Stupid Economist Article
04-12-2017, 10:05 PM
#1
Stupid Economist Article
This is may be the dumbest article I've ever seen in the economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...d-urban-sprawl
They're completely ignoring the economic costs of lost time spent travelling day to day distances in other than the quickest manner, which is driving directly from one point to another. In a few megacities like New York or London of course, there is the requisite density for other modes of travel to compare, but most places in the world are simply not that way.
They're ignoring the flexibility of commuting by car to move workplaces quickly and easily without moving residence, so people are better able to change jobs to where they are most economically productive.
When they talk about above-ground car parks raising the cost of a mall in LA by 68% and an above-ground lot raising it by underground ones by 98%, they're completely ignoring the fact that without the convenience of adequate parking, the mall would lose all of it's customers to Amazon and go out of business. So parking doesn't "raise" the cost of the mall, it's just the cost of doing business.
When they disparage rules requiring developers to put in a certain number of spaces, they're forgetting that those rules are put in place to eliminate the free-rider problem: if only one commercial pr residential property developer skimps on parking, their customers can simply use the neighboring ones. If one business wants to provide free parking without hassles like meters or parking passes, they're out of luck if all the adjoining ones charge.
I get it, if you live in New York or London, you think nobody else needs a car because you don't. Many of us think those places are miserable though, and they shouldn't be telling the rest of us how to live.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...d-urban-sprawl
They're completely ignoring the economic costs of lost time spent travelling day to day distances in other than the quickest manner, which is driving directly from one point to another. In a few megacities like New York or London of course, there is the requisite density for other modes of travel to compare, but most places in the world are simply not that way.
They're ignoring the flexibility of commuting by car to move workplaces quickly and easily without moving residence, so people are better able to change jobs to where they are most economically productive.
When they talk about above-ground car parks raising the cost of a mall in LA by 68% and an above-ground lot raising it by underground ones by 98%, they're completely ignoring the fact that without the convenience of adequate parking, the mall would lose all of it's customers to Amazon and go out of business. So parking doesn't "raise" the cost of the mall, it's just the cost of doing business.
When they disparage rules requiring developers to put in a certain number of spaces, they're forgetting that those rules are put in place to eliminate the free-rider problem: if only one commercial pr residential property developer skimps on parking, their customers can simply use the neighboring ones. If one business wants to provide free parking without hassles like meters or parking passes, they're out of luck if all the adjoining ones charge.
I get it, if you live in New York or London, you think nobody else needs a car because you don't. Many of us think those places are miserable though, and they shouldn't be telling the rest of us how to live.
04-13-2017, 01:43 AM
#2
Burning Brakes
This is may be the dumbest article I've ever seen in the economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...d-urban-sprawl
They're completely ignoring the economic costs of lost time spent travelling day to day distances in other than the quickest manner, which is driving directly from one point to another. In a few megacities like New York or London of course, there is the requisite density for other modes of travel to compare, but most places in the world are simply not that way.
They're ignoring the flexibility of commuting by car to move workplaces quickly and easily without moving residence, so people are better able to change jobs to where they are most economically productive.
When they talk about above-ground car parks raising the cost of a mall in LA by 68% and an above-ground lot raising it by underground ones by 98%, they're completely ignoring the fact that without the convenience of adequate parking, the mall would lose all of it's customers to Amazon and go out of business. So parking doesn't "raise" the cost of the mall, it's just the cost of doing business.
When they disparage rules requiring developers to put in a certain number of spaces, they're forgetting that those rules are put in place to eliminate the free-rider problem: if only one commercial pr residential property developer skimps on parking, their customers can simply use the neighboring ones. If one business wants to provide free parking without hassles like meters or parking passes, they're out of luck if all the adjoining ones charge.
I get it, if you live in New York or London, you think nobody else needs a car because you don't. Many of us think those places are miserable though, and they shouldn't be telling the rest of us how to live.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...d-urban-sprawl
They're completely ignoring the economic costs of lost time spent travelling day to day distances in other than the quickest manner, which is driving directly from one point to another. In a few megacities like New York or London of course, there is the requisite density for other modes of travel to compare, but most places in the world are simply not that way.
They're ignoring the flexibility of commuting by car to move workplaces quickly and easily without moving residence, so people are better able to change jobs to where they are most economically productive.
When they talk about above-ground car parks raising the cost of a mall in LA by 68% and an above-ground lot raising it by underground ones by 98%, they're completely ignoring the fact that without the convenience of adequate parking, the mall would lose all of it's customers to Amazon and go out of business. So parking doesn't "raise" the cost of the mall, it's just the cost of doing business.
When they disparage rules requiring developers to put in a certain number of spaces, they're forgetting that those rules are put in place to eliminate the free-rider problem: if only one commercial pr residential property developer skimps on parking, their customers can simply use the neighboring ones. If one business wants to provide free parking without hassles like meters or parking passes, they're out of luck if all the adjoining ones charge.
I get it, if you live in New York or London, you think nobody else needs a car because you don't. Many of us think those places are miserable though, and they shouldn't be telling the rest of us how to live.
04-13-2017, 02:31 AM
#3
I'd love if there were regulations in place to actually incentivize people to use alternative modes of transport for their daily commute instead of promoting the inefficient use of private vehicles for the repetitive drive everyday.
