Personally, I prefer the car. But if I had to bear all of the costs of using a car directly, and urban sprawl were not so preferred by planners, mass transit would be my choice more often.
This is especially true at rush hour. Most highway construction happens just to serve rush hour traffic, a time when mass transit is at its most efficient.
If these subsidies did not exist, mass transit would be much more widely used. There'd be many more choices and there'd be no need to subsidize mass transit.
We actually have subsidies to counter the negative effects of other subsidies. Getting rid of all subsidies would be better and allow people to make the right choices for them with fewer negative side effects.
I remember reading an opinion here on Hacker News not long ago where it was suggested that in the future with self-driving cars we don't all need to own a car. Instead a car could come and pick us up and drop off at the destination. Do you think that this micro transportation (instead of mass transportation) option could be environmentally friendly?
Before you can compare things on an environmental basis, you have to be comparing things that are equivalent.
I could compare rubbing a lamp to taking the subway in environmental terms and the lamp comes out way ahead. It just takes more walking to get places with the lamp method.
If you do wish to compare two things, you probably should include the cost of your time and the environmental impact you would have during that amount of time.
You also want to consider the actual impacts of building the transportation systems, whether its rail or road.
It would be infinitely easier for you if each process involved were taxed according to its impact. Then the costs would be included in the price you pay and you could decide according to what works best for you.
Microtransport works against energy efficiency to the extent that empty vehicles are moving around unoccupied. On the other hand, if they achieve higher utilization, then that is offset to some degree by better utilization of the embodied energy required to manufacture the vehicle.
Further, if self driving vehicles are well coordinated, they could achieve higher utilization of roadways, which would require less land and less concrete and steel to carry the same volume of people. Also, they would potentially be able to operate with more optimal acceleration and breaking.
Comments
Mass transit is what I had in mind.
Personally, I prefer the car. But if I had to bear all of the costs of using a car directly, and urban sprawl were not so preferred by planners, mass transit would be my choice more often.
This is especially true at rush hour. Most highway construction happens just to serve rush hour traffic, a time when mass transit is at its most efficient.
If these subsidies did not exist, mass transit would be much more widely used. There'd be many more choices and there'd be no need to subsidize mass transit.
We actually have subsidies to counter the negative effects of other subsidies. Getting rid of all subsidies would be better and allow people to make the right choices for them with fewer negative side effects.
I remember reading an opinion here on Hacker News not long ago where it was suggested that in the future with self-driving cars we don't all need to own a car. Instead a car could come and pick us up and drop off at the destination. Do you think that this micro transportation (instead of mass transportation) option could be environmentally friendly?
Before you can compare things on an environmental basis, you have to be comparing things that are equivalent.
I could compare rubbing a lamp to taking the subway in environmental terms and the lamp comes out way ahead. It just takes more walking to get places with the lamp method.
If you do wish to compare two things, you probably should include the cost of your time and the environmental impact you would have during that amount of time.
You also want to consider the actual impacts of building the transportation systems, whether its rail or road.
It would be infinitely easier for you if each process involved were taxed according to its impact. Then the costs would be included in the price you pay and you could decide according to what works best for you.
Microtransport works against energy efficiency to the extent that empty vehicles are moving around unoccupied. On the other hand, if they achieve higher utilization, then that is offset to some degree by better utilization of the embodied energy required to manufacture the vehicle.
Further, if self driving vehicles are well coordinated, they could achieve higher utilization of roadways, which would require less land and less concrete and steel to carry the same volume of people. Also, they would potentially be able to operate with more optimal acceleration and breaking.
Oh right, but mass transit has hardly withered. There are probably similar numbers on the mass transit systems as there are in cars (in most cities).