http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1574

Quote:Jul 8 2009

The hearing that I testified at yesterday heard from five witnesses: four who supported transit as a “core climate solution” and one skeptic. I like to think we were about evenly matched.

My testimony focused on two points. First, despite increasing transit subsidies by 1250 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1970, transit travel has declined from 49 to 45 trips per urban resident and transit’s share of urban travel has declined from 4.0% to 1.6%. Second, even if we could get more people to ride transit, transit uses as much energy, and emits nearly as much greenhouse gases, as cars; and the trends suggest that cars will be more environmentally friendly than any transit system in the country by 2025.

There were two interesting responses to my testimony. First, another witness said (and I’m quoting from memory), “All he did was divide total greenhouse gas emissions by passenger miles.” A reporter told me later that it sounded like he was questioning my methods, but his real argument was that more money spent on transit in combination with smart-growth land-use planning would lead to reduced auto driving.


I don’t believe that is true (and said so), but even if it were true: can you imaging AT&T (back when all phones were land lines) telling Congress, “We want you to restrict property rights, drive up housing prices, and prevent people from living in their preferred lifestyles so that we don’t have to extend our lines so far?” Or FedEx or UPS saying the same thing today? Why is transit so special that everyone else in the country has to completely rearrange their lives just for it?

You can say the answer is “climate change,” but transit agencies and smart-growth planners wanted to do all these things before climate was an issue. The truth is that transit is a declining but politically powerful industry, and part of its power comes from the fact that it is publicly owned and so elected officials have a vested interest in keeping it going.

In a very real sense, transit is just like the British coal, rail, and other nationalized industries in the 1960s: its main purpose is no longer transportation but to meet other political goals such as keeping transit workers employed and construction contracts going to transit builders. If transit were private, no one would argue that we have to make the world less convenient and more expensive for the 95 percent of people who travel by car so that it will be more convenient for the 1 or 2 percent who travel by transit.

The other response came from the subcommittee chair, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Apparently in response to my statement that we have given three-quarters of a trillion dollars in subsidies to transit since 1970, he said, “The last transportation bill included $200 billion for highways, and all of that was a subsidy.”

The Antiplanner opposes highway subsidies as much as transit subsidies. But in fact all of that $200 billion came from gas taxes and other taxes from highway uses — taxes that Congress created or dedicated to highways as user fees in 1956.

Are gas taxes a user fee?

Of course they are a user fee. Stop there, b/c the last couple of paragraphs get nutty.

A) who is this guy, B) where are these statistics that transit use is declining. Without that information, its impossible to lend any of these opinions any credence.

Public Transit Ridership Rises To Highest Level in 52 Years (10.7 billion trips)

CTA Ridership Gain Was Highest In 34 Years

Metra ticket sales were at their highest level in 40 years during 2008

Metra posts highest 1Q ridership ever (2009)


And it may be true that public transit emits more greenhouse than cars; I truly dont know what methodology is being used. But there is more to it than greenhouse. Transit relieves congestion, especially in major urban centers. Its backwards thinking to just keep adding on an extra lane to freeways every few years...after all, all those cars have to exit off into a city center that isnt 10 lanes wide. I could do a longer analysis, but I dont have the energy right now.

And I dont understand what your stance is. So you think all roads SHOULD be privatized and tolled?

(07-09-2009 11:26 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  Transit relieves congestion, especially in major urban centers. Its backwards thinking to just keep adding on an extra lane to freeways every few years...

It's backwards thinking to keep putting everything in the same-styled urban centers. That's a big part of the problem, repeating the same problems of the past.

Here are some of the issues:

Inequitable taxes and fees in cities, and poor service provisions by city governments. Moreover, the services they do provide (schools, EMT, etc) are poor. As city officials (predominantly minorities and Dems) try to pay for social programs by fleecing those w/ jobs, and undercutting the general services, those folks flee to the burbs. That means heavier traffic coming in. That's an undeniable consequence to the political left's agenda.

