King Street Bike Lanes

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63899 wrote:

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the parking spaces. I just don’t like people blithely making arguments that government should do something for the “public good” by attacking some “subsidy” to one group or another. Perhaps I am overly jaded, but there are these government “subsidies” everywhere and these arguments can be used to screw over small groups of citizens on almost any issue. When the government gets into the business of redistributing these subsidies (and how can it not?) I tend to doubt that the subsidies go where they do the most public good. (Note that whatever is the public good cannot really be defined–see the Arrow Impossibility Theorem in Economics.) Instead subsidies will go to those with the most political power, often due to connections unavailable to the average system. (After all, its the Arlington Way.)

On a related topic: Do you really think the proposed configuration will calm traffic? Before, one has a narrow, shoulderless two lane street with parking on one side. With bike lanes (when no bikes are present), this is transformed into something looking more like a narrow two lane street with shoulders. Which would you rather speed on?

I don’t feel that the hot button word subsidies is terribly helpful in making public policy decisions. I do not think that the existence of private influence over govt means that benefit cost analysis of changes at the margins is impossible. There may be subsidies and distortions beyond the scope of analysis, but those are usually second order effects, and will often offset each other (IE some will pull to the benefit side of a project, and some to the cost side, and will be a wash) We do our best, just as we do as private sector decision makers. In neither case is it better to flip a coin to make a decision, or to assume the status quo is best – and for the same reasons.

I think the subsidies question comes up often, because someone proposes what is clearly a BCA justified change, and then someone defends the status quo based on a sense of outrage to their established interests. Often invoking some property right or pseudo property right. In which case I think its fair to question the nature of that right – if its in fact simply a defense of a subsidy that happens to be have time on its side. Its not that those folks are WRONG on the BCA because they have received a “subsidy” – its that their interests should be weighed with everyone elses, and not be privileged.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63899 wrote:

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the parking spaces. I just don’t like people blithely making arguments that government should do something for the “public good” by attacking some “subsidy” to one group or another.

Can we do something for the public good because we think the net benefits of more and safer biking exceed the costs of folks having to park at spots less convenient than on King Street? Would that be more acceptable if we simply said net benefits exceed net costs and avoided the hot button words “public good” out of deference to the only prominent econ dept in northern Virginia?

[DismalScientist]

How does one do a proper cost/benefit analysis in light of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem? Are there biases implicit in the methodology of the BCA? In the process of eliminating things as second order effects?

My property line does not extend to the sidewalk and street in front of my house. Why do I have to subsidize the county by shoveling and mowing their damn snow and grass over which I have no property right?

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63899 wrote:

. (Note that whatever is the public good cannot really be defined–see the Arrow Impossibility Theorem in Economics.)

Its been a long time since Ive studied Arrow. Is this not correct? “Voting systems that use cardinal utility (which conveys more information than rank orders; see the subsection discussing the cardinal utility approach to overcoming the negative conclusion) are not covered by the theorem.”

IIUC the arrow system is about rank order voting systems, in which people rank order their preferred outcome, and vote. BCA is inherently an attempt to get the result that would have been obtained had people been able to weight their preferences by the extent of cost and benefit. Ergo, the Impossibility Theorem does not apply, and thats why BCA is still considered a legitimate approach to public policy making by most economists. Of course if people are voting their ordered preferences, it may be difficult to make BCA stick in the political system. One way to do that is not to argue for use of BCA on a case by case basis, but to do it as part of more general approaches to public policy making, where no one can know in advance how the use of BCA will impact their interests.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 63922 wrote:

. Would that be more acceptable if we simply said net benefits exceed net costs and avoided the hot button words “public good” out of deference to the only prominent econ dept in northern Virginia?

Yes. And make the cost benefit analysis explicit.

(Now if they would start with the Columbia Pike trolley…)

[dasgeh]

My point in bringing up the subsidy for the parking spaces is that the plan isn’t to take away (without compensation) something that belonged to the property owner in order to benefit (or subsidize) others. Instead, the government has a plan to shift around benefits/subsidies. That’s a lot of what governments do.

I also think governments enable people to coordinate their efforts for the greater good. In this case, homeowners may want the traffic calming, but if were done only outside of individual houses, it wouldn’t be effective. By coordinating, they all benefit.

And I also used to live on a busy street. Some mornings, I had to muscle my way out into traffic (have you considered backing into the driveway? that helped us). It wasn’t a surprise though, and we planned accordingly (parked around the corner the night before, if we REALLY had to get out quickly).

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63924 wrote:

How does one do a proper cost/benefit analysis in light of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem? Are there biases implicit in the methodology of the BCA? In the process of eliminating things as second order effects?

My property line does not extend to the sidewalk and street in front of my house. Why do I have to subsidize the county by shoveling and mowing their damn snow and grass over which I have no property right?

As stated above, the impossibility theorem does not apply to BCA, which is not a rank ordered voting system. Knowing where to cut off secondary effects is a matter of art. Often dictated by the resources available to do the BCA. In which mattet it is NO different from the business case analysis done regularly in the private sector.

