium. Details can be found at this link if you’d like to go. There’s other related news at that site too. See also the website of the Transit Coalition for lots of information.
And further news: I’ve been seeing more cyclists on the streets, and from a wider demographic. Some of them are even using the proper equipment – lights back and front and helmets. Hurrah! There’s really no better way to get to know your city than cycling (see here, here and here). Give it a try.
The same can be said about the buses and trains around the city. More riders and wider demographic. Not just poor people of colour are using the public transport systems now, even away from rush hour. It is not my imagination. The MTA have reported this increased ridership, in correlation with increased gas prices.
This is excellent news. If this is the only way to get people to figure out that public transport and cycling are better choices to make, and that it is not just for the poor, then I say “Hurrah For High Gas Prices!”, since it will ultimately get people to demand much more public transportation infrastructure far and wide.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Hey Clifford
I like your none physics posts … and I think those screens are great. I would love to have that in public transports around here.
Btw ever thought about moving to Europe? I have quite a few friends without driving licenses, because they don’t need them and don’t want to spend the money on it.
Helge
May 4th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Hi Helge:- Thanks!
Two things:
(1) I am from Europe.
(2) One does not effect change -or contribute to it- by giving up and moving away.
(3) (ok, three things) I like it here.
Cheers!
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
One of my pet peeves over the last few summer tours has been the proliferation of those little video displays on gas pumps; especially when they are showing FoxNews net programming. The idea that SoCal MTA can show reasonable educational content is truly beneficent. One would hope that other venues in which these displays are present (say airports) would find the same material as relevant and useful.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Who would have a ever thought a “window on the universe” on a bus?
Well, some may whine, we are all still involved very much in the “constructs” as much as any “good scientist” is?:) That “cross dynamical thinking,” has result when your thinking, “categorically not.:)”
We are no different as people, that we observe and identify, see, where science might have been brought to the public understanding on the bus ride. The one, you were riding on.
I mean, we use what is “currently availiable,” to help us along, don’t we? If it is the child on the bus, and the experience is wonderfuly induced as to what the public mind might be receptive too( the white board,) think no less of the other riders I would say:)
Scientists, are very human and still, biased by their point of views, yet, we won’t hold it against them?
Sometimes if look between the heartbeat, we can see the deeper part of humanity caring for another that goes with it?
May 4th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Trending towards the penultimate: You’re pumping your own gas (at $5 gallon) and watching a propaganda short about how great everything is. Because, otherwise, how would we know?
Or- why not?- put Grand Prix video games on the buses. Second-guess the driver with a virtual bus-driving game!
I’ll take my bicycle without a tv screen, thank you.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
The reason public transportation is gas/price efficient is by economies of scale. We have large buses and trains that pack people in tightly (esp. during rush hour), and shuttle them along pre-planned routes at pre-planned times, which people must hook up with on their own (often, by walking).
I think it’s a fine system in dense areas, where the cost of flexible transportation is higher due to space usage: cars often run with only one or two people, and even with higher occupancy you still have to park them somehwere. And of course, urban planners might embrace density in part because it allows the use of mass transit — for the environment, community, etc. etc.
There is a third way: motorcycling. It’s space-efficient both moving (lanesharing is permitted in California) and standing still (you can park it in your office), as flexible as a car, gas efficient, and possesses an exhilarating poetry I have found nowhere else. The rest of the world has embraced it as an intermediate transporation option, and we can only hope that North America does as well.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Great idea! But I also see that at the moment the photo was taken, none of the passengers seem interested in the TV program!
May 4th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
citrine:- I’ve noticed that people don’t watch them much either. I am pleased about this, if the truth be told for the original reasons stated. My worry is that the authorities will notice this near-indifference and turn up the volume. Then I start writing angry letters. But I’ll wait before getting angry. I have seen a few people sit up and notice when the educational programs -which have unusual graphics compared to the other stuff- come on…but that might because that’s when I look to see who’s looking. Oh…. the indifference might be because most of the people on the bus don’t speak English as their first language….. none of the programs are (currently) in Spanish. I bet that will change.
