Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Marta cannot operate the system they have now and endanger citizens


    Wale Lola

    hi name is wale am a black america am a from new york, i finish school 2014 since then i have been trying to get a job but with my certificate i could not get a job, you know how it is for black people out here so i went online seeking for a job online then i came across doctor john post about casting spells for job seekers that how my life of not getting a job for so long chance……. i got in touch with him on his email… i explain to him about my condition of not getting a job he then cast a spell and gave me a potion to take with out know side effect…….. within two day all the job i have applied for they all kept on calling me for an interview….. right now am working in a big company and well paid, now i can live happily with my family no worries….. what is a man with out know money hun? you can get him here:………….




    eliminating subsides for driving

    increases cost

    reduces driving

    it’s a dynamic model


    Corvus Corax

    I thought this was a discussion about curbing carbon emissions, so exactly how do any of your alternatives save biking and walking fit?


    Corvus Corax

    Right, cuz the important thing is to be paid up as everything collapses.



    alternatives to traveling by interstate since its privatized and no longer lavishly subsidized :

    1) rail
    2) airplane
    3) Bus
    4) state highway north
    5) state highway south
    6) rural road north
    7) rural road south
    8) hitchhike
    9) bicycle
    10) walk
    11) move closer to work
    12) get a job closer to home
    13€ Etc etc


    Kevin Love

    I don’t know about “forcibly curtailed,” but how about ending the vast socialist subsidies for airports, air traffic control systems, etc, etc. Making people pay for their own behavior instead of allowing them to reach into my pocket is not exactly “forcibly curtailed.”


    Kevin Love

    The problem is that we were talking about travelling by rail. There are many cases, particularly commuter rail, where there are few or no practical alternatives, conveying upon the railway owner a natural monopoly.

    Which is, of course, only one example of market failure.


    Jonathan Krall

    The figures shown are per capita.



    Well if you add up GB, France and Germany’s emissions, it adds to 5.43, and those areas combined are in the relatively same geographical area and smaller combined than the US as a whole. The figures for the US, Canada and Australia are what they are probably due to the massive geographical size those countries are. I bet the per capita for tons emitted is less for the US, Canada and the Aussies compared to the Brits, French and Germans. YMMV.




    Granted it’s not the holy grail of aviation fuel, but it’s good direction.



    “Quit subsidizing highways and driving”

    And start subsidizing bicycle riders and pedestrians? It would seem you would want to get the word out to every Joe Blow and Jane Blow. What better way to do that than to offer payment for using your bike or feet (with public transport) to get to work and around? Sure it would take some work to lay out the scheme, but with todays electronics and app sources, I can see something that is viable.

    Talk about getting the word out huh?


    Michel S

    Any investment in rail has to be sensible. I don’t think US road emissions are so high because a great deal of people are traveling cross country by private auto on a regular basis. The vast amount of road emissions is likely due to the sheer quantity of local trips that require using a car because people simply have no other reasonable option. Building a high speed rail connection between Portland and Dallas isn’t going to make a dent in emissions if people in Portland and Dallas still need a car to get around locally.

    We need increased investment in local transit options and public policies that will fundamentally shift the predominant building model of the country toward walkable and transit-serviceable patterns as opposed to the auto-oriented development pattern we’ve used for the last several decades.



    there are dozens of alternatives to traveling via motor vehicle on a privatized interstate


    Kevin Love

    Seriously? So what is your solution for dealing with a railway where it is impossible to build a competing line and the monopoly owner has a philosophy of “The public be damned!” Which is, of course, exactly what happened.



    Kenny Easwaran

    I don’t dispute that a train could do the trip a bit faster than my incredibly-delayed air trip, assuming that we built moderate-to-high speed tracks over the mountains paralleling the existing highways.

    But the incredibly-delayed air trip had the advantage that I could actually sleep in a real bed in a hotel room (a very cheap one outside DFW that mainly seems to cater to people whose flights were canceled and are booked in by American, but still better than what you can get on a train). And it also meant that I was able to wander around airports and buy meals from restaurants (again, these are not very good, and are very over-priced compared to city locations, but are still better than what you can expect to find inside a vehicle of any sort).

    And of course, the sort of construction project needed to bring 100 mph tracks over the Rockies is incredibly expensive. While individual trains can hit peak speeds much higher than that, they really only do that in long, flat straightaways. And in any case, no one is going to run a non-stop train from Portland to College Station, TX. They’re not even going to run a non-stop train from Portland to Dallas. It’ll only be reasonable to run the train if it stops at a dozen or so points along the way, at which point it’s not even averaging anywhere near its travel speed through the Rockies.

