Municipalities sign exclusive contracts saying only your competitor can run cables in that area for a period of 5, 10, 20, even 50 years. Why, you ask? Because those companies tell the municipality if they don't agree, they won't do business with them. "Too risky. Need to protect our investment," they say.
That's strange because when the municipality decides to build its own network, the economics suddenly make sense even without the exclusive contract.
That's why all intercity passenger rail ought to be high speed rail!
The U.S. is more spread out than Europe. We have cities which are essentially islands of millions of people with hundreds of miles of cornfields between them.
We also have city pairs that have the population density to support high speed rail. Boston to NYC to Washington, D.C., Los Angeles to San Francisco, Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Portland to Seattle, and so on.
The challenge undertaken by MIT researchers is making these cars aware of dangers lurking around corners and behind buildings... This can be accomplished by compressing and sharing the data that autonomous vehicles generate while they're in motion...
So in other words, instead of slowing to what would be a reasonable and appropriate speed, the cars are able to maintain high speeds without sacrificing safety by informing each other of hidden hazards.
It's an interesting solution, but it could actually sacrifice overall safety by showing a bad example to human drivers.
In fact, if I was you, I'd take their check, and then do the exact opposite of whatever they are asking for.
Unless they knew you were going to do the opposite of what they ask for, in which case they would ask the opposite of what they want you to do. "So I clearly can not choose the wine in front of me."
You aren't paying the full cost of driving, so how can you say you prefer your car to a train?
For example, cities typically dictate to business owners how much parking they must provide at their own expense for their customers. They have to pass the costs on to their customers through store prices, which means the cost of parking is shifted from people who drive to people who don't drive.
Even as we transition to electric go carts, unless we build new and bigger highways, the gridlock to get home will be intolerable as the population thickens.
That will only happen if we keep a price ceiling on freeway travel. Congestion pricing permanently eliminates traffic congestion, even with an increasing population, at a much lower cost to taxpayers than adding new freeway lanes.
It's always amusing to hear that from someone who doesn't understand economics.
If there was a market for toll lanes that is profitable, a private company would make a toll route. Since there isn't, that means that most likely...there's not enough demand for a toll road to have faster access.
The very existence of traffic congestion (a shortage) is proof that there is more demand than supply, and if you'll recall your demand curve from Econ 101, when there's more demand than supply, the way to reduce demand to the level of supply is to raise the price. Therefore, the existence of traffic congestion means there's enough demand to justify raising the price.
Transit is an inelastic demand (remember that from econ 101?)
Good luck trying to prove that demand for transit, or anything else, is perfectly inelastic.
You can't reduce supply and expect demand to fall.
That's true, because supply and demand are independent of each other. Reducing supply has no direct effect on demand, but price does. So if you increase the price, demand will fall, even if you also reduce supply.
The fact that the roads are congested ALREADY implies there is a demand shortage...
The term "demand shortage" is nonsensical. But the fact that the roads are congested means there is a shortage, yes.
...and yet people aren't adjusting their behavior.
If you've ever avoided driving on the freeway during rush hour, you've adjusted your behavior.
I can't very well tell my boss "I'm going to shift my assigned work hours to 2 hours later to avoid rush hour" and I expect many other people can't either.
Some people can.
Others will change to a completely different shift to avoid rush hour.
Others will work four tens so they can avoid a round trip each week of rush hour driving.
Others will consider their commute before they accept their next job.
Others will change their jobs to avoid driving on the freeway during rush hour.
Others will carpool, bike, take mass transit, or move closer to work.
Trust me, demand for driving, alone, on the freeway, during rush hour, isn't perfectly inelastic.
Also, no engineer is designing roads for optimum throughput, they're designed so that they can support the peak usage, or at least come close. No engineer thinks "well gee, almost no one is using these roads at 2AM, so they're obviously under utilized.
When an engineer designs only for peak usage, he's being paid by someone with deep pockets who doesn't care about the most cost effective solution.
So, you're actually saying that if you introduce toll lanes, the demand for those lanes will fall...
Correct.
...and the people who previously had that demand will just vanish?
Don't be silly. Some of them will commute outside of rush hour when the toll is lower. Others will carpool. Others will switch to mass transit. Others will ride bicycles. Others will move closer to work. Others will change to a job closer to home.