Sourav, you’re kidding about motorcyling right? See my post entitled “the curse of the scooter”. Several things about them apply to motorcycles. The potential horror of what you’re suggesting makes me shudder.
Cheers,
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Good thing in principle, but on the other hand it is already very difficult to find public places without huge screens displaying some sports event, game show, or another dull and annoying activity. Tell me at least that this screen is quiet…
May 4th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Moshe…I agree. What I am saying is that it is indeed an evil, but given the way they chose to implement it right now it is not nearly as bad as it can be; someone had the idea of at least trying to make the “evil” do something good, and not just be blaring advertisements. Just trying to see the positive side here. Frankly I’m still shocked to see Hubble pictures on a public bus anywhere. On my way back just now there was another -different- program showing lots of nebulae of various sorts (from supernova remnants to stellar nurseries), and showing their names. There were so many I’d never seen or heard of before…and all so beautiful of course. Might capture the imagination of some kid…or a parent who would tell their kid. Or just a random member of the public. Goodness knows where that could lead.
Thankfully, the volume is very low. Very low indeed. But see my earlier comment about that aspect.
Ok… Back to the grindstone now.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
LOL! Do you take it up the stairs (Schwarzenegger style), or do you take the elevator?
May 4th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Yeah, we are of course in agreement, given there is going to be a screen there sooner or later, at least it is not ESPN8 or Fox news at full volume, drowning all possible conversation.
May 4th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
…and I missed one of the paragraphs above somehow, resulting in much huffing and hissing, sorry…
May 4th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I’m the guy sleeping……it’s all a dream?
May 4th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Just a parenthetical thought: If mass transit authorities across the U.S. are allowing audio-visual advertisements to be displayed on their fleet of buses, then mass transit authorities should be reimbursed by these companies (via cable or whatever communications vehicle) that are blatantly displaying their advertisements. Mass transit systems have a long tradition of generating income by selling “block-space” to companies desiring to display their advertisements. Audio-visual advertisements are simply another innovative way for cash-strapped mass transit systems across the U.S. to improve their cash-flows, in turn, improve -hopefully- their mass transit services.
May 4th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Clifford,
* Emissions: Motorcycles must adhere to EPA standards, like other vehicles — including for noise. When novel motive technologies (e.g., hydrogen) come to pass, motorcycles will take advantage of them just like cars.
* Safety: Only one (human) passenger is permitted, and where there are helmet laws, passengers are required to have them as well. Though, I think this should be a private matter between a rider and his insurers.
* Parking: Motorcycles are bound by the same parking laws as cars. Though, enlightened jurisdictions (e.g., San Francisco and Berkeley) provide special motorcycle parking and allow motorcycles to share car parking spaces. Often, I do park on the sidewalk, and policemen turn a blind eye if I do so unobtrusively.
* Squirming through gridlock: That’s the best part! Where cars have wide tolerances and must flow along like elephants trunk-to-tail, we can filter through. Win-win: I get to where I’m going faster and on my own terms (unlike mass transit), and there’s one less car on the road to slow everyone else down.
* Bicycles: I see no reason why motorcycles and bicycles cannot share the road. Many people use both, depending on the situation and what they enjoy.
You should try it! I got hooked when I was a prospective graduate student here at Berkeley, and my host chauffeured me about on his pillion.
***
PK,
Elevator — I wouldn’t want to damage the bike.
Of course, one must be polite since motorcycles do take up some space. Extended travel in narrow hallways, or parking in one’s office if there is convenient, secure parking nearby, are certainly faux pas.
May 4th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
While I generally prefer to read, meditate, or look out the window while on the bus, I do think that if having the TV’s helps encourage people to ride the bus, it’s a very good thing. (As long as the volume is kept low enough that it isn’t distracting to those who don’t want to watch, including the driver!)
One can envision scary scenarios of mindless worker-drones on the bus, gazing slack-jawed at the ever-present screens that deliver nonstop pablum and propaganda to keep them in a nonquestioning stupor. But Clifford’s description of what’s being shown actually offers some hope that the programming will be educational, nonpartisan, and enriching rather than mind-numbing. He didn’t mention any advertisements, though. Were there any, Clifford? I would hope not, but could understand how cash-strapped bus systems might be unable to resist an easy source of ad revenue.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Sourav :- I sort of understand some of what you are saying, I know the attraction…I’ve ridden motorcycles in the past. I’d be more interested if quiet, emmision-free ones existed, frankly. It would be great…but, but, but….
