One characteristic that I see is missing from many policy makers is their inability or unwillingness to point out the unintended consequences of their suggestions. This can and often does create the idea in the mind of those reading/hearing the proposal that the policy maker did not consider the consequences of what they are proposing. I believe that we are trained not to argue against our own ideas, but I have always felt that a person who is able to reflect critically upon their own idea is much more credible than one who is not. With this in mind, I will attempt to point out one key unintended consequence for each of the following 10 suggested transportation policy measures. Understanding the positives and negatives of any decision can only lead to better decisions. Many unintended consequences are clear, and are, in the eyes of many, worth the risk. This does not mean they should not be pointed out clearly en route.
UC = Unintended consequence
Creation/Extension/Modification of Heavy Rail
UC: Large investment = heavy commitment to the technology for a long time. Are we close to developing better technologies to heavy rail, or is it worth the large investment that may take decades to pay dividends?
Maglev Trains
UC: Incompatibility with existing rail structures. High upfront cost locks adopters into the technology for many years requiring us to ask, “If we are going to make a large upfront investment in a new technology, is this technology the best?”
Dedicated lanes/preferential treatment for trams and buses
UC: Creation of a situation where roads are freed up for drivers. The more successful the program becomes, the more enticing it is to drive, because the roads are becoming freer of cars. Policy potentially is limited in the effect it can have because its own success could work against itself.
Integration of payment among different modes of public transport in a city
UC: Other than a little extra administrative headache/cost, this seems like a wise idea without much downside.
Coordinating land use and transit
UC: Any restrictive land use policy runs the risk of being seen as anti-business. The use of categorizing land parcels to restrict parking for example may sit poorly with some business owners and may have a serious affect on that cities ability to attract and keep important businesses.
Use of low-carriage trams
UC: Difficult to see a downside here.
Restricting parking
UC: Restricting parking = expensive parking... yes always, unless gov't eminent domains all private parking. "Hmm mmm hummm mummm". Yes I'm humming the old Soviet National Anthem. Only the wealthy will be driving and parking. Earth-firsters don’t care, but what about you social justicers?
Graffiti zones
UC: Does allowing graffiti artists a legal palette for their work discourage graffiti from spreading, or are you creating more graffiti artists. Very difficult to answer. Best way is likely trial and error.
Restricting larger truck traffic
UC: Again, this measure comes at a cost of being seen as very business unfriendly. Quite probably, this puts downtown businesses at a further disadvantage to suburban stores that already have shipping/transportation/parking advantages over thier inner city competition.
General idea of making it more expensive to own a car
UC: Again, this puts the environment before concerns of social equality. Why do the suggestions that make the most sense always screw the poor?
The preceeding analysis can be seen as a glass-half-empty view. The intent is to the contrary. The more likely you are to ask yourself, "Self, can you live with this consequence of this policy?" and answer "Yes I can", the more credible the policy decision becomes.
UC = Unintended consequence
Creation/Extension/Modification of Heavy Rail
UC: Large investment = heavy commitment to the technology for a long time. Are we close to developing better technologies to heavy rail, or is it worth the large investment that may take decades to pay dividends?
Maglev Trains
UC: Incompatibility with existing rail structures. High upfront cost locks adopters into the technology for many years requiring us to ask, “If we are going to make a large upfront investment in a new technology, is this technology the best?”
Dedicated lanes/preferential treatment for trams and buses
UC: Creation of a situation where roads are freed up for drivers. The more successful the program becomes, the more enticing it is to drive, because the roads are becoming freer of cars. Policy potentially is limited in the effect it can have because its own success could work against itself.
Integration of payment among different modes of public transport in a city
UC: Other than a little extra administrative headache/cost, this seems like a wise idea without much downside.
Coordinating land use and transit
UC: Any restrictive land use policy runs the risk of being seen as anti-business. The use of categorizing land parcels to restrict parking for example may sit poorly with some business owners and may have a serious affect on that cities ability to attract and keep important businesses.
Use of low-carriage trams
UC: Difficult to see a downside here.
Restricting parking
UC: Restricting parking = expensive parking... yes always, unless gov't eminent domains all private parking. "Hmm mmm hummm mummm". Yes I'm humming the old Soviet National Anthem. Only the wealthy will be driving and parking. Earth-firsters don’t care, but what about you social justicers?
Graffiti zones
UC: Does allowing graffiti artists a legal palette for their work discourage graffiti from spreading, or are you creating more graffiti artists. Very difficult to answer. Best way is likely trial and error.
Restricting larger truck traffic
UC: Again, this measure comes at a cost of being seen as very business unfriendly. Quite probably, this puts downtown businesses at a further disadvantage to suburban stores that already have shipping/transportation/parking advantages over thier inner city competition.
General idea of making it more expensive to own a car
UC: Again, this puts the environment before concerns of social equality. Why do the suggestions that make the most sense always screw the poor?
The preceeding analysis can be seen as a glass-half-empty view. The intent is to the contrary. The more likely you are to ask yourself, "Self, can you live with this consequence of this policy?" and answer "Yes I can", the more credible the policy decision becomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment