Letters tothe
Editor
The Transit
Taliban Respond
Dear Editor:
A whacko
tax-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich lunatic here.
First of all, there are
incentives for people not to drive as much, ever hear of a
carpool?
Second, I scream down the bridge
toll because it is a (expletive deleted) plan. Even raising the
toll to five dollars won’t solve the financial problem the
bridge is facing. The people who were on watch, who let this
situation develop, are now the ones coming up with lame proposals
to "solve" the problem. That is what I take issue with.
Lastly, the bridge is more than
just part of the transportation system of the Bay Area. It is an
emblem of the State of California, and for the U.S. as a whole for
that matter. Do you have something against all tax payers chipping
in to keep it standing and healthy? All citizens from the state
benefit from it, after all.
One more thing, most of the
people commuting into SF from Marin every day can hardly be
considered "poor." On the contrary, buddy.
Daniel L. Orseck
Dear Editor:
The very rich, as F. Scott
Fitzgerald once said, are not like you or I. With a conservative
administration in Washington, tax cuts for the wealthy have been
quick to follow, but while it is easy to criticize it might be
finally time to take a hard look at the special burdens the
obscenely rich are forced to bear.
For instance, there’s been a
lot of squawk and bother lately about homelessness. Welfare reform
has put some people to work at minimum wage and others out on the
street. Pause for a moment, however, to consider a more complex
problem that society has blithely swept underneath the carpet. So
obsessed have we become with folks suffering from financial
hardship, drug addictions and abusive backgrounds — in short,
those that the system was designed to help — that we have
somehow ignored an equally deserving group of social misfits.
As we strive towards tolerance
and acceptance of all regardless of faith, color, or wallet size,
consider for a brief moment this marginalized minority. Pitifully
small in numbers, publicly condemned for their greed and
selfishness, forced to seek shelter in penthouses and monster
houses, unable through lifestyle commitments to access public
transit, they truly suffer in ways that the rest of us cannot
comprehend.
Extreme wealth is a predicament
in every way as tragic as abject poverty, given that its sufferers
gain neither the sympathy afforded those with more dramatic and,
if the truth be told, more photogenic hardships. While a
cauliflower nose can be picked up for the price of a bottle of
cheap wine, a chiseled jaw or an aquiline nose can cost a fortune
at today’s plastic surgeon prices. As the law of supply and
demand proves, while there are more and more people born every
day, sheer volume alone makes them cheaper to feed, but at the
same time the cost of caviar and truffles continues to rise as
supplies dwindle.
Derided — and to a certain
extent abandoned — by a system that focuses on the less
privileged, the very rich are forced to turn their backs on
society and resort to their own kind simply for succor and
security. Take the matter of suitable housing. "The law, in
its majesty, allows both rich and poor to beg for bread and to
sleep under bridges," wrote Anatole France. Yet while
indigents are provided with free flophouses, the filthy rich must
frequently cheat on their tax declarations just to put a mansion
over their heads and silk sheets on their beds.
While the poor whine endlessly
about rent gouging and the more ingenious resort to incarceration
at taxpayer’s expense, the cost of sophisticated electronic
security systems — never cheap, now in great demand — continue
to rise. Unless you’ve checked out the price of wrought iron
lately, you have no cause to complain about your grotty garden
gate. And have you seen the price of purebred wolfhounds lately?
Transit? On a sunny workday, the
marinas are jib-to-jib with harried commodores taking to their
yachts just to get from country club to tennis match. Pause for a
moment, then, the next time you trudge over the bridge to save bus
fare and spare a thought for the social misfits beating their
lonely way over the waves in their cabin cruisers. Remember, there
but for the grace of God go you or I.
Michael McCarthy
Dear Editor:
I’m from Wisconsin and am not
deeply concerned with the perfidy of various interest groups out
there by the Bay. I am a little concerned with the author’s
characterization of privatization. Privatization, wherein transit
"would live and die on its own feet," to quote a hearing
speaker, is not the answer.
But there are other forms of
privatization! There is competitive contracting in which
the government decides what service is to be provided and
private sector companies bid on part or all of that service. Note
that the bids can be minus numbers which correspond to subsidies.
Another key point is the subdivision of the service into as small
chunks as feasible. This may increase the number of possible
bidders considerably and, therefore, the amount of competition.
Other than that, I am just
struck by what a mess things can be in large cities where the high
density of population and jobs makes for intractable problems and
lots of angry groups of people. I fear new-urbanists, when they
try to create density, have this point exactly backwards. I
understand that eventually there will be some compromise worked
out and people will learn to cope.
Jerry Denise
Dear Editor:
Suggestion: Perhaps your editor
could give more thought to writing appropriate headlines.
"Tracking the Transit Taliban" isn’t
"catchy," it trivializes terrorism. It’s like calling
someone who overexercises a "workout Nazi") . . . it’s
just plain inappropriate.
Liana King
Dear Editor:
Although "Transit Taliban"
might be a bit harsh, people using autos to commute might be
interested in data from The 2001 Urban Mobility Report by Shrank
and Lomax of the Texas Transportation Institute Urban at Texas
A&M University, http://mobility.tamu.edu/. This study
tabulates various aspects of traffic congestion conditions in many
U.S. urban areas, including the San Francisco Bay Area, for the
past few years up until 1999. By looking at the change in vehicle
miles traveled on freeways and major arterials and the calculated
cost of congestion, we can readily calculate the value of removing
a vehicle off a mile of road. In 1999, this was on the order of
$294 per vehicle-mile traveled for a vehicle removed every day for
a year. By making various assumptions, we can then come up to the
value for the other drivers remaining in achieving that removal,
(presumably to another mode). Paul Kamen, Bryan Duffty and I
present such a calculation for a Berkeley-San Francisco ferry in a
recent paper "Ferries for the San Francisco Bay Area: New
Paradigms From New Technology," given at the Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineer’s Innovations in Marine
Technology Pacific Symposium this June in Asilomar. The actual
numbers vary according to assumptions of average ridership
required to remove a vehicle and similar issues, but we calculate
a saving to auto drivers worth $21 per ferry passenger per
round-trip. Still more guesses about the cost of such a trip
suggest the conclusion that auto drivers would be ahead if the
ferry ticket were not only subsidized, but free, and in fact, even
if riders were given a ten dollar bill to ride. Auto users should
realize that there is a substantial structure of visible and
invisible subsidies, and non-market pricing, supporting autos as
well. For example, if the Golden Gate bridge were privately owned,
the owners would raise prices until they achieved the highest
profit. The fact that the bridge is now operating below highest
capacity due to congestion suggests that the most profitable price
would probably be substantially higher than the current toll. (The
most profitable price is probably lower than that which produces
the highest capacity.) However, the whole issue about appropriate
levels of subsidy, and actual cost (including externalities) of
transport is a very difficult one. Persons interested in going
deeper into the subject are also referred to the Victoria
Transport Policy Institute: http://www.vtpi.org/.
Christopher D. Barry, P.E.
Baltimore, MD.