This Blog is about Government auction
Hang a left on over to your local NASA swap meet and garage sale because NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center is setting an auction up for exclusive lisence to five patents for automated software development. This happens in a little over a week on November 11, 2010, and includes patents which encompass a new method for auto-creating software code which is verifiably equivalent to “user requirements specified in natural language, graphic formats, or other formats with a known semantic structure.” Why is this important? Because you were the one who funded the research that lead up to these patents in the first place.
To find out more about the technology, shoot on over to SpaceREF and read their article on how neato it is and how much people are going to want to buy it. This sort of auctioning off of research-cum-patents is, to some, a spit in the face of copyright law that decided that all federal government documents released are release into the public domain. In some other countries, this type of information is covered by crown copyright which holds it back from the public.
If released into the public domain, this Automated Software Generation could very possibly be used to benefit both commercial and non-commercial projects headed by the people who technically payed for its generation: the taxpayers. Instead, as TechDirt says it so eloquently, “By auctioning off a patent monopoly, it will almost certainly be using taxpayer-funded research to stifle innovation.”
What do you think? Is this how copyright was supposed to work? Or is this a special situation where it makes more sense to generate cash for the government group to do more research?
[Via TechDirt]
Finding a Nissan 300ZX convertible is not necessarily an amazing eBay occurrence. Finding the 1991 300ZX folding hardtop convertible concept car, however, is quite a big deal.
Nissan sold the Z32, or second generation 300ZX, in the United States from 1990 to 1996. In 1993, the automaker launched a convertible version to go along with existing t-top and hardtop variants. This came in response to aftermarket companies offering convertible conversions. Before the 1993 convertible came out, Nissan produced a concept version that was shown at the 1992 Paris, Geneva and Detroit auto shows. And while the production car utilized soft-tops, however this concept featured a power-folding, retractable hardtop.
Working with American Sunroof Corporation (ASC), Nissan built its own convertible 300ZX and showed it off around the world. This car is now for sale on eBay, with a Buy-It-Now price of $62,000. Power is provided by the standard 3.0-liter V6 and it’s paired with a five-speed manual transmission. The car only shows 8,202 miles on the odometer and, along with the very unique top, features one-off 17-inch polished aluminum wheels.
Is $62,000 too high a price to pay for such a unique piece of Nissan’s history? Maybe not if you factor in the original build cost, which was allegedly in excess of $800,000 (at least according to the seller’s listing). Besides the car, the winning bidder will also get the original show stand and a ton of documentation in both written and video form.
Take a gander at this drop-top Nissan 300ZX in the gallery below, and be sure to take a look at the auction over at eBay Motors.
Government auction Blog
Canada’s First Fiat 500 Auctioned at Toronto’s Venetian Ball
- Very first Fiat 500 in Canada sells for $85,000
- Fiat Cinquecento (500) Prima Edizione is a collector vehicle with unique numbered badge – “Numero Uno”
- A total of 500 Prima Edizione vehicles will be offered for sale in Canada
- Annual Venetian Ball benefits Villa Charities
October 17, 2010 , Windsor, Ontario -
Chrysler Canada on Saturday evening donated Canada’s first Fiat 500 to the live auction at Toronto’s 17th annual Venetian Ball. The ball was held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre with all proceeds benefiting Villa Charities.
“The enthusiastic bidding for this iconic vehicle, and the fact that it sold for $85,000, underscore the excitement and interest the Fiat 500 has generated since Fiat’s return to Canada was first announced,” said Ed Broadbear, Vice President of Marketing – Chrysler Canada.
“Chrysler Canada and Fiat are proud to donate Canada’s very first Fiat 500 to support Villa Charities,” said Reid Bigland, Chrysler Canada President and CEO. “Thanks to the alliance between our two companies, the feeling of kinship with the vibrant Italian-Canadian community has strengthened and we are pleased to be a part of this wonderful event.”
The “Numero Uno” is the first in a series of 500 limited edition vehicles which will feature a unique Prima Edizione sequential badge according to production order. The Fiat 500 Prima Edizione will be exclusively available in three colours: Bianco (White), Rosso (Red) and Grigio (Gray).
The modern generation of the Fiat 500 will be introduced in North America at the end of 2010 and will offer customers uncompromising safety, fuel efficiency from its 1.4-liter MultiAir™ four-cylinder engine, individualization options, quality and advanced technology. This vehicle combines the best of European engineering and Italian style. It also is tangible evidence of Fiat’s commitment to fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles. In fact, Fiat has the lowest average CO2 emissions of any automaker in Europe.
Chrysler Canada, its employees and dealers have a long history of giving back to the communities where they live and work. Chrysler Canada’s charitable giving supports a variety of organizations across Canada each year.
About Villa Charities
Since its formation in 1971 to provide culturally sensitive care for an elderly Italian-Canadian population, Villa Charities has extended its mandate to include support for individuals with intellectual disabilities and mental illness. Building on its rich Italian-Canadian heritage, and by living life with Italian passion, the Villa Charities family of organizations has grown to include Villa Colombo Services for Seniors, Columbus Centre, VITA Community Living Services, Mens Sana and Villa Colombo Vaughan Di Poce Centre. Recognizing its relevance across generations, Villa Charities is launching new initiatives to promote quality of life, health and wellness, youth engagement, the creation of new knowledge and investment in new technologies. For more information, visit www.villacharities.com.
About Chrysler Canada
Founded as the Chrysler Corporation in 1925, Chrysler Canada Inc. is based in Windsor, Ontario, and celebrates its 85th anniversary in 2010. Chrysler Canada’s product lineup features some of the world’s most recognizable vehicles, including the Dodge Grand Caravan, Jeep® Wrangler and Chrysler 300.
Chrysler Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chrysler Group LLC, one of the world’s leading automotive companies. Chrysler Group LLC, formed in 2009 from a global strategic alliance with Fiat Group, produces Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram Truck and Mopar® vehicles and products. With the resources, technology and worldwide distribution network required to compete on a global scale, the alliance builds on Chrysler’s culture of innovation – first established by Walter P. Chrysler in 1925 – and Fiat’s complementary technology – from a company whose heritage dates back to 1899. Fiat will contribute world-class technology, platforms and powertrains for small- and medium-sized cars, allowing Chrysler Group to offer an expanded lineup of fuel-efficient vehicles well-suited to Canadian customer needs.
Corporate Website: http://www.chryslercanada.ca
British mod rocker Paul Weller has designed a customized Mini that’ll be auctioned for charity. You know Paul Weller. The Jam. The Style Council. Solo artist. British icon also known as the Modfather.