As for you shoveling the snow, thats a seperate question. Its orthogonal to whether bike lane gets built or not. BCA is not a weighing of subsidies. The BCA reason for requiring residents to shovel snow is that its efficient to do it that way – versus not doing it at all, or having the govt do it. However since utilitarianism is not as widely accepted as I might like, there is also a property argument. The sidewalk IS your property, though there is a public easement on it. We COULD give you property rights to the parking space on the road, however historically we generally dont. In parts of DC the govt owns your front yard and all you have is an easement. Im not sure the practical effects of that, other than to make it easier to widen streets without having to formally invoke eminent domain.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 63924 wrote:

My property line does not extend to the sidewalk and street in front of my house. Why do I have to subsidize the county by shoveling and mowing their damn snow and grass over which I have no property right?

Because you are a member of a society, and that society has determined this to be the best approach. I’m confused about your confusion on this point.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 63925 wrote:

Its been a long time since Ive studied Arrow. Is this not correct? “Voting systems that use cardinal utility (which conveys more information than rank orders; see the subsection discussing the cardinal utility approach to overcoming the negative conclusion) are not covered by the theorem.”
Econ blah blah blah

Even with cardinal utility, there is the question of interpersonal utility comparison. Is your util worth my util? Conceptually, BCA just expresses everything in dollars and assumes that everyone has the same marginal utility of income.

Of course, one has to use BCA in some way to make public policy simply because there is no alternative. In practice, however, implementation of BCA may ignore politically weak stakeholders.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63926 wrote:

Yes. And make the cost benefit analysis explicit.

(Now if they would start with the Columbia Pike trolley…)

Its been done – there are some large issues that reasonable folks disagree about (the extent of rail preference among potential riders, the impact of rail infra on development, the operating issues with on street rail and with articulated buses, the lifecycle costs of articulated buses, etc). Its not helped by confusion about the alternatives (like opponents claiming the alt is BRT simillar to the Cleveland Healthline which is not possible there, like claims that bus can match street car volumes by use of articulated buses, while neglecting higher life cycle costs of articulated buses, etc)

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63936 wrote:

I even with cardinal utility, there is the question of interpersonal utility comparison. Is your util worth my util? Conceptually, BCA just expresses everything in dollars and assumes that everyone has the same marginal utility of income.

Thats a question that was around long before Ken Arrow, and I think is more philosophical than economic. I can accept that there issues when comparing utility across different incomes (does one dollar mean more or less to someone earning 20k than to someone earning 300k – and what does that tell us about BCA of big things like healthcare reform, or minimum wages) I personally very much doubt that its an issue between the owners of million dollar homes on King Street and average cyclists. I would say in that case its a tertiary order effect – if not actually obfuscation

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63924 wrote:

My property line does not extend to the sidewalk and street in front of my house. Why do I have to subsidize the county by shoveling and mowing their damn snow and grass over which I have no property right?

Actually that raises another point. If the on street space is your property, but with a public easement, like the sidewalk, then why are you NOT required to shovel the snow from the onstreet parking space?

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 63931 wrote:

. In which matter it is NO different from the business case analysis done regularly in the private sector.

It’s entirely different for a business decision. Government is coercion. If the government screws up a BCA, the people have to deal with the consequences. If a business screws up, it loses money.

(The shoveling snow comment is just to show that it is often unclear which way the subsidy goes when the real interface between government and private property rights does not correspond to the actual curb.)

[lordofthemark]

dismal

thought experiment

The federal govt owns a building in downtown washington. John Doe makes it a point to lean on the side, at noon, and get a sun tan. The govt, decides it will save money on AC by putting up awnings over the windows. This means John Doe will no longer get a sun tan.

John Doe objects.

He says 1. the lost of his sun tan should be considered in the BCA 2. Even if the BCA for the awnings is still positive, he has a RIGHT to the suntan, because he has come to rely on it, and he should be compensated for the loss. If there are institutional obstacles to such compensation, the awnings should just not be put up.

We can call his free suntan a “subsidy” or we can refrain from doing so (who knows? maybe he once worked for the govt and was underpaid, or he was the victim of a distorted tax or whatever.

While I wouldnt object to including his suntan in the BCA, I think its pretty clear that invoking his “property right” as a rationale to stop the awnings even if they are BCA positive, is absurd.

Yet thats precisely what we see regularly on issues of development and transportation, with, I think, alleged rights to on street parking the most egregious such issue.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 63944 wrote:

Actually that raises another point. If the on street space is your property, but with a public easement, like the sidewalk, then why are you NOT required to shovel the snow from the onstreet parking space?

1) at least in my neck of the woods it would be extremely unusual for your property line to extend into the public street
2) large scale street plowing is generally more feasible than large scale sidewalk shoveling
3) sidewalk shoveling is a safety issue, parking spots are a safety issue only in contrived examples

[Author]

Posts