    Rail travel is great for medium distance. But it just won’t be competitive for point-to-point travel between distant regions of the country, unless air travel is forcibly curtailed in other ways, raising its prices.



    Sounds like a Start

    given it’s Ontario, suspect it’s heavily Regulated ( ie a crony Capitalist delight )




    I have a Advanced degree in econ from Columbia. Trust me I Know the Magic words and incantations.

    guess what, their models Are just gussied up Soviet Central Planning BS.

    Regulator Capture Is the Problem for your solution and now Thats inefficient

    The Market Works fine. Trust the Market and it’s always better than Central Planning


    Kevin Love

    That is exactly what the province of Ontario did by selling off the toll highway 407. Currently peak rates are $0.389/km for cars and $1.17/km for heavy trucks.

    Driving a car 40 miles = 64 km = $24.90



    Kevin Love

    The problem is that it is rather hard to build a competing railway. Cities tend to not allow people to destroy the buildings necessary for that.

    This is an example of the type of market failure known as “Natural Monopoly.” See:


    Kevin Love

    I don’t know when you started traveling on Monday or when you arrived Tuesday. But let’s assume that it was noon to noon for 24 hours travel time. 2100/24 = 87.5 MPH for break-even travel time. So a 100 MPH train would have been much faster. But 100 MPH is rather slow for trains, with modern electric high speed rail at 300 km/hr.

    Even crappy British diesel trains of the 1970’s were able to travel at 125 MPH. Which would give travel time of 2100/125 = 16.8 hours. A lot less time. Which translates into an overnight sleeper train with some extra time on board to do stuff. Stuff that cannot be done on an airplane.



    so you believe soviet style central planning is sucessful ?

    just privatize and let the tolls be whatever the Market Bears


    Kenny Easwaran

    Privatizing network infrastructure is a way to get around restrictions on governments actually charging for the use. But it creates huge inefficiencies. You’ll either have monopoly pricing for routes where there’s no competition, or huge overspending on particular routes to create competition, thus subsidizing travel on other routes. There’s a reason why private railroads had fares set by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and state boards like the Texas Railroad Commission.

    The important thing is to set the pricing of road use by some relatively useful market fee (miles traveled times existing congestion, or at whatever price keeps the speed at 45 mph), regardless of whether ownership is public or private.


    Kenny Easwaran

    “at least for domestic travel, high-speed rail can replace air, often with as fast or faster overall travel times.”

    For regional travel that’s true. A lot of air and car travel within California, within Texas, and within the Midwest could be replaced by rail travel, the way it sort of has in the Northeast, which could be expanded by adding some extra tunnels to add more train frequency.

    But on Monday, I was just traveling from Portland to Texas, and had major airplane delays, and ended up getting put on a separate flight through San Diego, and then spending a night in Dallas before the short hop home. Even with this worst-case scenario (four hour delay followed by unnecessary connection, and then overnight stay), I got home sooner than I could have by surface transportation (32 hours drive time, to travel 2100 miles). Even with 100 mph average speed on rail, the air travel time is just a small fraction of what the surface speed would be. And I don’t think there’s any reason to expect the many new rail links across the mountain west that would be needed to allow convenient travel from Portland to Texas.

    It’s possible that New York to Atlanta, or Chicago to Dallas, could become viable rail routes. But for cross-country (as opposed to within-region) travel, it doesn’t seem that rail is likely to be able to replace air travel. Unless we get hyperloops.


    Michel S

    From the “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014” Report, Figure ES-16 and Annex 1:

    CO2 Emissions from Mobile Combustion, Road: 1467.5 MMT
    CO2 Emissions from Mobile Combustion, Aviation: 150.1 MMT
    (Where MMT stands for Million Metric Tons)

    Even if air travel cannot be addressed with alternative fuel sources, total CO2 emissions from road transportation outweigh those from aviation sources by a magnitude of nearly TEN. If air transportation is an elephant, then road transportation is the humpback whale.



    dude – like privatized interstates wouldn’t be subsidzed no more, totally cause drivers to like actually pay full frieght. ya’ realky think dudes going to driving 40 miles to catch some waves, when it costs $40 ?

    no way man never happen



    …and all future maintenance and repair costs in perpetuity, so they don’t become yet one more drain on overstretched resources.



