Paul Milstein Hall

[RichH]

It's too bad eco-terrorist Luddite and enviro-rapist Minarchist are the only two conceivable approaches to this issue.

Like everything in this country, there can only be two choices.  Black-White, Right-Wrong, Good-Bad, With Us-Against Us, Conservative-Liberal, Democrat-Republican, WalMart-Target, Big Mac-Whopper, Borders-B&N, Lowes-Home Depot, Wegmans-Tops, ATT-Verizon, Mac-PC, iPhone-Android, Yankees-Red Sox, Vampires-Warewolves, Pirates-Ninjas.

Duopoly!

[Rosey]

Why should we make it easy for people to drive?  You know, there are external costs to driving for other users of the transportation network that are not born fully by the drivers.  What about my lungs and my safety on my bike?

What about electric cars?  What about safe drivers?

What about the greater distances (and ugly distances) I have to walk to get through or around the lots?

Properly-constructed parking would have little to no impact on this.

Sure, none of these things are stopping me, but they are raising the "cost."  Can't I just turn around and say to you, "All those cars and parking lots are making it inordinately difficult for those who choose to walk or bike"?

My point is simply that the judgment of whether or not to provide convenient parking on central campus should be entirely economic and not subjective.  If there's demand—which clearly there is—then Cornell should provide parking, even if they have to charge an arm and a leg for it to cover their costs.  Period.  See Keith's post for a poignant example of why this is a good idea.

That said, you do make many good points, many of which I agree with.  But I still don't think these arguments should do more than inform Cornell's behavior on the margin: provide people with what they want, but absolutely try to change that demand curve over time.  Trying to change that demand curve by limiting supply out of some "I know better than you do and therefore will limit your options" sense is what offends me.  (Well, "offend" is a bit strong, but you know what I mean.)  I advocate biking in and around the Boston area, and am involved in projects to expand bikeways and opportunities for safe riding with the goal of making it safer, easier, and thus more attractive to bike here; but at the same time I also have to drive here and recognize that others have reasons for driving, so I don't promote policies that make drivers' lives inordinately more difficult.

Parking lots are expensive, especially double deckers.

Sorry, but this is a red herring.  I would be willing to bet lots of money that all the parking garages in Tompkins County cost far less than $60 million, the construction cost of Duffield Hall alone.  This is all about people who don't like cars, or who have reserved spots outside Day Hall, setting policies for everyone else.

If I lived back at Cornell, I wouldn't drive to central campus either, except late at night or to run a quick errand.  But I don't feel like my preferences are objectively better than others'.

[Rosey]

After all, a good bus system is a great alternative to walking or cycling for those Ithacating days.

How many times have you stood at a bus stop in 35° rain, waiting 20 minutes for a late bus?  There's a reason why the neighborhoods in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville served by the subway are 50% more expensive than those served only by the bus system.

[KeithK]

So what you mention has occurred to me.  Add it to the list of things that make Cornell a somewhat unattractive place to be a professor, at least for some people.  I find Ithaca a bit isolated, and the driving culture bothers me; I suppose others would relish the idea of forty acres, a mule, and a pretty short daily drive to work.  So I understand the concept of parking as, shall we say, a recruitment tool.  But do you think it's the newly-hired tenure-strivers that get those spots?  Nah...  they're status symbols.  And Cornell professors have always been leaving for "greener pastures"; heck, the whole physics department up and left for Stanford at some point.  Can't change the weather.  Rather like the hockey team, I feel Cornell should be looking for "recruits" that will look past those problems.  You know, the ones that will "get it."

If a high school kid's eyes glaze over at the thought of no car on campus it's really not a big deal.  There's a plenty big pool of applicants and so losing some portion due to car-unfriendliness is not likely to impact the quality of the student pool. (On the other hand, if the kid has a great slapshot...) The pool of high quality researchers to hire as professors is a lot smaller so you have to be careful with decisions that might affect this kind of recruiting. of course, since it's hard to accurately measure peoples' preferences you end up with a bunch of subjectivity even if you try to rely on an economic analysis as Kyle proposes.