Trust me. When the price is set at the going rate determined by supply and demand, the outcome is more optimal than when a price ceiling exists.
Here is a map that shows what is the least CO2-polluting type of car for each state, based on the source of the state's electricity. All numbers are based on a full life cycle analysis of each vehicle.
In many states, the Prius is more environmentally friendly than the Nissan Leaf. But in all states, the Prius is more environmentally friendly than any non-electric, non-hybrid vehicle.
You may be right that the tax revenue saved on freeway widenings (that will no longer be needed because traffic congestion has been permanently eliminated) will simply be used for something else and the tax rate won't fall, but that's no excuse to avoid making the most efficient use of tax money.
You're essentially taking away from capacity of a freeway...
No, it wouldn't take away capacity. The price would vary according to demand, to maintain optimum throughput at all times.
When a traffic lane is underutilized, it means the price is too high. When a traffic lane is congested, it means the price is too low. Finding the right price creates what economists call an "equilibrium" where supply equals demand.
Optimum throughput is impossible to maintain on unpriced lanes. Outside of rush hour they are underutilized, and during rush hour they are congested. This is why unpriced lanes, including HOV lanes, are inferior to managed express toll lanes.
If anything, this will force traffic density on the freeway to INCREASE...
No, demand falls as price rises. Remember your demand curve from Econ 101?
Similarly, freeway congestion, another example of a shortage, can be prevented by eliminating the artificial price ceiling on freeway travel. In other words, by converting existing lanes to express toll lanes. And with no traffic congestion, the freeway would never need to be widened, ever again, at least not to eliminate traffic congestion. (Maybe to increase traffic throughput and increase economic activity, but that's not typically the justification given to widen a freeway.)
But for some reason, suggest that the market should determine the price of freeway travel, and everybody goes nuts.
A signal jammer is the exact opposite of stealth. It would be very easy for a drone to find and destroy an F22 without human intervention if that F22 had an EM source such as a signal jammer.
This is why F22s network together wirelessly such that the F22 on the front line doesn't need to use its own radar. It receives radar data from another aircraft that's positioned out of missile range, but at that distance I doubt it would be very effective at jamming signals.
Slashdot Mirror
The Earth itself blocks more sunlight than all the clouds put together.
Reducing production when profits don't justify the current level of production is "manipulating prices"? Don't you know how to read a demand curve?
Reducing production to increase prices is "playing games"? Don't you know how to read a demand curve?
Sisko didn't even have a bridge, just an operations center ("ops"). He had a bridge on the Defiant, but so did Worf in First Contact.
That's strange because when the municipality decides to build its own network, the economics suddenly make sense even without the exclusive contract.
Did you know that Amtrak's only profitable line is also the nation's only high speed line, the Acela Express? It "made a profit of about $41 per passenger" in 2008.
That's why all intercity passenger rail ought to be high speed rail!
We also have city pairs that have the population density to support high speed rail. Boston to NYC to Washington, D.C., Los Angeles to San Francisco, Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Portland to Seattle, and so on.
Here ($20) is a great one for indoor/outdoor use. I have mine mounted indoors on the pole of my TV stand.
It's is a clone of the Antennas Direct DB2. There's also a 2-panel DB4 and a 4-panel DB8.
So in other words, instead of slowing to what would be a reasonable and appropriate speed, the cars are able to maintain high speeds without sacrificing safety by informing each other of hidden hazards.
It's an interesting solution, but it could actually sacrifice overall safety by showing a bad example to human drivers.
Unless they knew you were going to do the opposite of what they ask for, in which case they would ask the opposite of what they want you to do. "So I clearly can not choose the wine in front of me."
For those who are wondering which time zone, it's starting at 9pm EDT (UTC-4).
You aren't paying the full cost of driving, so how can you say you prefer your car to a train?
For example, cities typically dictate to business owners how much parking they must provide at their own expense for their customers. They have to pass the costs on to their customers through store prices, which means the cost of parking is shifted from people who drive to people who don't drive.
Roads themselves are heavily subsidized. Even if gas tax funds "were fully devoted to highways, total user fee revenue accounted for only 65 percent of all funds set aside for highways in 2007."
And then there are the negative externalities of gasoline usage, up to $1,600 per person per year.
If you had to start paying the true cost of driving, could you still honestly say you prefer driving to taking the train?
