The Antiplanner

There are currently 40 responses to “Rail Transit vs. Driverless Cars”

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 22nd, 2010, OFP2003 said:

   The Austin system is completely nuts. 1. It doesn’t go anywhere 2. It doesn’t go faster than traffic (busses or cars) 3. It has terrifically small ridership capability

   Nobody can be an expert on everything, but too few people are paying attention to the basics of what “planners” are doing.

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 5:24 am

2. 2 On March 22nd, 2010, bennett said:

   OFP2003 said: “The Austin system is completely nuts. 1. It doesn’t go anywhere 2. It doesn’t go faster than traffic (busses or cars) 3. It has terrifically small ridership capability. Nobody can be an expert on everything, but too few people are paying attention to the basics of what “planners” are doing.”

   Your assessment of the rail line is correct, but only beginning to scratch the surface. The leadership at CapMetro has truly outsmarted itself and I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceberg here. The fair structure for this train is the most convoluted I’ve ever seen and will likely result in significant changes to the bus fair system.

   Where I disagree with you is your accusation of what the “planners” are doing. I know several planners at CapMetro and at the City of Austin and both on and off the record they have been extremely critical and cautious about this system. The “planners” raised all of the $$$ and infrastructure questions before the Antiplanner even knew about the system. The commuter rail in ATX is the way it is because of 2 extremely important factors. 1st is the political climate in the city and 2nd is mismanagement. Politics and leadership. It’s not the fault of the planners standing on the sidelines waving the red flags.

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 am

3. 3 On March 22nd, 2010, prk166 said:

   Can anyone familiar with this line explain why it’s experimental? I don’t understand how in 2010 running rail transit would need a demonstration line. Is there some new technology they’re using that needs to be proven in everyday use before using on a larger scale?

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 8:42 am

4. 4 On March 22nd, 2010, bennett said:

   “No doubt it will claim the commuter-rail line is a big success and ask voters for a tax increase so it can build more.”

   And what if the voters say yes? Does it ever make you wonder why the jihad against planning and regulation is so unsuccessful, and why some may label all the antiplanners out there a “fringe” group? Why is plutocratic anarchy acceptable to the antiplanners and democracy often scoffed at, and could this be the reason that, despite their best efforts, planning is still something that most people find as an important part of urban/suburban life?

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 am

5. 5 On March 22nd, 2010, bennett said:

   PRK,

   It’s the way things are done down here. Another example. The city has been trying to put a median with tress on S. Congress St (the hipster epicenter of ATX). Before they can do this they have to show what won’t work, so the put out some orange plastic traffic pylons in the current chicken lane, and call it something like a “pedestrian refuge.” Once everyone sees this crazy stuff, they can have their crosswalks and trees. Actually, I’m always surprised that there are not more post by the Antiplanner about Austin.

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 am

6. 6 On March 22nd, 2010, bennett said:

   To continue (sorry to drone on), No other state is as proud of it’s failures as Texas (see: The Alamo). If this line turns out to be a complete failure, don’t be surprised to see CapMetro management out there touting the failure as need for expansion of the rail system.

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:16 am

7. 7 On March 22nd, 2010, prk166 said:

   @bennett, thanks. It just seems either odd to call it experimental and even if it truely is, it seems like a lot of money to spend on just one.

   I’m not sure what to make of the accidents in Houston. While not spending enough money to have a separate right of way is a problem, I’m not sure what exactly it proves. For example, a little girl in a southern MPLS suburb was recently killed after climbing a simple low chain link fence and wandering onto the freeway. Again, a case of not putting in enough resources to build a right of way that was safe enough. Is the problem rail or the problem a system that allows for these things to be built this way without consequences for those deciding to take the short cuts?

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:31 am

8. 8 On March 22nd, 2010, Dan said:

   When new LRs are installed, in most places there is an increase in proximate accidents until folks start to pay attention. Then they drop off to background.

