German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily Transit Links Roundup
Contributed by Fred Camino on April 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
- Freeways are kind of like restaurants and kind of like government cheese. Either way, congestion pricing has the potential to at last put a price tag on road use.
- Bart Reed and Peter Gordon go at it again. This time they tackle the subway to the sea.
- Pasadena Star-News readers do not like congestion pricing.
- The U.S. Department of Transportation has started a blog!
- Are car-pool lanes fair? Regardless of whether they are priced or free?
- Metro is going back to court courtesy of Fix Expo!
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Peter Gordon opposes the Purple Line but doesn’t offer any alternatives. Typical for the USC school on these matters.
Hey Wentzel, that’s a really lazy characterization of USC–as outdated as Damien Goodmon’s organization’s press release calling the school “lily-white” even though it 1) has the highest percentage of international students of any university in the United States and 2) has a larger black and Latino component than any of the UCs except Riverside.
I should have been more specific in my post. I was referring to a “school of thought” regarding transportation, in the same way that people refer to the “University of Chicago” school of thought when discussing economics — meaning Milton Friedman (even if everyone who went there doesn’t not subscribe to that line of thinking as my economics professors at Columbia).
When the Los Angeles Times looks for someone to quote to oppose mass transit, they have regularly quoted USC professors.
In no way was I trying to insult USC as a whole or its student body.
I do stand behind my characterization of the USC “school of thought”. If there are professors there at their Transportation program who are teaching, doing research, and are advocating mass transit and more rail, I certainly welcome it. I wish the Los Angeles Times would quote them occasionally for balance.
But referring to the USC School of Thought regarding transportation isn’t a slur against USC itself. I do however strongly disagree with that school of thought.
If you know of USC Professors lecturing and researching transportation issues who don’t agree with Peter Gordon, please lets us know so we can encourage them to speak up when their anti-rail colleagues do.
Academic politics don’t work that way. There are a few such faculty members in the School of Policy, Planning and Development, but they’re either 1) pre-tenure and don’t want to ruffle feathers, 2) not hardcore transportation people and thus self-perceived as unqualified to comment publicly, or 3) tenured and qualified but too busy to care.
For what it’s worth, I haven’t met many hardcore libertarian ideologues in the transportation field who are around my age. Nobody coming out of PhD programs these days believes in the possibility of neoclassical rationality, information/capability symmetry, the ability of private actors to handle most externalities without state intervention, etc.–the kind of optimistic assumptions that informed the thinking behind much of the policy of the Carter and Reagan administrations and those thereafter.
Well, that’s good to hear. They weren’t at Columbia either.
Of course not. It takes half a lifetime of accumulated knowledge, experience and expertise to come to those positions. When you, Pete, are where Gordon is now (or higher I suspect) you might be surprised at how much less you object to their perspectives. I’ve watched people like Anthony Downs precede you on this path.
Gordon may be on to something by offering no alternative to the Subway to the Sea. What is wrong with “this isn’t good enough” just because there isn’t “I’ve got a better idea?”
Actually, Rob, I’ve read stuff Gordon wrote in the ’70s, when he was my age, and ideologically it’s little different from his positions today.
i had government peanut butter once. it wasn’t half bad.