There is no more statist rag in the world than the New York Times, and the entire worship of the government and its regulatory apparatus was on display in an op-ed on transportation written by two college professors. Now, the op-ed must be read to fully comprehend the utter economic ignorance, the uncluttered belief in untrammeled state power, and just the snobbery and arrogance that seems to define the worst of New York City’s Official Religion: Worship of the State.
First, they write that the city is in danger of becoming like a “Third-World” city because there are “poorly-regulated” private transportation. They write:
If you’ve ever spent time in a city in the developing world, chances are you’ve experienced a transit system that relies almost entirely on private commuter services. Thanks to low barriers to market entry — often anyone with a working van or bus can pick up passengers — the streets are clogged with a motley assortment of vans and buses, few of them in optimal working condition. The results are, not surprisingly, higher levels of pollution and more accidents and traffic fatalities than in cities with strictly regulated public services.
Mr. Bloomberg and the Taxi and Limousine Commission have offered assurances that better regulations will keep the city from becoming an American Calcutta or Rio de Janeiro. But that’s an easy promise to make, and probably an empty one: New York’s experiences with crane and building-code regulations demonstrates that enforcement usually costs more than policymakers are willing to spend, especially in lean fiscal times.
Oh, but it gets much, much better. The solution, of course, is to make sure that government limit transportation alternatives for consumers, including the government-sponsored cartel:
Private transit service will also incur social costs. For starters, because the new vans don’t accept MetroCards, passengers who want to transfer from them to a public bus or train have to pay twice — a significant burden for residents with modest incomes who live along the affected routes.
Second, relying on private service means replacing well-paying transit employees with a lower-paid and typically untaxed labor force. Private van operators have reported working 14-hour days, seven days a week, for about $200 in daily pay — before maintenance expenses. These drivers have no health insurance, retirement or disability benefits. Adding more informal workers to the New York work force, even as the number of public employees is decreased, is no way to build a robust local economy.
Translated into English, this passage is saying that unless people receive government salaries and benefits, then they certainly should not be permitted to impede upon a government monopoly. Yes, the way to build a “robust” economy is to deny employment opportunities and force up the real price of public transportation.
They end with this missive:
Finally, increased dependence on fragmented transit service could be an obstacle to Mayor Bloomberg’s environmental agenda, PlaNYC 2030, a vision for the next 20 years that relies heavily on an expanded and well-integrated public transit system to all parts of the city. Lobbying by newly entrenched private operators would likely pressure the city to retain inefficient parts of the status quo — to their benefit and at the public’s expense.
True, the Bloomberg administration considers private transit services a temporary solution, to end as soon as the money to restart the affected routes is found. But City Hall needs to adopt a clear end date and make a meaningful investment in rigorous public regulation, including oversight and inspection, to ensure high-quality labor and vehicle standards.
On the other hand, if the operations are to continue indefinitely, then they need to be quickly integrated into the Metropolitan Transit Authority system, with MetroCard connectivity.
Above all, City Hall needs to recognize that when it comes to public programs, seemingly convenient stopgap measures can easily take on a pernicious life of their own. If it doesn’t, one of the nation’s most forward-thinking mayors will be responsible for taking his city’s transit system back into the past.
This is exactly the kind of elitist thinking that claims to be supporting “the poor” when, in fact, they see “the poor” as nothing but wogs who get in the way of the bureaucrats’ own grandiose plans for them.
{ 45 comments }
Let’s see. We’re all rubes. And government guided by prescient academics can fix it. Got it.
Only in the NYT. But then, I’m just old enough to remember when it was a pleasure to read the Economist as well.
when did you stop reading the economist? it’s been about a decade since i canceled my subscription on account of the annoying economics it espoused.
ditto as to the Economist…I also fondly remember taking gypsie cabs all over the bronx because all the licensed medallion cabs were concentrated below 86th street….gypsie cabs were usually run by cheerful fellows from exotic countries who took great pride in the appearance of the vehicle and customer service….you could negotiate everything….for example, when slightly underage, I could get a nice gent to pick me and a few friends up, grab some booze for us at the liquor store and then drop us at our destination. For a few extra bucks, he’d come back to get us after we were a few sheets to the wind. Try doing that with some dipshit medallion cabbie.
