MTS proves Reason Magazine wrong.
Five more letters requesting either correction or rebuttal.

Akos Szoboszlay, President, MTS

Letter 1, the most important
Letter 2
Letter 3
Letter 4
Letter 5
Letter 6


Letter 2

July 15, 1990

Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Publisher and Editor
Reason Magazine
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Sir:

I was greatly disappointed to see another article with a complete lack of logical reasoning, filled with false information, in Reason ("Autonomy" in Sept./Aug.). Articles of these types do a disservice to the free market and libertarian movements. It has lead many transit advocates to consider Reason and staff as a bunch of hypocrites, and justifiably so. Last year, I spent over 3 days writing a well-documented rebuttal to the five authors that wrote similar articles. I sent each of the 5 authors, and you and Reason staff, a copy of my letter dated Aug. 22, 1989. To date, I have not received any confirmation or rejection of any of the many points I made from anyone. Why not? I will not waste my time rebutting the recent article, even though it is just as atrociously false and illogical as Reasons' other articles on transportation. Many parts are simply absurd, stating that automobiles have reduced air pollution and improved safety (the logical alternative or competitor to automobiles is electric guideway transit, not horses which the article uses for comparisons).

Please explain why 1) I have not received a response to my rebuttal letter, 2) why Reason continues to bash transit, even if the pollution-free transit is not subsidized and is operating on the private property of the private enterprise (e.g., Pacific Electric), 3) Reason ignores massive government subsidies to the automobile and truck transportation business, 4) Reason has a double standard regarding government involvement in business: I have never seen it even suggest that roads (especially freeways) should not be government owned and operated.

I have suggested in my letter of Aug. 22, 1989 that I be sent articles on transportation for review and commenting before they are published in Reason, a donation of my time for the cause of libertarianism. It is disappointing that you did not take me up on my offer.

There is one point I must rebut regarding the recent article which states "Privatization, tolls, ... are opposed by the automobile haters". I have known many people who hate automobiles to the point of not owning one, but none of them ever opposes privatization of roads or tolls. If asked, they all support it. Privatization and tolls are opposed by the exact opposite group. People who love automobiles (because they profit by them) are the ones opposing privatization and tolls: the highway, auto and truck lobby!

I find the author's statements offensive, since it is printed in Reason. I wouldn't be suprised if the author, based in Washington DC, is a mouthpiece for that lobby.

Sincerely,

Akos Szoboszlay, P.E.
President


Letter 3

10/29/90

Virginia Postrel, Editor
Reason Magazine
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Ms. Postrel:

I enclose the Free Market for Transportation Plan, of which I was the principle author. This can be the basis of an article in Reason. To date, Reason has not had any article about automobile subsides and laws requiring automobile accommodation. I have never seen it even suggest that roads (especially freeways) should not be government owned and operated. I can write an article on these topics if you give me the guidelines.

An excellent treatise on the demise of privately owned transit companies is The Motorization of American Cities by David St. Clair, a professor of economics. Mr. St. Clair details how government was largely responsible for the streetcars demise: large taxes (percent of revenue and others); requirements for street paving (6% of revenue in LA) that only benefited the competition; snow removal from street (where applicable); hostility of public staff to private companies; regulation that required uniform fares (could not lower it for heavily used lines), often forced streetcars to subsidize buses, proscribed routes and service, and sometimes even specified inefficient 2-man operation (one man to collect tickets) for streetcars (but not for buses); government subsidized freeways that severed many streetcar lines without compensation for rerouting; the pro-automobile bias of government in street usage (e.g., one-way streets that discourage bicycle and transit usage, including buses); the terms of a renewed franchise (many expired in 1930s) often specified cancellation by government on short (sometimes 90 day) notice (and made risky further investment in streetcar tracks); the Public Holding Company Act (became effective in 1938) forced the sale of many transit companies (for example, the Sacramento transit company which was then bought by Pacific City Lines, a GM "front", in 1938); and finally, the franchise itself prevented another transit company from competing and enabled National City Lines and other GM "front" companies to liquidate streetcar technology (by substituting inferior buses) and prevented competition by much more efficient electric technology that then (after the takeovers) was not allowed to compete. The highest price offered for this legal right to exclusively provide transit (the franchise) was by the one that would profit the most: GM.