It's not clear that it is best for the university to try to recruit professors who will "get it" and stick around for the long haul. It might make more sense to shoot for the best and brightest even knowing that a significant portion may choose to move on to greener pasturess.
There are competing priorities that need to be balanced.

[RichH]

The pool of high quality researchers to hire as professors is a lot smaller so you have to be careful with decisions that might affect this kind of recruiting. of course, since it's hard to accurately measure peoples' preferences you end up with a bunch of subjectivity even if you try to rely on an economic analysis as Kyle proposes.

Legendary physicist Richard Feynman had turned down several offers to go elsewhere because he felt Cornell had given him everything he ever wanted, as well as the presence of Hans Bethe.  It wasn't until he was installing tire chains with numb hands during a sudden Ithaca snowstorm that the thought "why am I doing this?" popped into his head, and he decided to jump to CalTech. And even then he had doubts when he first moved, as the SoCal air quality impacted his breathing while simply waiting for the bus in another "why am I doing this?" moment.  (At least that's what I recall from the book "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman!" )

Nobody uses tire chains in Ithaca anymore.  Had winter tire, studded tire, or even all-season tire technology had advanced sooner, Feynman may have stayed his entire career at Cornell.

[Scersk '97]

After all, a good bus system is a great alternative to walking or cycling for those Ithacating days.

How many times have you stood at a bus stop in 35° rain, waiting 20 minutes for a late bus?  There's a reason why the neighborhoods in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville served by the subway are 50% more expensive than those served only by the bus system.

Well...  I have.  Many times.  And it sucks. The area in which I lived in Chicago was notorious for poor bus service despite high ridership levels.  Thank god we lived a four-minute walk from the Red Line, which made getting downtown and northwards easy.  But when we headed to any other area of the city, we suffered.

Indeed, I kind of hate busses, but they're the only choice that Ithacans (in the broadest sense) will have in the reasonable future, so I'd like to see the area work hard on making the system work well for the greatest number of people.  As it is, you could live in Ithaca without a car.  Though it certainly wouldn't be easy, that level of service is pretty impressive for a small city.  Yet it could always be better, especially with regard to suburb to city commutes.

(Regional transportation, or the complete lack of coordination thereof, is another matter entirely.  Each county has its own bus network, but the information even on routes and scheduling is hard to come by for those counties not Tompkins; in fact, they all link up, but you'd never know it.)

I guess we'll differ on the expense of parking lots.  Just as you would be willing to bet that those parking garages have cost less than $60 mil, I'd be willing to bet that the users of those garages have born nowhere near the cost; indeed, I'd be willing to bet that a significant amount of general fund money went into building each lot, and that bugs me.  I assert that one of the most persistent and pernicious myths in our society is that parking is paid for out of user fees, permits, and enforcement revenue.  So, I'll get behind parking structures when I see private corporations buy the land for them at market price, build their own structures, maintain their own structures, and charge their own prices.

Of course, most people would level the same criticisms at public transport.  I do see it—I do.  But I submit that the level of government funding for driving far outweighs the level of funding for public transport, even though good transport could far more equitably serve a greater number of people for a lower cost. The books have been cooked in favor of private automobiles, and they've been cooked for quite some time now, so getting people to make a true accounting of the money being spent will always be difficult.

Since I think you (if not, my mistake) lean that direction, I'll say that the libertarian transportation argument has a lot to be said for it.  I'm all for highway tolls; I'm all for user fees based on miles traveled.  I want a gas tax that reflects all the costs involved in the use of internal combustion engine propelled vehicles so that we can rebuild and then maintain the infrastructure we already have.  (Or, better, sell off the highways to groups that, because they make or lose money through tolling, will either maintain them or let them rot.)  Indeed, I know libertarians are generally suspicious of taxing, but how do they feel about gas taxes or vehicle-mile taxing?  How do libertarians expect to pay for, say, city, town, and rural streets, county highways, and other aspects of car infrastructure.  (This is the area that bugs me about the oft-said, "Get thee an electric car!"  What about the gas tax then?)