Second, why are their so many institutions located in large cities? Urban transit propogates the myth that it's viable to squeeze more into cities. Take that away (and it's huge expense and pollution) and the wealth gets spread! That means the Youngstowns, Peorias and Muncies can use the infrastructure they already have. Congestion goes away b/c not everyone is trying to get into the same big city.

City planners don't get this, b/c they want to impose their version of a city on everyone.

Quote:And I dont understand what your stance is. So you think all roads SHOULD be privatized and tolled?

No, I'm not that extreme. Gas taxes are about as user-pay as you can get. Bridge and tunnel tolls are fair IF they are used only for bridges and tunnels. In the end, those revenues are pretty close to hwy costs, and if they're not, then states should raise their gas tax by a penny or so.

I believe there should be NO federal subsidies for mass transit ANYWHERE. What's a guy from Missouri get for subsidizing the DC Metro or the Phx light rail? How does it benefit some guy in Kentucky to pay for the Loop with his federal tax dollars?

If it means light rail can't support itself and disappears, then so be it. We're better off for it, that's true by definition. It's only the urban city planners and their rigged spreadsheets that say otherwise.

(07-09-2009 11:26 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  A) who is this guy, B) where are these statistics that transit use is declining. Without that information, its impossible to lend any of these opinions any credence.

Public Transit Ridership Rises To Highest Level in 52 Years (10.7 billion trips)

CTA Ridership Gain Was Highest In 34 Years

Metra ticket sales were at their highest level in 40 years during 2008

Metra posts highest 1Q ridership ever (2009)


And it may be true that public transit emits more greenhouse than cars; I truly dont know what methodology is being used. But there is more to it than greenhouse. Transit relieves congestion, especially in major urban centers. Its backwards thinking to just keep adding on an extra lane to freeways every few years...after all, all those cars have to exit off into a city center that isnt 10 lanes wide. I could do a longer analysis, but I dont have the energy right now.

And I dont understand what your stance is. So you think all roads SHOULD be privatized and tolled?

The guys name is Randal O'Toole. He is a libertarian. He works for Cato(didn't that anti-global warming a-hole from a few weeks ago also work for them? I think I may be seeing a pattern here). His ideas is in the link that follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_O'Toole

"In the 1990s, O'Toole emerged as an outspoken critic of New Urbanist design and smart growth strategies. O'Toole contends that these development strategies—in which regulatory measures and tax incentives are employed to encourage denser development, more efficient land use, and greater use of public transportation—ignore the desires and preferences of most housing consumers and ultimately waste public funds".

Here is the link to main page of the other organization he is involved with.

(07-09-2009 12:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  The guys name is Randal O'Toole. He is a libertarian. He works for Cato(didn't that anti-global warming a-hole from a few weeks ago also work for them? I think I may be seeing a pattern here).

You "think" you're seeing a pattern? Wow, you really are clueless. Several of us on this board are or lean toward libertarian principles. It's been that way for years.

And why is someone who is skeptical of the poor science behind global warming suddenly an a-hole? Maybe those of us who do science, and not the voo doo or alchemy that you prefer, would like evidence if we're going to spend billions of dollars and restrict trillions of dollars of economic growth.

You act as if you know more about this subject than the rest of us. If you have some actual facts, try sharing them sometime Robert. After all, we've all seen your opinion, you don't really show a lot of range there.

(07-09-2009 12:08 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  It's backwards thinking to keep putting everything in the same-styled urban centers. That's a big part of the problem, repeating the same problems of the past.

Im still not sure what you mean by this. We've tried the "other" method (unchecked suburban sprawl) and its been an absolute disaster on numerous levels.

Quote:Here are some of the issues:

Inequitable taxes and fees in cities, and poor service provisions by city governments. Moreover, the services they do provide (schools, EMT, etc) are poor. As city officials (predominantly minorities and Dems) try to pay for social programs by fleecing those w/ jobs, and undercutting the general services, those folks flee to the burbs. That means heavier traffic coming in. That's an undeniable consequence to the political left's agenda.