The author also details and documents how the interstate highway system (that has primarily an urban purpose in terms of usage), and laws involving government with the highway business, were primarily planned by and lobbied for by the automobile manufacturers, who faced a saturating car market (most car sales were replacements in the 1930s), and wanted to expand into the urban market (where most families did not own cars). The author laments the amount of leverage that business groups can exert on government. While not mentioning libertarianism, his treatise agrees with libertarian principles.

The book is extensively documented by footnotes. I will gladly lend you one at your request. It would be a good book for Reason's BookCase.

I was greatly disappointed to see another transportation article with a complete lack of logical reasoning, filled with false information, in Reason ("Autonomy" in Sept./Aug. 1990). Articles of these types do a disservice to the free market and libertarian movements. It has lead many transit advocates to consider Reason and staff as a bunch of hypocrites, and justifiably so. Last year, I spent over 3 days writing a well-documented rebuttal to the five authors that wrote similar articles. I sent each of the 5 authors, and Mr. Poole and Reason staff, a copy of my letter dated Aug. 22, 1989. To date, I have not received any confirmation or rejection from anyone of any of the 35 statements that I rebutted. Why not?

I will not waste my time rebutting the recent article, even though it is just as atrociously false and illogical as Reasons' other articles on transportation. Many parts are simply absurd, for example, stating that automobiles have reduced air pollution and improved safety because it replaced horses. The logical alternative or competitor to automobiles is electric guideway transit, not horses. (The fact that streetcars carried more people than automobiles at that time in urban areas proves that this form of transportation cannot be ignored as an alternative to horses).

Would you respond to each of the 35 rebuttal points in my letter of Aug. 22, 1989 (enclosed)?

There is one point I must rebut regarding the recent Reason article which states "Privatization [of roads], tolls, ... are opposed by the automobile haters". I have known many people who hate automobiles to the point of not owning one, but none of them ever opposes either privatization or tolls. If asked, they all support it. Privatization and tolls are opposed by the exact opposite group: those who love automobiles (because they profit by it). It was (primarily) the automobile manufacturing lobby, not automobile haters, that both promoted government ownership of the interstate highway system (with a mostly urban usage and purpose) and opposed charging tolls. Mr. St. Clair has exquisite chapters on this in his book (see above). In other words, the auto manufactures were responsible for the lack of privatization and lack of tolls for the interstate highway system. Yet, the article in Reason accuses the opposite group, "automobile haters" (transit advocates?), of opposing privatization and tolls!

As a libertarian and transit advocate (both are completely compatible), I find the author's statements offensive,. I wouldn't be surprised if the author, based in Washington DC, is a mouthpiece for that lobby.

I have suggested in my letter of Aug. 22, 1989 that I be sent articles on transportation for review and commenting before they are published in Reason, a donation of my time for the cause of libertarianism. It is disappointing that you did not yet take me up on my offer. Would you do so in the future?

Sincerely,

Akos Szoboszlay

attachment: my letter of Aug. 22, 1989

enclosed: Free Market for Transportation Plan and Conflict of Transportation Competitors


Letter 4

11/22/90

Virginia Postrel, Editor
Reason Magazine
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 1062

Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Ms. Postrel:

I enclose an Op-Ed piece from the San Jose Mercury News, "For fiscal and ecological health, take autos off welfare". This is the type of article that Reason needs to have on transportation. Much greater detail is provided in the Free Market for Transportation Plan, which I enclosed with my letter of 10/29/90. I hope that you would be willing to have an article on government subsidies for automobiles, and government regulation requiring private subsidies ("automobile accommodation"). Needless to say, these subsidies are many times greater than transit subsidies. Even when calculated per trip or per mile, in most cases auto subsidies are greater than transit subsidies.

