Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Ted Balaker wonders why politicians who sing the praises of public transportation don't bother to use it.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Paul | September 17, 2007, 1:52pm | #
“But my problem is I have to go all over the city … It’s very tough because of my schedule.”That's pretty much what I'll be saying if ever asked. Thanks Mr. Mayor for a good quote.
The problem is that mass transit proponents think we still live in some kind of a "man in the grey flannel suit" era where everyone lives in the burbs and commutes to one central business district to work. That is just not the case anymore. Businesses have moved to the burbs. It makes building a useful transit system very difficult. For example, here in Washington there is a great metro system. But, the area around Dulles airport out in Hernden and Reston has exploded in recent years. Unless you live close to a metro line and work in the city, you really can't take the metro to work.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 2:00pm | #
Ted Balaker wonders why politicians who sing the praises of public transportation don't bother to use it.Probably the same reason they send their kids to private school while singing the praises of public school. Because public transportation, like public schools, usually sucks.
Highway | September 17, 2007, 2:02pm | #
Better than Balaker's previous apples/oranges comparison articles. People in transit administrations should be examining how transit could be reinvented to serve the US model of dispersed suburbs and less dense CBD's, because even if we use clustered communities, there's a lot less pressure for people to live in high densities in the US in places other than NYC.However, transit administrations keep trying to fit the same old rail line focus in on people, and they either don't recognize the scale of the issue, where their parking lots fill up and the trains are packed during rush hour and empty rest of the day while making almost no difference on the auto volume, or they don't provide what more people need, putting stations outside of realistic walking distance for most folks, but within some 'population radius'.
And the answer isn't buses. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that what we have does not suit what people want to do, even if you could have more dense 'walkable neighborhoods'. You can't run the rail line to every neighborhood around a major city. The distances are just too large, the costs too great. And if you don't keep people from getting in their vehicles, you're not going to get them out of them.
J sub D | September 17, 2007, 2:04pm | #
It's not that these government officials haven't used public transporttaion. They have. And found it wanting. But YOU should be a good citizen and use it. Then a myriad of problems will go away!Trust them, They're your betters and know what's best for you. They have only your best interests at heart.
Russ 2000 | September 17, 2007, 2:05pm | #
“But my problem is I have to go all over the city … It’s very tough because of my schedule.”Plus the city apparently reimburses him for all the extra expenses of driving (and being driven around).
My gf works for the city - the city provides discounted parking for her position. And because they'll dock her pay if she's late, which only happens when she takes public transit, the city just creates more incentives to drive one's personal vehicle.
The Artist Formerly Known as Travis | September 17, 2007, 2:05pm | #
John said: "The problem is that mass transit proponents think we still live in some kind of a "man in the grey flannel suit" era where everyone lives in the burbs and commutes to one central business district to work."
Very good point, in my city mass transit designers must think that all people work downtown. The mass transit system for travel between suburbs is minimal at best. I don't live downtown, and I don't work downtown.
I think alot of politicians don't take mass transit because they get reimbursed milage and fuel. Why not take a car when the taxpayers are paying for it.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 2:06pm | #
The mass transit in my city doesn't even go outside the city line except for one route that runs twice a day to Petersburg--which isn't exactly an economic boom town.The buses here are pretty much ghetto-ghetto service, and then they wonder why nobody except the extremely poor uses them.
John | September 17, 2007, 2:07pm | #
Highway,The other problem is that the climate is pretty extreme in most of the country. Yeah, walkable neighborhoods are great somewhere like San Diago where the climate is perfect, but what about Indiana where it is below freezing 6 months out of the year? Or Dallas where it is 95 or better five months out of the year? You can't expect people to walk for more than a block or to or to stand outside waiting for a bus under those conditions. People won't do it.
NP | September 17, 2007, 2:07pm | #
What committing to rail really did was soak up funds that could have gone toward more sensible fixes: mainly improving and expanding bus service for the transit dependent poorWait, so reason would actually support public bus service? ¡Qué blasfemia!
The Artist Formerly Known as Travis | September 17, 2007, 2:13pm | #
"Why should the shepherd ride in the cattle cars?"How true.
Randolph Carter | September 17, 2007, 2:16pm | #
Even with the quality of the NYC subway system (and I'm not being that ironic) there is no easy way to get from Brooklyn to Queens. It takes about 15 minutes to drive from Queens Blvd at the LIE to the Manhattan Bridge off Flatbush, but the same trip via public transport would take well over an hour.KenK | September 17, 2007, 2:16pm | #
The politicians don't care much for the health insurance or retirements plans of the lumpen either (at least those of the proles lucky enough to have them).The politicians are the new nobility, living high off the hog while the common folk scramble for an occasional bit of sausage.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Randolph--Has anyone figured out why on earth even the New York City mass transit system, with a massive ridership and fees that aren't exactly cheap, isn't able to turn a profit?
Brandybuck | September 17, 2007, 2:19pm | #
For example, here in Washington there is a great metro system. But, the area around Dulles airport out in Hernden and Reston has exploded in recent years. Unless you live close to a metro line and work in the city, you really can't take the metro to work.But it's great for tourists. They can stay at a hotel in Reston or Fairfield, then take the metro into the city where all the touristy stuff is. But unless you're a bureaucrat, you probably don't work there.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 2:23pm | #
So, uh, what mode of transportion isn't public?I've decided Dan T isn't a troll. He is an idiot savant.
95% of what he posts is pure drivel. The other 5% is drop-dead funny.
This one is part of the 95%.
Bike boy | September 17, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson has participated in Ride Your Bike To Work day.My retinas nearly melted from the sight of him in bike shorts; but I think I will recover.
grumpy realist | September 17, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Right now Chicago is going through a public transit meltdown because the legislators refused to allocate sufficient funds. Small sales tax increase in Cook County, which is where the money would have been spent. As quite a few people have pointed out, this is bloody illogical. The amount of increase-in-sales tax per year is far less than one taxicab ride.I like public transportation because if it's a train, I have the choice between a squashed railway car and getting to my place on time, or taking my own car and sitting in traffic for 30 minutes or more. After having lived in Tokyo for over a decade, let me tell you that the damn city would not run if it were not for public transportation--there is NO WAY that the same amount of population could get around via car on the presently existing roads.
And Ted Balaker should go talk to some politicians in Boston. Everyone goes around by the T--mainly because the system has been well-designed, the bus stops hook up with the subway lines, and I'm damned if I'm going to freeze my tush walking over Harvard Bridge in a Boston winter.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Has anyone figured out why on earth even the New York City mass transit system, with a massive ridership and fees that aren't exactly cheap, isn't able to turn a profit?Probably for the same reason the interstate highway system doesn't turn a profit.
