The Antiplanner

30th October 2009

The Importance of Cars; The Irrelevance of Transit

posted in News commentary, Transportation |

A new study published by the Cascade Policy Institute provides more evidence that the automobile is a key part of the nation’s economy. Though some may scoff that libertarian Cascade Policy is merely a part of some “right-wing conspiracy,” the study’s author, Randall Pozdena, is one Oregon’s most respected economists.

People in wealthy economies drive more; people who drive more live in wealthier economies. “What causes what?” asks Pozdena; do wealthier people drive more or does more driving make people wealthier? Based on his own research and a review of the literature, the answer, he finds, is “bidirectional causality”; that is, “VMT and the economy ’cause’ each other.”

Because of this, he concludes dryly, “policy interventions that reduce VMT will have an effect on the economy.” In particular, he means, reducing VMT will have a negative effect on the economy.

Pozdena goes on to discuss the implications of this relationship for such things as induced travel (if building roads leads to more VMT, then it also leads to more wealth); compact development (there is no evidence to support the idea that density reduces VMT, but if there were it would also mean that density reduces wealth); and VMT road pricing (any charge beyond that needed to pay for the roads threatens the economy).

Meanwhile, despite growing budgets, mass transit continues to demonstrate its irrelevance. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge closed this week, so everybody expected the BART line between the two cities would be jammed. Instead, reports the San Francisco Examiner, “crowding was not excessive.” Less than 30 percent of Bay Bridge commuters turned to transit, while the “vast bulk of commuters chose to drive” on alternate routes, leading to significant congestion on the San Mateo and Golden Gate bridges.

TriMet’s unreliable commuter railcars.

Meanwhile, Portland’s TriMet transit agency provided some laughs for transit researchers when its $166 million suburb-to-suburb commuter train broke down, thus forcing a few dozen commuters to sully themselves by riding buses. (Each of the 16 trains per day carry an average of only about 70 riders.)

Not to worry: TriMet has purchased some used Diesel-powered Budd railcars that date back to 1953 to act as back-ups in the highly likely event of future breakdowns.

TriMet claims the Colorado-built railcars it purchased for this commuter line “were modeled after the 1953″ cars. Yes, they were — in the same way that a 2008 Lexus is “modeled after” a 1953 Chevrolet: both autos are powered by gasoline engines just as both railcars are powered by Diesel engines. Otherwise, the similarities are negligible.

These 56-year-old Budd railcars are still in service between Victoria and Courtenay, British Columbia.

Actually, the Lexus-Chevrolet metaphor is inapt, as TriMet would have been far better off buying a fleet of 50- to 60-year-old Budd cars instead of the breakdown-prone cars they got. Budd’s stainless steel cars are noted for lasting next-to-forever, and dozens are available for sale. Of course, if TriMet’s goal was to provide decent transportation and not just spend a lot of money, it would simply use buses.

Even as it loses hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on this Toonerville trolley, TriMet is cutting bus service — again. “The purposeful degradation of downtown-centered bus service in favor of goofball streetcars and trains to nowhere marks a real decline in mass transit in Portland,” comments Portland blogger Bojack. “How the people responsible for this — people like [Representative] Earl the Pearl [Blumenauer] and [TriMet General Manager] Crocodile Fred Hansen — pass themselves off as champions of transit is beyond me. Champions of pork and condos is what they are.”

This entry was posted on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 37 responses to “The Importance of Cars; The Irrelevance of Transit”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On October 30th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Having indoor plumbing is more important than owning a car.

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 12:13 am

  2. 2 On October 30th, 2009, Frank said:

    TriMet’s a joke. This is what happens when government runs a “business”.

    Portland used to have successful private transit. Sometimes transit companies went bankrupt, but this served to correct inefficiency and poor management. Other companies bought up the remaining assets and service resumed.

    If only TriMet would be allowed to go bankrupt so its assets could be sold. A market model would emphasize efficiency, bums and drug dealers wouldn’t be tolerated, and the market–rather than bureaucrats–would drive transit.

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 6:53 am

  3. 3 On October 30th, 2009, Andy said:

    The concept that commuter rail always/usually results in a cut in bus service is a strong point. I can see a logical connection in that transit boards would rearrange bus service to feed rail lines. Do pro-transit folks disagree that this is what happens? Does it have to happen when a new rail line is built?