    Again, that’s all assuming smaller box trucks are “safer” than larger trucks to a degree that counterbalances the fact that you’re adding a lot more of them to the road—something I seriously question.

    Suggesting a ban of large trucks will prevent these type of tragedies suggests the tragedies were unavoidable in the first place (i.e., they were caused by design of the truck, and not driver error), which I strongly disagree with, as driver error is very often involved in these situations. Sure, a smaller truck has a smaller blind spot, and that helps, but a smaller blind spot only matters if the driver is properly checking it and exercising sufficient caution in the first place.

    Lastly, suggesting I’m prioritizing reducing congestion over saving lives is a total strawman argument. My point has consistently been that you’re not increasing safety overall if you remove 1 dangerous vehicle and replace it with 2 or 3 slightly less dangerous vehicles. The congestion point is a response to those that say an additional benefit of removing large trucks is reducing traffic issues they cause, again based on the point that smaller trucks still cause severe issues, and you’re doubling the amount that will be on the road.

    Bad policy with good intent is still bad policy. There needs to be a more comprehensive solution that addresses why drivers allow these incidents to happen in the first place, and IMHO just placing them in slightly less dangerous vehicles isn’t that solution.


    Joe R.

    What does that have to do with anything? You don’t need to be a cyclist to think bike licensing is an awful, awful idea:

    Usually when the government decides a license is needed for something it is because the activity is potentially very harmful to others if not done properly. Here we have cyclists getting killed by trucks, not truck drivers getting killed by cyclists. It’s the trucks which are causing harm, and therefore need to be more highly regulated, not the cyclists.



    Are you a cyclist Joe?


    Joe R.

    No, you suggested it, you have to show why it’s a good idea. What exactly would licensing accomplish? We’ve licensed car and truck drivers for decades and most still stink. A piece of paper doesn’t make you a better driver or better cyclist. And how do you enforce this? Even if you managed to get a licensing law passed, it would largely go unenforced. Police have better things to do than randomly stopping cyclists to ask for their license. If it were heavily enforced, cycling would drop to zero. That’s why bike licensing laws are a bad idea. They don’t make cyclists safer. They just eliminate cycling altogether but I suppose that’s your real goal anyway.

    This worked well as a way to deliver freight in cities without trucks over 100 years ago. A updated version with computer controlled trains would work even better today. It’s amazing how people can’t seen anything other that what exists now. Isn’t imagination and creative thinking taught in schools any more?


    Michel S

    The interstates are bloated, yes, but selling them off isn’t a satisfying solution. Simply moving control of the roads to another body isn’t going to reduce mode share, and if you spend the monies gained in the sale on nothing but paying down debt, no new transportation options are made available for people to choose instead of driving.


    Joe R.

    The elephant in the room is air transportation. Right now there are no viable replacements for fossil fuels for air travel. We can electrify motor vehicles, railways, even use battery-powered ferries, but nothing at present can do the same for aeroplanes. Nuclear power offers potential but nuclear aircraft would never be allowed near populated areas. Batteries may never have the energy density to be viable powering an airliner. If we want to reduce carbon emissions to zero we may well have to severely ration air travel. The good thing is most air travel is optional, meaning you don’t need it for survival reasons. People might not like no longer being able to fly, but they won’t die if they can’t. Also, at least for domestic travel, high-speed rail can replace air, often with as fast or faster overall travel times.



    ‘You might as well have people get a license to walk while you’re at it since large trucks kill more pedestrians than cyclists.’

    Nonsense. Pedestrians don’t use the road, they cross them, More than enough pedestrian crossings in London.

    ‘Bike licenses are best left in the bucket of really brain dead ideas which serve no purpose and would be incredibly difficult to implement and enforce.’

    You haven’t shown why it would be a bad idea. The purpose should be obvious. It’s incredibly dangerous to allow a cyclist on the road with no knowledge of how to safely navigate one. It would be no more difficult to enforce than any other road license.

    ‘ Any vehicle which has as many blind spots as a large truck doesn’t belong in areas with pedestrians or cyclists.’

    That would relegate trucks to motorways, how would that work exactly?


    Joe R.