Funny how they leave out the fact that NYC had an excellent private-sector mass-transportation system before City Hall began meddling.
John Stossel had a good show on this.
There are some very obvious reasons why developing world cities need to regulate their transportation providers. One, of course, is that an unlicensed cabbie can just drive you into a dark alley and kill you for your watch and luggage.
Even if he doesn’t, he can threaten you with bodily harm if you don’t pay him $200 for a ride he quoted at $10 when you got in his cab. Who you going to call? The livery commission? It doesn’t exist!
The buses belching black fumes are ubiquitous, everywhere bus lines aren’t regulated. In Quito you’re high enough up that there’s very little air to begin with. Downtown you’re breathing straight fumes during the day. No rules, obviously.
Good rules and good enforcement make a good game. Without them the ripoff artists prey on the unwary traveler.
Unfortunately an ‘unlicensed’ cabbie might be able to get away with that in NYC. He would probably not fear being caught by the city police force, enjoying the monopoly that they do.
The presence of fumes is a private property issue. True private property owners could dictate the level of pollution allowed on their property.
“Good rules and good enforcement make a good game. Without them the ripoff artists prey on the unwary traveler.”
Agreed. What does this have to do with government regulations?
“unwary traveler” = american tourist. locals are wary. commuters are anything but passive or ignorant.
how can you ‘dictate’ the ‘level’ of pollution on your property, when fumes move around with the wind where ever they please and freely travel far and close distances? How can the movement of air fumes be blocked so that property owners don’t get ‘fumes’ on their property?
http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
Fumes can be ‘blocked’ by upholding private property rights. Say owner ‘A’ does not allow certain vehicles on his property because of the amount of ‘fumes’ they emit. Owner B, down the street, does allow these vehicles. If these fumes routinely end up on the property of owner ‘A’ then owner ‘A’ can seek recourse against owner ‘B’. Owner ‘B’ will have to keep such vehicles off his property, or find some way to prevent their fumes from leaving his property.
This is just one example. There are many more solutions. The point is you don’t need government ‘regulation’. If government upheld property rights it could solve the problem. (Assuming you adhere to the belief that you need a government to uphold property rights, which is another question).
Richard your example is so silly.
1. how do you prove the fumes are coming from owner B and not somewhere else?
2. how do you prevent fumes from leaving your property? it is air borne
3. cars are ubiquitous, air pollution is ubiquitous. Air pollution goes high up in the air, travels across distances, then comes down onto other areas. It is air borne, hard to control, or detect from which car it came from.
michael and Diogones,
Well, I guess you can both be thankful that I am not working as a “Pollution Prevention Consultant.” (And michael, you are too kind. A theory that does not make sense is hardly a good theory).
Perhaps I am being too hard on myself, though. I offered an example of how one might control pollution under a ‘private property order.’ I said it was just an example, and there were other possible solutions.
My point was that controlling pollution and upholding private property rights are entirely consistent. If government upheld property rights, or better yet a private ‘law and order’ industry upheld property rights, pollution would be controlled. How it would be controlled would be a matter for property owners to figure out. It might be solved by a group of them agreeing to an ‘emissions level’ as in michael’s ‘city council’ example, it might be solved in the so called ‘silly’ way I explained. I don’t know. Yet, people could use their own resources to determine the best way to solve the problem and solve it in many different ways. There would be a bottom up approach as opposed to a top down one-size fits all approach that we have today. And, probably, the methods devised would actually be profitable rather than require a ‘subsidy.’
Richard, your example is naive
1. how do you prove the fumes are coming from property B and not somewhere near or farther away?
2. how do you prevent fumes from leaking to other areas? It is air borne and hard to control
3. cars and fumes are ubiquitous. Air pollution is airborne and travels everywhere across far distances. It is hard to control, and hard to prove from which car exactly it came from. How can you control air pollution from one block to another with these kinds of limits?