Why, you ask, would Weller design a paint job for Mini? According to Mini UK’s director, Jochen Goller, “Both Mini and Paul Weller are synonymous with the quintessential British mod scene. That’s why we were the ideal match to create this unique car.”
Er, ok.
Weller, for his part, says, “I’ve always loved and driven Minis so when I was given the opportunity to design a bespoke Mini Cooper I wanted to create something that reflected the mood and colors associated with the Mod era, which was also the classic Mini’s hey day.”
Er, ok.
The online auction runs for one month. Proceeds benefit War Child, which works to protect children in war zones, and Nordoff Robbins, which uses music to enrich the lives of children.
Photo: Mini
That Article topic is Car auction
Willis Johnson, founder of auto-part auction company Copart, has just listed his home near Napa Valley, Calif. for a hefty $22M. The estate features three car barns, each with old-timer stuff like an antique gas station and vintage diner. Johnson’s not the only grease monkey to make headlines today—New York state attorney general Andrew Cuomo seems to have an obsession with 1970 muscle cars, as well.
Hang a left on over to your local NASA swap meet and garage sale because NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center is setting an auction up for exclusive lisence to five patents for automated software development. This happens in a little over a week on November 11, 2010, and includes patents which encompass a new method for auto-creating software code which is verifiably equivalent to “user requirements specified in natural language, graphic formats, or other formats with a known semantic structure.” Why is this important? Because you were the one who funded the research that lead up to these patents in the first place.
To find out more about the technology, shoot on over to SpaceREF and read their article on how neato it is and how much people are going to want to buy it. This sort of auctioning off of research-cum-patents is, to some, a spit in the face of copyright law that decided that all federal government documents released are release into the public domain. In some other countries, this type of information is covered by crown copyright which holds it back from the public.
If released into the public domain, this Automated Software Generation could very possibly be used to benefit both commercial and non-commercial projects headed by the people who technically payed for its generation: the taxpayers. Instead, as TechDirt says it so eloquently, “By auctioning off a patent monopoly, it will almost certainly be using taxpayer-funded research to stifle innovation.”
What do you think? Is this how copyright was supposed to work? Or is this a special situation where it makes more sense to generate cash for the government group to do more research?
[Via TechDirt]
This Blog is about Used car
How to make a cheap car reservation for summer travel…Isn’t that what you truly want to know? All, the secrets from a pro. Well, I used to book cars for Alamo-National, and I know all the secrets. Sorry there are no “real secrets” just common sense when it comes to making an inexpensive car reservation.
First rule, of thumb is the economic law of supply, and demand. When supply remains constant, increasing consumer demand will drive up the price. When demand remains constant, more supply will drive down the price. And of course, vice versa.
In other words, the first secret to a cheap car reservation is to make your reservation early, early, early! When I mean early, I mean 2 years early, if possible, or at least one year early. Two years early is about all Alamo will let you make it anyway. So if you know you are going to Hawaii two summers from now, make your reservation today!
Even if you want to go to the Phoenix FBR Open, the prestigious golf tournament, when it occurs in the first week in February, when you know demand will be through the roof, you can get a cheap price. That is if you make the reservation 2 years early, ahead of the pack. You can even get a full size car for a good price. Forget about luxury cars; however, they won’t let you book that far in advance. If you are worried about the reservation disappearing relax. I have never seen a reservation disappear in the computer system, but if it makes you feel better call in every 6 months, or so, and make sure it’s still operative.
I know you are worried what if my plans change by a day or so, 6 months from now? Well, make it today anyway. Keep in mind, however, that if you change the reservation 6 months from now to a day ahead or a day behind your originally scheduled pick up day, you will get a whole new reservation at a whole new higher rate. If I were you, I would keep the original cheap reservation, and make a whole new reservation for one day ahead, and then bring the car back after a day, and pick up a new car under the original reservation thus maintaining the original cheaper rate. And your one-day reservation can be at a competitor right next door, too. It’s amazing how many of my customers never thought of that. See just common sense, no secrets.
The second secret, market rate fluctuates wildly, and often; prices will change, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute, day-to-day. Just because you get a price quote today, doesn’t mean when you call the reservation line tomorrow it will still be that price. Alamo’s giant computer in the sky knows all things, at all times, such as how many people reserved a car for Florida during August, and how many people cancelled and how many cars they can park in their lots. If more people call in for those August days, in Ft. Lauderdale, the price will go up. Conversely, if there is a hurricane and all the cars in the supply chain are destroyed, well price will also go up. Or if a bunch of consumers spooked by a hurricane warning on the radio call in to cancel their reservation, prices will also drop. However, if the powers that be at Alamo decide to move cars around and purchase more cars, then supply will increase, and lo and behold prices may even drop! But be reasonable people; Alamo can only park so many cars in their lot.
The third secret is the economic reality of buying in bulk. I’m not talking about personally buying in bulk, as when I booked car reservations in 9 cities at one time, one right after each other for some traveling basketball NBA players. I’m talking about corporate discounts, travel agency discounts, Internet discounts, and consumer discounts. The major travel agencies such as American Express Travel, Carlson Wagenlit Travel, and others that you can find by the carload in your yellow pages negotiate their discounts because they purchase in bulk. Their contracts with Alamo are signed on a yearly basis, so if you make your car reservation two years in advance through American Express Travel you will only receive the market rate, not its lower negotiated contractual rate. Hey, I said there really were no secrets. You can’t have it all, you know, Alamo needs to make a profit, and pay their employees.
The fourth secret is you should check all your consumer discounts, and choose the best one. I hope you get a real patient Reservation Agent. An agent by the way who is instructed to put a limit on this game, and only check 3 or 4 for you at a time. Some of these discounts set a certain price for a car in a certain city no matter what the free market is doing. Other discounts take a percentage off the going market rate that is fueled by supply, and demand. And no, you are not allowed more than one discount, at one time, silly goose.
Of course, it’s silly to out there and join every association to get the discount, but hey, if you are a card carrying member anyway why shouldn’t you use it? And yes, you need to show your membership card at the counter, when picking up your vehicle. Some of the more popular discounts include American Automobile Association, commonly known as AAA, The Entertainment Book, and various travel organizations. Even if you only belong to an off beat association, like American Dog Catchers of The United Front (I made that one up.); ask any way. You may be surprised.
So the fifth secret is to be nice, and polite to your Reservation Sales Agent. I never worked hard trying to find a good rate for a cranky, rude customer. And be polite with your travel agent also as she looks for discounts for you too. With the travel agents they can get you both the agency discount, and the association or corporate discount. Usually the travel agents are paid by the travel industry, but some are now charging consumers a small fee. Obviously, only go with an agent if the discount received offsets the small fee.