In the end, I'm just sick of the car culture and societal support for it.  I'm chiefly sick of highways, and I'm sick of paying for them through general funds.  I'm sick of the 80/20 match for highway projects and the poorer matching for transit projects.  I'm sick existentially from the misinvestment we made some time ago in a technology that tends to destroy any concept of the fabric of society, and I'm sick of everybody citing that misinvestment as some great thing, as if the wholesale destruction of many cities wasn't an obvious result.  I'm sick of how the car culture of this nation makes it very hard for me, a person who does not own a car (in great part because of the very real costs that few seem to consider) and chooses, often, not to rent and drive, to get places easily when not so long ago I would have been able to.  And I'm sick of most people's, present company very much excepted, flippant answers to my very real concerns.

Why am I sick?  Because I have this queasy feeling that we're going to be paying for it all somewhere down the road, and perhaps even in our lifetimes.  We're going to pay through the nose, and everyone's going to wonder why, and everyone's going to say, "Who could have seen that coming?"  I call bullshit in advance.

And I realize I'm grandstanding, but what else is JSID for?  First a parking lot, and then they'll pave the Plantations!  Bring back the Lehigh Valley, so we can shuffle off to Buffalo!

[Rosey]

In the end, I'm just sick of the car culture and societal support for it.  I'm chiefly sick of highways, and I'm sick of paying for them through general funds.  I'm sick of the 80/20 match for highway projects and the poorer matching for transit projects.  I'm sick existentially from the misinvestment we made some time ago in a technology that tends to destroy any concept of the fabric of society, and I'm sick of everybody citing that misinvestment as some great thing, as if the wholesale destruction of many cities wasn't an obvious result.  I'm sick of how the car culture of this nation makes it very hard for me, a person who does not own a car (in great part because of the very real costs that few seem to consider) and chooses, often, not to rent and drive, to get places easily when not so long ago I would have been able to.  And I'm sick of most people's, present company very much excepted, flippant answers to my very real concerns.

As I said, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.  I moved from the suburbs back into the city specifically because I wanted to live in a higher-density area and not have to drive everywhere.  I hate suburban culture, and part of that is the "drive everywhere" mentality. That said, I have a car that I use for getting myself and my large, heavy equipment bag to hockey games, and for medium- and long- distance travel (because it allows me flexibility to stop along the way for e.g. sightseeing).  I value having both the ability to drive my car when I want to and ride my bike when I want to.

The problem with the inequitable funding of public transit and cars cannot be simplified to a sound bite.  The biggest contributor is, of course, that it's the incumbent system and thus has lots of special interests bribing various public officials for its furtherance, whereas public transit doesn't even exist in most places in the US; but there are issues of density (at what level can public transport be provided at a reasonable ROI in cities like NY? Boston? Suburbs? Exurbs?), zoning (due mostly to artificially-restricted supply, housing in the cities is prohibitively expensive for many people, who feel it isn't worth 2x the cost to live in a place ½ the size), convenience and comfort (the aforementioned 35° rain; frequency of routes; dealing with anti-social people; putting up with poor management; etc.), all contributing to this inertia.

My point is simply that forcing people into a system that doesn't meet their needs as they define them, not as you define them, is immoral.  That said, we don't have to help them make bad choices: given the world we live in, I'm all for ending government subsidization of roads and private vehicles.  That means: bring the troops home, let oil become a free market and rise to its natural price, implement a gas tax or electronic tolls with revenues tied directly to road funding, etc.  I'm curious how you propose we get there given the entrenched interests with substantial political power.  Remember the public outcry when gas prices went to $4.50/gallon!  Politicians who are perceived to make the trains run on time (so to speak :-) ) are highly incentivized to do whatever it takes to keep the voters happy.  Welcome to democracy.