Richard: Your response is a triumph of good theory over good sense:
“The presence of fumes is a private property issue. True private property owners could dictate the level of pollution allowed on their property.”
Downtown Quito is covered in a toxic smog from dawn til dusk every day (it subsides a bit after working hours). Are you saying that the very best way to address this problem is for individual property owners to each have to sue the bus companies over that portion of smog that comes onto their property? The city council can’t just pass an ordinance requiring that buses pass an emissions test?
To you the individual lawsuit route may seem the only possible approach. To me it just seems ridiculous.
the counterpoint: chile
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/07/munger_on_the_p.html
the third world has third world air as a result of poverty. regulation doesn’t solve poverty or build capital, except to the extent that it protects individual property rights.
Munger did an updated econtalk podcast touching on the Chilean bus system recently.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/08/munger_on_priva.html
When the government tries to control pollution, they often end up causing more problems than they solve. Case in point. In the 90′s California decided to add a known carcinogen, MTBE, to gasoline to reduce evaporation. The result was foul tasting water, asthma, and dead fish. It took years to get this policy reversed.
michael:
I do not understand your blind faith in government.
I seem to recall that not so long ago, that the Guardian Angels, a volunteer group, used to have to patrol the NY Subway to help reduce crime on the Subway.
BTW, to stay on topic, how many people have been assaulted or robbed while riding Dollar Vans?
How does this compare to the Subway or Buses?
It’s not “blind faith”. Government is very far from being infallible. I just accept the fact that societies without governments must necessarily remain as very primitive and subject to aggression from both without and within. Societies WITH governments must always work to improve them.
Crime today, for example in NYC, is not noticeably different in public spaces (subways or buses) than it is in private spaces (homes and businesses). Crime is a problem. The issue of whether it takes place on public or private property is a side show.
The issue you might want to address is whether crime might be better or worse in a city with no government, no laws and no enforcement.
The ever-present devil’s advocate, eh, michael? For your argument to work, you need to show that government regulation can actually provide the intended result. Any cabby anywhere, licensed or not, can drive you into a dark alley and kill or rob you. Your presumption is that regulation somehow prevents that. What regulation does is increase the costs of taking a (licensed) taxicab, and apparently doesn’t stop gypsy cabs, a riskier black or grey market, from existing. If you can’t afford the more expensive licensed cabbies, then you’re stuck with a riskier, more dangerous option, or no cab. This is an improvement? “Good” enforcement merely ensures that the poor are more surely punished than otherwise. Bad enforcement at least helps the poor to some extent. A private option would be certification as opposed to licensing. If you want to be sure you’re riding with a reputable cabbie, then you would want him and/or his cab company to be certified, showing that they meet certain standards and abide by certain rules and regulations (voluntarily, that is), information that is available to the public. The certification agency would also be able to provide someone you can call and complain to if there are problems with a cabbie or cab company. And as the certification would be more economically efficient than government regulation, it wouldn’t increase cab prices any more than is absolutely necessary to provide sufficient certification, thus being more beneficial to the poor.
Insurance companies could also provide a vital role in the “regulation” of cabs, since the insurance companies are going to want certain safety standards met in order to provide insurance on cabs and cab companies. That’s assuming that government regulation doesn’t hamstring insurance companies, as it currently does.
“Even if he doesn’t, he can threaten you with bodily harm if you don’t pay him $200 for a ride he quoted at $10 when you got in his cab.”
Even without a regulatory state, people who do things like that tend not to stay in business for long.
“Even without a regulatory state, people who do things like that tend not to stay in business for long.”
Why not? They hang out at airports and tend to pick up passengers who are new to the country. What market force exists to drive them out of business?
Virtually every third world capital has gypsy cabbies like this. Nothing ever gets done about them. It’s a failure stemming from weak enforcement.
Yes michael, the world is dangerous, and people are blind to see the danger and powerless to do anything about it. Unless, of course, they have a government. Then, like when Popeye eats his spinach, the problems vanish. That’s what your presentation of the situation is: a cartoon.
People are not blind to the danger. But in some ways they are powerless to do much about it.
