The Antiplanner

There are currently 33 responses to “Back on the Road Again”

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 March 2nd, 2010, JimKarlock said:

   Should I give the “smart growth is a dumb way to plan” speech or the “government planning is evil and you should all change your majors” speech?
   Should I drop by to (paraphrasing Tom Rubin) to identify the body?

   Thanks
   JK

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 am

2. 2 On March 2nd, 2010, t g said:

   Could you record the Planning Club lecture?

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 am

3. 3 On March 2nd, 2010, Borealis said:

   Kudos to the University Planning Club for inviting a contrary view to their meeting. I hope you all learn something from each other.

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am

4. 4 On March 2nd, 2010, bennett said:

   Randall,

   I vote for the “smart growth is a dumb way to plan” speech since we all know that it’s not government planning per se you hate, but particular forms of planning which results in outcomes you don’t like (i.e smart growth).

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 am

5. 5 On March 2nd, 2010, ws said:

   “Presuming I survive that encounter”

   I think it might be 50/50

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm

6. 6 On March 2nd, 2010, bennett said:

   Maybe you can address how roads kill more people than AIDS, but not per passenger mile.

   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7045941.ece

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm

7. 7 On March 2nd, 2010, Scott said:

   bennett,
   Don’t let people with AIDS drive.
   What does a comparison with the gay cancer have to do with anything?

   People die by driving. So what? You have made no point for a change.
   People die by many things. Should everything be banned?: houses, ladders, dryers, trains, buses, food, toys, stairs, bridges.

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm

8. 8 On March 2nd, 2010, bennett said:

   I was just looking for a reason to share an interesting article I found and get a quip in. Your right, I don’t have a point.

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm

9. 9 On March 2nd, 2010, MJ said:

   I think you should give them the Let Markets Plan speech.

   posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 1:05 pm

10. 10 On March 2nd, 2010, JimKarlock said:

    bennett said: Maybe you can address how roads kill more people than AIDS, but not per passenger mile.
    JK: But driving kills fewer people per passenger-mile than light rail. In Portland, MAX (our toy train) has killed 5 people in last 13 months!

    see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/maxkills1998-2006-04.html

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm

11. 11 On March 2nd, 2010, t g said:

    “but not per passenger mile…”

    Brilliant, bennett!

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm

12. 12 On March 2nd, 2010, ws said:

    JK:“But driving kills fewer people per passenger-mile than light rail. In Portland, MAX (our toy train) has killed 5 people in last 13 months!”

    ws:A car on car fatality is the fault of the car. A pedestrian vs. light rail fatality is not necessarily the fault of LR.

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 2:28 pm

13. 13 On March 2nd, 2010, Dan said:

    Likely too late now, but being planners, they will be educated. Therefore they will not fall for the ‘let markets plan’ fetish, so best to do some property rights discussions. Maybe some of your smart car – driverless car stuff.

    DS

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 3:01 pm

14. 14 On March 2nd, 2010, t g said:

    I’ve only seen one video of Randal, in which he was a very effective speaker. He comes across as much less inflammatory than this site makes he seem to be. I would not want to argue with him in person. He seems calm and collected. I think he’ll be well received by those Planners who do not come in with preconceived notions.

    (please record this lecture)

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 3:11 pm

15. 15 On March 2nd, 2010, Dan said:

    Randal and I had lunch the other day and there is much lost in rhetoric when one has only words. So I agree with tg and I like Randal personally. Students should bring their A game. I’ll brief one of my prof buddies as well…shhhhh…

    DS

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 5:36 pm

16. 16 On March 2nd, 2010, Scott said:

    Oh sure, “markets are bad & don’t work.”

    Just ignore basic principles such as supply & demand, motivation, and the price mechanism.

    Human nature & rationality are just wrong.

    Gov knows what to do, & how people should behave.

    Look how well central planning worked for the USSR & similar.

    Look how well price controls worked for Nixon, Carter & many other places in history.
    Even now, “affordability” attempts (rent control), reduces construction & drive up prices.
    Look how empty & poorly performing most public transit agencies are.

    It’s a shame at how gov interferes with the marketplace, problems happen, & then laissez-faire is blamed.

    posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm

17. 17 On March 3rd, 2010, JimKarlock said:

    ws said: JK:“But driving kills fewer people per passenger-mile than light rail. In Portland, MAX (our toy train) has killed 5 people in last 13 months!”
    ws:A car on car fatality is the fault of the car.
    JK: And a rail on rail fatality is the fault of rail. (Which happens regularly when trains collide.) What is your point?

    ws said: A pedestrian vs. light rail fatality is not necessarily the fault of LR.
    JK: And pedestrian vs. car fatality is not necessarily the fault of car. What is your point?
    (Your illogic is showing again.)

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 am

18. 18 On March 3rd, 2010, Tad Winiecki said:

    Good job on the talk in Vancouver, Randal. I enjoyed it. You mentioned that drug gangs, downtown developers and those who construct light rail lines benefit from them. It seems that politicians benefit from donations from light rail constructors and downtown developers, also.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 2:32 am

19. 19 On March 3rd, 2010, msetty said:

    Tad W:
    It seems that politicians benefit from donations from light rail constructors and downtown developers, also.