John | September 17, 2007, 2:24pm | #
"They can stay at a hotel in Reston or Fairfield, then take the metro into the city where all the touristy stuff is"There isn't any metro in Reston. The orange line goes straight west to Vienna and the Yellow and Blue lines go southwest to Alexandria and points beyond. The northwest burbs are pretty much either bus or car.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 2:25pm | #
I've decided Dan T isn't a troll. He is an idiot savant.95% of what he posts is pure drivel. The other 5% is drop-dead funny.
This one is part of the 95%.
Why? I'm asking a question. Perhaps there are people out there who get around entirely on their own dime that I don't know about.
Episiarch | September 17, 2007, 2:26pm | #
Has anyone figured out why on earth even the New York City mass transit system, with a massive ridership and fees that aren't exactly cheap, isn't able to turn a profit?The transportation worker's union is a big cause. They have very nice salaries, fantastic benefits, the usual government union crap. The strike at the end of 2005 was over a number of things, but a big part was them actually having to pay a tiny percentage of their health premiums. However, once the details of average salary and benefits were in the paper and being read by people who made less and couldn't get to work because of the strike, public support went through the floor.
Also, the subway routes in the boroughs have far less ridership than Manhattan.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 2:26pm | #
Probably for the same reason the interstate highway system doesn't turn a profit.Except I-95 doesn't charge me $2.50 every time I drive on it, and the Department of Transportation doesn't list turning a profit on the IHS as one of their goals.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Also, the subway routes in the boroughs have far less ridership than Manhattan.Could have fooled me, I've been to NYC several times and whether I'm in Manhattan, Brooklyn, or Queens I've never seen a subway car thats seems uncrowded.
Of course anything would seem crowded when compared to the ridership of the Richmond bus system.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | September 17, 2007, 2:31pm | #
"Probably for the same reason the interstate highway system doesn't turn a profit."Depending on how you look at it, it does. I think one can make a compelling argument that construction of the IHS has greatly improved U.S. productivity and economic efficiency. In other words, Dan, if we could turn back time I would argue that this public investment would generate far more than its cost in private economic benefit. While not a profit in the traditional sense, I would call the IHS a good investment.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 2:35pm | #
I like public transportation because if it's a train, I have the choice between a squashed railway car and getting to my place on time, or taking my own car and sitting in traffic for 30 minutes or more. After having lived in Tokyo for over a decade, let me tell you that the damn city would not run if it were not for public transportation--there is NO WAY that the same amount of population could get around via car on the presently existing roads.Yeah, every time I'm sitting in my personal little metal box in traffic I seriously wonder why Americans put up with it. We talk about how expensive and inefficent mass transit is but how much time and money is wasted by having millions of people trapped in gridlock? Not to mention the waste of fuel, pollution, traffic accidents, road rage, etc.
With the resources we have in America, we could establish a real kick-ass mass transit system if we put our minds to it. And with the worldwide supply of oil dwindling I have a feeling we'll wish that we had.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 2:38pm | #
The transportation worker's union is a big cause. They have very nice salaries, fantastic benefits, the usual government union crap.This pretty much sums up the libertarian attitude in a nutshell. The horror of workers getting a good salary and benefits. Why aren't we exploiting these people a little better?
iih | September 17, 2007, 2:38pm | #
I used the Portland, OR transit system a couple of years ago and it was really nice. Just a word of honesty. And it is probably the rare exception, and God knows how good it is today or in the future. And, still, there are those who paid for it but have absolutely no need to use it.robc | September 17, 2007, 2:39pm | #
I think one can make a compelling argument that construction of the IHS has greatly improved U.S. productivity and economic efficiency. In other words, Dan, if we could turn back time I would argue that this public investment would generate far more than its cost in private economic benefit.Its tough to prove either way, but I would bet you are wrong. I will claim that the same money, left in the hands of the taxpayers would have generated more productivity and economic efficiency.
Ditto NASA. Yes, some great Tech came out of the space program, but what didnt get invented because that money was out of the taxpayers pockets?
Because you cant disprove it, Im claiming that without the IHS or NASA, we would now have flying cars.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 2:39pm | #
Depending on how you look at it, it does. I think one can make a compelling argument that construction of the IHS has greatly improved U.S. productivity and economic efficiency. In other words, Dan, if we could turn back time I would argue that this public investment would generate far more than its cost in private economic benefit. While not a profit in the traditional sense, I would call the IHS a good investment.I agree it was a good investment, but the same could be said about the NYC transit system.
Surely even you guys don't think that city could function without subways and buses?
Episiarch | September 17, 2007, 2:40pm | #
Could have fooled me, I've been to NYC several times and whether I'm in Manhattan, Brooklyn, or Queens I've never seen a subway car thats seems uncrowded.Sure, if you go Brooklyn Heights or Yankee Satadium. Take it all the way out to Rockaway or Kew Gardens and see how many people are still on it. The lines go all the way out, riders or not. Just make sure you bring a book because it'll take you an hour to hour and a half.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 2:40pm | #
With the resources we have in America, we could establish a real kick-ass mass transit system if we put our minds to it. And with the worldwide supply of oil dwindling I have a feeling we'll wish that we had.Mass transit systems can be quite effective in urban settings and between urban settings. In the US, that might cover 10-20% of the land mass and 40-50% of the population.
The population densities along the coasts is approximately the same as Europe and Asia where heavily-subsidized mass transit system work reasonably well.
But for the vast majority of the land mass of the US, these system are not efficient in any way.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 2:41pm | #
This pretty much sums up the libertarian attitude in a nutshell. The horror of workers getting a good salary and benefits. Why aren't we exploiting these people a little better?Another 95 percenter. Wrong on many levels, and not entertaining in the least bit.
robc | September 17, 2007, 2:43pm | #
A few years ago, I spent 7 months at a client site downtown in my hometown. My commute from suburbs to downtown was 30 mins, 40 if raining. I hated it. I dont understand people willing to commute for longer than that.As already pointed out, if more people do what I do, live and work in suburbs (10 min commute), mass transit doesnt make a lot of sense.