[French Rage]

ATT-Verizon

Unless you want your phone to actually get a signal, in which the choice is only Verizon.

[Scersk '97]

My point is simply that forcing people into a system that doesn't meet their needs as they define them, not as you define them, is immoral.  That said, we don't have to help them make bad choices: given the world we live in, I'm all for ending government subsidization of roads and private vehicles.  That means: bring the troops home, let oil become a free market and rise to its natural price, implement a gas tax or electronic tolls with revenues tied directly to road funding, etc.  I'm curious how you propose we get there given the entrenched interests with substantial political power.  Remember the public outcry when gas prices went to $4.50/gallon!  Politicians who are perceived to make the trains run on time (so to speak :-) ) are highly incentivized to do whatever it takes to keep the voters happy.  Welcome to democracy.

Well, I'm curious about how we get there too.  Never let it be said that I'm a fan of any of the "entrenched interests" involved in this Shell game.  I too dread the effect of them "bribing various public officials for the furtherance" of the "incumbent system."  I would prefer that the "incumbent system," whether political or in infrastructure, doesn't fall apart catastrophically.  But if we don't figure out some way to fund and fix our roads now, we're going to have further bridge failures etc.; and if the "incumbents" don't find their spines and stand up to those special interests, our government just might fall apart catastrophically as well.

To my mind, what you mention will come to pass.  It has to.  The troops can't be in Afghanistan (and, still, Iraq, though supposedly they're non-combatants) forever, we don't have the money for the foreign adventures and direct support that will be necessary to keep oil cheap in a peak oil world, and the highway trust fund is already bankrupt.  All these things can come to pass abruptly through the inevitable, catastrophic, impersonal force of economic necessity, or they can have their various deleterious effects moderated through careful stewardship.

I'm not optimistic that anybody on the current political scene has the cojones to be a real leader and tell the hard truths necessary to straighten things out.  So we risk the emergence of somebody who will "make the trains run on time" in the worst way and all the problems thereof.  Indeed, bad economic times bring these solutions borne of expediency; it's up in the air for me whether democratic societies can properly realign economies that have gone as bad as ours, because it requires serious reappraisal, sacrifice, and work against the psychology of previous investment.  Knowing how hard it is to accomplish those tasks in my own life, I have little confidence in the ability of society-at-large to do so through the imperfect instrument of our political system.

We shall see, but I hope that I can avoid putting my eggs in one basket.  When I hit the job market, I hope to be able to look outside this troubled land of ours.  But... in order to do that... I have things to finish.

On that note, thanks for the reasoned discussion, as always, but I think that I have to bid this thread adieu.

[RichH]

Indeed, I kind of hate busses, but they're the only choice that Ithacans (in the broadest sense) will have in the reasonable future, so I'd like to see the area work hard on making the system work well for the greatest number of people.  As it is, you could live in Ithaca without a car.  Though it certainly wouldn't be easy, that level of service is pretty impressive for a small city.  Yet it could always be better, especially with regard to suburb to city commutes.

Something that didn't exist until recently is Ithaca Carshare, which of course is the local version of ZipCar.  Cornell pays the annual membership fee for all students and plan-enrolled faculty/staff.  That certainly helps those who wish to live a carless existence.

http://www.ithacacarshare.org/csh_cornell.html

[Josh '99]

After all, a good bus system is a great alternative to walking or cycling for those Ithacating days.

How many times have you stood at a bus stop in 35° rain, waiting 20 minutes for a late bus?  There's a reason why the neighborhoods in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville served by the subway are 50% more expensive than those served only by the bus system.

Well...  I have.  Many times.  And it sucks. The area in which I lived in Chicago was notorious for poor bus service despite high ridership levels.  Thank god we lived a four-minute walk from the Red Line, which made getting downtown and northwards easy.  But when we headed to any other area of the city, we suffered.