But on balance I would say that your statement “the US is not Taiwan” is an oversimplification. Just look at the pictures I took in the traffic of the scooters and motorcycles. Even with one person per vehicle, with helmets and the like….. it would be a disaster. The things that are attractive to you right now as a rare motorcyclist nipping through the gaps, etc (another issue we could talk about…not everyone does that responsibly…how do you regulate that?) simply do not scale properly. When ten other motorcylists are also trying to nip through those gaps, etc…. you get Taiwan. You get Rome. This is not the way to go.
Furthermore…. coexistence with cyclists just does not work well. I’ve seen that fail too. The faster motorised bikes treat cyclists as second or third class citizens on the road, and the cyclists become even more scared than they are now of the cars, because motorcylists pop into cycle lanes a lot when finding the gaps, etc. You get four or five fast bikes coming up behind a cyclist in the cycle lane every minute or so…. You’ll say get them out of cycle lanes…. I say that this is impossible to regulate and enforce…and not all roads have cycle lanes (nor should they… motorists should learn to recognize cyclists as vehicles they should share the road with…as the law actually states).
It is a recipe for mayhem. In summary, it is nice solution for a few, but scale it up, and it is just a mess of little fast moving dots whipping in and out of traffic swarming around the cars…the model exists: Look to Italy and Taiwan, for example.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Supernova:- a few. but very few. This may change…and push out the hubble stuff sadly. My suspicion is this…. Advertisers looking for Anglo audiences (using the term as it applies here in the USA’s Southwest) are not yet interested since most riders are not English-speakers primarily, and also since the people who ride the buses are considered poor -why else would they be riding the bus, some think- there’s just no pressing models yet. As soon as the people who want to pitch to a Hispanic audience (linguistically and demographically) get a hold of this, and realise that there’s always a buck to be made from dsiposable income of any economic group…. the advertising will go up, and push out the educational stuff. Or at least squeeze it into a smaller space. Once more Anglos start using the bus….. there’ll be more pressure from advertisers who want to get at them too.
This pleasant situation with all the nice Hubble pictures is a temporary bubble of false vacuum. As soon as mass transit becomes more high-profile here in LA -as a result of my blogging of course (LOL!)- the bubble will burst.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
You’re probably right, and I think it will be sad when the bubble does burst. It’s not like we don’t have enough advertising bombarding us every day! But again… if it helps attract riders, then overall I think it’s a good thing. Even if it eventually means some of us have to start wearing noise-canceling headphones on the bus.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I agree.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Clifford,
I don’t think masses of motorcycles are any more difficult to police than masses of cars. All the effects you ascribe to a greater number of two-wheeled motorized vehicles are, IMHO, more a matter of the general traffic culture in those countries than difficulty of enforcement. Motorcyclists can (and do) get the same costly traffic tickets and insurance hikes as everyone else in the US.
We can theorize (heh heh) all we like, but motorcycle ridership is growing by leaps and bounds in the US — we’ll see what happens. We might find it necessary to toughen licensing standards due to accidents, but I don’t think lawless chaos will be a problem.
BTW, what’s wrong with the traffic in Rome? I found it comparable to Boston and New York — only more competent. I haven’t been to Taiwan, but India is a little crazy.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Hi,
I don’t think you read what I said in detail. Evidently, you’ve never seen a situation where you have several lines of cars at a standstill, and hundreds of scooters and motorcyles swarming all around them trying to squeeze through the gaps…making it even harder for the cars to move safely. Even the motorcycles will get held up and become part of the congestion too….. There is only a finite amount of room on the highways. You’re just proposing to fill up the existing gaps with a smaller vehicle. Once they are filled….you’re back to the same problem. Do you then shrink people in size and then equip them with an even smaller vehicle to squeeze through the next smallest gap size? Where does it end?