Episiarch | September 17, 2007, 2:43pm | #
Another 95 percenter.Well, you're only going to get one good one out of twenty by your own math, so you best be patient.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 2:44pm | #
Sure, if you go Brooklyn Heights or Yankee Satadium. Take it all the way out to Rockaway or Kew Gardens and see how many people are still on it. The lines go all the way out, riders or not. Just make sure you bring a book because it'll take you an hour to hour and a half.The only line I went really far out on was the one to Flushing. It was still pretty packed. I can't remember if thats where the line ends or not though.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 2:45pm | #
This pretty much sums up the libertarian attitude in a nutshell. The horror of workers getting a good salary and benefits. Why aren't we exploiting these people a little better?Another 95 percenter. Wrong on many levels, and not entertaining in the least bit.
Still waiting to hear from you as to what forms of transportion are not public.
robc | September 17, 2007, 2:49pm | #
Still waiting to hear from you as to what forms of transportion are not public.Indiana East-West Toll Road
Sean | September 17, 2007, 2:50pm | #
I used to live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. It was an hour to work, at 1 Penn Plaza. The whole trip was maybe 7 or 8 miles.Now I'm almot 60 miles east out on long island, I take the LIRR and I'm at work in an hour and a half.
So uh, yea. As much as I like it in NYC, I like the trees out here.
prolefeed | September 17, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Yeah, every time I'm sitting in my personal little metal box in traffic I seriously wonder why Americans put up with it. We talk about how expensive and inefficent mass transit is but how much time and money is wasted by having millions of people trapped in gridlock?It's called "revealed preference" in economics jargon, Dan. Good economists ignore what people say they want and concentrate on what they do. You're voting against mass transit by driving your "little metal box". If you thought the mass transit alternative was better, you'd be taking it -- just like the hypocritical folks in the article.
gorgonzola's foil | September 17, 2007, 2:54pm | #
"the Department of Transportation doesn't list turning a profit on the IHS as one of their goals"Well, that's the trillion dollar problem libertarians have when addressing transportation issues. If all environmental externalities were accurately costed (including transferring particulate pollution from dense population areas - city streets - to sparse population areas - generating stations), would running electric Budd Silverliners, trolley cars or trolley buses over select routes be a net win for the economy?
Do you have any issues with free school buses? I used to, but I don't any more.
Jose, are you willing to give similar credit to transit systems for any increase in value in real estate for access to transit?
prolefeed | September 17, 2007, 2:55pm | #
I agree it was a good investment, but the same could be said about the NYC transit system.Surely even you guys don't think that city could function without subways and buses?
It would function much better with privately-owned subways and buses and jitneys (though I suspect no one could make the subways a profitable venture).
Episiarch | September 17, 2007, 2:55pm | #
The only line I went really far out on was the one to Flushing. It was still pretty packed. I can't remember if thats where the line ends or not though.Flushing is pretty far out and it is the end of the line, but that's also a line with LaGuardia and Shea on it.
I took the green line a few times from my apartment in the Upper East Side to King's County Hopspital in Brooklyn where I worked. Took me over an hour. Driving, even with traffic, was 40 minutes. I drove.
robc | September 17, 2007, 2:56pm | #
Not a form of transportation.If you are going to be that way:
Walking isnt public, I own my feet.
Ditto bikes.
Ditto cars.
Ditto private planes.
Ditto private buses.
Ditto private trains.
Ditto skateboards.
Ditto unicycles.
Ditto pogo sticks.
Ditto camels.
Ditto llamas (and [privately owned]lamas and lllamas)
Ditto alpacas.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 2:57pm | #
Still waiting to hear from you as to what forms of transportion are not public.Many great styles of humor are based on the context-sensitive nature of language.
Here you are riffing on "public transportation" and "transportation that is not public".
Unfortunately, you were not attempting a joke. So we have to ask?
Is Dan so stupid that he thinks these two phrases are equivalent?
Or is Dan just being a prick?
If I were you I would plead stupidity, because it is not as great a character flaw.
prolefeed | September 17, 2007, 2:57pm | #
Do you have any issues with free school buses? I used to, but I don't any more.I have issues with both the "free" government-run buses and the "free" government-run schools they go to. Privatize both and you'd get better service at about half the cost.
Fred | September 17, 2007, 2:58pm | #
To restate the incredibly obvious, the average public transit system works well for those it works for, and fails fails miserably for those it doesn't. That is, if you live in an urban center and travel to somewhere else in an urban center, or if you travel in a straight line from the inner suburbs to downtown, you probably like transit. If you travel suburb-to-suburb, or drop the kids off on the way in or have to travel during the day, it doesn't work and it never will work.Plus, transit users hate buses, and who could blame them? Transit systems also don't scale well - once you fill up the rail cars, the incremental cost of serving a passenger is a whole lot more than two bucks. When I was in DC, I used Metro, even though it mean driving to a Yellow line station, transferring to the Blue line and walking about a mile at the other end, because the train didn't take that much longer than driving and I could sit and read on the way. Then Metro cut the number of trains and increased the number of four-car trains, and the hour commute became an hour-and-a-half of life in a cattle car, and the 45 minutes in my car looked a lot better.
Episiarch | September 17, 2007, 2:58pm | #
It would function much better with privately-owned subways and buses and jitneys (though I suspect no one could make the subways a profitable venture).There are private bus lines (I am not sure how much in bed with the MTA they are, though), and all the ferries are private, if I recall correctly.
However, the dead hand of government weighs on everything private. Taxi medallions are crazy expensive ($250,000), for instance.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:00pm | #
It's called "revealed preference" in economics jargon, Dan. Good economists ignore what people say they want and concentrate on what they do. You're voting against mass transit by driving your "little metal box". If you thought the mass transit alternative was better, you'd be taking it -- just like the hypocritical folks in the article.You're right, in a way. I "choose" to drive because my city's mass transit system does not meet my needs. So I'm saying we need to make mass transit better.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:03pm | #
Many great styles of humor are based on the context-sensitive nature of language.Here you are riffing on "public transportation" and "transportation that is not public".
Unfortunately, you were not attempting a joke. So we have to ask?
Is Dan so stupid that he thinks these two phrases are equivalent?
Or is Dan just being a prick?
If I were you I would plead stupidity, because it is not as great a character flaw.
Carrick, the point (as I suspect you know) is that even "private" transportation like cars takes place on public roads.
Legate Damar | September 17, 2007, 3:04pm | #
I used to live in the SF Bay Area, on the peninsula, which is pretty much the seventh level of hell for mass transit. When I moved to the DC area, I was stunned at how minimally acceptable the Metro was. If I worked anywhere near a station, I'd be tempted to use it.Similarly, there's a self-selection issue with finding pols on mass transit. Those who seek power also tend to value the privilege that goes with it. Rare, indeed, is the society in which mass transit is considered a privilege.