    Your point?

    Suburban politicians in most places also benefit from donations by developers and road builders. In fact, this is the norm in most of metropolitan America; the downtown developers and transit constructors are very small potatoes compared to the suburban sprawl growth machine.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am

20. 20 On March 3rd, 2010, Scott said:

    msetty,
    What is the “suburban sprawl growth machine”?
    And how are downtown elements “small potatoes”?–That would indicate a difference by a factor of over 100. However, avg, of all UAs, about 2/3 of all people who live in the suburbs [vs the core city].

    Any builder of LRT (ie Semens) will concentrate on high density areas. Some exceptions, such as Phoenix.

    About any construction firm does not confine itself to either a suburb or a core city. And municipalities are separate.
    Are MPOs (cover whole UA anyway) being influenced by donations?

    Please show instance where political decisions in the suburbs have have been against the will of the people, and to the ill of the economy, compared to core cities.

    For any politician, please show their campaign contribution coming from builders.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 12:06 pm

21. 21 On March 3rd, 2010, msetty said:

    Scott:
    What is the “suburban sprawl growth machine”?

    If you don’t know I’m referring to, I can’t help you. Your other “points” are mostly irrelevant. “What the people want” is simply a “Vox Populi” fallacy.

    BTW, construction of new transit lines, including local funding is only in the range of $4-$5 billion/yr. vs. several tens of billions per year for roads. So of course, the “development/political/road construction industrial complex” is at least an order of magnitude bigger than its transit counterpart. Your perspective is way out of whack.

    Yes, I “know” people “like” single family houses and automobiles. Doh! What we don’t know is what the level of single family occupancy and auto usage would be if those things were fully priced to mitigate their many negative social and environmental impacts. Given the results of the $4.00/gallon run-up in prices during 2008, I suspect a lot lower than currently is the case.

    The most annoying thing about your position is that you have the delusion that the current domination of the automobile is mainly the outcome of free markets, despite the fact that its ascendancy was greased the entire way by 90 years of government actions.

    The intellectual quality of this blog is declining.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm

22. 22 On March 3rd, 2010, MJ said:

    Likely too late now, but being planners, they will be educated. Therefore they will not fall for the ‘let markets plan’ fetish, so best to do some property rights discussions.

    It’s not a fetish, at least not among people who take regulatory issues seriously. Planning students are taught to parrot phrases like “market failure” as justification for their existence. But in most programs, “government failure” is not in the lexicon.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 1:59 pm

23. 23 On March 3rd, 2010, Scott said:

    msetty,
    If you cannot explain & document the nebulous, vague “suburban sprawl growth machine”, you show lack of anything substantial. If it’s so prevalent, there should be numerous articles about it, & not just other ill-conceived, biased commentary. Please stop with the fallacies & attempted insults.

    Your original point was suburban vs core city interests (which actually have many commonalities). Now you are changing it to roads vs public transit, and ignoring your claim of political donations. Core city dwellers & visitors want roads too. There is public transit in the suburbs.

    Proportionally, much more money is spent, per passenger-mile on public transit, than on roads.
    That’s a big dis-equilibrium, opposite of the direction that you think.

    People have freely chosen to drive. That’s true for other countries too.
    For some reason, you seem to think that people don’t really want to drive.
    Your logic is saying that without roads, people would not drive.
    Well, of course, that’s a physical possibility that is needed.
    Many of the first major highways were private & toll-based.
    All freeways as tollways could easily operate, and better than now.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm

24. 24 On March 3rd, 2010, Scott said:

    Also, there is not much in road expansion going on. Even far less for rail. When lanes are added or roads extended, it’s usually started by a state DOT or a municipality, & certainly not to create demand, but to alleviate congestion & accommodate growth.

    Construction companies are interested in building. It doesn’t matter if that is in high or low density.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 3:08 pm

25. 25 On March 3rd, 2010, Dan said:

    MJ, it is clear to all but a small, marginalized minority that deregulation is an abject failure. There is even a scholarly discipline studying how poor decisions make markets fail. Ah, well. The rest of the planet has moved beyond this failed experiment.

    DS

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm

26. 26 On March 3rd, 2010, msetty said:

    Scott, you persist in non-substantive rhetorical arguments. If you don’t think local transportation policy–such as it is in the U.S.–isn’t driven by the fact most city councils and county boards of commissioners/supervisors historically have been owned by real estate interests–who have always pushed roads for reasons that have little to do with transportation, e.g., land development and gains in property values from new roads and interchanges.

    You’re also a liar if you persist in portraying my position as though I think people “don’t really” want to drive. Sure they do, given the fact that the marginal cost is so low, and so many of the negative impacts aren’t covered by user fees or proxy fees designed to offset the negative impacts. I’ll revise what I ACTUALLY said earlier–there are some indications of how much proper pricing of driving and parking could reduce driving, but you’ll have to look it up yourself (I’ve provided a starting point below).

