Externalities — A Case Study
New York City is in the process of reviewing proposals to wire its 277 subway stations for cell phone service.
Which invites the question: are subway cars next?
Some people hope not:
“We are losing our peace and quiet,” said Miguel Velasquez, 34, of Fresh Meadows, Queens. “It’s yet another intrusion on our daily commute. What’s next, loud commercials on the PA system?”
…
[O]fficials yesterday assured riders that the public would be involved in any decision to expand into the tunnels. “That would be different,” MTA spokesman Tom Kelly said. “We’d have to gauge what the interest is.”
…
None of the companies would discuss the details of the proposals, but at least some are believed to address how to expand service into the trains at a later date.For a taste of what’s to come, longtime riders on the commuter rails say one need only take a trip on the Long Island Rail Road or Metro-North, which have become involuntary party lines despite a decade-long campaign to improve passengers’ cellphone etiquette. “It used to be you could read a book or cop some Zs,” said Gary Wilson, 36, who commutes from Norwalk, Conn. “The subway would be worse, because you’re absolutely on top of each other.”
There it is — a classic problem of negative externalities. The use of cell phones in cramped quarters imposes a cost on those who do not receive a benefit. Hence, as any sophomore economics student could (hopefully) tell you, the result will be “overconsumption” of the good (i.e., too much talking).
But since all utility is subjective, there is no easy way to balance the benefits to cell phone users against the costs to non-users. How much does Person A want to talk on a subway car? How much does Person B want not to have to listen to Person A’s cell phone conversation (or, my pet peeve, retarded ringtones)? How do you measure such wants and compare them against each other?
When the setting is a private one, the decision is (or should be) up to the property owner. This is the travesty of smoking bans for bars — there is no such thing as “smokers rights,” nor is there such a thing as “non-smokers rights.” There are only property rights. When property rights are respected, externalities become moot.
But a subway car is not a bar and is of course not private property. So the externalities become an issue. And no matter how this issue plays out, someone’s preferences will be frustrated. Someone’s preferences will be arbitrarily deemed superior to someone else’s preferences. Someone will be arbitrarily deemed more important than someone else.
Such is the nature of public goods. And bureaucracies. And politics. And that is why their presence should always be kept to the barest possible minimum.
(As for my own subjective preferences, it seems to me that if you are important enough to require perpetual cell phone access, then you are also important enough to take a cab. But that’s just me.)
Similar Posts:
- Should Subways Charge Peak & Off-Peak Fares?
- Was This Worth $1,000,000,066?
- The
PennyCell Phone in Your Pocket Rule - Transportation Bond “Promises” Already Being Hedged
- Illegal to Sell a Subway Token?
Filed under: Uncategorized
The Metro in DC receives cell phone signal in the tunnels. It's not generally a problem, since most of the time people are respectful and have decent etiquette. It's not always true, of course, but more often than not.
I do agree with you, though, about the necessity. Most calls that I've overheard aren't particularly pressing. I often think they're a sign of a person's inability to sit still for any length of time.
As for the service, I suppose it works well for Verizon customers, since it's only Verizon's network. As a Sprint customer, I can only talk on roaming, which is useless. The signal drops more than 75% of the time, usually after less than 60 seconds. When it doesn't, the interference is terrible and the noise of the train makes the call inaudible. Probably a contributor to the sparse use mentioned already…
I think the advantage of getting blackberry access and text messaging would be huge. You could allow that while still banning talking on cell phones.
The best solution of course – privatize the subways!!!
Necessary?
No.
Annoying?
Well, cell phone conversations would be no more annoying than the conversations I already overhear on the subway. Just think of all the kids on the subway who call each other n***** and you'll know what I mean.
[Kip replies: I actually find it much easier to tolerate a two-way conversation than a one-way conversation via a cell phone.]
I have virtually zero sympathy for the anti-cellphone types. But in the case of a balancing question like this, I'd always choose the option that leads to as little action and expenditure by government as possible. Which seems likely to be the continuation of the status quo. (I'd be four-square against _banning_ cellphones. But passively allowing the laws of physics to continue frustrating their use underground is just fine. The transit authority doesn't owe people solutions to their telecomms problems any more than any other government agency does.)