Cesar | September 17, 2007, 3:06pm | #
When I moved to the DC area, I was stunned at how minimally acceptable the Metro was. If I worked anywhere near a station, I'd be tempted to use it.Too bad most of the growth is in Northern Virginia, which is probably the second worst place in the nation to drive next to Greater Los Angeles.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:06pm | #
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 3:07pm | #
You're right, in a way. I "choose" to drive because my city's mass transit system does not meet my needs. So I'm saying we need to make mass transit better.And yet, whenever public transit measures find their way onto the ballot, the two largest voting blocks are "I don't want to pay for that" versus "I'll pay for that so silly schmucks will take public transit and leave more room on the freeway for me!"
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:08pm | #
the point (as I suspect you know) is that even "private" transportation like cars takes place on public roads.So, you cant combine "private" vehicles with me listing a "private" road and figure out that is private transportation. Idiot.
You really should go back to non-troll mode. I guess you dont enjoy life unless people actually respond to you though.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 3:08pm | #
Carrick, the point (as I suspect you know) is that even "private" transportation like cars takes place on public roads.Yes, but the discussion is about "public transportation" which has a fairly specific meaning.
The carriage of private vehicle on public roads in not really relevant to the discussion at hand. So your post is a distraction at best or manipulative attempt to obscure the discussion at worst.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:12pm | #
So, you cant combine "private" vehicles with me listing a "private" road and figure out that is private transportation. Idiot.Okay, you got me. If there's anybody in America who gets where they need to go in a private car only on private roads then I tip my hat to 'em.
(Of course, the Indiana East-West Toll Road is owned by the government so that doesn't really count anyway).
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:14pm | #
So your post is a distraction at best or manipulative attempt to obscure the discussion at worst.Or, it serves to remind everybody who is against "public transportation" that it's all public to some degree or another.
gorgonzola's foil | September 17, 2007, 3:17pm | #
Prolefeed,I don't even have a problem any more with the $1 million spent by my childhood public school district on busing around private school kids (a statewide legal requirement). I have problems with how the district is financed on real estate tax, and I know that school privitization would change school locations, and thus impact transportation patterns, presumably for the more efficient. But given the way systems stand, I see a net economic and environmental benefit if the district spends $1M operating a 70 bus fleet instead of there being 10,000 extra 20 minute private car trips for 180 days a year.
Geotpf | September 17, 2007, 3:17pm | #
In dense areas, or if there is an attempt to get more people to use transportation, rail makes a lot of sense over buses (that is, it's basically impossible for a bus to be faster than a car (unless you set aside bus-only lanes), but it's not impossible for a subway or heavy rail system to be so, or at least be close enough for some richer people to make the switch).Of course, public transportation has enviromental benefits as well (fewer cars on the road means less pollution and greenhouse gases). Plus, it provides mobility to the poor and those who can't drive (the very old, the very young, and the handicapped), but if those are the only people one is aiming for, buses are probably all that's needed.
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 3:18pm | #
the point (as I suspect you know) is that even "private" transportation like cars takes place on public roads.Gasoline taxes at the state and federal level pay for around 80% of road costs. And there is little doubt given the lack of elasticity of driving to rising gas prices that there remains a massive consumer surplus to driving.
So is there any question that if you made every road a toll road and covered its costs with fees on its users that virtually every road could pay for itself?
Roads are "public" only in the sense that they are provided by the government. They are not "public" in the sense that the public must pay for them. Public transportation, on the other hand, appears to virtually always require public funding.
joe | September 17, 2007, 3:18pm | #
95% of the peak hour trips into and out of Manhattan are on public transit. That's not because New Jersyites and Lon Gislanders are better people than the rest of the country, but because the designs of the communities and region makes that the most convenient, cost-effective choice.Mike P,
Isn't reducing traffic congestion for non-transit riders a worthwhile goal?
MP | September 17, 2007, 3:19pm | #
With the resources we have in America, we could establish a real kick-ass mass transit system if we put our minds to it. And with the worldwide supply of oil dwindling I have a feeling we'll wish that we had.That's simply not true. No amount of spending will make mass transit a preferred option for a vast majority of this country. Only pain works. Until people have enough of an incentive to live in high density areas, most will desire to live in low density areas. If you really wanted mass transit to be the preferred option, you would:
1) Impose a $3/gallon gas tax (or keep waiting around for Peak Oil).
2) Remove all zoning restrictions on high density housing.
Neither will ever be politically feasible. Mass transit people should give it up already.
joe | September 17, 2007, 3:20pm | #
Gasoline taxes at the state and federal level pay for around 80% of road costs.Those taxes pay for around 80% of the MAINTENANCE COSTS of the roads.
Capital costs are paid almost entirely from other revenue sources.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:21pm | #
Roads are "public" only in the sense that they are provided by the government. They are not "public" in the sense that the public must pay for them.Well, who pays for them if not the public?
Why is a gasoline tax different from any other tax? I still help pay for roads that I never drive on, and others who never drive on the roads I use help pay for them.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 3:22pm | #
Or, it serves to remind everybody who is against "public transportation" that it's all public to some degree or another.Stating the obvious is not a public service.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:25pm | #
For the next 75 years, IN E-W "belongs" to a private company. Ditto 99 years and Chicago skyway.Yes, the state owns them. It is just a lease. But all maintenance is provided by the private company for the forseeable future. If you want to call it privatized instead of private, Im okay with that, but its not public.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:25pm | #
MP: peak oil is the real wild card in all this. You're right that people will not embrace mass transit until personal transit becomes too expensive. The problem is that a mass transit system takes a while to develop and so you have to start on it before it's needed.As I mentioned earlier, Americans will endure quite a bit of stress, expense, and wasted time to preserve car culture. But eventually the common man will no longer be able to afford to drive everywhere.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:27pm | #
For the next 75 years, IN E-W "belongs" to a private company. Ditto 99 years and Chicago skyway.Yes, the state owns them. It is just a lease. But all maintenance is provided by the private company for the forseeable future. If you want to call it privatized instead of private, Im okay with that, but its not public.
A true private road would be one where a company purchases all the land it needs at market value, builds the road at its expense, and then charges customers whatever price they can agree to in order to drive it.
Maybe someday this will happen. I doubt it, though.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:28pm | #
Dan T.,Dulles Greenway is privately owned, not just privatized.
Same company as Chicago Skyway and IN Toll Road.
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 3:29pm | #
Dan T.,You have aggressively missed the point.
It is entirely out of my control who pays for the roads. But all the evidence tells me that, if the users paid for the exact roads they used via transponder toll or the like, the roads would support themselves.