Because Reason will probably have more transportation articles in the future, I hope you will answer my letter of 10/29/90. It is admittedly long, but is extremely important for the sake of economic and historical accuracy, of logical reasoning, and more: Reason in the past has contradicted its own principles when it comes to the topic of transportation. (For example, attacking a private enterprise, not receiving any government subsidy, just because it used a certain transportation technology. Pacific Electric even used its own private property! )

Sincerely,

 

Akos Szoboszlay

enclosure


Letter 5

May 9, 1991

Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Publisher
Reason Magazine
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Sir:

I have received my renewal notice to Reason, and I decline for the following reasons:

To date, I have not received any confirmation or rejection of any of 35 the points I made in my letter of Aug. 22, 1989. This letter rebuts Reason's attack on privately owned, unsubsidized mass transit. Reason continues to bash transit, even if the pollution-free private enterprise is not subsidized and is operating on its own private property (e.g., Pacific Electric). I wrote two letters to Virginia Postrel last year, asking for a response, but to no avail. She did not even return a phone call.

Another article on transportation appeared with a complete lack of logical reasoning, filled with false information, in Reason ("Autonomy" in Sept./Aug.). The article is simply absurd, stating that automobiles have reduced air pollution and improved safety because they supplanted horses. Horses were already gone by the time cars gained number. Most people travelled by streetcar. Bicycles and pedestrians were also much more common than today. Automobiles took customers away from streetcars, bicycles and walking, all three of which are non-polluting. Air pollution and danger were increased by automobiles, contrary to the theme of the article.

Reason ignores massive government subsidies to the automobile. Despite the fact I sent numerous articles to Reason on automobile subsidies and involuntary private subsidies required by government (e.g., parking requirements).

Reason has a double standard regarding government involvement in business: I have never seen it even suggest that roads (especially freeways) should not be government owned and operated.

There is another point I must rebut regarding the recent article which states "Privatization, tolls, ... are opposed by the automobile haters". I have known many people who hate automobiles to the point of not owning one, but none of them ever opposes privatization of roads or tolls. If asked, they all support it. Privatization and tolls are opposed by the exact opposite group. People who love automobiles (because they profit by them) are the ones opposing privatization and tolls: the highway, auto and truck lobby! I find the author's statements offensive, since it is printed in Reason. I wouldn't be surprised if the author, based in Washington DC, is a mouthpiece for that lobby.

Sincerely,

Akos Szoboszlay


Letter 6

Sept. 9, 1991

Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Publisher
Reason Magazine
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Sir:

I have received my renewal notice to Reason, and I decline for the following reason:

Whenever a magazine prints an error, it has a duty to correct that error in another issue. I have listed 35 errors in my letter of Aug. 22, 1989. These errors varied from something as simple as stating the color of Los Angeles Railway cars (they were yellow, not red as stated), to the statement that "By 1944, ... LARy was a lumbering, money-losing dinosaur". The fact is, that LARy not only never lost money on streetcar operations, they were making huge wartime profits as a result of a 250% increase in wartime ridership.

These false statements were used to support the authors' attack on privately owned, unsubsidized mass transit (including operation on the private property of the transit company, e.g., Pacific Electric).

Another article on transportation appeared, filled with false information, in Reason ("Autonomy" in Sept./Aug. 1990). The article is simply absurd, stating that automobiles have reduced air pollution and improved safety because they supplanted horses. Horses were already gone by the time cars gained number. Most urban people travelled by streetcar. Bicycles and pedestrians were also much more common than today. Automobiles took customers away from streetcars, bicycles and walking, all three of which are non-polluting. Both air pollution and danger were increased by automobiles, not decreased, as the article alleges. About 5 times as many people have died in the USA from automobile accidents than all the wars combined, and you state that automobiles increased safety!

These type of articles, filled with false statements, lack of logical reasoning, and no attempt to correct misinformation on the part of the editors place REASON in the category of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. REASON is simple an emotionalistic tabloid with a target market of libertarian type people. I think it's just a matter of time before most realize its true nature.

Sincerely,

Akos Szoboszlay, PE

cc: California Libertarian


home page | about MTS | Cashout | HOV lanes | Bay Bridge | Solution | Allow Pedestrians! | AGT | letters | webmaster