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 8:28 am

  4. 4 On October 30th, 2009, bennett said:

    Andy,

    Not always, but I see your point. But look at it this way. If a private transit built a new rail line they would connect it to the rest of the transit system too. Hopefully the commuter line will intersect naturally with a few/several existing bus routes. This is essentially the promise Cap Metro has made to Austinites, and thus far they haven’t violated that agreement. Unfortunately they also said we would have a fully operational commuter rail line over a year ago, and no such luck.

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am

  5. 5 On October 30th, 2009, ws said:

    ROT:“People in wealthy economies drive more; people who drive more live in wealthier economies. “What causes what?” asks Pozdena; do wealthier people drive more or does more driving make people wealthier? Based on his own research and a review of the literature, the answer, he finds, is “bidirectional causality”; that is, “VMT and the economy ’cause’ each other.””

    ws:NYC and Toyko are the two riches cities in the world by GDP. Why is it so many people take transit more than autos in those cities? Bojack is anti-density anti-change anti-everything blogger in Portland. Is he really a credible quote? I surely don’t think so.

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am

  6. 6 On October 30th, 2009, ws said:

    Frank: “TriMet’s a joke. This is what happens when government runs a “business”.

    Portland used to have successful private transit. Sometimes transit companies went bankrupt, but this served to correct inefficiency and poor management. Other companies bought up the remaining assets and service resumed.

    If only TriMet would be allowed to go bankrupt so its assets could be sold. A market model would emphasize efficiency, bums and drug dealers wouldn’t be tolerated, and the market–rather than bureaucrats–would drive transit.”

    ws:I can agree with this, but we can’t hold transit accountable as a private enterprise and not our highways and freeways. Railroads are a predominately private industry — they built America — yet they have to compete against trucking freight companies that operate on public roads.

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am

  7. 7 On October 30th, 2009, ws said:

    ROT:“Actually, the Lexus-Chevrolet metaphor is inapt, as TriMet would have been far better off buying a fleet of 50- to 60-year-old Budd cars instead of the breakdown-prone cars they got. Budd’s stainless steel cars are noted for lasting next-to-forever, and dozens are available for sale. Of course, if TriMet’s goal was to provide decent transportation and not just spend a lot of money, it would simply use buses.”

    ws: Not to spam this thread, but those railcars are in Canada. Isn’t there a “Buy American” clause in regards to getting federal funding for transit? In essence, Tri-Met was forced to buy their cars from the Colorado company due to this. And, if you have vehicles made in another country, they need to buy American parts and have them shipped to the manufacturing country which adds additional costs to projects.

    I see this as good and bad (the buy American law), but I don’t even think Tri-Met could purchase those railcars in Canada in the first place, if I’m not mistaken. Anyone know more about this?

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  8. 8 On October 30th, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    ws: yet they have to compete against trucking freight companies that operate on public roads.
    JK: Why not? Users, like trucks, paid for those roads out of user fees. (Your lack of research is showing again.)

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  9. 9 On October 30th, 2009, Frank said:

    Railroads are a predominately private industry — they built America…

    Heavy subsidies granted to railroads build America. Predominately private? Debatable.

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  10. 10 On October 30th, 2009, craig said:

    Rose City Transit in Portland went out of business because the government would not allow them to raise fares by a nickel.

    The state created Tri-Met and imposed the business tax that was equal to a 25 CENT fare increase.

    And Tri-Met has only gone down hill from there.

    Rose City Transit was a private company that paid taxes and was dependent on make the customers happy, to stay in business.

    Tri Met just asked the legislature to raise the business tax, again, and got it, again!

    posted on October 30th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  11. 11 On October 31st, 2009, msetty said:

    The Cascade “study” is one of the biggest loads of BULLSHIT that right wing “think tanks” have put out in a while. In Switzerland, per capita vehicle mileage (kilometerage) is about 40% less than the U.S., and the share of auto commuting is only 43%, with the remainder by rail, transit, walking and bicycling. Yet their GDP per capita is very close to the U.S. This means the Swiss are a lot more efficient at getting GDP out of their energy usage, which is a fraction of the U.S. usage per capita for transportation.

    In the U.S., the most rural states generally have the highest VMT per capita, but are usually the lowest income. New York City residents drive a lot less than Mississippians, and certainly are far more affluent. So it’s a complete load of crap. This sort of “work” would never pass a peer review, despite Pozdena’s credentials.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 10:05 am

  12. 12 On October 31st, 2009, msetty said:

    From a source that will remain unidentified for now, here is a compilation of VMT for each state, compared to GDP for each state. This completely contradicts Pozdena’s thesis in one fell swoop.