The historical accident that makes the roads public in no way refutes the conclusion that the roads could pay for themselves privately. Thus the fact that they are public is quite irrelevant when discussing public transportation.
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 3:30pm | #
Isn't reducing traffic congestion for non-transit riders a worthwhile goal?Perhaps. But building more transit is, in most parts of the country, a very expensive way to achieve it.
An Ottawa Reader | September 17, 2007, 3:31pm | #
Except I-95 doesn't charge me $2.50 every time I drive on it, and the Department of Transportation doesn't list turning a profit on the IHS as one of their goals.Exactly. Maybe they should. It would cut down on congestion, that's for sure.
Why is it that people grumble about subsidies to public transport, while untold billions of their dollars have been spent on paved roads for automobile drivers to use (invariably) free of charge? That's a subsidy to the auto industry of biblical proportions.
What, do you suppose, would North America would look like today if both provision of paved roads and of public transport had been left to private enterprise (as all good libertarians should insist upon)? Discuss.
joe | September 17, 2007, 3:32pm | #
Phrasing the point as Remove all zoning restrictions on high density housing. is an effort to steal bases, but the reform of planning and zoning laws to undo the aritifical dispersion and auto-dependency imposed by the decades-long enforcement of the sprawl model is something that's going to have to happen to make expanded transit feasible.If you look at the skyline of Toronto, it looks like an EKG, with blips of highrises around each transit station as you go out of the urban core.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:33pm | #
An ottawa reader,What, do you suppose, would North America would look like today if both provision of paved roads and of public transport had been left to private enterprise (as all good libertarians should insist upon)? Discuss.
I covered this above. Freakin' Flying Cars!!!!
Thats my guess.
Geotpf | September 17, 2007, 3:33pm | #
The government owns half the transportation system in refrence to cars. That is, it owns the roads, but not the vehicle itself. Same goes for airplanes-the government owns (most) of the airports and pays the air traffic controllers, but the vehicle (airplane) is privately owned. It also owns half the system in refrence to long distance rail (Amtrak), but the opposite way around-private (freight rail) companies own the tracks, but the government owns the vehicles (trains). Buses and subways have a situation where the government owns both the vehicle and the infastructure.None of the above are fully private.
joe | September 17, 2007, 3:33pm | #
Mike P,Then we need an answer tailored to each location facing that problem, one that combines the different modes in the degree and manner best suited to each place.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:34pm | #
joe,Remove all zoning restrictions
I improved your point and only used half as many words.
Efficiency for the win!
hapless city dweller | September 17, 2007, 3:39pm | #
Maybe a politician once had a bad experience in which an already reeking homeless guy across the aisle on the bus shat his pants, provoking the entire busload of passengers to empty out into the freezing cold where they waited almost 40 minutes for the next bus to arrive. And then s(he) told all the other politicians and it turned them off of public trans. It turned me off, anyway, but I can't afford to rent a parking space and an apartment too.What this country needs is a Hugo Chavez-type reeducation scheme. Not to stifle thought, mind you, but to help you think critically. All good citizens must learn to love the bus.
MP | September 17, 2007, 3:41pm | #
The problem is that a mass transit system takes a while to develop and so you have to start on it before it's needed.Sure, except that any transit built now is simply a bet that it might really be needed someday in the future. And that's a lot of money to bet.
I'm doubtful that, even if the shit really hit the fan with fuel prices, that the country couldn't adapt quickly. Sure, there'd be some short term pain, but at least at that point you'd know the shit hit the fan instead of speculating that it might.
And joe, for every Toronto, there's 10 US cities where existing mass transit attracts nothing but flies.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:42pm | #
It is entirely out of my control who pays for the roads. But all the evidence tells me that, if the users paid for the exact roads they used via transponder toll or the like, the roads would support themselves.Maybe, maybe not. I suppose they would if the price was high enough, but then again if the price was high enough then some people wouldn't be able to afford it and would literally be stuck at home all day.
Of course, there would also be the problem of monopoly pricing. I'd kind of have to pay whatever price the guy who owns the road I live on wants, because I'd have no other choice.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:45pm | #
MP,for every Toronto, there's 10 US cities where existing mass transit attracts nothing but flies.
Based on a study I recently saw (maybe posted on H&R?), that isnt true. Mass transit stations cause an increase of usage among residents around the station. However, it doesnt increase overall usage, because the increase is due to pro-mass transit folk moving to be near the station. If we follow joe's idea and get rid of hi-density zoning restrictions (which I agree with), we will see these kind of dwellings near stations. But, it will be from people moving to the area from other areas. Which is still okay, because it thins out the area around my place.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 3:46pm | #
Of course the real answer is the intertubes ;-)Speed of light, can't beat that.
robc | September 17, 2007, 3:48pm | #
Speed of light, can't beat that.I would like to rescind my flying car answer and replace it with teleportation booths, as described by Larry Niven.
But, remember folks, once we have teleportation booths, everyone is your neighbor.
joe | September 17, 2007, 3:50pm | #
MP,And each and every one of those US cities (or regions, more likely) includes zoning regulations forbidding the construction of transit-supportive development, and/or has a core city that is itself laid out, by government fiat, in an auto-dependent manner.
Where other models have been followed, such as around some of the DC suburban metro stops, denser development has followed the construction of transit.
Tune in next week, when wacky Dan T. will get a job at a candy factory!
joe | September 17, 2007, 3:52pm | #
robc,If the city/region in question is growing, then we're not talking about a zero-sum game. Those people moving the transit district would have moved somewhere else anyway.
Randolph Carter | September 17, 2007, 3:55pm | #
I think a big part of the disdain for mass transit has to do with American car culture. For most people (myself included), a car is like a little moving house. You can smoke in there, eat food, stop when you want to take a piss, blast whatever music you want. It's a little bubble of personal space.I think a lot of people would rather wait in their own comfortable bubble w/ climate control in traffic than sit (or, if you're taking Amtrak during rush hour, not sit) on a cramped bus, train, or subway. If the mass transit system had some element of privacy or personal comfort to it, it would be a lot more successful.
So I don't really know if it's a design flaw or an inherent structural flaw that keeps most mass transit in the crapper.
PS joe - the T rules, it actually takes you where you need to go.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 3:59pm | #
Back to the original premise of this thread, what difference does it make if the mayor of LA does not personally use mass transit?I don't find it hard to believe that it doesn't meet his needs as mayor of a huge city.
And he's certainly not saying that everybody in the city should use it, except him.