   DS

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 am

9. 9 On March 22nd, 2010, t g said:

   Posted without comment.

   posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 10:38 am

10. 10 On March 22nd, 2010, OFP2003 said:

    Bennett,
    Thanks, and I only visit Austin, so I don’t know the inner workings. I’ll defer to your on-the-ground assessment of the situation in Austin. I just fly-in-and-out and I can see what a mess it is. BTW I love TRAINS!!! Like the one at Zilker Park! Is it close to being paid for with user fees???

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 11:43 am

11. 11 On March 22nd, 2010, Walt Brewer said:

    There are many mismatches like Austin’s. San Diego is planning an 11 mile extension of it’s already overbuilt LRT to the north. $1.2 billion more or less. BRT has been rejected as too expensive. So has just modest expansion of the existing bus line at “only” $62 million. It would supply more than enough capacity while operating on the freeway alongside due to be expanded.
    Just to amortize the capital for the LRT in 50 years would cost $6.5 per (optimistic) boarding. The expanded bus, “only” $2.
    $1.2 billion would build 4 freeway lanes for the same distance.
    But the real message in Antiplanners writings is being set aside. It is the public need and clamor for PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION! No point in the several green cars, including electric, if they are stuck in stop and go gridlock.
    Automation is the key to making better use of right of way and saving land. Instead of wasting big time $$$$$$’s on LRT, prototyping should go into the two primary solutions; bunching more or less conventional cars on highways, and even lighter cars on narrow electified guideways separate from highways and powered directly by electricity.

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm

12. 12 On March 22nd, 2010, The Antiplanner said:

    Bennett said, “And what if the voters say yes?”

    That’s why the United States is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. Democracy should be one of the checks and balances used to make sure the people in power don’t abuse that power, not a way for voters to steal from future generations to make themselves better off. When that happens, it becomes unsustainable.

    In other words, if the voters say yes, it means they were fooled again. As Thoreau said, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.”

    posted on March 22nd, 2010 at 6:40 pm

13. 13 On March 23rd, 2010, Dan said:

    I like the new meme that we is suppoda call it a ‘republic’ so no semblance of ‘Democrat’ can be uttered. Yes, leaving out ‘democracy’ because it is too close to ‘Democrat’ is a strategery. That’s the pinnacle of ideas from what’s left of that party.

    DS

    posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 6:38 am

14. 14 On March 23rd, 2010, bennett said:

    In Mr. O’Toole’s defense Dan, he said America is a republic, not a Democracy, followed by the assertion that democracy is important to the republic (if you read between the lines, he’s saying you can’t have a good republic without democracy).

    What blows my mind is that he fails to see that his criticism’s of democracy also apply to self-interested individuals in the marketplace. Private interest have been stealing, both in a legal and ethical sense, “from future generations to make themselves better off,” many times without any real accountability to the government or other market participants.

    posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 10:12 am

15. 15 On March 23rd, 2010, Dan said:

    That’s a fair point bennett, and I’m simply pointing out the meme of the desperate. It may be that Randal disagrees with the desperate and the spreading of the talking point was inadvertent.

    DS

    posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm

16. 16 On March 24th, 2010, Frank said:

    Dan wrote: “I like the new meme [time for a thesaurus buddy; you're wearing this word thin--as you did with "puerile" and "fetish"] that we is suppoda [appeal to ridicule again and again--this is Dan's signature move] call it a ‘republic’ so no semblance of ‘Democrat’ can be uttered. Yes, leaving out ‘democracy’ because it is too close to ‘Democrat’ is a strategery [oh how cute; Dan used a Bushism!]. That’s the pinnacle of ideas from what’s left of that party.

    No, it’s about historical fact, although the Republicans might be finally playing that card libertarians put on the table decades ago. And we do have Democracy today, thanks in large part to Hamilton and the Federalists.

    At democratic cartel began in earnest in the 1910s. At least part of the shift to Democracy was through official channels permitted by the Constitution; the 17th Amendment in 1913 amended the Constitution to have senators be directly elected rather than being elected by state legislatures. (Interestingly enough, that’s the same year we moved to debase our currency by establishing the Federal Reserve.) Oh yeah, and it’s also the same year that this gem amended the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    But the country began as a true republic, and to deny that is to revise history, something the state, through coerced attendance its various reprogramming centers (elementary, middle, high schools), has mastered.

    posted on March 24th, 2010 at 11:52 am

17. 17 On March 24th, 2010, Dan said:

    …through coerced attendance its various reprogramming centers (elementary, middle, high schools)…

    The small marginalized minorities have their own language, don’t they?

