In response to a post in
from the friend of the boyfriend of a friend crowd… =)
I agree deeply with much of what you say. I have not owned a car in 4ish years. Quite deliberately. Cars are powerfully beneficial to their user and have a list of externalities that are simply extraordinary. Being the kind of idealist that I am, I shoot for very low externalities.
So, as a suggestion, as you originally billed it, it will go nowhere, and it will go there fast. It is entirely politically infeasible in the current environment. I’m sure you knew that before you even started composing the post.
In a later comment, though, you referred to it as a thought experiment, and I’d like to get into that angle on it.
You clearly aren’t opposed to speedy travel. I’m hearing that your main concerns are the human-built environment interaction, efficiency, safety, and expense.
I would like to point out that you may be working things backwards, with regard to the built environment. Speed limits have to be the most routinely violated law in existence. They are violated because people don’t like driving that much, and want to get it over with, so they can do other, more enjoyable things. People drive at a level of risk that matches their urgency. The level of risk is partially a function of the road. People will go 80 on Highway 101, but they would never go 80 (and survive) on the gravel road next to which I grew up. Further, in towns like chicago, and san francisco that a densely built with good railed transportation, many people forgo a car because it’s expensive, parking is a pain, and it represents little savings of time or effort. I assure you, the highways through chicago rarely see motorists going anywhere near 80. To change the way our built environment works, and the way we interact with it, we should change our built environment. Advocating for greenspace, for the repeal of sprawl-enforcing zoning regulations, for minimum rather than maximum building heights, and for the development of public space in general, will be more effective.
Another big item is public education. People are moving to the suburbs to get their kids into better schools. Most of what they pay for their housing is really getting their kids into a good school, in a way that simultaneously pays them back economically. Working to revitalize the urban public schools may do as much as anything to get people out of their cars, and interacting with one another.
Another point on the gay bars in the suburbs. There’s a reason the gay bars are in the downtown areas. That’s where gay men (and most other minorities) congregate, and for a reason. If you want to see other people like, but are not a terribly common group, you are probably better off going where there are alot of people to find them. (some exceptions certainly apply, native american reservations, for instance. Even so, native americans also tend to cluster in the larger cities in rural areas, like minneapolis, for instance). Homos huddle for the ability to be safely open about their identity, and for a chance of dating/love. I suspect a tightening of the transportation network would result in an increase in gay neighborhood clustering, that is to say, more homos moving from San Jose to the Castro, more than in gay bars springing up in San Jose.
As for efficiency, another major concern on that front has to do with the roads themselves. The optimal use of roads happens at about 55 mph, with about 2,200 vehicles per hour passing a given point in each lane (Roughly, I think). At 20 mph, far fewer vehicles are going through per hour. Within urban contexts, the opportunity cost of the land is huge, and it is important to make good use of the capacity that is there. Rail would certainly be more efficient to operate, but is vastly more expensive to build. And then there’s the efficient use of human time. If one is going down a stretch of highway in, say, texas, or new mexico, and there’s not a soul in sight that could be harmed by higher speeds, why should one be forced to drive more slowly?
Safety you’re quite correct on. Others have pointed out the emergency vehicle exception, but emergency vehicles are already the exception to so many rules anyway, that that would be non-problematic. In terms of expense, you are quite correct regarding fuel efficiency, but the questions of opportunity cost are huge and ought to be considered.
Those are my quick thoughts. Heh.
I largely agree with what you write. I’m actually not feeling any great need to defend the specific implications of this idea as I am to illustrate a larger point. (More below.) I think that what would happen to the layout of a city is very much open to argument. Clarence’s points about trucking, from the trucker’s perspective, are similarly reflecting the reality that whenever technological change happens, certain people get screwed over by it.
And of course this is all argument by fiat. I agree that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of this happening.
But the larger point is that I really believe that things work out in the long run, and it is often the case that things we consider indispensible are actually not that important. I’m particularly influenced by the book Better Off, in which the author goes off to an Amish-like community where there are no machines at all, and discovers, lo and behold, things aren’t so bad!
I think there’s a whole lot of things in our lives that could use re-evaluation as to whether they are valuable or not – not just at the social level, but also at the individual level.
Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful response!
I’m still
That was a very well thought out response.
When you first went off into public policy I was, shall I say, slightly confused.
But now, after reading this, I am glad that you have.