MP | September 17, 2007, 4:00pm | #
If we follow joe's idea and get rid of hi-density zoning restrictions (which I agree with)On this particular thread, I offered that up first, so there's no need to regurgitate it back to me.
And each and every one of those US cities (or regions, more likely) includes zoning regulations forbidding the construction of transit-supportive development, and/or has a core city that is itself laid out, by government fiat, in an auto-dependent manner.
Clearly. Wake me up when a serious transit proposal is bound tightly to serious zoning reform for the area to be transitized. It simply doesn't happen. And it will continue to not happen because of rampant NIMBYism empowered by zoning.
Which is why I hate zoning so much. It completely destroys any natural (and likely far more efficient) evolution that would occur in a truly free market.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:02pm | #
MP,On this particular thread, I offered that up first, so there's no need to regurgitate it back to me.
Heh, sorry about that. I thought it was just joe using italics poorly again. :) My bad.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 4:05pm | #
Which is why I hate zoning so much. It completely destroys any natural (and likely far more efficient) evolution that would occur in a truly free market.Maybe, but I'm kind of glad that my next door neighbor can't tear down his house and build a gas station or fast food restaurant in its place.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | September 17, 2007, 4:05pm | #
Flying cars would be handy absent public rights of way. Perhaps the subsidy of the rail system in the 1800s or the outright public construction of the IHS were inefficient, but I fail to see where the market could secure say, over 40,000 miles of rights of way. While I may lean libertarian, I fall well short of living in the fantasy land where the market solves every possible problem. Modern infrastructure is necessary for a modern economy. Sure, perhaps if the U.S. government had not built an IHS, the cumulative economic power given unto consumers would have been unleashed in a massive road building frenzy... but I doubt it.As for public transit, the only places it can be competitive is where it can match vehicles in terms of cost and travel time from portal to portal. This can happen where parking is very expensive and where transit is faster than vehicle traffic. There are a few metro areas where transit works. Otherwise, it's just a way for the wealthy to give some of the poor a way to get around.
While Dan makes his point poorly, there is a point buried in there. Public roads should be funded by users. You could do this through fuel taxes or congestion pricing schemes. Of course, it would be nice to keep state legislatures from routinely raiding transportation trust funds. Creating self-supporting roads would open the door to increased privitization by teaching the American driver that roads are not "free." They are actually rather expensive but for those of who drive, they are generally well worth the price.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:06pm | #
Maybe, but I'm kind of glad that my next door neighbor can't tear down his house and build a gas station or fast food restaurant in its place.He also cant put a pub in his house. Im willing to take my chances.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:06pm | #
Randolph,The T does indeed rule. Between 7AM and 11 PM.
It's that "take you where you want to go" bit, and not the "private house" bit, that matters here.
The T takes you where you want to go because of how Boston and the region are laid out.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:09pm | #
MP,Wake me up when a serious transit proposal is bound tightly to serious zoning reform for the area to be transitized. It simply doesn't happen.
It happens a little, and it's happening more and more.
As far as the NIMBYISM goes, the best way to beat that is to show them success stories, which means plucking the lowest hanging fruit.
New Urbanism is selling like hotcakes. The aircraft carrier IS coming around. Remember, it took us 70 years to get here.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 4:09pm | #
Maybe, but I'm kind of glad that my next door neighbor can't tear down his house and build a gas station or fast food restaurant in its place.Since you don't own his house, you don't get to impose your own desires on what he does with the place.
But you could buy him out if you don't want the property developed.
Or you could have bought into a development with a covenant.
Or you could do alot of things in the free market that would give you some confidence that the property next door won't be turned into a commercial enterprise.
But if you don't put any skin in the game, you have no right to restrict your neighbors rights to use his property.
By the way, you're still in the 95% zone today.
Randolph Carter | September 17, 2007, 4:10pm | #
haha yeah, it's not so hot when the T isn't running at around 2 AM and your booze-addled brain thinks it runs all night like Manhattan subways...robc | September 17, 2007, 4:10pm | #
Sure, perhaps if the U.S. government had not built an IHS, the cumulative economic power given unto consumers would have been unleashed in a massive road building frenzy... but I doubt it.I doubt it too. While we might have only gotten 60% of the road based efficiency, we would have gotten another 60% (I said it would be better) thru other means, not necessarily transportation related. Maybe instead of better roads, we would have had increased productivity in computers or increases in crop yields. It would have been a different world.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:11pm | #
Dan T, robc,There's a middle ground when it comes to zoning reform. Start with corner stores and pubs in single family neighborhoods. In-law apartments. Special Permits for SFHs on 7000 square foot lots with front porches up against the sidewalk. That's how you change minds.
Perry | September 17, 2007, 4:13pm | #
The 5% of the NYC metro area is such a deceiving statistic. It has catchment area thats probably about the size of the LA metro area.If you live in Manhattan or within 5-8 subway stops on any line, you take public transit. If you need to get into downtown or midtown manhattan during am or pm rush hours, you likely take public transit. And that is because it is both the cheapest and the fastest form of transportation available to you.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:14pm | #
joe,Fuck changing minds. If it aint your property, you get no say. Period. End of story. They can deal with it.
I want my walkable neighborhood pub NOW!!!!
And, hell, a walkable McDs and grocery store would be nice too. I will put up with a gas station on my block to get all those.
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 4:14pm | #
...7000 square foot lots...Did you misspell "3000 square foot lots"?
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:15pm | #
Apartments on upper stories above the strip malls. Mix in some townhouses in a mall development.Zone some rural-density land for two-families. Farmers don't freak out like suburbanites over that type of thing, and the next thing you know, you've got a nice little neighborhood of mixed single- and two-family homes, allowing people to discover that it is not, in fact, riddled with pants-shitting child molestors.
Episiarch | September 17, 2007, 4:16pm | #
haha yeah, it's not so hot when the T isn't running at around 2 AM and your booze-addled brain thinks it runs all night like Manhattan subways...This is very true. One gets used to NY transit being 24 hours, and when in other cities, sometimes you get screwed. Like in London.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:16pm | #
robc,Fuck changing minds. If it aint your property, you get no say. Period. End of story. They can deal with it.
How's that working out for you? Changed any zoning laws to allow businesses where they had formerly been forbidden yet?
No? I have.
John | September 17, 2007, 4:16pm | #
"If you look at the skyline of Toronto, it looks like an EKG, with blips of highrises around each transit station as you go out of the urban core."So does Houston's Joe. Go to any big city in the South or west and you will see the same thing. That in fact makes it harder to build mass transit because the jobs are at so many different points. You have to build a station within walking distance to everyone of those points and that is too many, especially considering that from May through September walking distance in Houston is about a half a block.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Mike P,Easy there, big fella! Baby steps.