Number six, don’t forget the corporate discounts. You are travelling on pleasure, not on business, you say? It won’t matter as long as your company doesn’t have direct billing to your corporate account, and of course you shouldn’t put the charge on your corporate credit card either. Traveling on pleasure you can still get the buying in bulk discount, just bring a current pay stub to prove you work there. And yes you really do need to show it at the counter.
And of course, number seven is check the web, Alamo offers an incentive to book on the Internet, and cut out those exorbitantly paid Reservation Sales Agents. Just kidding, we didn’t make that much over minimum wage. If you find a price on the Internet, and then call in to the reservation center at the toll free number 1-800-GO-ALAMO, asking for that price you won’t get it as the agents can’t even access the price. To get that price you must make the reservation on the web site you found it at. Also, check out the other travel websites too such as Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, and Cheap Tickets.
Okay, number eight is basically as common sense as you can get, bigger cars cost more, and there is less of them, as they take up more room in the parking lot. Also, people don’t rent them as often, people are more willing, and able to pay more for them, and it cost the company more money to buy them. So the eight secret is always remember the company exists to make a profit. Rent economy, if you can; however, don’t try to cram eight people into an economy car!
And lastly, an economy may not always be cheaper. Yes, I know, I know, I just contradicted myself. When you arrive at the counter, pretend you don’t have a reservation, find out what the walk-up rate is on the least expensive car, and according to the most recent demand, economy may not be the cheapest. If the rate is cheaper than your reservation, take it. If not, say, oops, I forgot I have a reservation! After the agent brings up your reservation, see how much it would cost to upgrade to a bigger car, it may be worth it to you. Never, never, never book economy while counting on an upgrade to fit your whole traveling party in the car. I had customers do this, and regretted it. There may be no luxury, or full size cars left, or the price may be astronomical. Always reserve the smallest car that can seat you all comfortably, and then try for the upgrade.
So that concludes my secrets. Lucky you; you got them from a pro. Enjoy your summer travels!
Check out my other article in the travel section entitled, “How to Get a Rental Car When Everything is Sold Out.” Just click on the supporting link below.
Auto Article
Mac OS engineers, architects, and designers can rejoice; AutoCAD, the popular 3D visualization package is now available for the Mac once again. AutoCAD left the Mac platform 18 years ago and has since been a Windows PC exclusive. To put things in perspective, AutoCAD is to engineers what Photoshop is to designers. This news, however, didn’t come as much of a shocker. Last month, Autodesk, the developers of AutoCAD released its free AutoCAD WS app for the iPad and iPhone.
The transition from the Windows to the Mac variant is supposedly a smooth one. The GUI’s are near identical on both platforms, and AutoCAD’s .dwg files from Windows are fully supported on the Mac. AutoCAD on the Mac will additionally support Cover Flow for browsing designs, multi-touch, and Magic Mouse and Magic Trackpad support. Nifty, eh?
Students and educators can now download their copy for free, as for the rest of you — after a free 30-day trial — be prepared to shell out $3975.
Read
Being a student is often just as challenging for your wallet as it is for your mind. Different colleges require different, advanced toolsets.
Just think about Expression, Visual Studio, Maya and AutoCAD. Every single one of those software suites will cost you a small fortune. If not supplied in volume licensing by your school or college grant, you will be making some serious debts.
Luckily, most of the software giants behind those software suites like to give them to you without charge. It’s a simple matter of investing in the future. If you’re a student, read on to find out just what you need to do to get your hands on some very extraordinary software for students.
MSDN Academic Alliance
The MSDNAA is a Microsoft program in which most major high schools and universities around the world are enrolled. The institutions pay an annual fee, in exchange for which the appropriate (probably not if you’re studying dance) departments can download Microsoft freebies.
Depending on the license your college or university chose for, these may include
- Windows Server
- Windows 7
- Visio
- Visual Studio
- .NET Enterprise servers
- MSDN Library
- Microsoft Project
- Visual Studio
- Expression (Web, Blend, Design, Media)
- SQL Server
- Exchange Server
With the default program (High School AA) in bold text.
For more information, look for the above certificate on the website of your teaching institution, or perform a Google search for “institution name MSDNAA” (without quotes).
Microsoft DreamSpark
Couldn’t find any link between MSDNAA and your teaching institution? Not to worry, there’s another way to apply for free Microsoft software for students. This program is called Microsoft DreamSpark and invests in high school and college students around the world under the motto “Dream today, create tomorrow“.
These include :
- Visual Studio 2010 Professional / Express
- Windows Server 2008 / 2008R2 Standard
- Windows Phone
- Visual Studio 2008 Professional Edition / 2005
- Expression Studio 4 Ultimate
- SQL Server 2008 Developer / Express
- XNA Game Studio 3.1
- Robotics Developer Studio 2008 R3
- Windows Internet Explorer 9
- Microsoft Virtual PC
- Windows MultiPoint Mouse SDK
- Windows Embedded CE 6.0
- Visual Basic 2008 Express Edition
- Visual C# 2008 Express Edition
- Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition
- Visual Web Developer 2008 Express Edition
- Windows Server 2003
You can sign up in the left sidebar of the Microsoft DreamSpark website. There are three ways of getting verified. The first way is to get an access code from a local representative (i.e. applied for by your teacher) and enter it online. Second is if you have an ISIC international students card. The third way is to manually select your school from an incredibly long list of verified colleges.
If you still weren’t able to get verified, take a look at this page. It details a number of alternative ways to apply for DreamSpark, depending on the country.
Autodesk Education Community
Autodesk is highly famed and recognized as technical software for engineers and designers worldwide. It’s the number one choice for civil engineers and one of the most extensive 3D animation software suites. The only real downside is the (hefty) price tag. The Maya animation software retails for over $1,300 apiece. If you’re a student, you qualify for over 25 of these software packets with an extended 3-year academic license.
These include :
- AutoCAD
- AutoCAD Architecture
- AutoCAD Civil 3D
- AutoCAD Electrical
- AutoCADAutoCAD Freestyle
- AutoCAD Mechanical
- AutoCAD Map 3D
- AutoCAD MEP
- AutoCAD P and ID
- AutoCAD Raster Design
- AutoCAD Structural Detailing
- Autodesk 3ds Max Design
- Autodesk Algor Simulation Professional
- Autodesk Alias Automotive
- Autodesk Alias Design for Inventor
- Autodesk Alias Sketch
- Autodesk Ecotect Analysis
- Autodesk Green Building Studio
- Autodesk Impression
- Autodesk Inventor Professional
- Autodesk Inventor Publisher
- Autodesk Maya
- Autodesk MotionBuilder
- Autodesk Mudbox
- Autodesk Navisworks Manage
- Autodesk Revit Architecture
- Autodesk Revit MEP
- Autodesk Revit Structure
- Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional
- Autodesk Showcase
- Autodesk SketchBook Pro
- Autodesk Smoke for Mac OS X
- Autodesk Softimage
To sign up, you just need to enter the email address you got at your university. You will receive a verification reply in a matter of a few hours, if not minutes.