That will only happen if we keep a price ceiling on freeway travel. Congestion pricing permanently eliminates traffic congestion, even with an increasing population, at a much lower cost to taxpayers than adding new freeway lanes.
That means employment causes earthquakes.
It's always amusing to hear that from someone who doesn't understand economics.
The very existence of traffic congestion (a shortage) is proof that there is more demand than supply, and if you'll recall your demand curve from Econ 101, when there's more demand than supply, the way to reduce demand to the level of supply is to raise the price. Therefore, the existence of traffic congestion means there's enough demand to justify raising the price.
Good luck trying to prove that demand for transit, or anything else, is perfectly inelastic.
That's true, because supply and demand are independent of each other. Reducing supply has no direct effect on demand, but price does. So if you increase the price, demand will fall, even if you also reduce supply.
The term "demand shortage" is nonsensical. But the fact that the roads are congested means there is a shortage, yes.
If you've ever avoided driving on the freeway during rush hour, you've adjusted your behavior.
Some people can.
Others will change to a completely different shift to avoid rush hour.
Others will work four tens so they can avoid a round trip each week of rush hour driving.
Others will consider their commute before they accept their next job.
Others will change their jobs to avoid driving on the freeway during rush hour.
Others will carpool, bike, take mass transit, or move closer to work.
Trust me, demand for driving, alone, on the freeway, during rush hour, isn't perfectly inelastic.
When an engineer designs only for peak usage, he's being paid by someone with deep pockets who doesn't care about the most cost effective solution.
The researchers hired to write papers after the other papers had been retracted, wish it to be known that their papers have just been retracted.
The new papers have been completed in an entirely different style at great expense and at the last minute.
---
Mynd you, m00se bites Kan be pretty nasti ...
Correct.
Don't be silly. Some of them will commute outside of rush hour when the toll is lower. Others will carpool. Others will switch to mass transit. Others will ride bicycles. Others will move closer to work. Others will change to a job closer to home.
Trust me. When the price is set at the going rate determined by supply and demand, the outcome is more optimal than when a price ceiling exists.
Here is a map that shows what is the least CO2-polluting type of car for each state, based on the source of the state's electricity. All numbers are based on a full life cycle analysis of each vehicle.
In many states, the Prius is more environmentally friendly than the Nissan Leaf. But in all states, the Prius is more environmentally friendly than any non-electric, non-hybrid vehicle.
You may be right that the tax revenue saved on freeway widenings (that will no longer be needed because traffic congestion has been permanently eliminated) will simply be used for something else and the tax rate won't fall, but that's no excuse to avoid making the most efficient use of tax money.
No, it wouldn't take away capacity. The price would vary according to demand, to maintain optimum throughput at all times.
When a traffic lane is underutilized, it means the price is too high. When a traffic lane is congested, it means the price is too low. Finding the right price creates what economists call an "equilibrium" where supply equals demand.
Optimum throughput is impossible to maintain on unpriced lanes. Outside of rush hour they are underutilized, and during rush hour they are congested. This is why unpriced lanes, including HOV lanes, are inferior to managed express toll lanes.
No, demand falls as price rises. Remember your demand curve from Econ 101?
Yes, there are always many viable substitutes for driving, solo, on the freeway, during rush hour.
Not imposing a use tax on roads is even more regressive! As a group low-income residents, on average, pay more out-of-pocket with sales taxes for freeways than with tolls.
So if you are truly concerned about regressive taxes, then you must be in favor of tolls.
Similarly, freeway congestion, another example of a shortage, can be prevented by eliminating the artificial price ceiling on freeway travel. In other words, by converting existing lanes to express toll lanes. And with no traffic congestion, the freeway would never need to be widened, ever again, at least not to eliminate traffic congestion. (Maybe to increase traffic throughput and increase economic activity, but that's not typically the justification given to widen a freeway.)
But for some reason, suggest that the market should determine the price of freeway travel, and everybody goes nuts.
A signal jammer is the exact opposite of stealth. It would be very easy for a drone to find and destroy an F22 without human intervention if that F22 had an EM source such as a signal jammer.
This is why F22s network together wirelessly such that the F22 on the front line doesn't need to use its own radar. It receives radar data from another aircraft that's positioned out of missile range, but at that distance I doubt it would be very effective at jamming signals.
The guy who takes out the signal jammer wins.
100%.