In a place like NYC cabs and buses are licensed. You get in one and the first thing you see is the cabby or bus driver’s name and number on his license. You have a problem with him, you can report him to the Livery Commission.
In Bogota you have nothing. He’s just some guy. He can roll you for your cash and passport and the only thing you can tell the police is that it was some guy driving some car.
er…you might want to take down the number plate. cars have plates, even in bogotá.
What government force exists either michael? If a private arbitration apparatus is no control for them what exactly makes a government apparatus a control?
If it’s just happening to tourists maybe they can’t communicate well enough to establish their complaint with the government? Your government system isn’t the magic you presuppose.
Having travelled to the third world, I can tell you how market forces act in this scenario.
The airport only allows certain cab/bus companies and drivers in to service the people arriving. The airport has an economic incentive to not allow such “gypsy cabbies”, as a bad experience will reduce their business.
Keep in mind that just because you cannot forsee a way in which the market will solve a problem does not mean it will not be solved by the market. If we could each forsee the most efficient method for solving the problems, we could all be billionaires.
Combiastas (3rd world minivans run by privateers) actually get you where you want to go within a reasonable amount of time, unlike US-style bus systems which barely work even in large metro areas.
The municipality merely makes a turn-off for them to pick up passengers. It’s a system that actually works. Most bus systems in this country are beyond help. They aren’t responsive to demand and if privatized wouldn’t fetch a penny beyond book value, if not less (are massive busses even practical? I don’t know of any private institution using them except long distance services like greyhound)
I’d love to see a blurring of taxis and buses–vans and minivans with limited or special routes would be perfect for filling in an important transportation gap. And with cell phones and gps devices, they could be quite efficient for a small number of passengers per trip. The main problem in starting this is, of course, getting around or through current local regulations. But maybe hotel shuttles could be expanded towards this direction.
“Combiastas (3rd world minivans run by privateers) actually get you where you want to go within a reasonable amount of time, unlike US-style bus systems which barely work even in large metro areas.”
Those are actually much safer than single-passenger cabs, because you have the other passengers there to complain to if the driver tries to rip you off. But with ordinary taxis, in many towns it’s recommended that you only step into the car if you know the driver. Port o’ Spain (Trinidad) is one such. And that’s a pretty safe town.
If you could identify an American city where the bus or light rail service “barely works” it would be helpful. I’ve never seen one that wasn’t responsive to the passengers’ needs. It is certainly the case that there are publicly owned services whose fares don’t recover costs. They are run more as a convenience to the residents and visitors, and are often subsidised to keep the fares affordable.
NYC’s public system doesn’t always work by definition if consumers are seeking dollar van alternatives.
Dallas, TX is an example of the abject failure of the public transportation system. It can take 2 hours to make a journey on public transportation that would take you an hour to ride a bike. The light rail system shuts down at 11 or so, so going downtown at night to enjoy the nightlife using public transportation is impossible, unless you want to pay 50 bucks for a cab to take you back home. The projected cost of the light rail expansion in Dallas was 1 billion, now they are saying it will actually cost 2 billion. Irving, TX has put 1 BILLION dollars into the Dart Rail coffers over the past several decades, only to see the light rail system NOT servicing the areas that were originally agreed upon when they initially started giving their money to DART. You can read all the stories in the local newspaper and news websites. As a former citizen of Dallas, I invite anyone to travel there and attempt to use public transportation and tell me that we need MORE public transportation funded by the taxpayers!
I would also like to add that I lived within walking distance of a Light Rail station, and only lived 12 miles from my job, right next to Love Field airport, which you would think is a prime destination for public transportation. Well I looked up the routes I would have to use and I would end up traveling a lot farther and 3 times aslong using public transit. I have posted the Google Maps link to the Driving route and the Public Transportation Route. You can clearly see that it would take me over an hour to travel 12 miles to a job that takes only 20 minutes to drive to!
Driving Route – 10.5 miles and 20 minutes on the road.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=caliber+collision+dallas&fb=1&gl=us&hq=caliber+collision&hnear=Dallas,+TX&ei=e_mfTN_vC4zGnAfku713&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQtgMwAw&iwloc=1728837685899784459
Public Transportation Route – 15 miles give or take and 1 hour and 31 minutes on the train/bus!