    It also illustrates the statistical pitfalls of drawing big conclusions from looking at just a few gross numbers such as U.S. GDP per capita as a whole vs. VMT per capita. As someone said, “the devil is always in the details.” But this sort of thing is typical of ideologically-driven “analysis.” If the data doesn’t fit, ignore it.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 11:13 am

  13. 13 On October 31st, 2009, prk166 said:

    msetty, I think you give peer reviews far too much credit. There are plenty of studies that have made it through peer review only to be published and torn apart.

    I haven’t dug into the study at hand but it definitely has a smell. For example, wealth comes from efficiency and productivity. Higher VMT doesn’t necessary result in more wealth. If 10,000 people moved to Culpupper, VA and all started driving to Columbia, MD for work, that wouldn’t make them more wealthy.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 11:50 am

  14. 14 On October 31st, 2009, Dan said:

    I see the image in FF, altho I’ve tried that tag and it hasn’t worked…lessee here

    Nonetheless. Prk doesn’t fully understand peer review – it is the standard for scientific papers and the work after that supports or rejects findings is peer review as well. Just making it past an editorial board is only part of it.

    DS

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  15. 15 On October 31st, 2009, Dan said:

    Nope. No image. Same tag.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  16. 16 On October 31st, 2009, ws said:

    JK:Why not? Users, like trucks, paid for those roads out of user fees. (Your lack of research is showing again.)

    ws:Those “user fees” are notoriously low. Roads are not subject to property taxes like railroads are. Roads consume a vast amount of real estate. Roads are also specifically designed to carry trucking freight at extra construction expense. This is not a bad thing, but the question is do trucks pay equal to what they use for roads? You know…damage to roads, accidents, special design/engineering considerations, etc.

    Frank:“Heavy subsidies granted to railroads build America. Predominately private? Debatable.”

    ws:What do you define as a subsidy? I wouldn’t consider land grants as a subsidy. In that case 100% of people living in past St. Louis are technically “subsidized”.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  17. 17 On October 31st, 2009, ws said:

    msetty:“In Switzerland, per capita vehicle mileage (kilometerage) is about 40% less than the U.S., and the share of auto commuting is only 43%, with the remainder by rail, transit, walking and bicycling. Yet their GDP per capita is very close to the U.S. This means the Swiss are a lot more efficient at getting GDP out of their energy usage, which is a fraction of the U.S. usage per capita for transportation.

    ws: And another telling aspect of comparing Switzerland is that based on all “economic freedom indexes”, Switzerland is in par with the US too.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  18. 18 On October 31st, 2009, msetty said:

    prk166-
    msetty, I think you give peer reviews far too much credit. There are plenty of studies that have made it through peer review only to be published and torn apart.

    I suppose, but I also suspect that peer review has kept far more bad papers from being published than those papers passing peer review and are later debunked.

    Figure 6 in Pozdena’s paper is a classic example of statistical sleigh-of-hand. It shows relationships between energy usage and economic activity by country–and proves the very highly generalized proposition that as per capita economic activity increases, so does energy usage per capita.

    But as I stated previously, “the devil is in the details.” Most non-economists would find Pozdena’s Figure 6 to be very hard to interpret and understand because it uses log scales on both the X and Y axes, rather than absolute values, e.g., it is scaled by magnitudes–instead of 0,1,2,3,4,… the scale, is 0.0, 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, 10.0, 100.0 and so forth.

    This misleading use of a log rather than absolute scales in Figure 6 hides the fact that, comparing many of the countries with similar GDP per capita, actual energy use per capita can vary by 3-5 times, if measured in absolute numbers rather than logorithims. Thus many European countries obtain a lot more net economic activity from a given quantity of energy than the U.S. Rural Mississippi, where many people drive dozens of miles daily to and from work, is a lot poorer than New York despite the fact that New Yorkers use a lot less energy in transportation, mainly because they drive a whole lot less.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  19. 19 On October 31st, 2009, craig said:

    A car gives you more opportunities to work at more places, within a 20 -30 min drive from your home.

    Which is better than being a slave to the Tri-Met schedule and routes, for a job.

    Cars don’t create wealth, they create more options, if your willing to take advantage of them.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  20. 20 On October 31st, 2009, the highwayman said:

    What you guys do is bullshit. You just have this jihad against railroads & transit!

    No one is saying don’t have cars & roads, but they are not the be all and end all.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  21. 21 On October 31st, 2009, Andy said:

    The highwayman should wash his mouth out with soap. After that, he should put together a spreadsheet comparing Switzerland with the US in diversity of race, income, topography, industries and all that mirrors the US.

