en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/558261 Comments by Andrew Coyne http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment121091810 You're missing my point. Most of the benefits you observe — less traffic, better air, less congestion, etc — are benefits not of more people riding buses, but of fewer people driving cars. And it's true that if more people switched from driving cars to riding buses, we'd be better off. But the gain is from fewer people driving cars. That's not a semantic disctinction: there are policy choices that flow from it. Subsidizing people to use transit is a horribly inefficient way to induce less car driving. Some of the people who benefit would have ridden the bus anyway. Many more will go on driving their cars, no matter how big the subsidy. And bus riding does not come without its own costs, in terms of road space occupied, fuel consumed, sprawl etc. Whereas charging car drivers to use the roads gives people a very direct incentive: drive less. How they drive less is up to them, and should be: riding the bus is just one of many ways. Which is another point: subsidizing transit only encourages one particular way of reducing congestion. The same might also be said of your other class of putative externality, the "helping people get around town" variety. In the main I'd argue that's a private benefit to the traveller, which it is possible to exclude him from if he does not pay. So the classic public good criteria do not hold. But in any event, even if there were an external benefit to mobility, that's not an argument for privileging transit over bikes, taxis, etc.. Indeed, by that logic, we should be subsidizing cars as well! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:47:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment121091810 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120964003 Not sure what you mean, but thanks for the style note. I stand by the point: the social benefit from transit ridership is only an indirect one - ie, fewer people driving cars. But transit ridership *itself* has no social benefit, beyond that directly accruing to the rider (for which he pays, or should pay). And subsidizing transit ridership, to the extent it has any impact, only encourages people to overuse it. Far better simply to address the problem directly. If people are driving more than is socially optimal, because the costs of driving are hidden from them, then make those costs known to them, through prices. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:03:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120964003 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120941310 But it's not just distance travelled that matters. It's when and where. The gas tax is a rough proxy for distance (very rough, alas, since mileage varies so much from car to car and year to year). But you pay the same tax whether you're driving a deserted country road at midnight or the DVP at rush hour. I'd still have a carbon tax, but for the specific task of capturing the cost of carbon emissions — which a road toll would be just as ill-suited for as gas taxes are for congestion. First rule of pricing externalities is to target them as precisely as possible. Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:05:42 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120941310 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120940657 But we don't want to encourage "transit ridership"! There's no external benefit to society from people riding the bus, per se. And indeed, subsidizing transit carries with it many of the same social costs as subsidized car use: sprawl, pollution, etc. It may be *less* costly in this regard than auto use, but subsidizing less wasteful waste is still subsidizing waste. So even if there were much evidence that subsidizing transit encourages people to abandon their cars, which there isn't, the more direct and effective remedy for too much car use is to price the unpriced costs that are encouraging that specific overuse — not to suppress the costs of other activities. And of course, as I say in the piece, transit — and the poor, as disproportionate users of transit — are among the big winners from pricing roads, since buses are stuck in traffic along with the cars. Far from subsidizing transit to get people out of their cars, pricing car/road use is the best way to get people to use transit. It isn't more transit that reduces congestion, but reduced congestion that leads to more transit. Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:00:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120940657 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120939129 Not dismissing telecommuting. Or carpooling or transit or any ot the rest. My point is only that people won't do any of these things without an incentive. Exhortation is not enough. Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:48:18 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120939129 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120737884 Agreed. It's the corollary of my don't-subsidize-it argument, but I can't make every point in every article. Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:50:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/#IDComment120737884 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/09/secret-lobbying-campaign-precedes-cigarette-label-decision/#IDComment114751445 I am not the editor of Maclean's, and never have been. Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:06:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/09/secret-lobbying-campaign-precedes-cigarette-label-decision/#IDComment114751445 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/26/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime/#IDComment112085017 It could be justified as a "reasonable limit," based on the harm it would cause. But you'd have an easier time justifying a discriminatory marriage law than making it a crime, on the principle of "minimal impairment." Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:40:32 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/26/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime/#IDComment112085017 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103776841 I, uh, I have no answer to that. Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:17:17 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103776841 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103706626 I think there's a difference between a duly elected government which had just had its Throne Speech endorsed by the House and an untested coalition of the kind I describe. I'm not saying she wouldn't have called upon them. I'm not even saying she shouldn't, necessarily. I'm just saying there's no assurance she would have. Which puts me in the same company as, among others, Michael Ignatieff. (Also Peter Hogg.) Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:35:28 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103706626 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103706039 I never called for peaceful protesters to be "locked up." Don't be an ass. Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:30:42 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103706039 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103705669 Well, if it had gone to a vote, government would very likely have been defeated. Not inconceivable govt could not have found some other dodge to avoid it, or bought off one of the parties, but neither likely. But then we would have been in another crisis. I disagree with some of the commenters here. I think GG would have had to consider carefully whether to call upon such a rickety, unstable coalition to form a government, particularly given its dependence on the Bloc. I know this will upset some people, but Bloc is not a party like the others -- if it were, then Gilles Duceppe would be a legitimate choice for Prime Minister. People are entitled to vote for it if they like, of course. But a party devoted to the destruction of the country cannot also expect to govern it. Any self-respecting country has to draw the line somewhere -- that is, if it believes in its own right to exist. GG would be under immense pressure. If she refused coalition, and called new election, she'd be accused of snubbing Parliament, interfering in democratic process, etc (although, having earlier refused the PM's request for prorogation, she could hardly be accused of partisanship). On the other hand, if she called upon the coalition to form a government, she'd be accused of selling the country out to the separatists, which given her own (and her husband's) flirtations with the movement would be sensitive ground indeed. Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:27:41 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103705669 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103703319 I think you both ought to consider carefully whether this is the company you want to keep. Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:12:09 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/12/how-to-handle-the-next-crisis/#IDComment103703319 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/01/heres-a-crazy-thought-chantal/#IDComment101801910 Let me come to Chantal's defense, here. It seems to me that what she's saying is that the long struggle over separatism vs federalism has so distorted Quebec's politics and so constrained voter options as to make it harder to root out corruption. Provocative thesis. But where are the statistical studies? Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:43:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/01/heres-a-crazy-thought-chantal/#IDComment101801910 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100551850 Sorry, exactly *where* do I say anything about Taber's journalism? Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:49:58 +0000 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100551850 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100551570 Caucus meetings are confidential. For the Star to find out what happened inside the meeting, therefore, somebody in the meeting would have to tell them. To sum up: somebody in a confidential Liberal caucus meeting leaked the story of Scott Simms' father to the Star. Which is what I wrote. Which part of this do you deny? Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:47:57 +0000 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100551570 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100473754 Again: There's no suggestion in my piece that it was Simms. None whatever. Indeed, I'd be astonished if it was, for the reasons you cite. Can I be any clearer? But to go from that to say it wasn't leaked is ridiculous. Caucus meetings are closed to the press. Their proceedings can only become public if somebody who was there decides to tell somebody who wasn't. In the news business, we call that a "leak." Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:17:23 +0000 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100473754 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100472478 I doubt it very much. Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:07:45 +0000 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100472478 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100472427 There's no suggestion in my piece that it was Simms. I've no idea who it was. Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:07:13 +0000 https://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/in-time-for-the-vote-as-it-happens/#IDComment100472427 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/16/the-iowa-car-crop/#IDComment99250370 Oh lord. The notion that productivity in the farm sector would be permanently impaired, and on the scale implied, by the transitory cost of retraining *some* auto workers (not the entire industry), and that this in turn justifies the permanent imposition of an auto tariff, at permanent cost to that same farm sector (both directly, and in terms of opportunity cost) is just ... gaga. Condescending handwaving about complexity is no subsitute for actually understanding the problem. Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:48:19 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/16/the-iowa-car-crop/#IDComment99250370