In defense of Alex [sustran] Re: South Africa

[Eric Bruun]

I am sure that Wendell will not be surprised that I am coming
to the defense of Alex.

I think the highway lobby is still pretty damned strong in the
US, but that is a different subject than South Africa.  I also
disagree with Wendell's gross overgeneralizations about rail 
transit in the US, but again that is for another thread.

In South Africa, the government could in fact support transit
more by putting higher taxes on fuels, by putting luxury taxes
on autos, and by other means of taxing the priviledged more.
This is what makes SA so interesting. It is far richer than most
countries in Africa, it just has a wildly uneven distribution
of wealth.  Eric

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:

> Re Alex Welte Comments....>
> >
> >
> >> Where have such alternatives worked?
> >
> >Where is the car lobby weak enough to allow mass transit to
> >be managed properly ?
> >
> Are we talking about the car lobby, or are we talking about a situation in
> which land use patterns have emerged that make the private automobile the
> only answer to the great majority of urban (v.rural) passenger transport
> needs. Given the current situation --- which perhaps could be reverse with a
> century or two of public policy aimed at dismantling the suburbs and forcing
> people back into the inner cities --- the activities of the car lobby are at
> best a minor factor. What we have in the US and Europe is people making
> choices about how they travel based upon where they live and where they must
> go. For the great majority of trips no alternative form of transport is
> reasonably conceivable --- and most certainly not the high capital rail
> projects that are the current fancy in the US, which have proven themselves
> capable only of moving people to downtown (which already has a high public
> transport market share), most of whom have been attracted from buses and
> carpools.
> 
> >>
> >> Perhaps SA should ensure that it follows the US lead in auto pollution
> >> technology for cars --- this is the only way that the pollution problem
> >> related to cars will be solved, and it is being solved.
> >>
> >'this is the only way ... ' ? nothing like categorical assertions to
> >gloss over the need for evidence.
> >
> Unless you have an alternative technology that will deal with a majority of
> trips then it is the only way --- and none of the presently operating
> technologies in the US and Europe can do the job.
> 
> >> >Since the policy, or lack of policy, has consisted mostly of leaving
> >> >things to the market, and with a refusal to subsidize public
> >> >transportation, I would like to hear whether readers agree with
> >> >the editorial.  Eric Bruun
> >> >
> >> It's not such a bad thing to leave these things to the market, especially
> >
> >It isn't ? you been there and seen it aint so bad, or what ?
> >
> Yes I have been there. The taxis carry a very large market share --- larger
> than the buses and larger than rail, and among backs, a considerably larger
> market share than autos.
> 
> >> when you consider the robust kombi-taxi industry, both in terms of its
> >
> >'robust' ? people killing each other for more business is a robust
> >industry ?
> >
> And I suppose you are going to solve this problem by US style subsidies? Do
> you think for a minute that there is anything the government can do to drive
> the kombis out of business. Do you think that the SA treasury can afford to
> provide even pennies of subsidies per rider to the kombi operators?
> 
> >> potential to move passengers (if permitted) and the entrepreneurial path
> >
> >it's 'permitted' AND it's a mess - people scrape together money they'd
> >have preferred to use for clothes and shelter so they can get to
> >work and not starve.
> >
> >> that it provides to people trying to move up the economic ladder.
> >>
> >right out of starvation into a shanty in a squatter settlement
> >
> >> With all of the social needs in SA --- housing, education, jobs, etc., etc.,
> >> it is not surprising, nor is it necessarily inappropriate for subsidies to
> >> public transport to take a :"back seat."
> >
> >I guess by making people pay more to be less mobile,
> >they get around to doing their homework instead of going to school,
> >repairing their shacks instead of getting meaningful employment,
> >etc.  Sorry I couldn't support the one about jobs - I think you're
> >not necessarilly making sense on that one.
> >
> I suppose the answer is for us Americans to export our highly successful
> public transport policies to SA --- why not --- we did it with religion not
> so long ago
> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
> International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
> The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
> http://www.publicpurpose.com
> Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
> P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
> 
> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
> that is no higher than necessary."
> 
>