    Nonetheless, we are now a democratic republic, although corporations buy votes and laws and in reality we are closer to a corporatocracy.

    DS

    posted on March 24th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

18. 18 On March 25th, 2010, MJ said:

    …although corporations buy votes and laws and in reality we are closer to a corporatocracy

    Yes, some corporations do buy votes. Big governments with lots of money to spend (and lots of regulatory authority) tend to encourage that kind of thing. They also tend to encourage these guys.

    I’m not sure I agree with the ‘corporatoracy’ label, though. What with the nationalization of the auto manufacturers, several banks, insurance companies, the big HSR promotion and the whole ‘green jobs’ thing, it’s starting to look more like this.

    posted on March 25th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

19. 19 On March 26th, 2010, Dan said:

    Veiled AM hate radio talking points notwithstanding, FIRE spends more than 10x the lobbying amount labor does in DC, energy 9x that of labor, transportation ~5.5x, Big Ag 3x, etc.

    But thanks for the clear signal.

    DS

    posted on March 26th, 2010 at 11:11 am

20. 20 On March 26th, 2010, Scott said:

    What are any messages on radio that are about hate?
    What’s your point about lobbying?
    Specifically, FIRE?
    Well, FIRE is about freedom.
    Labor is about selfishness in getting more more & being less efficient.
    Unions can be blamed for higher priced products, outsourcing, more imports, extra gov spending (1/2 of union members work for gov).
    You also mention energy & transportation, like those are not important.

    posted on March 26th, 2010 at 9:27 pm

21. 21 On March 27th, 2010, the highwayman said:

    O’Toole is all about selfishness in getting more & being less efficient.

    posted on March 27th, 2010 at 10:03 pm

22. 22 On March 27th, 2010, Scott said:

    Holy crap! Explain your accusations.

    It sure is selfish for public transit users (<4% of population ) to want others to pay for them.

    It sure is inefficient for general revenue taxes to be spent on public transit at 20 times the cost, on a per passenger-mile basis, than highways.

    posted on March 27th, 2010 at 10:35 pm

23. 23 On March 28th, 2010, Dan said:

    Randal, can you correct the incoherent drivel for your young low-wattage lad in 22?

    He seems to think roads pay for themselves and per-passenger mile costs of roads are 20x less than transit.

    You have spent your career dispelling this patently false bullsh– fomented by others and spread by the complicit corporate media and think-tanks. Link to one of your non-antiintellectual corrective papers that expose this ridiculous bullsh– for what it is. Find the incoherent lad a couple corrective papers, if you will.

    TIA.

    DS

    posted on March 28th, 2010 at 8:33 am

24. 24 On March 28th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, You made 2 errors in this sentence: He seems to think roads pay for themselves and per-passenger mile costs of roads are 20x less than transit. .

    This is what I previously typed, which which you misunderstood:
    It sure is inefficient for general revenue taxes to be spent on public transit at 20 times the cost, on a per passenger-mile basis, than highways.

    You really need to improve your reading comprehension.

    posted on March 28th, 2010 at 9:51 am

25. 25 On March 28th, 2010, Spokker said:

    “It sure is selfish for public transit users (<4% of population ) to want others to pay for them."

    Someone is going to pay regardless. Either subsidize their transit, or pay them higher wages so they can afford a car or more expensive transit, which are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

    However, public transportation does serve a useful purpose that may also justify subsidies. While few people ride transit, discontinuing buses and rail has a negative effect on congestion as evidenced by a unique natural experiment in 2003 when the Los Angeles MTA's employees went on strike.

    http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v40y2006i10p903-917.html

    I've read the study and congestion increased the most in the 101 corridor, which paralleled Metro's Red Line subway. The Golden State Freeway (I-5) saw the smallest increase in congestion, possibly because it paralleled the still operating Metrolink Orange County Line. This might also suggest that not everybody on transit is transit-dependent. Somehow all these bus and rail riders got a hold of vehicles during the strike. I'm someone who has a car but chooses to take the bus or train to work and school.