Adobe Education
Lastly, Adobe offers a similar academic program, although it’s not nearly as extensive as the preceding three. So far, no free designer suites, although you can apply for heavy price cuts as a student.
The software featured are :
- ColdFusion 9
- ColdFusion Builder
- Flash Builder 4
To sign up, you will need valid proof of eligibility. These include student cards, faculty cards, non-faculty employee ID, or a formal letter proving any of them.
Do you know any other pricey software that’s free for your fellow students? Let us know in the comments below!
Image Credit: ShutterStock
Auto Page
Today after 18 years away from the Mac OS AutoCAD finally returned with the release of industry-standard AutoCAD. June 1992 was he last time Autodesk built a Mac-compatible version of AutoCAD.
If you would like to give AutoCAD for MAC a whirl there is a free 30 day trial available. You can also check out the demo video after the jump.
One of the most widely used applications for professional design and engineering, the Mac version brings all AutoCADs features and functionality to Mac-using designers.
AutoCAD for Mac is also integrated with AutoCAD WS, so users can also upload and manage designs in their online workspace directly from the desktop and easily edit and share those designs through a web browser or Apple iOS devices using the free AutoCAD WS mobile application,”
For PC users, the Mac version works in a similar enough way to the PC allowing users to easily to move between platforms.
Via 9 to 5 Mac
The other day my vehicle was making a rubbing/grinding noise that was noticeable on low-speed turns. From prior experience, I knew it was probably wheel bearings, power steering, cv boots, axles or some such. As you can tell, I did not know much, just what I had paid for in previous experiences with similar symptoms.
I received a recommendation for a local auto service place and decided to try them out. After leaving the car with them a few hours, the actual mechanic called me back. Note, it was not a “service advisor” or the intake person. The mechanic told me that the power steering fluid was a little low but he could not detect a leak. He said he topped off the fluid and suggested we just drive the car awhile and see if there is some very slow leak that is undetectable. He also told me that the last person to change the power steering fluid might have just left it a little low. When he paused, my response was “that’s it?” Yes. I asked if he inspected the front end and he said that he had and there was a cracked CV boot but no wear as yet. He did not recommend changing it because I could drive it awhile and repair the whole thing later, including the axle, for about the same money.
Then he put the business owner on and I asked him how much it would be. “Nothing”, he said. No service fee, no charge for time, no charge for fluid. I told him he had a customer for life.
The business itself appeared to be quite successful. While not on a main street, there were two nice new buildings and plenty of apparent work, which could only come from word of mouth. This place had zero street visibility.
As I was pondering this later, it occurred to me that the staff must not be under “metrics” and “goals”. Rather, they had an innate desire to provide a quality customer experience and to do the right thing for the client. They had a faith that if they did so, they would have a loyal customer that would come back to them when a real repair needed to be done. Do you know what? They are right. I will only go to a new car dealership in the future for a complex problem that only they have the diagnostics to fix, after these guys tell me then cannot handle it. And I trust that they will tell me that if it is the case.
I did a quick internet search and quickly found a site that discussed metrics for Service Advisors. The terminology that began to jump out at me reminds me of that we find at large banks and corporations of every stripe. There are lots of metrics and the article discusses how if you compare individuals on the metrics the measures go up. Apparently in the auto repair business, metrics are such things as:
- Average up-sell per advisor
- Additional recommendations per Repair Order
- Additional average Customer Pay per Repair Order
- Warranty to Customer Pay conversion
Customer declining of these additional up-sells are seen as a problem, so the industry has developed tools and techniques to overcome objections. They have found that if the advisor walks the customer through each recommended repair and “prioritizes” its importance, the customer pays for more repairs. They can use printed reports to help with this. The Recommended Action Plan can itemize all the suggested work and highlights in color (presumably red), those that are most urgent.
Now I have had some experience with this process. I use a variety of places to service my auto based on convenience. If I am out at one office and there is a quick lube next door and I need an oil change, I will just get it done. I may even flush the radiator, rotate the tires, or do something else. Once at a new car dealership, a service advisor gave me this long list of work that he recommended and I asked where did he get this from? He told me that it was basically the list of everything that had to be done at certain intervals. If for example, my car had 80,000 miles on it, he might recommend a timing belt, even though I had someone else change the timing belt six months before. If I was not paying attention or did not remember what I had done, which is more likely the older one gets, I might just authorize the work. It had nothing to do with the condition of the vehicle.
I am not against using metrics. They are important tools for accountability and to compare performance. But they go horribly awry when the metrics are wrong, there is little subjectivity, the compensation is tied to the metrics, the interests of the employee and the firm are elevated above the customer’s interest, the numbers are easily gamed by ethical lapse or cheating, etc. There are also many important work products that cannot be captured by metrics. I would love to see a metric in an auto shop that measures what my mechanic did. We could call it, “Sending The Customer Home Without Charging Them Anything. It might actually be the most important metric of all.
What does this have to do with the financial crisis? There are two competing models here. One model is about extraction and consumption. Extract as much as you can so you can consume as much as you can. The other model is about preservation and investment. My new mechanic believes in preserving my money and investing in the relationship. In so doing, he also preserves his time, does not wear out his equipment, and perhaps provides faster service to other customers. With the time he is not spending doing unnecessary repairs on my vehicle, perhaps he is working on another vehicle, helping his spouse, or playing with his kids. There is a benefit to both of us that cannot be measured in currency.
The current mortgage foreclosure crisis is a result of “extract and consume” thinking. How many tales are there of borrowers that bought more house than they could afford on false “stated income”. The mortgage originators must have been hitting some great metrics and getting big payouts. What about the lenders that made so many loans they did not have time to process the paperwork afterwards. Great metrics. Big payouts. What about the investment bankers that packaged these deals up and sold them to unwitting investors? Great metrics. Huge millions in payouts. What about the banks that loaded up on this stuff, many of them knowing the shortcomings but also knowing that they could get short-term results and that hopefully home prices would rise forever and everything would be fine? Great metrics and fantastic bonuses. What about the Federal Reserve that now owns much of this crap? Oh, never mind.