Adding more individually-controlled polluting and congesting vehicles to the roads is just not a solution. It is just a creation of a whole new set of problems, and an exacerbation of the old. I don’t think that the Italians have seen just how bad it can get, but other places have, and are running away from it as quickly as they can, opting to move people wiht mass transit as soon as they can find the money and political will to do it! I suppose you’re going to tell me they are simply wrong.
Basically, when I’m speeding along on the freeway between downtown and Santa Monica, for example, no mater how lovely the traffic flow is, I just feel that it is so idiotic that so many of the drivers in the cars next to me are all going to same place, probably within a few blocks of where I’m going. Why are we not just sitting in the same vehicle….. a train? It just makes no sense. Cars and bikes and other individually controlled vehicles should be used for short local journeys, or special trips (pleasure/recreation to some extent, or where maybe you need to carry lots of things or heavy thigns)…they should certainly not be used to move the vast majority of people twice daily between the same two places: the commute to work.
It is just ridiculous, if you really think about it for a few seconds.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Clifford,
Please take this as positive feedback – Couldn’t you just start your own blog? That way there is no limit on the content and frequency of posts .
Cheers.
May 4th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Is there a limit now? I don’t see why.
May 4th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Hi Girl,
But there’s no limit now on either frequency or content. See the about page, as I have already said, for what constitutes content. Nobody (who knows what they are talking about) ever said this was a science blog. It is a blog by scientists, flavoured by our particular walk of life. Content is pretty much anything we concern ourselves with. As I have also said, the reader can choose to filter as he or she desires, using the tools provided. Nobody ever need see another post by me if they don’t want to. Or see a non-science post if they don’t want to. It is easy. I have thought for some time that one day I may break out to other blogging sites or formats, but certainly not for the reasons that you or any other reader give. What and how much I post is the business of myself and my co-bloggers.
I’m sort of finding this amusing. Every time someone brings it up, I will take great pleasure in doing an extra totally random non-science post just to tell them again to go jump under a bus. Not you of course, as you had the decency to be polite. I’m talking about the impolite jerks.
Thanks so much for the comment.
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I woul d like to raise the point that mass transit isn’t an ideal solution everywhere. For example here in Ithaca we are at a very uncomfertable size. We are too big and too dense for everyone to have a car, bicycles arn’t practical for everyone year round (only the nuts bike through the winter). But on the other hand we do not have the scale that would make busses truely practical (alot of them are emptyish alot of the time). The local bus system currently runs at an absurd loss (a fare is 1.50, i think I heard the estimate that each ride costs more like 7) and is mostly sustained by massive susidies from cornell and i think the county. (there are efforst going to try to increase bus ridership)
This is (fortuantly) an active discussion on campus as they keep building buildings on top of parking lots and a major (well depends on how you define major) protest last year over the building of a parking lot.
May 4th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
a cornellian says: “I woul d like to raise the point that mass transit isn’t an ideal solution everywhere.”
I completely agree. There is no ideal solution that fits every situation. Different solutions should be tailored to the local need…bits of solutions cobbled together where one can to make the best of the local situation. Absolutely. I’m not suggesting anywhere in what I wrote tht the entire planet be adopting one solution or one technology. Most of my comments have been talking about very large cities, which, incidentally, produce also the largest environmental problem from transport pollution, and congestion (I’m not talking about power station pollution, which is another – even more huge – problem that is not tied to cities, or pollution from ports, which also is huge -and which we have here too in the LA area.)
Thanks,
-cvj
May 4th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
none of the programs are (currently) in Spanish
Technically, no programs in Spanish, if you mean the actual programs where you see people talking, like the cooking show that seems to run fairly frequently, but about half the text news stories and trivia questions they show are in Spanish. At least on the 754, which is the route I take (I don’t know what bus you’re taking); I assume the programming’s the same on all the routes, but I guess that might not be the case.
As far as the volume, most of the time it seems the volume is completely off, or at least it’s too quiet for me to hear it. (I usually sit at the back of the bus, though, which isn’t that close to the TV screens.) Only occasionally can I hear any sound coming from them at all, and I think maybe only two or three times could I actually hear clearly what was being said. (Not that it matters, since I’m generally reading or working on other things on the bus anyway.)