Indeed, I kind of hate busses, but they're the only choice that Ithacans (in the broadest sense) will have in the reasonable future, so I'd like to see the area work hard on making the system work well for the greatest number of people.  As it is, you could live in Ithaca without a car.  Though it certainly wouldn't be easy, that level of service is pretty impressive for a small city.  Yet it could always be better, especially with regard to suburb to city commutes.

(Regional transportation, or the complete lack of coordination thereof, is another matter entirely.  Each county has its own bus network, but the information even on routes and scheduling is hard to come by for those counties not Tompkins; in fact, they all link up, but you'd never know it.)

I guess we'll differ on the expense of parking lots.  Just as you would be willing to bet that those parking garages have cost less than $60 mil, I'd be willing to bet that the users of those garages have born nowhere near the cost; indeed, I'd be willing to bet that a significant amount of general fund money went into building each lot, and that bugs me.  I assert that one of the most persistent and pernicious myths in our society is that parking is paid for out of user fees, permits, and enforcement revenue.  So, I'll get behind parking structures when I see private corporations buy the land for them at market price, build their own structures, maintain their own structures, and charge their own prices.

Of course, most people would level the same criticisms at public transport.  I do see it—I do.  But I submit that the level of government funding for driving far outweighs the level of funding for public transport, even though good transport could far more equitably serve a greater number of people for a lower cost. The books have been cooked in favor of private automobiles, and they've been cooked for quite some time now, so getting people to make a true accounting of the money being spent will always be difficult.

Since I think you (if not, my mistake) lean that direction, I'll say that the libertarian transportation argument has a lot to be said for it.  I'm all for highway tolls; I'm all for user fees based on miles traveled.  I want a gas tax that reflects all the costs involved in the use of internal combustion engine propelled vehicles so that we can rebuild and then maintain the infrastructure we already have.  (Or, better, sell off the highways to groups that, because they make or lose money through tolling, will either maintain them or let them rot.)  Indeed, I know libertarians are generally suspicious of taxing, but how do they feel about gas taxes or vehicle-mile taxing?  How do libertarians expect to pay for, say, city, town, and rural streets, county highways, and other aspects of car infrastructure.  (This is the area that bugs me about the oft-said, "Get thee an electric car!"  What about the gas tax then?)

In the end, I'm just sick of the car culture and societal support for it.  I'm chiefly sick of highways, and I'm sick of paying for them through general funds.  I'm sick of the 80/20 match for highway projects and the poorer matching for transit projects.  I'm sick existentially from the misinvestment we made some time ago in a technology that tends to destroy any concept of the fabric of society, and I'm sick of everybody citing that misinvestment as some great thing, as if the wholesale destruction of many cities wasn't an obvious result.  I'm sick of how the car culture of this nation makes it very hard for me, a person who does not own a car (in great part because of the very real costs that few seem to consider) and chooses, often, not to rent and drive, to get places easily when not so long ago I would have been able to.  And I'm sick of most people's, present company very much excepted, flippant answers to my very real concerns.

Why am I sick?  Because I have this queasy feeling that we're going to be paying for it all somewhere down the road, and perhaps even in our lifetimes.  We're going to pay through the nose, and everyone's going to wonder why, and everyone's going to say, "Who could have seen that coming?"  I call bullshit in advance.

And I realize I'm grandstanding, but what else is JSID for?  First a parking lot, and then they'll pave the Plantations!  Bring back the Lehigh Valley, so we can shuffle off to Buffalo!

Forgive my trite response to Scersk's grandstanding, but:  
This.