    Here's another article about the effects of that strike.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2003/oct/24/local/me-traffic24

    In 2008 the County of Los Angeles voted about 67% in support of a proposal to increase the sales tax by a half cent to build light rail lines and fund buses. If only a small portion of the population actually rides public transportation, then drivers must value the bus and rail system as well.

    posted on March 28th, 2010 at 10:33 am

26. 26 On March 28th, 2010, Scott said:

    Spokker the illogic that you mentioned is used often.
    Paying others to get your of your way?
    Why don’t you just give your money to criminals to avoid being stolen from?

    You articles show that public transit has riders. Yipee! There are no claims that transit is unused.
    How about if all roads are closed? The economy will halt!

    There are many policies that put more people on already over-burdened highways, namely increasing density. It’s common sense that if there are more people in an area, that more cars will be on the road.

    How about addressing the problem of insufficient highways?
    Adding freeway lanes is less costly & accommodates more travelers, than the same expense does for public transit.

    posted on March 28th, 2010 at 1:50 pm

27. 27 On March 28th, 2010, Spokker said:

    “Spokker the illogic that you mentioned is used often.
    Paying others to get your of your way?”

    Right or wrong, that’s what voters in Los Angeles apparently believed. Freedom is talked about a lot here and people have the freedom to vote in such a way that makes them happy. There were plenty of pros and cons spouted before the vote, so voters have only themselves to blame if they were not informed.

    “How about addressing the problem of insufficient highways?”

    Orange County, CA is addressing this problem. You may want to move there, or another place that shares similar ideals.

    People who value transit and density may move to Los Angeles because the city is moving in that direction.

    In 20 or 30 years it’ll be interesting to see which county is better off.

    posted on March 28th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

28. 28 On March 29th, 2010, Dan said:

    Young Scott lad:

    The assertion that He seems to think roads pay for themselves and per-passenger mile costs of roads are 20x less than transit as a response to It sure is selfish for public transit users (<4% of population ) to want others to pay for them…[i]t sure is inefficient for general revenue taxes to be spent on public transit at 20 times the cost, on a per passenger-mile basis, than highways.

    Why? Auto users want others to pay for them as well. This happens today. Roads do not pay for themselves. Nor does parking. And the assertion that general fund expenditures for transit are 20x the expenditures of autos on highways is a joke, when highways are only a fraction of total road miles.

    The boy’s assertion is incoherent (likely via ignorance and not malice) and my comparing apples to apples is met with scorn from the ignorant. That’s a big clue to the ability to speak to the issue.

    DS

    posted on March 29th, 2010 at 12:33 pm

29. 29 On March 29th, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, Who are the “others” in reference to auto users? There are more cars than licensed drivers. And most people who do not own or drive a car, get rides from people at times & have items delivered to their place, and certainly buy products that have been on highways.

    How do auto users want the “others” (<2% of population) to pay? How can they pay; they are usually jobless & otherwise have low income.

    I look for the stats on VMT & public transit miles. Both TTI & FHA have them. Probably RITA too. Remember I'm referring to the difference in non-user revenue.

    Try stepping away from your nitpicking on details.
    The point is that public transit is "subsidized" considerably more, per passenger-mile than highways.
    Which direction would you like to go?
    Each mode get fully user-funded?
    Or highways get more funding to be in line with public transit use/mile?

    Consistency is a goal, right?

    You don't need to be fruity, especially when you are not using any kind of similar measurement (ie apples).

    posted on March 29th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

30. 30 On March 30th, 2010, Dan said:

    The point is that public transit is “subsidized” considerably more, per passenger-mile than highways.

    Thank you from backing away from your patently false statements.

    DS

    posted on March 30th, 2010 at 2:22 pm

31. 31 On March 31st, 2010, Scott said:

    I didn’t back off. You are just reiterating that you do not understand.

    See this for data on how much more public transit is subsidized.
    O’Toole’s sources show about 6 times (120 vs 20) more than what I typed.