There's one apartment house in my city that's on an oddly-shaped 1900 square foot lot. The lot is literally drawn around the foundation.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Special Permits for SFHs on 7000 square foot lots with front porches up against the sidewalk.The quirks of the evolution of zoning laws.
There is a small strip of land in one of the local neighbors striving (and mostly suceeding) in preventing an old neighborhood from going into decline.
A prize-wining architect designed a one-bedroom house that would fit on the lot. The plan was published in the local newspaper during a series on alternative housing.
Someone tried to build and got rejected because the house didn't meet the minimum square footage for new development.
The lots is still covered in weeds ten years later.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:19pm | #
John,Do you think Toronto is any more walkable between November and March than Houston between June and September?
The people in Toronto can still drive their cars if they want to. They just don't want to, because there's a better option.
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 4:21pm | #
joe,Maybe I'm missing something, but the square footage of a single family home on 7000 square feet with its porch against the sidewalk will be on the order of 5000 square feet.
Are you saying that no one builds houses on a sixth of an acre anymore?
I have no beef against mass transit, I am not just sure it is particularly workable in most cities. You really have to build a lot of it between a lot of different points and that costs an enormous amount of money and if you don't get it right, people end up driving anyway. It is a very tough nut to crack.
rho | September 17, 2007, 4:23pm | #
Ha ha, watch him stuff the chocolates into his mouth! He can't keep up with the conveyor belt. Ha ha!Oh, that crazy Dan T. When will he ever learn? Ha ha.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 4:23pm | #
Since you don't own his house, you don't get to impose your own desires on what he does with the place.But you could buy him out if you don't want the property developed.
Or you could have bought into a development with a covenant.
Or you could do alot of things in the free market that would give you some confidence that the property next door won't be turned into a commercial enterprise.
But if you don't put any skin in the game, you have no right to restrict your neighbors rights to use his property.
Like I said, I'm glad this scenario is just an insane libertarian fantasy and not real life.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:24pm | #
How's that working out for you?Just fine, thanks for asking.
Changed any zoning laws to allow businesses where they had formerly been forbidden yet?
Im 2 for 2 in my neighborhood in fighting against the people fighting against zoning changes. Well 1.5 for 2.
One was an attempted change of zoning from single dwelling to multi-dwelling. The other was a change from single dwelling to a mixed office/apartment zone (not sure what that is called). Instead it changed to multi-dwelling. Considering the original plan was the dumbest plan in the history of developments (okay, maybe not, but it was outrageously stupid) I think that one came out okay.
Personally, I dont waste my time over those issues. Im not worried about the little things, I can deal with the current situation until we get rid of zoning entirely. I figure Im only 4 supreme court justices away from having zoning declared unconstitutional (Thomas will come along for the ride).
Gilbert Martin | September 17, 2007, 4:24pm | #
"Still waiting to hear from you as to what forms of transportion are not public."I'm waiting for you to prove that driving in one's own car counts as "public transportation".
You aren't the least bit capable of doing so.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:25pm | #
Mike P,Huh?
You can build a 2000 square foot house on a 7000 square foot lot, with the front porch on the sidewalk. You just leave a rear and side yard.
But remember, I'm talking baby steps. 7000 is a non-scary number.
John,
Cities are constantly being rebuilt. If you provide the transit, the rebuilding will eventually fill in to take advantage of it.
An Ottawa Reader | September 17, 2007, 4:26pm | #
Freakin' Flying Cars!!!! Thats my guess.Don't laugh too loud, robc--they exist. They're called bush planes. And in outlying areas where it wouldn't be profitable to build a road (not enough users to make it viable), we probably would have seen much more use of planes, as we do in northern Canada where there are very few roads.
But try parking a bush plane in downtown Ottawa!
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:27pm | #
If you provide the transit, the rebuilding will eventually fill in to take advantage of it.By the same token, if mass transit was such a good idea, someone would build a private system to take advantage of the rebuilding.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 4:27pm | #
Like I said, I'm glad this scenario is just an insane libertarian fantasy and not real life.Houston, a ficticious place in the TX
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:28pm | #
Don't laugh too loud, robc--they exist.Im not, I was being semi-serious. Even about the teleportation booths, although maybe less so on that one.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:28pm | #
robc,Good for you, but zoning isn't going away. There will never be the acceptance of tire recyclers next to single family homes. Utopianism is fine as a thought exercise, but in practice, we need the incremental improvements you've fought for. We need answers that satisfy people that their neighborhoods aren't going to go to hell, not just dismissals of their concerns.
MikeP | September 17, 2007, 4:29pm | #
Fair enough, joe. I was missing something.I'm not sanguine about people wanting mongo backyards with the rowhouse look in front, but I could be wrong. Certainly they should not be prohibited from doing it if they want to...
Jose Ortega y Gasset | September 17, 2007, 4:30pm | #
And how would those crops get to market? Flying cars?Transportation and communication networks are the sinews of the modern economy. A better strain of wheat is all fine and dandy by itself. What makes the wheat exponentially more valuable is the farmer's ability to ship it around the world at reasonable costs.
As for the New Urbanist dogma, I am always amused at how planners think they can impose via regulations that which happened organically in decades past.
Randolph Carter | September 17, 2007, 4:32pm | #
My family had an unbelievable zoning situation when I was like 12 years old - the family that lived in our house before us had about 12 people in it, so they set up a kitchen in the basement.The town inspectors came around for the census (I'm not sure if it was the census, whatever it is when they go around doing updates on house info), and we had to remove and hide the downstairs stove to prove we weren't a 2-family or duplex home. Bastards.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:34pm | #
robc,Ah, but unlike building and rebuilding, the construction of a transit system isn't going to happen on its own.
Houston doesn't have zoning, but it does have a system of land-use controls that, in terms of controlling development and redevelopment, amounts to the same thing.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:34pm | #
joe,We need answers that satisfy people that their neighborhoods aren't going to go to hell, not just dismissals of their concerns.