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=caliber+collision+dallas&fb=1&gl=us&hq=caliber+collision&hnear=Dallas,+TX&ei=e_mfTN_vC4zGnAfku713&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQtgMwAw&iwloc=1728837685899784459
I would also like to add that I lived within walking distance of a Light Rail station, and only lived 12 miles from my job, right next to Love Field airport, which you would think is a prime destination for public transportation. Well I looked up the routes I would have to use and I would end up traveling over twice as far and 3 times a long using public transit. I have posted the Google Maps link to the Driving route and the Public Transportation Route. You can clearly see that it would take me over an hour to travel 12 miles to a job that takes only 20 minutes to drive to!
Driving Route – 10.5 miles and 20 minutes on the road.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=caliber+collision+dallas&fb=1&gl=us&hq=caliber+collision&hnear=Dallas,+TX&ei=e_mfTN_vC4zGnAfku713&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQtgMwAw&iwloc=1728837685899784459
Public Transportation Route – 15 miles give or take and 1 hour and 31 minutes on the train/bus!
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=caliber+collision+dallas&fb=1&gl=us&hq=caliber+collision&hnear=Dallas,+TX&ei=e_mfTN_vC4zGnAfku713&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQtgMwAw&iwloc=1728837685899784459
The city of Seattle has been helping us out here with a light rail system. Suckers (voters) were told it would cost $1.2 billion. It has cost $15 billion so far. The train manages to operate 78% of the time – the rest is track maintenance. Actual cost of a ride is about triple the fare they charge. The train carries between one quarter and one third of the passengers it was projected to carry.
The bus system only costs double the fare they charge. The old antiquated bus takes exactly the same time to get from the downtown train station to the south end train station where I live.
Thanks for the info, Guard. The Seattle light rail system has experienced serious cost overruns. But I’m getting some different numbers than the ones you’re giving.
“Suckers (voters) were told it would cost $1.2 billion. It has cost $15 billion so far.”
Hm. The initial estimate was $1.67 billion (in 1995 dollars), later adjusted to $2.6 billion in 1999, before ground was broken. Construction costs ended up being $4.16 billion (in 2001 dollars). That’s a 60% increase over the estimate projected at the time the deal went through, the kind of thing that’s all too common in public projects. But it’s not 12-1/2 times more expensive, as you had it.
You may have been thinking of the total projected cost of all the extensions people wanted to add on… additions to the system that have all been cancelled.
Bad, all right. But not quite that bad.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-sea-2b.htm
michael:
You will probably love this. California is getting a bullet train.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
Thanks for the correction. You are probably right that the final price figure I got included the planned extensions.
Rip off or murder or whatever michael is scared of is prety easy to sort out. Before you get to foreign/unknown/dangerous city just have look into some tourist guide to get a phone number of some recomended “radio taxi/cab”. Then instead of getting into any cab, you just call the number and tell operator your name, position, destination and agree on price. Then you just wait for cab to pick you up, the driver will know your name and all the details. Don’t get on if he doesn’t! Oh and cab usually have some company colores etc. You see, easy.
same in argentina, call a remise taxi. michael’s probably never been south of the border.
People are too stupid to do this in michael’s view. Oh, and government regulations magically protect them from the would-be villains.
Never mind if they are victimized we still believe there is going to be private arbitration, but he throws that out the window every new conversation he has. Of course he’s “disproven” private arbitration by talking about how it’s necessarily a corrupt system because it needs profit. Never does he explain how these courts are going to make all this profit without anyone’s trust…
but private courts of arbitration are dependent on the offender to willingly comply and attend the trial, what if they don’t attend? Moreover, who decides which court the case will be settled? The offender might want one court, the defender might want another.
and what about the air pollution problem? How will you track down air pollution from individual cars? How do you prevent air pollution from traveling to other near and far areas?
The above is very interesting having facts and figures of public system and how really it works. I think these public system doesn’t always work according to their definition of creation. But by such we can make people aware about it.
Comments on this entry are closed.