[Rosey]

Something that didn't exist until recently is Ithaca Carshare, which of course is the local version of ZipCar.  Cornell pays the annual membership fee for all students and plan-enrolled faculty/staff.  That certainly helps those who wish to live a carless existence.

http://www.ithacacarshare.org/csh_cornell.html

Zipcar and the like are great resources for those who only need a car occasionally, but they still suffer from the parking problem: try to find a (legal) parking spot anywhere on central campus except late at night when you need to run an errand.  Hey, I'm all for using Skorton's Day Hall spot at 2 in the morning if you're only going to be there for 5 minutes, but I'd be afraid to find the CUPS crawling out of my trunk to have the thing towed.

[ajh258]

Something that didn't exist until recently is Ithaca Carshare, which of course is the local version of ZipCar.  Cornell pays the annual membership fee for all students and plan-enrolled faculty/staff.  That certainly helps those who wish to live a carless existence.

http://www.ithacacarshare.org/csh_cornell.html

Zipcar and the like are great resources for those who only need a car occasionally, but they still suffer from the parking problem: try to find a (legal) parking spot anywhere on central campus except late at night when you need to run an errand.  Hey, I'm all for using Skorton's Day Hall spot at 2 in the morning if you're only going to be there for 5 minutes, but I'd be afraid to find the CUPS crawling out of my trunk to have the thing towed.

I have to agree with Kyle here. Right now, since there's a lack of parking, I have to walk all the way from the Ag Quad back to Stewart on West (which takes almost 15 minutes) and then drive to the golf course for my golf class (10 minutes). If the metered lots weren't so expensive, it would make a lot of sense for me to be able to park 3-4 hours a day and then take a short 5-minute ride to the course. Although this is a special circumstance, there are tons of things I could run into during a day that requires me going back to my room. Waiting for the bus or walking up the slope just takes too long and the same trip would take even longer as snow begins to accumulate. Our campus is not the most pedestrian-friendly place and owning a vehicle hinges on the border of desire and necessity. If I'm applying to Cornell again, this lack of parking would not a deal-breaker, but ease of vehicle access will be high on my "want" list.

[Roy 82]

My point is simply that forcing people into a system that doesn't meet their needs as they define them, not as you define them, is immoral.  That said, we don't have to help them make bad choices: given the world we live in, I'm all for ending government subsidization of roads and private vehicles.  That means: bring the troops home, let oil become a free market and rise to its natural price, implement a gas tax or electronic tolls with revenues tied directly to road funding, etc.  I'm curious how you propose we get there given the entrenched interests with substantial political power.  Remember the public outcry when gas prices went to $4.50/gallon!  Politicians who are perceived to make the trains run on time (so to speak :-) ) are highly incentivized to do whatever it takes to keep the voters happy.  Welcome to democracy.

I also agree with a lot of what you are saying (I have a "bumper sticker" that says "Biking Against Oil Wars" ) but what I am not understanding is why you feel it is wrong for people to say that we need to dissuade private car transportation and not wrong to say that we need to spend, build and pave our way to to promote convenient private car transportation. Are you saying that our society is so far gone that we should just give up and go with the flow (of oil)? Are you saying that it is immoral for politicians or individuals to go against the tyranny of the majority in favor of longer term or broader goals? You have already noted the deficiency of the free market to function in this area, Why then cling to its ability to yield the best solutions? What's good for GM is not good for CU (although I am a part owner and I kind of like the idea of the Chevy Volt, a true hybrid).

[Rosey]

I also agree with a lot of what you are saying (I have a "bumper sticker" that says "Biking Against Oil Wars" ) but what I am not understanding is why you feel it is wrong for people to say that we need to dissuade private car transportation and not wrong to say that we need to spend, build and pave our way to to promote convenient private car transportation.

The problem with the automobile-centric road system is primarily that subsidies for it crowd out alternatives: so stop subsidizing it, and see where demand stabilizes.  People have legitimate reasons for driving, and artificially increasing its cost is IMO just as bad (morally) as artificially decreasing its cost through subsidies.  We should just let the market figure out where to allocate resources without some central planning board interfering with this process, and the very first step along this path is to start charging drivers the full (and actual) cost of building and maintaining the roads and getting oil from the ground into their tanks.