Car Article
Send Auto-Tuned Voice Mails With the New I Am T-Pain App Update
It’s a fact: everyone sounds better Autotuned. Smule’s I Am T-Pain app now lets you send autotuned voicemails to friends and family for a small fee. Because there’s no better time than the present to start calling your Aunt “shawty.”
The update is free for people who already own the popular app (which itself is on sale for $1 this weekend), though you’ll have to buy T-Pain credits to leave the 45 second clips (they can be acapella “freestyles” or ditties on top of some non-T-Pain beats). $1 gets you 3 credits normally, though this weekend they’re kicking things off by giving away 5 credits for a dollar.
If you’re embarrassed by the prospect of sending someone you know (or, as the video above suggests, someone you want to get to know) a clip of yourself singing like T-Pain, the dialer lets you schedule delivery of the recordings up to 48 hours in advance. So practice and record your ballad while you’re sober and able, set it to send to your prospective paramour at like 2am, and then blame it on the alcohol.
Send an email to Kyle VanHemert, the author of this post, at kvanhemert@gizmodo.com.
Gawker Media Community Policy
These are our sites, and we reserve the right to moderate the discussion. The basic rules are standard: An attack on authors or other commenters is unlikely to make you popular. Think before you disparage social or ethnic groups. Don’t spam. Don’t post pornography or copyrighted imagery. Stay on topic.
That said, the community policy of Gawker Media is forgiving. If your criticism is articulate, it will likely get through. We dole it out; we can take it. What do we mean by articulate? Support your point with argument, facts and citations. Good grammar and spelling also help.
Got questions? Need answers? See our FAQ and site-specific community guidelines.
Close
Government auction Blog
27 Responses to “Shoup vs O’Toole on Parking”
27 Responses to “Shoup vs O’Toole on Parking”
-
fletc3her says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Parking is interesting since views on it really don’t split along ideological lines. I think this is in part because it is something so many of us deal with. People like free parking.
Progressives often advocate libertarian laissez faire policies that would eliminate the mandates to provide parking at businesses and housing. And, conservatives argue that government mandates maintain their “freedom” to park wherever they want for free.
There is no libertarian axis separating the left from the right in this country. Rather the left and right differ on which libertarian principles they find important. it’s difficult even to find a clear divide on personal freedom versus corporate freedom.
-
Stefan says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I propose a four-week Yglesias parking/urban congestion blog-posting moratorium. There, I said it.
-
heedless says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Goddamn right!
This is one of those rare issues that comes straight out of Intro to Economics.Subsidize cars with free parking. -> More cars. -> Deadweight loss.
Actually, it’s worse than that because the parking regulations also act as a tax on businesses. So you also have fewer businesses, higher prices, and fewer jobs than you otherwise might.
-
joe from Lowell says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
You really can’t understand Randall O’Toole and the libertoid passion for suburban sprawl until you read “The Fountainhead.”
Rand’s misanthropic, sociopathic description of Howard Roarke’s vacation resort – which is precisely like a post-war, cookie-cutter subdivision – encapsulates well the hatred of human beings and the Howard Hughes-esque desire to cut oneself off from them that drives the enthusiasts of sprawl.
-
Paulie Carbone says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I propose a four-week Yglesias parking/urban congestion blog-posting moratorium.
Meh. We’d just get four weeks of posts about how Matt’s right hand is an unlicensed prostitute.
-
DMonteith says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Rand’s misanthropic, sociopathic description of Howard Roarke’s vacation resort – which is precisely like a post-war, cookie-cutter subdivision – encapsulates well the hatred of human beings and the Howard Hughes-esque desire to cut oneself off from them that drives the enthusiasts of sprawl.
Check this out. Awesome that it’s set on mass transit. Don’t forget to hover your cursor over it to get the real punchline!
-
joe from Lowell says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Randall O’Tool watches Maximum Overdrive and roots for the trucks.
-
crack says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
So a guy working for Oil processing magnates advocates for a pro-car policy? Intriguing. Not. Said the liar.
-
Waingro says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Shoup’s response is also a great primer for those who aren’t familiar with the arguments. Highly recommended.
“O’Toole {is}… supposed to be the libertarian in this argument!”
Not really. Cowen is the libertarian. O’Toole is the paid bullshit artist who occasionally marshals libertarians insights
when it happens to advance anti-urbanist arguments.3rd
-
joe from Lowell says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Randall O’Toole is a fantasist.
But this doesn’t change my main point, which is that it is one thing for Cowen to argue that cities should not price parking below market rates where there is a market for parking. I have no problem with this. But it is quite another thing to argue, as many urban planners following the Shoup model do, that private businesses should be required to charge for parking (or be limited in how much parking they are allowed to provide) in areas where the market rate for parking is zero.
I was an urban planner for 7-1/2 years, including two years in a graduate program, and I never heard – not even a single time – the proposal that private businesses be required to charge for parking. Not in areas where there was a parking shortage, and certainly not in areas where “the market rate for parking is zero.”
-
chris says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
People like free parking.
Correction: people who own cars like free parking. People who don’t own cars certainly don’t own think tanks that can push their agendas.
-
Zephyrus says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Is it rude to point out that the tool’s paychecks come from the Koch Bros, whose wealth come from petroleum rents?
-
Sam M says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Gah! I hate this ridiculous commenting system.
At any rate, if O’Toole is such a jerk, why does he agree with MY about the wisdom of getting rid of minimum parking requirements? Yeah. That’s right. He does. Here’s his response to Shoup:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/donald-shoup-on-free-parking/
Again: Randall O’Toole agrees with Matt Yglesias. He supports the idea of getting rid of minimum parking requirements.
Why do transit people hate him so much? You say that an actual free market in parking would result in fewer cars and more transit use. O’Toole disagrees with you about the end result, but he’s willing to roll the dice. Let’s get rid of parking minimums and maximums and see what happens.
Not exactly the world’s most odious Car Goon.
-
roac says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Same old post, so here is the same old comment: Parking requirements cannot be eradicated from building codes because of the disproportionate political influence of single-family homeowners, who as a practical matter have absolute power to block new development anywhere near them. When such development is proposed, the homeowner’s first concern is: Will the people who work/live/shop there be competing with me for the parking space in front of my house? The only way to get your project built is to reassure them on this point.
-
joe from Lowell says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
At any rate, if O’Toole is such a jerk, why does he agree with MY about the wisdom of getting rid of minimum parking requirements?
You see this a lot from libertarians when it comes to sprawl issues. After you call them out and argue long enough, you can eventually get them to acknowledge the position that should actually be their central plank, if they were being true to their stated principles, but first, they have to write really, really long screeds against critics of the central planning behind sprawl, while never actually getting around to writing their own criticisms of that central planning.