    California alone is almost 5 times as populous as Switzerland.

    But highwayman has discovered that secret Knights Templore crusade that dug up and hid thousands of miles of railway tracks in the U.S.

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  22. 22 On October 31st, 2009, the highwayman said:

    You guys are crooks!

    posted on October 31st, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  23. 23 On November 1st, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    msetty said: The Cascade “study” is one of the biggest loads of BULLSHIT that right wing “think tanks” have put out in a while. In Switzerland, per capita vehicle mileage (kilometerage) is about 40% less than the U.S., and the share of auto commuting is only 43%, with the remainder by rail, transit, walking and bicycling.
    JK: Speaking of BULLSHIT, where did you get those numbers – they are not typical of overall EU15 travel:

    78.3% of EU-15 motorized travel is by private car.
    Rail,Bus, Streetcar have all lost market share to tune of close to 25% in the last 20 years.
    Only air travel and cars have increased market share.
    See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/eurotranistshareloss.htm

    msetty said: In the U.S., the most rural states generally have the highest VMT per capita, but are usually the lowest income. New York City residents drive a lot less than Mississippians, and certainly are far more affluent. So it’s a complete load of crap. This sort of “work” would never pass a peer review, despite Pozdena’s credentials.
    JK: Care to cite a source?

    msetty said: From a source that will remain unidentified for now, here is a compilation of VMT for each state, compared to GDP for each state. This completely contradicts Pozdena’s thesis in one fell swoop.
    JK: Secret sources have ZERO credibility.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 3:07 am

  24. 24 On November 1st, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    prk166 wrote:

    > I haven’t dug into the study at hand but it definitely has a smell. For example, wealth comes from efficiency
    > and productivity. Higher VMT doesn’t necessary result in more wealth. If 10,000 people moved to Culpupper, VA
    > and all started driving to Columbia, MD for work, that wouldn’t make them more wealthy.

    Minor comment – correct spelling is Culpeper, though it’s pronounced culpepper.

    More substantively, that would be a brutal daily commute (I know, as my home is but a few miles south of Columbia in Montgomery County, Maryland on U.S. 29, and have had to drive from my home to Culpeper infrequently on business for my employer).

    Getting back on the topic of the Antiplanner’s post, that’s a trip that I would not be able to make without my private motor vehicle, but becomes feasible and reasonable (as a non-daily business trip) with a car.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 7:20 am

  25. 25 On November 1st, 2009, Frank said:

    ws: What do you define as a subsidy? I wouldn’t consider land grants as a subsidy.

    Subsidy defined.

    Search land + grant + subsidy and the top results relate to railroads.

    Economist Lloyd J. Mercer uses the term “land grant subsidy” and defines it as a “gift of land from common holding (public domain) to a favored few (the owners of the land grant railroads)”.

    (“From 1850-1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger than Texas.“)

    The Pacific Railway Acts also “authorized…the issuance of 30-year, 6% U.S. Government Bonds to the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad…”.

    Sure seems like a subsidy to me.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  26. 26 On November 1st, 2009, ws said:

    Frank:

    Manifest destiny was a bitch, hu? I never said railroads didn’t receive land grants, in fact I said that in my statement. Land grants went beyond just railroads to farming, living arrangements, Universities, etc. It was the best way to get people moving to the West and expand the economy. It certainly wasn’t right in how we took land from Native Americans and expanded ourselves across the nation. I don’t agree with this, but it clearly avoids the scenario that railroads from the 1800s onward were vital in America’s expansion and are/were a predominately private entity that paid for their own construction and paid taxes on their holdings.

    This is important because roads are owned by the state and are not subjected to the same taxation schemes. Please, don’t obfuscate the situation.

    So, I propose that highways be privatized and that they have to pay property taxes on their land in addition to applicable user-fees for maintenance and construction levied by private holders. Any property-tax free holding that railroads own needs to pay property taxes on if they are not. This is fair. Agree or disagree?

    This will probably lead to goods being shipped long distance by rail, with shorter trips being filled in via truckers.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  27. 27 On November 1st, 2009, msetty said:

    Gridlock hasn’t changed his thesis, er, biases, in years, as his latest post attests.

    Of course Karlock ignores mode share BY TRIP; the significance of the fact that in walkable areas, a trip of a few hundred yards for a given purpose is functionally equivalent to the same trip by automobile over miles seems to elude Karlock. Of course, to admit that modal share BY TRIP is just as important as distance traveled unravels his hoary beliefs.