    A better long term solution is to get rid of the need for trucks altogether. Chicago actually had a system which more or less did this. It was a great idea then, it’s an even greater idea now. Whether you have large trucks or more smaller ones, they create a major quality of life problem for people in cities. Other ways exist to get freight from a depot to its final destination. While we’re at it, the freight can go from the place of manufacture to the depot by rail instead of long-haul truck. At the depot it’s transferred to an underground railway and delivered to the final destinations. Much neater than what we have now, probably far less labor intensive as well.


    Joe R.

    You might as well have people get a license to walk while you’re at it since large trucks kill more pedestrians than cyclists. Bike licenses are best left in the bucket of really brain dead ideas which serve no purpose and would be incredibly difficult to implement and enforce. Any vehicle which has as many blind spots as a large truck doesn’t belong in areas with pedestrians or cyclists.



    Surely the better solution is to make cyclists get a road license, like all other road users have to. As a regular driver, I’ve seen cyclists do monumentally stupid maneuvers which put multiple lives in danger, possibly from a lack of road awareness. Perhaps a rigorous test would lessen the danger for everyone.

    Banning Heavy Goods Vehicles will just have a knock on effect elsewhere. The trucks have to go somewhere, after all.



    the capital costs of buying the interstates would go to the government

    privatized interstates would pay property & other taxes


    Dale Nichols

    If the interstates are privatized, wouldn’t the revenue to go and be kept by the private companies, so it wouldn’t be available to pay down the federal debt? And even if some were routed to the government, it would go to the states, since they own and operate the interstate highways, and still not be applied to the federal debt.



    When you’re looking at about 9 times more deaths than typical traffic users (New York), as the article describes, replacing them with three times as many safer road users is pretty much a no-brainer. Unless, maybe, you think reducing congestion is a higher priority than saving lives.
    Granted, if other commercial vehicles are even close to as dangerous as heavy trucks, this might not be the right strategy – something similarly drastic for all commercial vehicles would be. (Mechanically enforced speed limits, more stringent licensing requirements, etc.)


    Nicholas Littlejohn

    Perhaps a 180 degree or better camera like on Teslas


    Nicholas Littlejohn

    We also need to electrify trucks to reduce air and noise pollution.


    betty barcode

    Another thing that has to change is the way the media employs passive voice, always treating the vehicle as the active, responsible party, as if the driver was a helpless backseat passenger.

    Like this example from my Twitter feed today. It should read “Driver strikes and drags 4 year old to his death.” Had someone on two wheels been responsible for this death, would the writer have said that the child was hit by a bicycle?

    This is classic windshield perspective and shows how drivers implicitly and prematurely absolve each other of wrongdoing. You can pretty much kill anyone with your car as long as you’re sober and do not flee the scene.

    If you agree, start calling out your local journalists with the hashtag #DriverNotCar.



    even better would be to privatize the interstates with ZERO regulations on what tolls they could charge.

    use the hundreds of billions ( maybe even a trillion ? ) raised to pay down the federal debt


    Jason Fossella

    This is not always a good idea. Ped countdowns don’t necessarily match the signals for autos. There’s an intersection I go through regularly where peds have four seconds left on their counter after the light is red, and drivers blow through the intersection because they’re looking at the counter.


    Guy Ross

    And every single village, town and city in Germany over the population fo 20K

    It’s not just parking, it is also moving toward requiring drivers to pay for their choices by full direct funding.



    What a bs statement from the Nashville area PD:

    “Police say contributing factors are pedestrians not using the crosswalks and also being under the influence of alcohol and or drugs while trying to cross. A smaller percentage of pedestrian deaths points to driver error for not yielding.”


    Kenny Easwaran

    I would also like a study like this to see how robust the results are to dropping New York. The relationships look like they will still be there, but would likely be much weaker.



    It’s not a handful. There are hundreds of cities that have excellent mass transit systems. Delhi, Tapei, Shenzhen, Osaka, Stockholm, Beijing, Copenhagen, Shanghai, St Petersburg, Hong Kong, Nagoya, Mexico City, Guangzhou, Sao Paulo, Tehran, Nanjing, Santiago,Istanbul, Singapore, Montreal, Madrid, Tianjin all have top notch rapid transit systems off the top of my head. It seems like only a handful from a US-centric view of the world where only New York makes the list.

    If there is enough density to make parking expensive, people will start taking transit. If enough people take transit, the transit will be invested in to be better than a bus. From a US perspective, we require parking to be built in almost all new structures, which makes rents higher but then provides free/cheap parking. Thus we will never have good transit.


    Angie Schmitt