For instance, Reason Online has never run even a single piece about sprawl zoning in the entire history of their web site, but they run multiple pieces a month attacking those who do write such criticisms. It’s only when this is pointed out that they wash their skirts in “Oh, yeah, I’m against zoning, too” language, but it certainly is odd how their opposition to the single largest example of government distortion of the housing market isn’t ever sufficient to motivate them denounce it, while at the same time, they find it incredibly important to denounce sprawl zoning’s critics.
-
Wendell says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
To dodge a strawpoint or two, obviously the main reason there’s a lot more driving in 2010 than in 1910 is that cars were invented and they’re a useful technology.
No, that’s not merely the “main” reason. It is the overwhelmingly dominant reason. Private automobiles have become the overwhelmingly dominant mode of surface transportation in virtually every wealthy democracy. This has virtually nothing to do with parking mandates, zoning laws or any of the other distractions you keep harping on. It is a consequence of the overwhelming superiority of automobiles to other modes of transportation for the vast majority of journeys.
Similarly, the main reason that many metropolitan areas contain nearly zero examples of transit-oriented walkable urbanism is that in the postwar period it’s been generally illegal to build such neighborhoods.
No, the main reason that many metropolitan areas contain nearly zero examples of transit-oriented walkable urbanism is that very few people want to live in transit-oriented walkable urbanism. The fact that it is so rare despite the huge subsidies provided to mass transit is further evidence of the overwhelming preference of consumers for automobiles. If transit users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing their bus and train rides, transit fares would need to be tripled and the market for transit would be even smaller than it already is.
-
Wendell says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
But a quick summary is that O’Toole seems to have somehow persuaded himself that regulatory parking mandates don’t lead to artificially cheap parking and that artificially cheap parking doesn’t lead to artificially high quantities of driving.
In that case, Matt Yglesias seems to have somehow persuaded himself that the huge subsidies provided to mass transit don’t lead to artificially cheap bus and train rides, and that artificially cheap bus and train rides don’t lead to artificially high quantities of bus and train ridership.
-
worromot says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Wendell, are you for real?
very few people want to live in transit-oriented walkable urbanism
Yes, people living in the squalor of Manhattan or Boston or SanFran would really really like to live in suburbs of Atlanta, it’s just that they cannot afford that. And of course, people who live in Paris or Tokyo or Moscow or London are also widely known to prefer to that living in rural Montana.If transit users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost
Wendell, the whole point of MY’s post is to suggest that it would be a good idea if CAR users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing the car infrastructure. Or, rather that having market sort it out would be a better idea than by government fiat.Better trolls please. #4
-
DMonteith says:
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Wendell, are you for real?
No. Wendell Cox is paid by oil industry titans, the Kochs, to sow FUD in the general direction of any discussion of reducing Americans’ car dependency. Nothing he says is for real.
-
joe from Lowell says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:37 am
No, Wendell is not for real. He is a whore.
very few people want to live in transit-oriented walkable urbanism
Nobody wants to love in the city. It’s too crowded and expensive. Apparently, a working knowledge of first-semester economics not a prerequisite for the wingnut welfare circuit.
In that case, Matt Yglesias seems to have somehow persuaded himself that the huge subsidies provided to mass transit don’t lead to artificially cheap bus and train rides, and that artificially cheap bus and train rides don’t lead to artificially high quantities of bus and train ridership.
A fucking retarded whore. Dumbass actually thinks Matt doesn’t realize that transit subsidies increase transit usage? Moron.
-
Paulie Carbone says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 am
A fucking retarded whore.
This is what Wendell looks like.
He also thinks dense cities were a historical aberration caused by the industrial revolution.
-
Evil Twin says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Haha, my favorite racist moron Wendell “Mixner” Cox is back! I love this guy. And, good news guys, Mixner has been proven correct. New York City has been abandoned
At 4:32 p.m. Tuesday, every single resident of New York City decided to evacuate the famed metropolis, having realized it was nothing more than a massive, trash-ridden hellhole that slowly sucks the life out of every one of its inhabitants.
Yes, Mixner is a joke. He is a perfect Republican. A liar, a racist, and a fan of torture. What more could you ask for?
-
Wendell says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Yes, people living in the squalor of Manhattan or Boston or SanFran.
The populations of Manhattan and the dense, walkable, transit-oriented parts of San Francisco and Boston are a tiny fraction of the population of the United States. Furthermore, we’re not building any more cities like Manhattan or San Francisco. Virtually all new development is low density and car-oriented, because that’s what the vast majority of people prefer.
Wendell, the whole point of MY’s post is to suggest that it would be a good idea if CAR users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing the car infrastructure. Or, rather that having market sort it out would be a better idea than by government fiat
If Yglesias thinks the market should sort it out then he should oppose mass transit subsidies, which lead to “artificially” cheap bus and train rides and “artificially” high quantities of bus and train ridership.
-
Wendell says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Oh, look, it’s DMonteith, the batshit crazy loon who thinks that by using energy more efficiently we’re actually speeding up global warming.
-
Evil Twin says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Mixner, you racist fuckwit, you forgot to post your favorite lie about me!
And getting more transit is a good thing you mindless twit. As ridership increases, the average cost goes down. In spite of your attempts to spin this away, every time a person chooses to use public instead of personal transportation, the energy costs of that transation are less. Which means that increasing personal transport (with the direct and indirect subisidies you support) is bad for the environment and increasing public transit is good for the environment.
-
DMonteith says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Oh, look, it’s DMonteith, the batshit crazy loon who thinks that by using energy more efficiently we’re actually speeding up global warming.
Oh look, it’s Wendell Cox, who doesn’t actually disagree with me about that.
2
-
worromot says:
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Darn, the site was down, so the Evil Twin beat me to it.
Wendell was proven right:
8.4 Million New Yorkers Suddenly Realize New York City A Horrible Place To Live
2
This Post topic is Used car
Ivan “Ironman” Stewart has retired, and the legendary off-road racer didn’t play around when it came to getting out of the game. This weekend, 650 items from his 37-year racing career are being auctioned off, including the entire Pro Truck business he’s been running for the last ten years.
Items up for bid range from pieces of racing history like the restored Funco SS1 buggy (above) that ran the 1976 Baja 1000, to racing miscellany like antique fire sprinklers and five antique folding seats. Not bad if you want to sprinkle your souvenir room with a little bit of Stewart’s dust.
Today Hammer Time brings you its guide to commonly-used auto auction phrases and their translations.
Car Dealer – “You can have it if you want it.”