    For once I’d like to see an auto apologist do a “take down” of work such as that by Todd Litman at Raise My Taxes, Please! Evaluating Household Savings From High Quality Public Transit Service, for example. I’ve never seen anyone who has yet, other than rhetorical bloviating such as yours. A point by point refutation is called for here–but I don’t think it’s possible since Litman tends to have excellent references backing up his claims; see his website for reams of papers all with long lists of references.

    Litman estimates the annual costs of parking, for example, at around $2,000 per capita, which is built into the structure of the economy, and very rarely charged directly to the act of driving (according to Litman, about 99% of vehicle trips have “free” (sic) parking at the non-home end. And Litman’s numbers are consistent with the estimates of Donald Shoup and Mark Delucci of UC Davis. Perhaps a way of dealing with congestion, global warming, and the social and environmental negatives of automobile use would be a proxy fee to “unbundle” the cost of parking from the economy, with the revenues rebated in monthly checks to each person (so if one chooses NOT to drive, one has a financial incentive not to do so).

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 3:41 pm

27. 27 On March 3rd, 2010, Scott said:

    msetty
    You are changing subjects again–now about parking (expensive in core cities), rather than your switch to transit vs. roads, after first focusing on political donations for core city vs suburban. It’s common to redirect the issue, when lacking facts, confronted with valid objections & shallowness in understanding.

    It’s not all competition & one-or-the-other. Particularly for core & urban; they are not necessarily at odds. There are plenty of people that choose each & often both–for work & living–reverse commuters avg about 40% of suburban commuters to the core. Transit cannot replace personal vehicles & are used in conjunction.

    I’m familiar with Todd Litman & his VIT. He misrepresents many facts, avoids many others, uses many fallacies, etc. Yes, those are blanket labels. I can analyze all his claims in his many papers & articles & deconstruct them all, in many pages. But these posts here are just a few paragraphs.

    When you cannot counter anything specific & resort to generalizations & statements such as, “non-substantive rhetorical arguments” you show your lack of concrete content.
    You have neglected to address any questions & objections to your assertions.

    You have avoided the obvious fact that most people in core cities drive & that suburbs do have public transit.
    You have avoided that construction companies build “stuff” anywhere. According to your reasoning, the Big Dig pork project (about $20 billion for about 20 miles of freeways in Boston), could not have happened.
    You have failed to identify any donations.
    You have failed to identify any public decisions due to undue business influence.
    You have not identified any “sprawl cabal”.
    You seem to be unaware that high density is needed for just moderate transit coverage. (Even NYC is far from covering cost.)
    You seem to not be able to differentiate between construction for private use (residential, commercial) & public use (transportation).

    You position seems to be that people don’t like driving & would prefer public transit. You seem oblivious to the fact that public transit prices only cover about 1/3 of costs & buses need roads.
    You seem to avoid the many drawbacks of transit: walking to & from stops, the extra time, the inconvenience, lack of privacy, less safety, & lack of trunk space.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 5:17 pm

28. 28 On March 3rd, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Driving has drawbacks too, makes people insurlar, sedentary & isn’t always safe to do.

    For that matter O’Toole lies about trains & transit to suit his Koch Oil sponsors.

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 6:09 pm

29. 29 On March 3rd, 2010, Dan said:

    The same handful of low-wattage suspects has prompted me to write to greasemonkey again to filter the dim-bulb ideologues. So I don’t get an eye owie.

    DS

    posted on March 3rd, 2010 at 7:00 pm

30. 30 On March 4th, 2010, Scott said:

    highman,
    You just convinced yourself to not drive at all, because of those negligible shortcomings. Congratulations. For your sake, hopefully you can meet all of your needs with limited mobility.
    Don’t concern yourself with weighing the positives & negatives.

    You are almost funny, but I stopped laughing at the mentally challenged in grade school, just a few years ago.

    Please explain the lies about trains.
    Jeez, there just are not enough consumers for oil.
    More demand needs to be created.
    Where do trains get diesel?
    What oil companies produce natural gas?
    It must be nuclear power pushing for electrification of transportation.

    Dan, I thought you had your own web site now, from I’m.your.daddy.com,
    under the URL of dan.types&says.nothing.sham. Or is it dan.has.no.point.cram ? Or read.my.fancy.vocab.without.substance.ugh ?

    posted on March 4th, 2010 at 12:35 am

31. 31 On March 5th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    Scott do you drive drunk or stoned?

    posted on March 5th, 2010 at 12:13 am

32. 32 On March 8th, 2010, Back in the Air Again — and Again, and Again » The Antiplanner said:

    [...] a few more days in March due to three more trips. Last week, as I was traveling to Portland for various events, I received a phone call from the John Stossel show inviting me to join them on [...]

    posted on March 8th, 2010 at 12:02 am

33. 33 On March 8th, 2010, Scott said:

    hman,
    I drive under neither condition, unless I do.
    I drive while texting, eating, shaving & watching TV.
    What does your ridiculous question have to with anything?

    You are sadly funny in that you make no solid points & cannot even come close to addressing any counters.
    Why do you lack content & just misdirect &/or go off-topic, continually?

    posted on March 8th, 2010 at 9:27 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.