    As for the data showing per capita annual VMT vs. per capita annual GDP by state, the source data is from the U.S. gummit. The person preparing the chart hasn’t be identified simply because the paper its going in has not yet been completed. Setty 2, gRidLock 0.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  28. 28 On November 1st, 2009, ws said:

    JK:“Secret sources have ZERO credibility.”

    ws:It’s no secret, really:

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm2.cfm

    Just plug in the state’s population and you will see that low VMT/capita state’s have a higher GPD/capita. Even Texas, a huge state with many cities and locations has a relatively moderate lelve of VMT/capita. Their state’s GDP/Capita is about middle of the pack, too. New York does have one of the lowest VMT/Capita and one of the higher GDP/Capita.

    JK:“Speaking of BULLSHIT, where did you get those numbers – they are not typical of overall EU15 travel:”

    ws:Yeah, you’re right JK. Cars have a way higher passenger mile total than airplanes as a percentage of modal split, so I expect you to drive next time you need to get to the East Coast…you know because car miles are higher than airline miles. Remember, no flying for you because you believe so hardily in assessing mobility in terms of passenger miles only, and I expect you not to be a hypocrite.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  29. 29 On November 1st, 2009, Frank said:

    “…railroads from the 1800s onward … paid for their own construction … ”

    BS WS.

    “Please, don’t obfuscate the situation.”

    You’re the one changing the topic.

    My claim: Heavy subsides granted to railroads built America.

    Then you go off on a tangent about a proposal to privatize roads.

    I have given you two pieces of evidence that the larger railroads were heavily subsidized (that they did NOT pay for their own construction):

    1. They received massive land grants, which economists consider a subsidy.
    2. They received loan subsidies, which has been shown to be “twice as large relative to investment costs as the land grant aid.”

    As for railroads paying taxes on their holdings (property taxes), that’s a tricky one. Land grants were federal public land; property taxes are levied by state and local governments, not by the feds. This essentially is a wealth transfer.

    Additionally, since property tax paid to state and local governments, there was a great deal of variation on taxes paid. In California, railroads could deduct deduct debts from the taxable property value. Other local governments granted railroads complete tax exemptions.

    But this last point is irrelevant since local taxation could not repay the tremendous national subsidies in the form of federal land grants and federal loans.

    Bottom line: The biggest railroads received large federal subsides and did not pay for their own construction.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  30. 30 On November 1st, 2009, ws said:

    Frank:

    All industry in the US is subsidized to an extent or another. What, do you think our cars can stay fueled without political hand-jobs to the Middle East? The issue is, the railroads are a great example of private industry at work. There’s no amount of examples you can provide that will dilute this fact of US history. Great, companies get special tax deductions. What do you call tax deductions for home mortgages then?

    Moving onward: Do you agree or disagree that roads should be privatized and pay property taxes on the land they consume (in addition to railroads doing the same for all their lines)? This is not meant to be a punitive statement to roads, but it is meant to reflect the unfair market conditions that exist for railroad companies compared to trucking companies.

    You want congestion relief, look no further than pushing some trucking freight to railroad freight by fixing our transportation impediments. Trucks use public infrastructure and routinely use more road than they give back in user fees. Not to mention, the externalized cost of intercity trucking freight is much more than railroads (“External costs of intercity truck freight transportation” and “Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight transportation” by David J. Forkenbrock cover this issue).

    The external cost per ton-mile of trucks is 1.11 cents vs. .25 cents for railroad for intercity travel.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm

  31. 31 On November 1st, 2009, Frank said:

    All industry in the US is subsidized to an extent or another.

    Glad to see you agree that railroads were built on subsidies.

    The issue is, the railroads are a great example of private industry at work.

    But you wont let that one go. Is it “private industry” if it’s funded by federal tax payers? Or is it corporatist?

    There’s no amount of examples you can provide that will dilute this fact of US history.

    Fact of US history? Only in your mind. The Union Pacific was incorporated by Congress. How does that remotely resemble “private industry”?

    Moving onward: Do you agree or disagree that roads should be privatized and pay property taxes on the land they consume (in addition to railroads doing the same for all their lines)?

    Moving onward=changing the subject. You’ve responded with nothing but unsupported assertions, so I can see why you’d throw out this red herring. Honestly, I’m not interested in it; I’ve made my points. This conversation is over.

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  32. 32 On November 1st, 2009, ws said:

    Frank: “But you wont let that one go. Is it “private industry” if it’s funded by federal tax payers? Or is it corporatist?”

    ws: Yes, it is a private industry. Like I said, every business and industry in America has received a subsidy. Are big agri-businesses private? Yeah, but they are very much subsidized, too. That does not mean that agri-business would not exist w/o subsidization.

    All you have done is point to certain scenarios (obviously you did a random google search) where railroads received subsidization without realizing the areas were they have not received subsidization. The railroads’ history is too long and storied in the US, and I am no expert at telling that story.

    Frank: “Moving onward=changing the subject. You’ve responded with nothing but unsupported assertions, so I can see why you’d throw out this red herring. Honestly, I’m not interested in it; I’ve made my points. This conversation is over.”

    ws: This isn’t changing the subject. I made this point in my previous post, too. Private highways should be paying taxes on their land. Highways do not, and truckers take advantage of operating their business on public infrastructure. This is a major issue, and when has a public entity ever been efficient?

    posted on November 1st, 2009 at 8:14 pm

  33. 33 On November 2nd, 2009, jackson92186 said:

    I appreciate this site’s fresh perspective on transportation and analysis of facts, some of which I agree with. But I find it highly misleading to say that their perspective is “libertarian.” Automobiles receive enormous amounts of subsidy, not only with the construction of roads, but the supply of oil, zoning laws and many other regulations that create a favorable and ideal environment for driving. I wonder what these people have to say about Robert Moses, a person that could be regarded as a socialist when considered how much government influence he yielded to decimate urban centers in an ill-fated effort to adopt them for automotive travel.

    posted on November 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  34. 34 On November 3rd, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    ws said: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm2.cfm
    Just plug in the state’s population and you will see that low VMT/capita state’s have a higher GPD/capita.
    JK: That is only a source for part of your claim – tells where you got the rest, so we can duplicate you findings.

    ws said: JK:“Speaking of BULLSHIT, where did you get those numbers – they are not typical of overall EU15 travel:”
    ws:Yeah, you’re right JK. Cars have a way higher passenger mile total than airplanes as a percentage of modal split, so I expect you to drive next time you need to get to the East Coast…you know because car miles are higher than airline miles. Remember, no flying for you because you believe so hardily in assessing mobility in terms of passenger miles only, and I expect you not to be a hypocrite.
    JK: Again, I ask, where did you get those numbers?
    Or is this an admission of just making them up?

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 am

  35. 35 On November 6th, 2009, JimKarlock said:

    msetty said: Gridlock hasn’t changed his thesis, er, biases, in years, as his latest post attests.
    Of course Karlock…..
    JK: Once again setty runs out of rational arguments and degenerates into name calling. Of course this also means that he probably cannot defend his previous claims.

    msetty said: ignores mode share BY TRIP; the significance of the fact that in walkable areas, a trip of a few hundred yards for a given purpose is functionally equivalent to the same trip by automobile over miles seems to elude Karlock.
    JK: And, as usual, the planning class, ignore the simple FACT that most people DO NOT WANT to live as YOU desire them to live.

    msetty said: Of course, to admit that modal share BY TRIP is just as important as distance traveled unravels his hoary beliefs.
    JK: More name calling: “hoary beliefs”

    msetty said: The person preparing the chart hasn’t be identified simply because the paper its going in has not yet been completed.
    JK: As I said before: arguments based on sevret data are BULLSHAT. But that seems to be the planning class’ specialty.

    msetty said: Setty 2, gRidLock 0.
    JK: Name calling tally: S[hi]etty 2, gRidLock 0.

    PS: Be sure to let us know if you have any NON-SECRET data supporting your wacked out ideas.

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on November 6th, 2009 at 3:22 am

  36. 36 On November 13th, 2009, RussNelson said:

    Frank, several things: first, the subsidized railroads tended to go bankrupt, because their business didn’t make sense without handouts from the government. Second, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.) wasn’t subsidized and didn’t go out of business. Third, all of the subsidies really amounted to a loan, because the free services that the railroads were required to provide to the U.S. Government exceeded the subsidies by several times. Fourth, if you want evidence of the incompetence of the U.S. government at subsidizing the railroads, look at Promontory Point, Utah. The government forgot to tell the railroads what the meeting point was to be, so they both kept on building past each other for about 16 miles. You can still see the parallel roadbeds in aerial photos of the desert.

    posted on November 13th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

  37. 37 On December 30th, 2009, Rail Disasters of the Oughts » The Antiplanner said:

    [...] Going from nowhere to nowhere and suffering 25 percent cost overruns, this line carries about 500 round-trip commuters per day at a capital cost of about $166 [...]

    posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.