Translation – “I know you’re going to run the bid up anyhow. So go ahead and *%&#$&! take it.”
Car Dealer – “This car is a bad boy.”
Translation – It drinks. It smokes. Some day soon it will be hanging out with the other bad boys at the neighborhood junkyard.
Car Dealer – “What do you think is gonna be the money on that car?”
Translation – “I haven’t bought a Volvo station wagon in so long… I have no clue where the market’s at. I need you to help me so I don’t end up losing my ass on the damned thing.”
Car Dealer – “The auctioneer keeps on running me up.”
NOTE: ‘Running me up’ means the auctioneer pretends there’s another buyer bidding against you. Thereby making you pay more.
Translation – “My tow guy is already slashing the tires on the auctioneer’s car. One more time and his windows get busted too.”
Car Dealer – “That car has a coolant leak.”
Translation – “…Because I cut the lower radiator hose.”
Car Dealer – “That car won’t start.”
Translation – “…Because I pulled the fuse”
Car Dealer – “That car has a nasty history”
Translation – “Just take a whiff inside of the car and you’ll see exactly what I mean.”
Car Dealer – “It has a perfect Carfax.”
Translation – “I already know it was wrecked. Hopefully I can buy it cheap and sell it to some dumb Yuppie who believes in Carfax reports.”
Car Dealer – “The money is too high today.”
Translation – “There are so many money launderers and other subsidized entities at this sale… I should have just gone fishing.”
Car Dealer – “It’s a great car.”
Translation – “I can’t sell the damn thing. But if I tell you it’s a great car you may buy it off me.”
Car Dealer – “He’s got no money”
Translation: The auctioneer is pretending like he has bidders on the vehicle when he actually has himself and the Coke machine.
Car Dealer – “That was a quick hammer!”
Translation – The auctioneer pretended like he didn’t have money and then sold it to his buddy… or the auction owner… or himself…
Car Dealer – “The auctioneer has a buddy.”
Translation – His buddy is helping him buy vehicles. He’s quick hammering every deal he can get. It’s a federal crime but good luck proving it.
Car Dealer – “I just got brother-in-lawed”
Translation – The auctioneer didn’t take my bid and sold it to his buddy instead.
Car Dealer – “Finance fodder.”
Translation – Late model vehicles that typically go for healthy premiums at the auctions.
Car Dealer – “Sleds”
Translation – Low end cars that typically sell for $5000 or less.
Car Dealer – “That car will shine up.”
Translation – The car is as rough as a wore out mop. Some cars can take a beating. But buying this one and fixing all the problems will be like polishing a turd.
Car Dealer – “I haven’t seen one of those in a while. Looks to be dealer kept.”
Translation – Some poor soul spent thousands to keep that bad boy running.
Car Dealer – “It died of stage fright.”
Translation – It quit running before it to the auction block.
Car Dealer – “It has the turd engine.”
Translation – The car has either the low horsepower engine (Mustang & Camaro V6’s) or a defect prone engine (Chrysler 2.7L, VW/Audi 1.8L)
Car Dealer – “I got it when they were napping.”
Translation – “Everyone was looking at the car(s) that were coming and didn’t pay attention to the one I bought. Got it cheap.”
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Parking is interesting since views on it really don’t split along ideological lines. I think this is in part because it is something so many of us deal with. People like free parking.
Progressives often advocate libertarian laissez faire policies that would eliminate the mandates to provide parking at businesses and housing. And, conservatives argue that government mandates maintain their “freedom” to park wherever they want for free.
There is no libertarian axis separating the left from the right in this country. Rather the left and right differ on which libertarian principles they find important. it’s difficult even to find a clear divide on personal freedom versus corporate freedom.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I propose a four-week Yglesias parking/urban congestion blog-posting moratorium. There, I said it.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Goddamn right!
This is one of those rare issues that comes straight out of Intro to Economics.
Subsidize cars with free parking. -> More cars. -> Deadweight loss.
Actually, it’s worse than that because the parking regulations also act as a tax on businesses. So you also have fewer businesses, higher prices, and fewer jobs than you otherwise might.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
You really can’t understand Randall O’Toole and the libertoid passion for suburban sprawl until you read “The Fountainhead.”
Rand’s misanthropic, sociopathic description of Howard Roarke’s vacation resort – which is precisely like a post-war, cookie-cutter subdivision – encapsulates well the hatred of human beings and the Howard Hughes-esque desire to cut oneself off from them that drives the enthusiasts of sprawl.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I propose a four-week Yglesias parking/urban congestion blog-posting moratorium.
Meh. We’d just get four weeks of posts about how Matt’s right hand is an unlicensed prostitute.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Rand’s misanthropic, sociopathic description of Howard Roarke’s vacation resort – which is precisely like a post-war, cookie-cutter subdivision – encapsulates well the hatred of human beings and the Howard Hughes-esque desire to cut oneself off from them that drives the enthusiasts of sprawl.
Check this out. Awesome that it’s set on mass transit. Don’t forget to hover your cursor over it to get the real punchline!
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Randall O’Tool watches Maximum Overdrive and roots for the trucks.
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
So a guy working for Oil processing magnates advocates for a pro-car policy? Intriguing. Not. Said the liar.
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Shoup’s response is also a great primer for those who aren’t familiar with the arguments. Highly recommended.
Not really. Cowen is the libertarian. O’Toole is the paid bullshit artist who occasionally marshals libertarians insights
when it happens to advance anti-urbanist arguments.
3rd
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Randall O’Toole is a fantasist.
But this doesn’t change my main point, which is that it is one thing for Cowen to argue that cities should not price parking below market rates where there is a market for parking. I have no problem with this. But it is quite another thing to argue, as many urban planners following the Shoup model do, that private businesses should be required to charge for parking (or be limited in how much parking they are allowed to provide) in areas where the market rate for parking is zero.
I was an urban planner for 7-1/2 years, including two years in a graduate program, and I never heard – not even a single time – the proposal that private businesses be required to charge for parking. Not in areas where there was a parking shortage, and certainly not in areas where “the market rate for parking is zero.”
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
People like free parking.
Correction: people who own cars like free parking. People who don’t own cars certainly don’t own think tanks that can push their agendas.
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Is it rude to point out that the tool’s paychecks come from the Koch Bros, whose wealth come from petroleum rents?
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Gah! I hate this ridiculous commenting system.
At any rate, if O’Toole is such a jerk, why does he agree with MY about the wisdom of getting rid of minimum parking requirements? Yeah. That’s right. He does. Here’s his response to Shoup:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/donald-shoup-on-free-parking/
Again: Randall O’Toole agrees with Matt Yglesias. He supports the idea of getting rid of minimum parking requirements.
