No blogging for me tonight. Staying up all Friday night has caught up with me. I found myself starting gratuitous conversations at work just to stay awake.
This Relay for Life had one positive result for the American Cancer Society: next year I'll be sure to stay home and send them a check.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
An odd fantasy I've had for years has been bicycling to work. The idea is that I could gradually build up to world-class power and make the daily commute at speeds comparable to those achieved in flat reaches of road races—say, 20 MPH.
When this delusionary thinking began, work was 60 miles from my door. Over the years it has increased to 75. Rumor has it that in February we will move to a location that is about 80 miles. So even if I reached international status and coud maintain the pace day-to-day, I would still be on the road about 8 hours per day.
It's so cruel to have your dreams crushed by physics, geography and kinetics.
When this delusionary thinking began, work was 60 miles from my door. Over the years it has increased to 75. Rumor has it that in February we will move to a location that is about 80 miles. So even if I reached international status and coud maintain the pace day-to-day, I would still be on the road about 8 hours per day.
It's so cruel to have your dreams crushed by physics, geography and kinetics.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Relay for Life
No commuting for me today. I telecommuted (an ugly word for a beautiful thing), and my wife and I will spend the night walking rather than driving, at the Killeen Relay for Life, an American Cancer Society event.
Feel free to drop by Shoemaker High School any time from 6:00 P.M. until 5:00 A.M. We'll be set up near the 50-yard line on the school side of the athletic field. I'll probably be the one sleeping.
Feel free to drop by Shoemaker High School any time from 6:00 P.M. until 5:00 A.M. We'll be set up near the 50-yard line on the school side of the athletic field. I'll probably be the one sleeping.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
A Few Rants
You had to know this was coming.
Mr. Lane-Hog squatting in the fast lane: I can read your mind. You're thinking "I'm driving the speed limit or almost; those speed-demons can go around me; I have as much right here as anyone else; besides, it would be dangerous for me to change lanes one-handed with this cell phone pressed to my ear." Just so you won't have to read my mind: you're rude, anti-social and a menace to others.
Hey, 18-wheeler guy! What part of that sign you just went under that says "No trucks this lane" was hard to understand?
Dear Mrs. Unaware-of-her-Surroundings: When I leave 2 car lengths between me and vehicle in front of me, it's so I don't run into his bumper, not so you can swerve in between us.
And whoever you are (and you know): that cop on the side of the road giving a ticket or helping a stranded motorist, who you just sped within 10 feet of at 70 MPH, is probably a good guy and is almost certainly earning peanuts to do a shitty job. There's a law that you're supposed to keep him safe by slowing down or moving to a lane away from him. Are you inconsiderate, or just asleep?
And TURN OFF THAT STUPID DASHBOARD TV! Jeez.
Mr. Lane-Hog squatting in the fast lane: I can read your mind. You're thinking "I'm driving the speed limit or almost; those speed-demons can go around me; I have as much right here as anyone else; besides, it would be dangerous for me to change lanes one-handed with this cell phone pressed to my ear." Just so you won't have to read my mind: you're rude, anti-social and a menace to others.
Hey, 18-wheeler guy! What part of that sign you just went under that says "No trucks this lane" was hard to understand?
Dear Mrs. Unaware-of-her-Surroundings: When I leave 2 car lengths between me and vehicle in front of me, it's so I don't run into his bumper, not so you can swerve in between us.
And whoever you are (and you know): that cop on the side of the road giving a ticket or helping a stranded motorist, who you just sped within 10 feet of at 70 MPH, is probably a good guy and is almost certainly earning peanuts to do a shitty job. There's a law that you're supposed to keep him safe by slowing down or moving to a lane away from him. Are you inconsiderate, or just asleep?
And TURN OFF THAT STUPID DASHBOARD TV! Jeez.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
I want to talk about continuous narrative.
Commuting, for me at least, means listening to radio. For as long as I've been aware, radio has been divided into 3- or 4-minute segments. That's the length of songs, of news casts, and of interview segments. An exception is sports broadcasts, which have even shorter narratives: in baseball, it's the at-bat; in football, the down.
That programming probably fits the needs of the mass of commuters, who probably spend 20-30 minutes behind the wheel. (The average for my line of work is about 19 minutes in Austin). For those of us looking at a minimum of 80 minutes each way, it doesn't fill the bill.
I want a narrative that develops over a minimum of 30 minutes. Something like "Harry Nile" on XM, or some of the documentaries on BBC. I thought I had found a reliable source of such narratives on C-SPAN, but that was because I first caught them in off-hours. When congress is in session and politicians are speaking live, both they and the network understand the value of the sound bite: listen some time when a witness at a concressional hearing tries to give an extended answer; the questioner will inevitably say he is running out of time and must move on to other matters.
As evidence of how bad things have got, consider that National Public Radio _brags_ about (and asks donations because of) news stories that last 8 minutes. (I donate to KUT anyway, and I encourage you to do so, too.)
A light in the wilderness, as far as I am concerned, is the Bob Edwards show on XM 133. Edwards is more interested in his attention span than in yours, and I have come to trust his judgement. This morning, for example, he spent an hour with Michael Chabon discussing a scifi-mystery novel set in a Jewish community transported to Sitka, Alaska (where in fact the Hassidim are currently represented by one family). It was a strange conversation, but I enjoyed following it for an hour. Bob Edwards does not structure interviews as question-answer soundbites, but as extended conversations. If the interviewee isn't blathering or repeating himself, Edward lets him talk.
Commuting, for me at least, means listening to radio. For as long as I've been aware, radio has been divided into 3- or 4-minute segments. That's the length of songs, of news casts, and of interview segments. An exception is sports broadcasts, which have even shorter narratives: in baseball, it's the at-bat; in football, the down.
That programming probably fits the needs of the mass of commuters, who probably spend 20-30 minutes behind the wheel. (The average for my line of work is about 19 minutes in Austin). For those of us looking at a minimum of 80 minutes each way, it doesn't fill the bill.
I want a narrative that develops over a minimum of 30 minutes. Something like "Harry Nile" on XM, or some of the documentaries on BBC. I thought I had found a reliable source of such narratives on C-SPAN, but that was because I first caught them in off-hours. When congress is in session and politicians are speaking live, both they and the network understand the value of the sound bite: listen some time when a witness at a concressional hearing tries to give an extended answer; the questioner will inevitably say he is running out of time and must move on to other matters.
As evidence of how bad things have got, consider that National Public Radio _brags_ about (and asks donations because of) news stories that last 8 minutes. (I donate to KUT anyway, and I encourage you to do so, too.)
A light in the wilderness, as far as I am concerned, is the Bob Edwards show on XM 133. Edwards is more interested in his attention span than in yours, and I have come to trust his judgement. This morning, for example, he spent an hour with Michael Chabon discussing a scifi-mystery novel set in a Jewish community transported to Sitka, Alaska (where in fact the Hassidim are currently represented by one family). It was a strange conversation, but I enjoyed following it for an hour. Bob Edwards does not structure interviews as question-answer soundbites, but as extended conversations. If the interviewee isn't blathering or repeating himself, Edward lets him talk.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Pay to Go, Again
There is a principle of economics that is enshrined in accounting and seems to support the idea of toll roads. It is that when true costs are compared to the income generated by incurring those costs, the best decisions about allocation of resources are made.
There are two other principles that seem to support roads being funded on the public credit. The first is the idea of "common carrier". This idea recognizes the barrier to market entry imposed by the huge investment required to build infrastructure like roads and telephone lines. Although there may be private investment for such projects, the logical consequences are the same for public or private facilities: the investor is entitled to a fair rate of return on his investment; and use of the restricted resource must be allocated fairly.
The second principle in favor of public roads is that of the public footpath. It is widely recognized that there can never be a case where you can't get there from here. If the trasnportation infrastructure blocks a participant in the economy from going to a market or going to work, then that block must be removed.
What this means for Texas commuter roads, I think, is that there has to remain a reasonably efficient, generally funded, infracture for people who cannot participate economically on any other terms.
There are two other principles that seem to support roads being funded on the public credit. The first is the idea of "common carrier". This idea recognizes the barrier to market entry imposed by the huge investment required to build infrastructure like roads and telephone lines. Although there may be private investment for such projects, the logical consequences are the same for public or private facilities: the investor is entitled to a fair rate of return on his investment; and use of the restricted resource must be allocated fairly.
The second principle in favor of public roads is that of the public footpath. It is widely recognized that there can never be a case where you can't get there from here. If the trasnportation infrastructure blocks a participant in the economy from going to a market or going to work, then that block must be removed.
What this means for Texas commuter roads, I think, is that there has to remain a reasonably efficient, generally funded, infracture for people who cannot participate economically on any other terms.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Paying to Go
This is not a post about being polite and making a purchase when you take advantage of a convenience store's restroom. It's about paying for the roads we commute on, and this post will barely scratch the surface.
There are two popular patterns for funding highways. The argument for building and maintaining them out of general taxes and gasoline taxes is that the benefits are general; and to the extent that road costs are incurred without general benefit, a tax on fuel restores the balance. The arguments for toll roads are a little more complicated: one idea is that roads should be paid for directly by those who derive immediate gain; another is that costs can be reduced by financing construction based on future direct cash revenue rather than on the public credit.
These patterns are not opposites. In fact, they are very close to the same thing. Each assumes the economic value of road construction, an assumption more than borne out by the experience of the last 60 years. Both recognize the long-term benefits of road investment, so that costs are amortized over 30, 40, even 50 years.
There is one important distinction obvious to most of us every day: The public road philosophy is, at least insofar as general taxes, is "whether or not you pay, you go." The toll road mantra is "pay or don't go." We feel that distinction to a degree that exceeds its practical importance. A consequence of the first is that a slacker will take advantage. A consequence of the second is that a larger public gain will be lost because someone can't afford a 50-cent toll. Probably neither consequence is significant.
That's not to say there are not long-term effects of how we fund (or perhaps do not fund) roads. I'll talk about some of those effects in future posts.
There are two popular patterns for funding highways. The argument for building and maintaining them out of general taxes and gasoline taxes is that the benefits are general; and to the extent that road costs are incurred without general benefit, a tax on fuel restores the balance. The arguments for toll roads are a little more complicated: one idea is that roads should be paid for directly by those who derive immediate gain; another is that costs can be reduced by financing construction based on future direct cash revenue rather than on the public credit.
These patterns are not opposites. In fact, they are very close to the same thing. Each assumes the economic value of road construction, an assumption more than borne out by the experience of the last 60 years. Both recognize the long-term benefits of road investment, so that costs are amortized over 30, 40, even 50 years.
There is one important distinction obvious to most of us every day: The public road philosophy is, at least insofar as general taxes, is "whether or not you pay, you go." The toll road mantra is "pay or don't go." We feel that distinction to a degree that exceeds its practical importance. A consequence of the first is that a slacker will take advantage. A consequence of the second is that a larger public gain will be lost because someone can't afford a 50-cent toll. Probably neither consequence is significant.
That's not to say there are not long-term effects of how we fund (or perhaps do not fund) roads. I'll talk about some of those effects in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)