This was going off on a tangent in the gun tragedy thread.

(12-20-2012 06:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You said this: "Cars have high utility in most of the country precisely because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity."

And that's not correct. The fundamental reason that cars have high utility is not "because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity"; it is because cars are inherently advantageous, and tremendously so. Policy choices may accentuate that advantage, but the inherent personal and business advantages of a cheap, reliable, individually controlled vehicle are so compelling that cars would have high utility almost regardless of policy.

New York and London are choked with cars not because those cities are well-designed for automobiles, but because -- even with all the inconveniences that those cities pose and the alternative modes that they offer -- millions of people and businesses find cars fantastically useful.

Cars would have very little utility without roads and parking. (I am not aware of any place that has attempted that and I don't recommend trying.)

In NYC, which has both roads and extensive rail transit, cars have utility but are not a necessity, and that is reflected in car ownership. Only 44% of NYC households own a car (link). Contrast Houston, where the rail system is much more limited, and 90% of households own a car (link).

And correspondingly, NYC has the lowest vehicle-crash death rate (3.9 per 100k residents) of all major U.S. cities (link).

(12-21-2012 01:26 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  This was going off on a tangent in the gun tragedy thread.

(12-20-2012 06:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  You said this: "Cars have high utility in most of the country precisely because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity."

And that's not correct. The fundamental reason that cars have high utility is not "because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity"; it is because cars are inherently advantageous, and tremendously so. Policy choices may accentuate that advantage, but the inherent personal and business advantages of a cheap, reliable, individually controlled vehicle are so compelling that cars would have high utility almost regardless of policy.

New York and London are choked with cars not because those cities are well-designed for automobiles, but because -- even with all the inconveniences that those cities pose and the alternative modes that they offer -- millions of people and businesses find cars fantastically useful.

Cars would have very little utility without roads and parking. (I am not aware of any place that has attempted that and I don't recommend trying.)

In NYC, which has both roads and extensive rail transit, cars have utility but are not a necessity, and that is reflected in car ownership. Only 44% of NYC households own a car (link). Contrast Houston, where the rail system is much more limited, and 90% of households own a car (link).

And correspondingly, NYC has the lowest vehicle-crash death rate (3.9 per 100k residents) of all major U.S. cities (link).

Cars in general would have diminished utility without roads and parking. But they would not be without utility. Model T's were rolling off the production line when there were very, very few roads (or at least roads that would be considered drivable today). But they had significant utility. Moreover, some of the recreational type trucks out there have MORE ultility when there are no roads! [/i]