[sustran] Re: Driving Forces-further thoughts

[V. S. Pendakur]

It would be quite interesting to invite these folks to a major conference
and have a forum to discuss these "very useful and intelligent" statement.
I sincerely hope that they have information to back up the statements in the
book.
Cheers.
-----Original Message-----
From: ITDP <mobility at igc.apc.org>
To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Date: June 26, 1999 4:02 AM
Subject: [sustran] Driving Forces-further thoughts


>I finally had a look at james Dunn's book, Driving Forces.
>
>Its not very profound and full of ridiculous statements but there are a
>few valid points which   are worthy of discussion, such as:
>
>a. the external costs of driving in the WRI study and some others are
>exaggerated in the cases mentioned.  I agree that parking lots in
>private shopping centers do not constitute a subsidy to drivers, (except
>for tax breaks they might get for providing the parking) as these costs
>are reflected in the costs of rent and products at the shopping center.
>'External costs that are actually paid by other motorists is also
>analytically not very neat.
>
>Of course, this accepts that a considerable amount of the external costs
>of driving are valid.
>
>b. he may also be right that the benefits of motor vehicle trips and
>road enhancements are also not entirely quantified.  There probably are
>some economic development benefits in some cases, not in others.
>reducing travel times and costs can increase the market area of some
>firms making possible greater returns to scale and can also minimize
>warehousing costs in some cases.  Old Keynesian arguments about broader
>social benefits of social overhead capital have been well criticized
>recently but may retain some validity.
>
>c. point that urban dispersal may have lowered housing costs is possible
>and deserves to be addressed.  Certainly japan which is the most public
>transit dependent OECD country also has the highest housing prices among
>OECD countries.  this really needs to be addressed by us.  I've been
>arguing that land rents (capturing agglomeration economies) are not
>equivalent to transport costs from a growth perspective (land rent is
>profit, and hence savings/investment, while transport costs are
>'consumption).  Public policies encouraging higher density investment
>into the built environment making possible agglomeration economies
>should be explored by us as well as growth controls.
>
>d. conspiracy theories about the destruction by GM of traction companies
>in the US being responsible for the loss of pubic transit ridership are
>probably exagerated and a minor factor, since transit ridership also
>fell in cities where this did not occur.  there are much larger
>structural forces at work here.  U.S. policy since the New Deal was
>trying to stimulate consumption to get us out of the Great Depression
>and cyclical economic crises, and a whole host of polices stimulated
>auto and housing consumption.
>
>e. He's also right to criticize some anti-highway advocacy folks for
>having a 'synoptic' point of view, particularly regarding the land use
>debates, meaning that they assume there is some decision-making body or
>should be some decision-making body which has the power to reshape urban
>form in some ideal way, rather than ideal urban form emerging out of a
>superior decision-making process.
>
>f.  critique of some of the costs of sprawl literature based on
>empirical data showing that costs are pretty similar is probably not
>controlling for land costs and pricing distortions for all sorts of
>urban services but nonetheless was interesting.
>
>g. true that travel times to work on average are not increasing nearly
>as significantly as one might think or by international standards and
>dispersal of economic activity may have something to do with this.
>American exceptionalism here is quite interesting, but not very
>informative for developing countries.
>
>The strengths of the book are his review of the legislative history of
>major US transport sector policy changes, some of which was new to me
>anyway and interesting.  Particularly interesting that large sections of
>the highway lobby support gas tax increases if earmarked to roads, and
>even if not entirely earmarked if they yield more money for highways.
>As a political scientist rather than an economist or a planner, you
>would expect this part to be the strongest, and it is, though
>oversimplified and positions are misrepresented in some cases.
>
>His positions are also not straight forward pro-highway.  He calls for
>some good things;
>tightening CAFE standards, abolishing the earmarking of gas tax revenues
>all together.
>
>The book is full of errors, oversimplications, and complete
>misrepresentations, but these points at least were worthy of more
>serious consideration.
>
>Problems with the Book
>
>As Eric Bruun points out, he completely exaggerates the power of the
>anti-highway forces, though it is very flattering that he things we are
>so powerful.   If only it were true!  He makes some positively
>ludicroius statements about anti-car activists 'taking their cars away'
>and 'Americans could lose their automobiles and still suffer global
>warming.'  This sort of thing makes the book difficult to consider
>seriously.  he also takes on the weakest points of us anti-car folks,
>rather than the strongest points.  John Pucher's points about his
>ignoring the validity of many other negative externalities such as
>safety etc. are of course correct.  He's very hostile to all traffic
>demand management measures, somehow forgetting that traffic congestion
>is disfunctional for motorists as well as non-motorists, and his
>understanding of congestion pricing theory is fairly limited.  He shares
>the falacy that somehow 'cars' are more modern or the way of the future,
>whereas many vehicles he would consider 'backward' no doubt, such as
>bicycle taxis and cycle rickshaws were actually invented after the
>automobile, street cars are from a similar period, and all are over a
>hundred years old.  One could argue that cars are in fact a bit obsolete
>not in terms of their use but in terms of their economic importance,
>with the value of Microsoft now greater than all but 12 countries.  With
>so much economic power concentrated in these new technology industries,
>the lobbying power of the auto industry is probably declining, which is
>probably the only reason we are making any progress. He uses rather
>transparent rhetorical devices of exaggerating the two extreme views in
>order to appear to be embracing the reasonable 'middle'.
>
>Its not a very profound book but does provide a minor service to those
>of us concerned about more sustainable transport systems in challenging
>at least some weak points in our arguments.
>
>Best,
>Walter Hook
>
>--
>Access ITDP's New Website: www.ITDP.org
>The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
>115 W. 30th Street - Suite 1205 - New York, NY 10001 - USA
>tel: (212) 629-8001  fax: (212) 629-8033
>
>
>