I dont know about your city, but the services here are excellent. I'll give you some personal examples:

* When some knucklehead tagged our building, I called the city and 3 days later the graffiti was gone.
* When an abandoned car sat outside my apartment for 5 weeks, I called the city and 2 days later it was gone.
* When a street light burned out, another neighbor called the alderman's office. It was fixed by the end of the week.
* Quite a few streets around here have been resurfaced in the 2.5 years since I've lived in this neighborhood.
* The city runs a rather tight ship with regard to rat & pest control and restaurant health inspections.
* Police and fire were beyond excellent in my limited dealings with them
* Snow plowing is outstanding and the fleets are usually pre-salting the roads before the first flake has hit the ground. A mayor once lost an election here because of poor snow removal. You can be sure that will never happen again.
* Though we may complain endlessly about it, public transportation is quite adequate and has notably improved over the last couple years.
* Our parks and park district are the envy of many major cities.
* Called for new trashcans, and got them in 2 days
* World class museums, many of which have discounts for locals
* A friend of mine had his first child, and the city came out to his place for free to check for lead
* You can call the 311 non-emergency number for virtually any complaint (porch inspections, rodent complaints, dirty vacant lots) and they requests are handled amazingly well. I called to report a pothole once, and the city tracks every hole using GPS, and tracks real time data on which ones are being fixed.

These are just some examples. Yes, i pay higher taxes then my brethren in the far flung corn fields. But taxes arent everything in life, and the benefits of living in a world class city far outweigh them.

Quote:Second, why are their so many institutions located in large cities? Urban transit propogates the myth that it's viable to squeeze more into cities. Take that away (and it's huge expense and pollution) and the wealth gets spread! That means the Youngstowns, Peorias and Muncies can use the infrastructure they already have. Congestion goes away b/c not everyone is trying to get into the same big city.

Why? Because they choose to. Because there is a prestige factor with being located in a large, cosmopolitan city. They are close to transit hubs, which connect them to the global economy. It is where the young college educated talent lives that today's service industry needs to operate. You're assuming that Chicago and some other small Midwestern town such as Moline or Indianapolis are equal....they're obviously not.

Heres a great analysis

Chicago: Corporate Headquarters and the Global City

An excerpt:

Quote:"Chicago is the Midwest's only "global city" (or world city if you prefer). There are many paradigms of the global city, but the most widely cited is Saskia Sassen's. The Cliff Notes version goes something like this. As businesses became more globalized and more virtualized, this created demand for new types of financial products and producer services - notably in the law, accounting, consultancy, and marketing areas - to help businesses service and control these far flung networks. These financial and producer services are subject to clustering economics, and end up concentrated in a relatively small number of cities around the world. These global cities serve as control nodes for various global networks and key production sites for these services.

Although the typical 1-3 million aspirational metros I often feature in this blog have law firms, accounting firms, marketing agencies, and banks, they mostly do not function as global cities. That is because those services are oriented towards domestic consumption and servicing the local market only. In a global city like Chicago, these services are qualitatively different, in that they are designed to serve the needs of global networks, and they are produced to a great extent for export. Columbus' law firms serve mostly Columbus and Ohio. Chicago's law firms serve the world. This also explains why the boom in Chicago's core includes employment growth, while smaller metros, despite their entertainment and residential improvements, are showing urban core employment declines."

NIU - many Southern city cores are just glorified office parks. There's no real urban core like up in yankee ville. Maybe a few high end condos, and a couple of lunch places, but we don't have real urban neighborhoods like Chi Town, or a lot of European cities.

I have no idea about the veracity of that data, but I think you both make good points.

In urban areas though the mass transit is not always very smart. For example some cities dedicate the curb lane to HOV at rush hours. But then the buses use the curb lane and HOV vehicles are stuck behind them as they stop.

Wow, Robert, you actually posted something substantive (even the results of a google search is an improvement) for once.

Cato's page on Energy and Environment: Urban Growth and Transportation.

I remember posting a link to a seminal (I think) article questioning whether public transportation in fact used more $$ and fuel than automobile transportation. By the time that you build all of the rails and cars and consider low ridership compared to capacity and high cost of operations, it's definitely worth questioning the assertion that public transportation is beneficial for the purposes of reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions.