[sustran] [sustran] Yet more on A bias against drivers?

BruunB at aol.com BruunB at aol.com
Thu Jul 12 09:13:29 JST 2001


I have been away for a few days, but I didn't want this thread to end without 
one
more comment. The passage below says "... drivers OR THOSE WHO RIDE IN CARS" 
to argue that very few people are unfairly receiving externalities, since 
they too receive benefits. If they have no other choice but to depend on 
autos for travel, because this is the reality of their urban form, then, yes, 
they too are auto users. This does not mean that they are equal 
beneficiaries, however. They may have very limited mobility, totally 
dependent upon others, and unable to even walk or bicycle since it is either 
impractical or unsafe. I would call being forced to be dependent on others 
for even limited mobility a huge externality.

Eric Bruun

In a message dated 7/6/01 8:09:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
wcox at publicpurpose.com writes:

<< From the transport-groups mailing list....
 
 Wendell,
 
 I suggest that you make this gentleman aware of the Delucchi 
 article "Should we Try to Get the Costs Right?" and the University of 
 Minnesota research paper referred to by Shef Lang "The Full Costs of 
 Transportation in the Twin Cities Area".
 
 Point out the size of the externalities and the fact that 90-95% or 
 more of the public on which externalities and government costs fall 
 are drivers or those who ride in cars.  That leaves only 1-2% of the 
 overall costs to fall on those who don't drive or ride.
 
 Bruce Gaarder
 Saint Paul  MN
 bruce_gaarder at acm.org
 
 
 > > > Wendell,
 > > >
 > > > I would like to suggest that there is a reason to be biased 
 against private transport. The benefits go primarily to the individual, 
 but externalities go to the public at large. Nor can it ever be 
 available to
 > all age groups, all income groups, to people with disabilities, etc.. 
 These people get none of the benefits but the same externalities.
 > > >
 > > > Public transport uses less space, creates fewer externalities, 
 and doesn't exclude large portions of the population.
 > > >
 > > > I think the core of our difference is that we can't agree on 
 how to evaluate these externalities, and what to do, if anything, about
 > > compensating for them.
 > > >
 > > > Eric Bruun
 
 
 THE TRANSPORT POLICY DISCUSSION GROUP
 Sponsored by The Public Purpose
 http://www.publicpurpose.com 
 
 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
 
 
 
  >>



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list