And I'm actually affected by that as I live in that area the article talks about and see day in day out how horrible traffic has become over the last 10 years. And it was bad to begin with.
And I'm actually affected by that as I live in that area the article talks about and see day in day out how horrible traffic has become over the last 10 years. And it was bad to begin with.
04-13-2017, 06:39 AM
#4
This article ignores so much - its pretty facile. Perhaps the author should speak to a mother/father who may have to transport three kids to two different schools, in two different areas and then get to work.
Or the Uni student who, when using public transport, takes two hours to get to campus - In sharp relief, in her car, she can get there in 20 minutes.
Or the low income earner who has no choice but to live in the outer reaches of a city.
Or .......I can go on and on
City planning has become a disaster due to many factors - perhaps, the biggest self inflicted head shot is the failure of governments to execute plans (often developed decades ago) for the development of road and rail infrastructure and the subsequent sell off of easements that were put in place for that very purpose. Moreover, where plans are executed the Project Management by government agencies is often so dire that budget blow out etc etc.
Proper Planning Prevents **** Poor Performance - the famous six p's - there are many reasons why Economics is known as the dismal science.
Or the Uni student who, when using public transport, takes two hours to get to campus - In sharp relief, in her car, she can get there in 20 minutes.
Or the low income earner who has no choice but to live in the outer reaches of a city.
Or .......I can go on and on
City planning has become a disaster due to many factors - perhaps, the biggest self inflicted head shot is the failure of governments to execute plans (often developed decades ago) for the development of road and rail infrastructure and the subsequent sell off of easements that were put in place for that very purpose. Moreover, where plans are executed the Project Management by government agencies is often so dire that budget blow out etc etc.
Proper Planning Prevents **** Poor Performance - the famous six p's - there are many reasons why Economics is known as the dismal science.
04-13-2017, 10:10 AM
#5
Race Director
04-13-2017, 05:37 PM
#7
Yes absolutely. I don't like the common libertarian arguments that the government should stop working on the roads and infrastructure and let private companies step in, we pay way more than enough in taxes for the government to pay for these things that are used by so many people that it's hard to efficiently collect via per-use charges. They just need to stop wasting it.
Trending Topics
04-13-2017, 08:29 PM
#8
BS. Incentives are better bike paths, a workable public transport system, discouraging of massive individual vehicles for single person transport etc.
You need positive encouragement, not just collect money and then spend it on the wrong thing.
You need positive encouragement, not just collect money and then spend it on the wrong thing.
04-13-2017, 10:13 PM
#9
Rennlist Member
(Shrug) Self-driving cars will fix this problem before long, or at least, they'll fix it on a timescale comparable to that required for the massive shifts in urban planning policy that the article calls for. They will park themselves where it makes sense to park, maybe several miles away, and appear when called. Individual parking lots and garages are ultimately a waste of perfectly good commercial real estate.
It's like PETA complaining about cruelty to farm animals. Soon enough, meat will be grown in vats with no live animals involved, and the whole argument will simply go away.
In the meantime, I'm sure glad I work at home.
It's like PETA complaining about cruelty to farm animals. Soon enough, meat will be grown in vats with no live animals involved, and the whole argument will simply go away.
In the meantime, I'm sure glad I work at home.
04-13-2017, 10:22 PM
#10
(Shrug) Self-driving cars will fix this problem before long, or at least, they'll fix it on a timescale comparable to that required for the massive shifts in urban planning policy that the article calls for. They will park themselves where it makes sense to park, maybe several miles away, and appear when called. Individual parking lots and garages are ultimately a waste of perfectly good commercial real estate.
We occupy one bedroom of a three bedroom house, and have four cars to try to shuffle around because they only thought to put in a two car garage and no reserved outdoor spaces. Like god forbid anyone would ever have one or more cars per person. Pretty soon all the developements for the non-rich will be like "oh you don't need a place for a car. Just call a self driving Uber".
04-14-2017, 12:22 AM
#11
Rennlist Member
As that happens though, things will get much worse for car enthusiasts who don't have the means to buy multi-million dollar mansions though.
We occupy one bedroom of a three bedroom house, and have four cars to try to shuffle around because they only thought to put in a two car garage and no reserved outdoor spaces. Like god forbid anyone would ever have one or more cars per person. Pretty soon all the developements for the non-rich will be like "oh you don't need a place for a car. Just call a self driving Uber".
We occupy one bedroom of a three bedroom house, and have four cars to try to shuffle around because they only thought to put in a two car garage and no reserved outdoor spaces. Like god forbid anyone would ever have one or more cars per person. Pretty soon all the developements for the non-rich will be like "oh you don't need a place for a car. Just call a self driving Uber".
04-14-2017, 03:12 AM
#12
Incentives ahh yes, the Progressive agenda
- what you're tying to say is "we will tax high income earners even more and redistribute the wealth to others as incentives. We will build more largely useless bike paths and waste more money on unworkable public transports systems" Incentives are extrinsic motivators - they have a short shelf life and don't work. Practical solutions work - thus if you have a car, you use it to transport the kids to school and then go to work - its more effective than anything else - thats why people do it.
04-14-2017, 12:06 PM
#15