Daily Archives: July 2, 2007

Will Houston learn from L.A.’s mistakes?

Posted on by
Reply

Houston%20traffic3.jpgAs noted earlier here and here, the Houston metropolitan area shares many of the same characteristics of the Los Angeles metro area, albeit with far lower density of population. Although rail transit is typically inefficient in areas of relatively low density of population, that has not stopped Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority from spending enormous sums on inefficent light rail for Houston and proposing even more. One of the common rationalizations used by Metro for such boondoggles is that the transit lines will promote development of more densely-populated housing around the rail lines that will ultimately generate enough mass transit users to justify the enormous cost. Someday.
So, given the L.A. region’s greater density of population, has rail transit generated such housing along the rail lines there? Well, not according to this front page Los Angeles Times article entitled “Near the rails but still on the road — Research casts doubt on the region’s strategy of pushing transit-oriented residential projects to get people out of cars”:

In Los Angeles alone, billions of public and private dollars have been lavished on transit-oriented projects such as Hollywood & Vine, with more than 20,000 residential units approved within a quarter mile of transit stations between 2001 and 2005.
But there is little research to back up the rosy predictions. Among the few academic studies of the subject, one that looked at buildings in the Los Angeles area showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars. It also found that, over time, no more people in the buildings studied were taking transit 10 years after a project opened than when it was first built.

To which USC urban economics professor Peter Gordon replies:

I could not have said it any better. Well actually, some of us did — over 30 years ago.
Yes, it is not pretty to say I-told-you-so. But the arrogant know-nothings inside LA’s beltway (including LA Times writers and including some who still hold public office) have been confused on this issue for years. Their plans have cost billions and, along the way, made traffic much worse. It was exactly the sort of fatal conceit that Hayek wrote about many years ago.
Yesterday, the same newspaper (front-page, below the fold) included “Will traffic-weary L.A. heed the toll call? … The land of the freeway is poised to become a little less free …”
What will they think of next?

Will Houston’s leaders listen? Incidents such as this do not make me optimistic that they will.

The search for a cure

Posted on by
1

MD%20Anderson.jpgYale University School of Medicine neurologist Steven Novella, the editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, provides this insightful NeuroLogica post that addresses the issue of why medical research has not discovered a cure for cancer despite the enormous resources dedicated to cancer research. In so doing, he clears up several common misconceptions about cancer and the incentives involved in finding a cure. He concludes as follows:

The overall reality is that the standard of scientific medicine is not a monolithic entity, controlled by any one institution, agency, or industry. It is a complex and dynamic set of many forces and interests. It is ultimately driven by science, which is a transparent and public process, and prevents any big brother type of control (this is partly why it is so important that healthcare be based upon science).
Cancer is a very difficult type of disease to treat, and the public has a very distorted view of the nature of cancer and of medical scientific progress in general. This has lead to unrealistic expectations of progress in curing cancer, which then in turn leads to thoughts that cancer research is somehow not working.
I find the same to be true in medicine in general ñ the public thinks of scientific progress in terms of dramatic ìbreakthroughs.î Media hype feeds this misconception. The reality is that medical scientific progress is largely a series of very small steps, with a cumulative effect of slow steady improvement in treatments. We have not cured Alzheimerís disease, ALS, Multiple Sclerosis Parkinsonís disease, and many other diseases as well. But treatments are slowly improving. Slow steady progress does not make good headlines, however, so the myth of miracle medical breakthroughs will likely continue to be promoted by the media.

Read the entire post. Hat tip to Sandy Szwarc.

An important distinction in the health care finance debate

Posted on by
1

microscope.gifClear Thinkers favorite Arnold Kling, who appears to be everywhere these days in regard to discussions over reform of America’s health care finance system, reminds us in this Washington Times op-ed of an important distinction in the health care finance debate — despite the problems in health care finance, American medical care and research remains the hope of the world:

On one side of me at the graduation [of my daughter] sat [my wife], a breast cancer survivor. On the other side was my father, whose heart condition and blood pressure threatened to take his life before my daughter was ready to graduate kindergarten, much less college. Finally, there was my daughter herself, who since high school has had a chronic intestinal illness sufficiently contained that she could graduate on schedule.
None of these three stars would have been there without medical treatments that only became available since my daughter was born. New drugs played a significant role in each case. In fact, some pharmaceuticals critical for my daughter only were approved for her condition a few years before she was given them. Drugs in the pipeline are likely to play an important role in her future.
In other countries, would the same state-of-the-art medicines and equipment have been available to my father, my wife and my daughter? Perhaps. But it is a safe bet these technologies were not invented elsewhere.
Much of the medical innovation that the world enjoys comes from America. While as an economist I find much to criticize about our health-care system, America’s role in medical innovation is crucial not just for Americans, but for the entire world.

Read the entire op-ed.