|
>> Given that, on second best grounds there was a case for subsidising public
>> transport also. It is most probably incorrect to say that subsidising mass
>> transit systems increases congestion. Certainly such subsidies increase the
>> total number of trips taken, but there is also substitution out of cars and
>> onto trains as a result. The result, arguably, is less congestion than with an
>> (uncharged) road system alone. Hmm, and I thought it was only my wife who didn't understand me. I agree that the short term effect of public transport subsidies is less
people in cars, and more people in busses and trains. However the long term
effect is that you are subsidizing the city center. Longer term that
means (you guessed it) more people, more buildings and hence more cars wanting
to go to the city center. My position on cities is that their centralized infrastructure shouldn't be
subsidized, so other solutions can become feasible. I'm a big fan of the 'silicon valley' model where there was no city center
(no, not even San Jose), but the economies of scale through proximity were
achieved through being close in time, not space because the
transportation system (big freeways) was efficient. It's true that most of the vehicles on the freeways are baby-killing SUVs,
but that's an issue for another time .. And it's also true that the Silicon Valley economy collapsed, but not
because of the lack of centralized infrastructure .. ... and I won't risk getting sidetracked by the security implications of
having 50,000 people working in a 100 storey building in the age of
.. insecurity.
| 