    Your typical leftist pattern is to whine about little details, but don’t address the points.
    You’re the type of person who will die from karma, by being run over by a bus, like the 2 researchers that just froze to death in Antarctica will trying to study AGW.

    posted on March 31st, 2010 at 1:46 am

32. 32 On March 31st, 2010, MJ said:

    Veiled AM hate radio talking points notwithstanding, FIRE spends more than 10x the lobbying amount labor does in DC, energy 9x that of labor, transportation ~5.5x, Big Ag 3x, etc.

    Those numbers are skewed by the fact that they only look at spending on lobbyists. They ignore direct contributions to candidates (either by individuals or by groups) and PAC money.

    posted on March 31st, 2010 at 3:06 pm

33. 33 On March 31st, 2010, Dan said:

    Fine. What is the direct contribution ratio for the categories above?

    DS

    posted on March 31st, 2010 at 3:30 pm

34. 34 On March 31st, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, This is my 2nd response to your mention of lobbying. (1st @ #20) You often avoid responses, since you don’t have any valid comeback. And when you do respond, it’s often ad hominem or just asking for nitpicking tangential details or just crying BS, when your BS assertion is really BS. You just don’t understand. How many paragraphs do you need to get it at a HS level?

    So, for FIRE, you are assuming that nobody needs finance, insurance & real estate?
    All those industries are against humanity?
    Do you see the point Dan? Unlikely.
    Let me give you a hint: All those categories are important for each person.

    What’s your point?
    What is the significance on differences of money to influence politicians?
    All interests want certain laws & legislation.
    You should know that.
    Some want special favors, exceptions, grants, discounts, etc.
    Siemens & GE are 2 big companies that want gov contracts.

    posted on March 31st, 2010 at 8:51 pm

35. 35 On April 1st, 2010, Dan said:

    What is the direct contribution ratio for the categories above? Back “your” implict claim instead of hand waving. That is: show the “argument” you parrot has some factual basis.

    DS

    posted on April 1st, 2010 at 6:55 am

36. 36 On April 1st, 2010, Scott said:

    What’s the point about direct contribution?
    That’s a questions for your own interest, that you brought up & had an article for.
    What claim is being made that you want backed up? None.
    What the hell do you think is hand waving? This is your typical strategy, to baselessly accuse another position.

    Again, Dan, what’s the significance on difference in lobbying?
    Reiterating, FIRE are 3 broad industries, and all people have interest in each of the Finance, Insurance & Real Estate, as well as all industries.

    posted on April 1st, 2010 at 9:40 am

37. 37 On April 1st, 2010, Dan said:

    I don’t know what the point is. You brought it up @32. It’s your point, I merely asked for evidence to back your claim.

    You aren’t playing the fool because of the calendar, are you? Trying to hand-flap away from your baseless claim again by acting like a fool this time, hoping the calendar will save you?

    DS

    posted on April 1st, 2010 at 11:09 am

38. 38 On April 1st, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, In regards to lobbying, you have no response for the previous points that I made @ 20,34,36.
    Typical for you to avoid, when you have no substance.
    I also gave you sources for taxes @ 31.
    For 4th time, what’s the significance of lobbying differences by industry, especially when each person has interest in each industry?

    For MJ’s point (@32), you were asking for specifics on campaign sources.
    The point is that lobbying does not include all spending to influence politicians.
    If you kept more abreast of current events, you would know that SEIU & many other unions have spent $millions on leftist causes.
    And BO owes them back; Andy Stern (most WH visitor) has even said that.

    Dan, every day is 4/1 for you.

    posted on April 1st, 2010 at 6:07 pm

39. 39 On April 2nd, 2010, Dan said:

    What is the direct contribution ratio for the categories above? Back “your” implict claim instead of hand waving. That is: show the “argument” you parrot has some factual basis.

    DS

    posted on April 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 am

40. 40 On April 2nd, 2010, Scott said:

    Dan, You seem to be not reading my posts.
    I have not made claims, but pointed out that all those industries are important to people.
    You have continually avoided questions on your points, mainly about lobbying.

    posted on April 2nd, 2010 at 10:36 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.