As far as the new Expo Line–yes, very good news; I only heard about it recently, but I made an entry about it in my own LiveJournal when I did. It’s not likely to do me much good, personally, because I ought to be finally finished with my doctorate and no longer commuting to USC well before it’s finished, but it’s still good to know future USC students are going to have that advantage, even if I don’t.
May 4th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Yes, Jeff, I was referring primarily to the information/documentary programs, which a reader was commenting that nobody was watching. They all seem to be in English. I did not really look closely enough at the other programming to determine the language content, so I’ll defer to your observations for that. And yes, I think that the “Transit TV” programming is the same on all routes….
And yeah…soon (ish) we’ll all be able to step off campus and take the train to the beach! Whooo-hoo!
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Clifford,
* No, I’ve never seen a situation where motos/scooters who fill up the lines between cars keep cars from getting anywhere. Mind you, I’ve spent a total of a few years in Calcutta, where you have to throw in animals, panhandlers, overfilled taxi-trikes and overloaded lorries. People figure it out — whoever’s bumper/tire is ahead has the right of way. Same thing happens here in Bay Area, where motorcycles are quite common in the commute.
I think you’re imagining the large particle/small particle flow model. This is resolved when the particles are aware. The line of motos/scooters just becomes another lane.
* Mass transit has space limitations too. During rush hour, subway cars and buses are packed like sardine cans in any major metropolitan center. By your argument, mass transit will fill up too, even if roads are replaced by mass transit lines. It will be somewhat more space efficient since seats take less space than a motorcycle, or a car with 4 occupants; and, more environmentally friendly. I think we can agree that motorcycles would be an improvement over cars in this respect.
* Mass transit works if the economies of scale are significant enough to overcome the loss in schedule and location flexbility. Even in a quasi-scale-free, hub-and-spoke type setup which aims to provide strong location flexbility, there is a significant cost to one’s schedule with transfers and waits. Few cities approach this ideal, so you have the ~N^2 routing problem as well. In the Bay Area, unless my route happens to align with a mass transit route and traffic is heavy, a motorcycle is much, much faster.
So there are the issues that I see:
- Environmental friendliness
- How much do the different transportaiton models cost at different density levels?
- How much faster are different transporation models at different density levels?
- What kind of accommodations are people willing to put up with on their journey?
This is a fun optimization problem. The easiest way to handle this is to install externalities (e.g., taxes on gas for carbon credits) and then let the market set the price and availability of various modes of transportation (mass transit lines and road) based on supply and demand. I.e., dynamic fares and tolls.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:23 am
No, no, no…market forces cannot be used to solve transit problems. This is a well-known recipe for disaster.
And I am not imagining the problems I visualized with motorcycles and scooters. I know they exist. You do not get an orderly line of motorcyclists! You just don’t.
Your other constraints assume that everyone is trying to optimize convenience. No. Convenience is going to be compromised. That’s ok. You’ll never match the car for convenience or comfort, or personal space or speed. But why try to match it? This is the problem with the mindset of those totally embroiled in the car culture…..waiting for mass transit is going to be like a chauffer-driven version of their car before they deem it acceptable. No it is not ever going to be like that. Compromises have to be made. You might have to -shock horror- talk to another human being, or stand for a while in rush hour, or take 15 minutes longer than if you drove. It is not that big a price to pay for the benefits!
Cheers,
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Yes, Jeff, I was referring primarily to the information/documentary programs, which a reader was commenting that nobody was watching.
Right, my bad; looking back at the post there, it should have been pretty clear from the context that’s what you were referring to. Sorry. And yeah, you’re right; I haven’t seen those in Spanish.
All in all, though, it doesn’t seem like many people pay much attention to the TVs anyway. Still, they’re bringing in money for the public transportation system (apparently that’s how it works–the MTA didn’t pay to have the TVs installed; the company that runs the programming paid for the installation and gives the MTA money to run the programs (and in turn presumably makes its money through the advertising)), so I guess if they end up indirectly helping the public transportation system expand they can be a good thing. Then again, like you say, there may be the danger that the disinterest may be noted and result in the volume being turned up, which would be annoying…
May 5th, 2006 at 3:37 am
Hi Clifford
Surely the idea has to be to make non-car forms of transport attractive to potential users? The obvious ways being to subsidise and improve public transport and/or tax car usage.