Why do transit people hate him so much? You say that an actual free market in parking would result in fewer cars and more transit use. O’Toole disagrees with you about the end result, but he’s willing to roll the dice. Let’s get rid of parking minimums and maximums and see what happens.
Not exactly the world’s most odious Car Goon.
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Same old post, so here is the same old comment: Parking requirements cannot be eradicated from building codes because of the disproportionate political influence of single-family homeowners, who as a practical matter have absolute power to block new development anywhere near them. When such development is proposed, the homeowner’s first concern is: Will the people who work/live/shop there be competing with me for the parking space in front of my house? The only way to get your project built is to reassure them on this point.
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
At any rate, if O’Toole is such a jerk, why does he agree with MY about the wisdom of getting rid of minimum parking requirements?
You see this a lot from libertarians when it comes to sprawl issues. After you call them out and argue long enough, you can eventually get them to acknowledge the position that should actually be their central plank, if they were being true to their stated principles, but first, they have to write really, really long screeds against critics of the central planning behind sprawl, while never actually getting around to writing their own criticisms of that central planning.
For instance, Reason Online has never run even a single piece about sprawl zoning in the entire history of their web site, but they run multiple pieces a month attacking those who do write such criticisms. It’s only when this is pointed out that they wash their skirts in “Oh, yeah, I’m against zoning, too” language, but it certainly is odd how their opposition to the single largest example of government distortion of the housing market isn’t ever sufficient to motivate them denounce it, while at the same time, they find it incredibly important to denounce sprawl zoning’s critics.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
To dodge a strawpoint or two, obviously the main reason there’s a lot more driving in 2010 than in 1910 is that cars were invented and they’re a useful technology.
No, that’s not merely the “main” reason. It is the overwhelmingly dominant reason. Private automobiles have become the overwhelmingly dominant mode of surface transportation in virtually every wealthy democracy. This has virtually nothing to do with parking mandates, zoning laws or any of the other distractions you keep harping on. It is a consequence of the overwhelming superiority of automobiles to other modes of transportation for the vast majority of journeys.
Similarly, the main reason that many metropolitan areas contain nearly zero examples of transit-oriented walkable urbanism is that in the postwar period it’s been generally illegal to build such neighborhoods.
No, the main reason that many metropolitan areas contain nearly zero examples of transit-oriented walkable urbanism is that very few people want to live in transit-oriented walkable urbanism. The fact that it is so rare despite the huge subsidies provided to mass transit is further evidence of the overwhelming preference of consumers for automobiles. If transit users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing their bus and train rides, transit fares would need to be tripled and the market for transit would be even smaller than it already is.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
But a quick summary is that O’Toole seems to have somehow persuaded himself that regulatory parking mandates don’t lead to artificially cheap parking and that artificially cheap parking doesn’t lead to artificially high quantities of driving.
In that case, Matt Yglesias seems to have somehow persuaded himself that the huge subsidies provided to mass transit don’t lead to artificially cheap bus and train rides, and that artificially cheap bus and train rides don’t lead to artificially high quantities of bus and train ridership.
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Wendell, are you for real?
very few people want to live in transit-oriented walkable urbanism
Yes, people living in the squalor of Manhattan or Boston or SanFran would really really like to live in suburbs of Atlanta, it’s just that they cannot afford that. And of course, people who live in Paris or Tokyo or Moscow or London are also widely known to prefer to that living in rural Montana.
If transit users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost
Wendell, the whole point of MY’s post is to suggest that it would be a good idea if CAR users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing the car infrastructure. Or, rather that having market sort it out would be a better idea than by government fiat.
Better trolls please. #4
September 2nd, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Wendell, are you for real?
No. Wendell Cox is paid by oil industry titans, the Kochs, to sow FUD in the general direction of any discussion of reducing Americans’ car dependency. Nothing he says is for real.
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:37 am
No, Wendell is not for real. He is a whore.
very few people want to live in transit-oriented walkable urbanism
Nobody wants to love in the city. It’s too crowded and expensive. Apparently, a working knowledge of first-semester economics not a prerequisite for the wingnut welfare circuit.
In that case, Matt Yglesias seems to have somehow persuaded himself that the huge subsidies provided to mass transit don’t lead to artificially cheap bus and train rides, and that artificially cheap bus and train rides don’t lead to artificially high quantities of bus and train ridership.
A fucking retarded whore. Dumbass actually thinks Matt doesn’t realize that transit subsidies increase transit usage? Moron.
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 am
A fucking retarded whore.
This is what Wendell looks like.
He also thinks dense cities were a historical aberration caused by the industrial revolution.
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Haha, my favorite racist moron Wendell “Mixner” Cox is back! I love this guy. And, good news guys, Mixner has been proven correct. New York City has been abandoned
Yes, Mixner is a joke. He is a perfect Republican. A liar, a racist, and a fan of torture. What more could you ask for?
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Yes, people living in the squalor of Manhattan or Boston or SanFran.
The populations of Manhattan and the dense, walkable, transit-oriented parts of San Francisco and Boston are a tiny fraction of the population of the United States. Furthermore, we’re not building any more cities like Manhattan or San Francisco. Virtually all new development is low density and car-oriented, because that’s what the vast majority of people prefer.
Wendell, the whole point of MY’s post is to suggest that it would be a good idea if CAR users had to pay anything remotely close to the true cost of providing the car infrastructure. Or, rather that having market sort it out would be a better idea than by government fiat
If Yglesias thinks the market should sort it out then he should oppose mass transit subsidies, which lead to “artificially” cheap bus and train rides and “artificially” high quantities of bus and train ridership.
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Oh, look, it’s DMonteith, the batshit crazy loon who thinks that by using energy more efficiently we’re actually speeding up global warming.
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Mixner, you racist fuckwit, you forgot to post your favorite lie about me!
And getting more transit is a good thing you mindless twit. As ridership increases, the average cost goes down. In spite of your attempts to spin this away, every time a person chooses to use public instead of personal transportation, the energy costs of that transation are less. Which means that increasing personal transport (with the direct and indirect subisidies you support) is bad for the environment and increasing public transit is good for the environment.
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Oh, look, it’s DMonteith, the batshit crazy loon who thinks that by using energy more efficiently we’re actually speeding up global warming.
Oh look, it’s Wendell Cox, who doesn’t actually disagree with me about that.
2
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Darn, the site was down, so the Evil Twin beat me to it.
Wendell was proven right:
8.4 Million New Yorkers Suddenly Realize New York City A Horrible Place To Live
2