« comments of the week: ideal stop spacing is 400m? | Main | should inaccessible employers subsidize transit? »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference futility, geometry, and action:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Moshe Sharon

Geometry governs every aspect of our lives and even determines how we think. The infrastructure of any transit system is a conglomeration of straight lines and arcs connecting an infinite number of points; a microcosm of the universe representing the creation of something from nothing.

Alon Levy

Honestly, I don't think the debates are alike at all, except that on both issues, Europe far outperforms the US. With health care, the issue within the US is entirely political: how to get to what Europe has while pissing off fewer than 50% of the population. It is not a technical debate, or even a technical value debate: it's more equivalent to endless complaints about war on cars. The closest health care analog of stop spacing, mode choice, and similar questions is debates about add-on insurance, comparative effectiveness studies, and whether to emulate France or Switzerland, and those involve only a small number of liberal wonks. Geometry is practically irrelevant to health care, as the differences among the various serious alternatives are much smaller than the degree to which they all outperform the US.

Andrew Sullivan's article is your standard Very Serious Person screed, complete with putting down Europe without knowing much about it. Yes, Blair and Brown increased health care spending, but that was from a very low base, as Thatcher cut the NHS budget to make it stop working so that she could privatize it; Britain's per capita government health spending is still one of the lowest in Western Europe.

Because health care is almost entirely a political issue and transit is not, transit gets its fair share of serious centrist and conservative pundits; those participate in straight-value, technical-value, and straight-technical debates and contribute a fair amount. The same almost never happens with health care, on which the serious position, as opposed to the Very Serious one, is too Europhilic. While Europe vastly outperforms the US on transportation as well, this is in part due to issues conservatives can agree on, such as less onerous regulations and fewer subsidies to automobiles, so it doesn't create nearly as much polarization.

Pat L

This is, in general, a fair point. On most issues, there is no perfect solution. There may be, given a community's situation and values, something like an "optimal" solution, but someone will always be dissatisfied. Good systems can be built to accommodate potential changes in opinion, but flexibility has costs as well.

This particular article runs into another issue. I like Sullivan, but I don't particularly trust him around spending numbers, because he is morally opposed to government debt (rather than for any practical economic reason). This is the sort of false constraint that can result in the sub-optimal policy that people are satisfied with but leaves them demonstrably worse off. The transit equivalent would be irrational mode preferences.

Jeff Wegerson


Maybe you are familiar with it.

For a while I was into alternative voting systems. It began with the understanding that majority rule was the bare minimum to count as democracy. Consensus was the maximum democracy, of course, but also increasingly difficult as the number of voters increased.

One vote and the choice with the most votes wins is represented within website polls as "Radio Buttons", for the choice buttons on a car radio.

What falls between majority rule and consensus mostly resolves into three types of alternative voting systems and variations within those.

Most common is IRV, instant runoff voting. That's mostly useful for electing a candidate within one election to avoid a second runoff election.

Next, and here we get into your territory, is Approval Voting. There you give people as many votes as choices. Then either you let them gang up their votes or simply vote once for as many as they like. On a website poll it would be analogous to Checkboxes where you can check all that apply. It's actually very simple and very robust at the same time.

Least common but supposedly the best for teasing out hidden majorities amongst varied choices is Condorcet voting. It's ranked voting. It's involved in the IRV above to a lessor extent. You rank the choices according to your preferences. Then each choices totals are matched against all the other choices in a kind of round robin process with the choice winning the most one on one matches "winning". Supposedly the results tend to please the most folks and are often less than ideal, yet good, compromises.

Them's the theories in any case.

I bring this up on the chance that you may find yourself in a situation to suggest a Condorcet process, even if only as an informational guide in the middle of the process. There are Condorcet websites that can facilitate the effort.

Condorcet. Next time there are a number of difficult choices to be selected from by a number of people, give it a spin.


Alon Levy

Jeff, the practice of consensus is such that there's never a question of how to elect a single candidate. A consensus-based system would have multiple parties at each level - elected proportionally and not in single-member districts, according to Duverger's Law. Since there are more than two ideologies, no party can have a majority, so parties have to learn to work together: figure out an acceptable status quo on intransigent issues, focus on good governance, and form ad hoc coalitions on contentious issues that have to be decided by majority. It's sort of what happens on the lobbyist and urban community activist levels in the US, except with democratic accountability.


I would like thinking that geometry, budget constraints, reality, etc., actually can define a process of developing and evaluating solution sets on a rational basis. But I think the biggest parallel between transit battles and health care is that both have debated dominated by theology these days, where geometry and budgets are abstract and unimportant compared to the moral positions people attach to their favorite solutions.

Hopefully you're right - that reality will cause us all to focus and make hard choices, but it doesn't seem as though left or right are willing to accept the constraints posed by reality in the weird climate we find ourselves living in these days.

Joseph E

Healthcare and Transit are rather different.

After a certain point, there isn't any need to spend more money on health care, if your goal is longer life, less disability, or even better patient satisfaction. Overtreatment may happen, but often makes things worse. And unfortunately, there are many unsolvable problems in healthcare. Everyone is going to die of something, so if we cure diabetes and heart disease (say, by walking and biking more!) we will live a few years longer and healthier, but then die of dementia or cancer in our 90's.

But the geometry limitations of transit, while being more clear-cut, are solveable by application of large amounts of money. If you build enough subways, you can make just about everyone happy. Can't decide on the best stop spacing? Make every subway 6 tracks wide and provide a variety of services. Want a transit stop on every street corner? Add streetcars or trolley buses on every street. Need to go long distances fast? Add a few high speed commuter rail lines.

Sure, it will cost a fortune, but there is an engineering solution, which is not possible in healthcare.

I believe this is a dangerous problem for transit planning. There is always a temptation to make fantasy maps with rapid transit lines everywhere, when the development patterns make that unaffordable. Even if all highway construction stopped and everyone started riding transit, you still couldn't justify 6-track-wide subways every 1/4 mile in most cities. Yet the theoretical "solution" is there on the fantasy map, and often the yearning for that unattainable goal distracts transit advocates from real, immediate solutions, like speeding up bus service and making it more frequent, or improving existing commuter rail to metro standards.


We must also know this: People are stupid.

It's not an insult directed at anyone.

Biologically, "stupid" is the brain's default mode. In the default position, Homo sapiens has just enough for basic survival and propagation of the species.

Getting the brain beyond stupid is the hard part. Keeping it beyond stupid is even harder.

There are other base impulses that take precedence over the pursuit of knowledge. They are: life-and-death survival, gaining social acceptance or avoiding social shunning, "the wisdom of the stampede" in light of ignorance, inertia in light of cognitive dissonance, and pattern bias.

The humor site Cracked.com has an amusing presentation with a serious tone of some of the "programming flaws" of the brain:


Beta Magellan

@Joseph E with regards to fantasy maps:

More often than not, transit advocates and bloggers ≠ transit planners.

Dan W

I like Geometry. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...