Unless you want to force people by legislation to give up their cars, then in a sense one does have to let market forces decide, assuming that these forces are regulated e.g. as above.
I suppose I am assuming that people *will* tend to want to optimise convenience (or whatever). Perhaps what you mean is that through public education you would encourage people to use public transport for a greater good?
May 5th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Hi,
I gave no indication in anything I wrote about how people will be encouraged to make the change. That’s another matter altogether. Suggestions along the lines you’re making, and other suggestions, could all be part of the solution. I’m making no claims to have the answers to that question to hand. People will want to optimise convenience or whatever…and they need to know at the outset that this is foolish. The car is hard to beat for comfort etc. So don’t try to beat it on those terms. Other things will get them out of their cars…. taxes (maybe), increasing gas prices on the world market for sure, traffic stress, congestion, parking issues, increased frequency and coverage of the mass transport system ….. and also maybe an urge to just do the right thing.
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 4:36 am
Clifford,
Perhaps you could provide an example where a form of transportation that is controlled privately top (point-of-sale/individual operation) to bottom (infrastructure) has led to disaster? AFAIK, the I-5 dynamic tolls in San Diego, the highly deregulated European budget airline industry, and private highways around the world are examples in favor.
Perhaps we have different ideas of “orderly.” Nevertheless, I have not observed any difficulty by car drivers getting where they need to go in a situation with a lot of moto/scooter traffic, not unlike trucks in a sea of cars.
I’ll decide that for myself, thank you
Let’s assume that the deleterious environmental and strategic effects of gasoline-powered transport is included in the price of gas (e.g., carbon credits). Then, an individual can choose one form of transportation over another on the basis of price (including gas usage, parking, tolls, etc.), time, storage/comfort/security, safety, fun, etc.
The more expensive gas gets, the more people will lean toward mass transit/small-displacement vehicles; the more congested/harried the roads get, the more people will lean toward mass transit; the more crowded and uncomfortable mass transit gets, the more people will revert to other forms.
By letting prices float for all forms of transportation (tolls on roads, fares on mass transit), the equilbrium will be at maximum overall utility.
***
boreds,
Predation would then become prudent — horrible people like me would exploit the righteous idealism of others and rip up the now-empty roads on their sportbikes
May 5th, 2006 at 4:41 am
As far as I know, most extensive mass transit systems around the world are actually subsidised. They are not making a profit. They are run at a loss to serve the greater good of the city’s economy, etc…. This is what I mean by market forces not really being fully in play. You have to interfere with this type of setup. Left to their own, people are selfish….they cannot operate in a way that is best for the big picture, only best for themselves. The purely market forces model is doomed, in this context.
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 5:02 am
If a transit system is running at a loss, then it’s being funded by tax dollars — the economy of a city is not getting a free lunch, of course. More importantly, it’s the city planners here who decide what is efficient, rather than the market — they are then susceptible to political pandering and even simple incompetence. (Consider Seattle’s monorail boondoggle.)
If you think that some specific stewardship of the environment and some specific sense of community or civic beauty are merit goods, then I would simply disagree — one can’t argue religion. However, if you are looking for a solution that will make the most people happy most of the time, you let the market figure out what works. If environmental costs are factored into the fuel as taxes, then I fail to see the problem; land use and other costs would be factored in automatically.
May 5th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Again…you argue in the face of the existence of several examples. Visit Europe. It works.
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Clifford, I agree with your assessment. Some highly valuable services to our economy – such as, transportation – are not amenable to a purely market-driven economy. Even the famous financial guru – Warren Buffet – has commented that he does not invest in the “human-branch” of the transportation sector because he believes that the fundamental nature of this sector is not designed to turn a profit. Unless an investor is able to selectively pick and choose routes for human-transport, Buffet states that it is extremely difficult to generate a positive cash-flow. Unfortunately, our society is so driven by the notion that unadulterated capitalism is compatible with all sectors of the economy. In contrast, we intuitively know that a universal, finely-tuned mass transit system plays a vital role in the overall efficiency and quality of the economy. Furthermore, this factor will become increasingly important as the public realizes the absolute finiteness of our fossil-fuel-economy. Therefore, I will argue that it is shortsighted to assume that a freemarket economy – across the board – is the most efficient method to produce and deliver all forms of goods and services. Perhaps laissez-faire works remarkably well in the marketplace of PCs and MACs. However, laissez-faire fails to work – with peak optimum – when transporting people from point A to point B.
