These tired talking points were refuted long ago. Fortunately, the vast majority of the population no longer parrots them. Some just can’t let go of their shibboleths, I guess.

————

Thank you for doing it, Randal. We see again that density favors transit and dense areas have less VMT.

DS

Thanks
JK

ws: You’re also forgetting the area where the banks were giving easy loans to the sprawl developers, which is basically where the market crisis originated, coupled with some other things you mentioned. Nobody held a gun to the private banks and made them make loans to people who normally wouldn’t qualify.

THWM: We gave up that bullshit on July 4th 1776.

Scott: It was government intervention that caused it. Particularly, the push for more home-ownership [to those who don't quite have the means], and the local policies that increased housing prices (the bubble) via limiting supply (UGBs & other restrictions/regulations) in only about a dozen markets.

THWM: Though that works for the far political right as much as for the far political left.

First, that’s not what I said.

It’s entirely reasonable to assume that any city would build its most profitable route first.

Well, no. It is NOT a reasonable assumption! At least not in the U.S. where transit is relatively primitive compared to say, small cities in Europe or Japan.

Most smaller cities in the U.S., particularly those under 200,000 without major four year universities, have no clue where to put productive routes in their areas, despite the fact that most urban areas from 50,000-200,000 have at least a few corridors where more than basic hourly or half hourly bus service can be justified. However, most places in this size category have simple hourly or in the better cases, at best, half hourly service on some routes.

These systems are essentially transportation only for transit dependents, e.g., those who for whatever reason–age or economics–cannot drive. To paraphrase something I heard decades ago (“private splendor, public squalor”): in this context, “poor people, poor transportation.” Such systems cannot make any significant contributions to environmental or energy savings objectives, due to low frequencies and catering far more to relatively unproductive, and most often indirect “coverage” of their service areas rather than direct “frequency” in the usual handful of busier travel corridors.

Misconceptions & little knowledge can go a long way to creating worse conditions.

The current recession is a huge example. The market & capitalism did not fail. It was government intervention that caused it. Particularly, the push for more home-ownership [to those who don't quite have the means], and the local policies that increased housing prices (the bubble) via limiting supply (UGBs & other restrictions/regulations) in only about a dozen markets.

Here are a few articles that explain:
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/inside-76904-bipartisanship-newest.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmU3OWZkMDVmZDUwNzFiZGMxNzIwOWNlZDE3YWE5YTU=
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/05/27/the_housing_boom_and_bust
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133593.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/29/the_housing_boom_and_bust
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTE0YmIwNjg1NjA1N2QxNGUzNGUyMmZiZThmN2UwNTg=
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10570
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_homeownership.html

Sure, but don’t commit cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Suppose that every city builds out their transit system until the last line they put in has a certain marginal loss per passenger that is common nationwide.

The larger the city, or the more transit it can sustain, the better its average cost per passenger and per passenger mile will be. It will have some profitable routes and some unprofitable, whereas a smaller city only has unprofitable routes.

That in no way implies that the smaller cities would be better off if they just built more transit. It’s entirely reasonable to assume that any city would build its most profitable route first. It’s far from clear (and I’d say quite unlikely) that any synergy on old routes from building a new route would overcome the fact that the new route itself is less profitable than any existing route.