From a pragmatic point of view, (which I actually think my "Fuck zoning" is the most pragmatic point of view, but whatever) the fact you almost cant find a neighborhood without deed restictions/HOAs handles that "problem" just fine.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:38pm | #
And how would those crops get to market? Flying cars?With increased crop yields, local crops might be all thats necessary, if not, the farmers conglomerate might have put money into roads/trains. At least the Florida Citrus people would have. :)
Im the perfect age to have been completely sucked in by Schoolhouse Rock propaganda. I have the Mother Necessity jingle going thru my head right now. Without the IHS, necessity would have provided, and provided better than the IHS did.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 4:38pm | #
the fact you almost cant find a neighborhood without deed restictions/HOAs handles that "problem" just fine.And as I've argued before, HOA's are a form of government.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:39pm | #
Jose,New Urbanist projects are typically "permitted" through the waiving or elimination of reguation, not by mandating that type of development.
carrick | September 17, 2007, 4:40pm | #
And as I've argued before, HOA's are a form of government.Drivel is bad enough, repeating your drivel is a mortal sin.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:41pm | #
the construction of a transit system isn't going to happen on its own.Really? Why not. In a zoning free city, I can see a private bus/train/trolley system developing. Train/subway would be the least likely. Would probably need some government right of way help, but other than that it should be privately fundable, if its a good idea.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:43pm | #
joe,New Urbanist projects are typically "permitted" through the waiving or elimination of reguation, not by mandating that type of development.
The ones Ive seen have only had the regulations waived/elimination due to their being an acceptable "plan" to replace them. Not a deregulation and see what happens.
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 4:45pm | #
Drivel is bad enough, repeating your drivel is a mortal sin.Remember, if the community uses the government to restrict what you can do with your property, it's a gross violation of your rights.
If the community uses the homeowners association to restrict what you can do with your property, it's okay. Because they don't call themselves government. I guess.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:45pm | #
robc,Because a transit system in an area that isn't (yet) built to be transit-supportive isn't going to be profitable, so no one except the government is going to do it. And people aren't going to build out their property in a transit-supportive manner if there isn't a transit system in place to take advantage of.
If you build a transit system in an area that isn't transit-supportive, it will lose money for a little while, until the redevelopment catches up. On the other hand, if you build highrises without the parking spaces to fill them up, in an area with no transit, the buildings won't fill up enough to make the construction of transit viable.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:46pm | #
Dan T,We have covered this before. Contract, contract, contract!
I have a contract with my HOA. They cannot do anything beyond what that contract allows. Both my cities (and the fact that I even live in 2 cities), on the other hand....
carrick | September 17, 2007, 4:48pm | #
robc, save your fingers . . no more typingDan is immune to reasoned arguments.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:48pm | #
The ones Ive seen have only had the regulations waived/elimination due to their being an acceptable "plan" to replace them. Not a deregulation and see what happens.Sure, it's not laissez faire libertopia, but it is still the elimination of regulations. Yes, the government agreed to eliminate the regulations because they liked the plan, and held the power to decide whether or not to waive them, but waive them they did.
And if that happens a few times, it becomes a habit. Maybe there are now two models of development a developer gets to choose from - that's better than one.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:49pm | #
joe,If you build a transit system in an area that isn't transit-supportive, it will lose money for a little while, until the redevelopment catches up. On the other hand, if you build highrises without the parking spaces to fill them up, in an area with no transit, the buildings won't fill up enough to make the construction of transit viable.
So what? A single company could do both at the same time.
Also, many companies lose money for the first few years or so, if the present value of the future income stream is large enough, its worth doing.
Build it and they will come.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:50pm | #
robc,How are people who think there need to be strict and broad regulations to ensure quality development ever going to realize that there need not be if they don't have one or two or three experiences seeing developments that violate the regs produce quality, desireable outcomes?
Dan T. | September 17, 2007, 4:50pm | #
Dan T,We have covered this before. Contract, contract, contract!
I have a contract with my HOA. They cannot do anything beyond what that contract allows. Both my cities (and the fact that I even live in 2 cities), on the other hand....
But you had no choice but sign the contract if you wanted to live in that neighborhood. Just like you have no choice but abide by the laws of a city in order to live in that city.
I suppose the city could make you sign a formal contract before you move there agreeing to adhere to the laws of that city. But that would be a pointless waste of time.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:51pm | #
robc,So what? A single company could do both at the same time.
No single company has ever built a major city, large enough to justify a public transit system, let along redevelop a major city whose land is currently under diverse ownership.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:51pm | #
joe,Sure, it's not laissez faire libertopia, but it is still the elimination of regulations.
Ive watched these meetings. It isnt elimination of regulation, it is replacing one regulation with another. Because that new regulation is trendy or something.
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:52pm | #
Oh, man, now we get to watch someone "refute" Dan T by arguing "You could always move."That's going to be so sweet...
joe | September 17, 2007, 4:52pm | #
Yes, robc.It's the replacement of more-stringent regulations with less-stringent regulations.
Russ 2000 | September 17, 2007, 4:53pm | #
Most of the problem with mass transit is the price fixing. Some routes are priced low because no one would take them if they were priced any higher, others would be well-used at twice the price.Taxi service is especially fucked up: 1)to keep ragtag/dangerous operators out cities limit the licenses issued, 2) and to keep that artifical limit from inflating the prices the fares are regulated, and 3) because of the price fixing you wind up with low-quality service anyway - and not enough cabs.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:53pm | #
joe,How are people who think there need to be strict and broad regulations to ensure quality development ever going to realize that there need not be if they don't have one or two or three experiences seeing developments that violate the regs produce quality, desireable outcomes?
Because they have brains and can reason. Or, they could just ask you. Or me. I promise to tell them if they ever ask me.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:56pm | #
joe,You could always move.
That doesnt even work. I intentionally bought
1) outside of Louisville
b) inside another city
The city of Louisville still fricking annexed me. I now get to pay taxes to TWO cities.
Sorry, now Im truly pissed off. Democracy doesnt work.
robc | September 17, 2007, 4:57pm | #
joe,It's the replacement of more-stringent regulations with less-stringent regulations.
Yep, and even though they are mixed use neighborhoods, I still cant buy a house in it and turn it into a pub, or McDonalds or gas station. I dont see it as an improvement.
MP | September 17, 2007, 5:00pm | #
joe,The other issue is that mass transit is typically sold as a way to improve current issues, which is usually completely false.
Consider the 128 corridor in your backyard (MA for those who don't know). There is no mass transit system that can effectively serve that corridor. The corridor simply is not dense enough. And it never will be. The only thing that mass transit would do there is to enhance options for future generations. But it wouldn't affect any current problems.
It's why I strongly oppose idiotic ideas of extending the MBTA to NH. It's a relatively small percentage of suburban commuters who actually commute into downtown Boston. The rest go to the 128 corridor, or wherever else the jobs have sprawled to.
And that's the other thing...there's still no shortage of land for businesses