May 5th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Clifford,
I think we are talking past each other, so this will be my last
We’ll see in the future how things shake out. I agree that cars, particularly massive SUVs, will become increasingly untenable as commuting devices as environmental pressures become significant. However, public transit will continue to be a niche mode of transportation in the US unless there are massive redesigns of metropolitan landscapes. Fuel- and space-efficient personal modes of transport like motorcycles will become increasingly popular.
Privatization and carbon credits would shake up the game by making the costs of various modes of transport more apparent and quell the grandiose passions of urban planners. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work, and am not aware of any examples of it not working.
Best,
Sourav
May 5th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Ok. It is a puzzle to me why you won’t look beyond these shores to see the numerous counterexamples to pretty much everything you’re saying… but that’s your choice.
Nice talking to you.
Cheers,
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Not sure, it’s been already said in the discussion, but everybody saying that public transport is sponsored by the city, should remember that you are using roads free of charge, when driving a car, etc…
A question for you Clifford: You write about doing you writing stuff in the bus. What do you write on? I don’t see tables in the bus, and what to write on is always a problem I have doing that on public transports.
And another question: How long is your ride?
Cheers,
Helge
May 5th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
You’ve sucked me back in — last time, I swear
If by counterexamples you mean the traffic being horrendous with two-wheeled vehicles and public mass transit being far superior, I am thoroughly unconvinced. I’ve had the (mis)fortune of using various forms of transportation in Paris, Rome, all over India and briefly other Asian cities.
The bottom line is that motorized transport is faster and more comfortable for intracity travel unless your route happens to coincide with a train line. Investing in a car, scooter, or motorcycle, is just as economical as public transport on the long-term, even with the heavy subsidies flowing into them. Rather than the state fighting an uphill battle on some presumption of efficiency, charge for environmental damage and infrastructure use and let things loose. Mass transit will appear where it’s efficient, and other forms of transportation will fill the gaps as they are fit.
If I am woefully ignorant on this topic, I would appreciate pointers to resources that would reduce my ignorance when I have more time. In any case, I’d like to think that I’m intellectually honest
Back to supersymmetry!
Best,
Sourav
May 5th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
zzzzzzz…..ahem….what’s that fellow doing taking my picture…? Maybe I’ll become a movie star, or something?
…. this is all a “mass psychosis of people on this bus….people, just ascenting to the reality and measures now?
Dare I ask the picture taker whether my permission is needed to show me to people in the state I am…?
bubble universes??? what strange thoughts today…this bus ride is sure slow….
… a Bubble poppings and all that I see is tranfixed to the view in my head, as some The Coleman-De Luccia Instanton.
Maybe all of us are accepting this state of the reality this way…ach! it was a hard day today.:) ah, a few more minutes of sleep anyway.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Helge,
If I have not had breakfast yet, I write on an empty stomach.
-cvj
May 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Helge, I’m sorry. I just could not resist making that joke. It’s been a while…..
Do you really need a table in order to write? I just balance a notepad on my knee. Or scribble on the back of something. This is not a hugely long journey…just 25 minutes actual bus time…. Sometimes I’m just writing into a little handheld notepad too. I mean the old-fashioned type. Pen and paper. Cup of coffee in other hand. Bike under seat. Sweet.
-cvj
May 6th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
As a regular CV reader, and an occasional poster, I just had a very personal “holy s***” moment reading the Clifford/Sourov argument. It’s been about 6 days since I’ve looked at CV, since last Sunday I was involved in a nearly fatal motorcycle accident. I was lucky (thrown clear of the bike, helmet took the most serious damage — lots of soft tissue injury including a sprained back, but no bones broken; no-one else injured; bike was totalled). Since I certainly don’t expect that kind of luck to last, that was the last time you will ever catch me on the back on one of those death mobiles. While I was at the trauma center, 4 of the docs who were treating me told me their own motorcycle stories, the general theme of which was “so much fun; I really miss it from time to time; but now that I work in a trauma center, there’s no way in hell you’ll ever get me to sit on one of those things again.” The best thing they had to say was that motorcyclists make very reliable sources for organ donation.
I realize this contributes nothing germane to the argument whatsoever, but this just struck too close to home for me to NOT comment. Perhaps if you’re ever laid up sucking down Vicodin like its candy you’ll understand …
Scott H.
May 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Scott H.
Thanks! This contributes a lot. I also have had friends from the medical industry mention that they view motorcycles as reliable sources for donor organs.
Our friend is advocating increased use of them to flit around in the gaps between traffic on the highways, and we’re all supposed to park them in our offices.
Excellent stuff.
-cvj
May 6th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Sorry to hear that Scott. Hope you’re doing OK now.
May 6th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Yes, Scott…. I wish you a Speedy Recovery!
-cvj
May 6th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Thanks for the good wishes! My wife and my cats make excellent caregivers. And, the abrupt lesson in mortality has given me a lot of food for thought …
The main thing is that with the back sprain I can’t move around too much, so I’m going slightly stir crazy. I’m dreaming of return to work next week so I can continue lecturing my GR course. Ed Bertschinger did a very able job covering for me this past week, but I really want to get back into the show …
May 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Hi Scott!
Sorry to hear about your accident. One of your former students, a friend of mine whom I met at MIT, also gave up riding after he interned at an ER.
A personal choice. At least two of my professors here at Berkeley share my predilection (one rides rather cautiously), as do some colleagues at LBL who have been riding for many years. A few spills here and there, but nothing serious. Moreso than in a car, your safety as a rider is contingent upon the extent of your skill and depth of your self-criticism.
Sourav
May 6th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Hi Sourav —
Thanks for the good thoughts. I agree it’s a personal choice; however, I can honestly say I didn’t fully understand the consequences of this choice until I was tumbling through the air realizing that I might be about to die. For me, the line between minor error and serious consequence is just too fine.
I’m going to miss the bike a lot (2000 Honda Shadow 750 ACE; a sweet, sweet bike), but I’d miss the life I’ve put together a lot more.
May 6th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Actually, it would be interesting to find a form of private transportation that doesn’t require huge government subsidies. Passenger transportation has NEVER made money, except in the short term, but it is one of the things a government HAS to provide. We’ve spent trillions on our interstate highways and trillions more on military infrastructure to secure our fuel supplies. Railroads, steamships, canals and turnpikes all went broke and have required government bailouts. Henry V had to fix prices at the post-chaise relay houses so travelers could get fresh horses. The Khanate had to subsidize caravanserais. The Romans had to build magnificent highways, and slaves or no slaves, they cost a bundle.
I think video on buses is kind of neat, as long as the sound stays under control, at least until we all get Bluetooth Borg implants. Let’s face it, the static ads only show advertising. Video monitors can show news, science, art and other good stuff and only show ads for a certain percentage of the time. Maybe someone will be inspired, if only by the pictures; maybe someone will be informed. My only hope is that the monitors don’t get taken over by the malady advertisers. For a while, it was impossible to ride the NYC subways without thinking about “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”, what with the Preparation H ads next to the laser foot surgery ads next to the “Are you pregnant” ads next to the “Fight AIDS” ads next to the butt lift ads next to the cough syrup ads and so on and so on.
May 7th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Let’s face it, the static ads only show advertising.
Actually, long before the TVs were installed, the MTA buses in Los Angeles had displays of poetry mixed in among the advertising. Although I don’t know how many people ever bothered to read it…
May 7th, 2006 at 9:58 am
@Scott: Sorry to hear about your accident.
@Clifford: Make all the yokes you want. I just don’t get it. Maybe you sometimes need to be a native english speaker … I would have loved to laugh
Cheers, Helge
May 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Sorry Helge. It is sort of hard to explain why it is funny. Please ignore it.
-cvj
May 8th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Yeah, I know there is the golden rule “never explain a joke.”
Well I can live quite well with my ignorance … 