Baptists, Bootleggers, and Transportation Planning

In 1983, an economist named Bruce Yandle suggested that the demand for much government regulation came from a loose alliance of what he called Baptists and bootleggers. The “Baptists” represented moralists who argued that government needed to regulate–for example, by banning liquor sales–for the good of society. The “bootleggers” represented businesses who quietly profited from those regulations–for example, makers and dealers of illegal alcoholic drinks.

This combination explains the political demand to build rail transit in cities where at least 95 percent of travel is by automobile. The anti-auto moralists provide grassroots support for rail projects. The bootleggers–rail contractors, railcar manufacturers, and property developers–provide the financial support, usually in the background.

Together, these groups form a congestion coalition that has dominated transportation planning at least since 1991, when Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This law required all metropolitan areas to write (and frequently update) long-term regional transportation plans. In many regions, the plans were written by planners who support and were supported by the congestion coalition. As I showed in Vanishing Auto update #24, many of the plans called for spending 50 to 80 percent of the region’s funds on transit systems that carried only 1 to 4 percent of regional travel.

A new book by Reason Foundation researchers Ted Balaker and Sam Staley, The Road More Traveled, responds to the congestion coalition’s myths and proposes real solutions to congested cities. This book is a part of the Reason Foundation’s Mobility Project, which is developing policies and plans that will actually relieve congestion.

Vitex Vitex is a herb that also relaxes the body and increases sensitivity around the genital area. regencygrandenursing.com cialis 10 mg The cause of the low rate of order regencygrandenursing.com cheap cialis tadalafil is that this medicine has lowest ads and highest sale. If you have any kind of erection difficulty, you cialis price can buy Kamagra to treat ED and welcome bliss in the life. A many health professionals recommend this treatment to a many patients who visit their clinic every day. generic levitra Most transportation planners, the book points out, actually believe that “we can’t build our way out of congestion.” “They are reading books like J.H. Crawford’s Car-Free Cities and Jane Holtz Kay’s Asphalt Nation, whose authors make it sound like the entire nation has been blanketed by roads,” say Balaker and Staley. “They are enabling congestion because they believe it’s good for us: it gets us out of our cars.”

The authors could have added that many city planners work for elected officials whose campaigns are supported by rail contractors and property developers who expect to benefit from rail construction. These groups prefer to work in the background, but were recently exposed in Portland when their leader, and Portland’s former mayor, turned out to be an admitted statutory rapist. Only then did the local media start writing about the “light-rail mafia” that controlled the region’s transportation plans to maximize their own profits. One newspaper even listed the members of that mafia.

The latest Baptists & bootleggers combination is promoting the idea of building downtown-area streetcar lines. On the Baptist side are the usual anti-auto zealots. Leading the bootleggers is former Portland city commissioner Charles Hales, now working as a consultant for HDR, a firm that wants to get contracts to study, design, and build those streetcar lines.

Hales tells people that the Portland streetcar that was built when he was city commissioner generated $2 billion worth of property development. In fact, it was the $250 million in subsidies in addition to the streetcar that generated this development. And it really did not generate any development at all, it just moved it from somewhere else in the region to the downtown area–which obviously benefitted some property owners and harmed others. Creating winners and losers is a part of the Baptists and bootleggers game, because it takes winners to be bootleggers.

The Wisconsin State Journal recently published an abbreviated version of my op ed about streetcars, the longer version of which discussed the bootleggers in a little more detail.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

7 Responses to Baptists, Bootleggers, and Transportation Planning

  1. pdxf says:

    “This combination explains why the demand for rail transit is so high in cities where 95 percent of travel is by automobile. The anti-auto moralists provide grassroots support for rail projects. The bootleggers–rail contractors, railcar manufacturers, and property developers–provide the financial support, usually in the background.”

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DEMAND HERE, AND HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT. ALSO, HOW IS THIS CORRELATED WITH THE 95% NUMBER. DO YOU HAVE A DATA TABLE OR GRAPH SHOWING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBERS?

    Most transportation planners, the book points out, actually believe that “we can’t build our way out of congestion.” “They are reading books like J.H. Crawford’s Car-Free Cities and Jane Holtz Kay’s Asphalt Nation, whose authors make it sound like the entire nation has been blanketed by roads,” say Balaker and Staley. “They are enabling congestion because they believe it’s good for us: it gets us out of our cars.”

    CAN WE BUILD OUT OF CONGESTION? ? DO YOU STATE THAT WE NEED TO ADD MORE LANES (CAPACITY) TO FREEWAYS TO DEAL WITH MORE USE. IF THIS IS SO, DO YOU HAVE A LIMIT? IN 200 YEARS WILL WE NEED TO HAVE 40 LANES IN EACH DIRECTION TO HOLD THE INCREASED DEMAND? IS THIS TOO MUCH, OR DO YOU HAVE A LIMIT? WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

    The authors could have added that many city planners work for elected officials whose campaigns are supported by rail contractors and property developers who expect to benefit from rail construction. These groups prefer to work in the background, but were recently exposed in Portland when their leader, and Portland’s former mayor, turned out to be an admitted statutory rapist. Only then did the local media start writing about the “light-rail mafia” that controlled the region’s transportation plans to maximize their own profits. One newspaper even listed the members of that mafia.

    IS THE RAPIST STATEMENT NECESSARY FOR YOUR ARGUMENT?

    The latest Baptists & bootleggers combination is promoting the idea of building downtown-area streetcar lines. On the Baptist side are the usual anti-auto zealots. Leading the bootleggers is former Portland city commissioner Charles Hales, now working as a consultant for HDR, a firm that wants to get contracts to study, design, and build those streetcar lines.

    Hales tells people that the Portland streetcar that was built when he was city commissioner generated $2 billion worth of property development. In fact, it was the $250 million in subsidies in addition to the streetcar that generated this development. And it really did not generate any development at all, it just moved it from somewhere else in the region to the downtown area–which obviously benefitted some property owners and harmed others. Creating winners and losers is a part of the Baptists and bootleggers game, because it takes winners to be bootleggers.

    I’M NOT SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE GOAL OF DENSE NODAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG STREETCAR LINES. THE GOAL IS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY, TO MOVE IT TO DOWNTOWN OR INTO A DENSER CONFIGURATION WHERE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO DRIVE TO THE STORE, WORK, OR TO GET ENTERTAINMENT. INCIDENTALLY, THE DENSER DEVELOPMENT ALSO REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT IS NECESSARY TO HOUSE THE CITIZENS, THUS REDUCING THE OVERALL AREA OF THE CITY, WHICH MEANS IT CAN BE FARMLAND, FOREST LAND, ETC…

    The Wisconsin State Journal recently published an abbreviated version of my op ed about streetcars, the longer version of which discussed the bootleggers in a little more detail.

  2. PDXF said:

    “What do you mean by demand?” — I meant political demand to built rail lines, not economic demand to ride it. Poor choice of words; I’ll fix it.

    “Can we build out of congestion?” — No problem, if we give up urban-growth boundaries and accept congestion tolling. Will we end up paving over America? Not likely, partly because new technologies will allow us to get more efficient use of our roads (i.e., allow cars to drive closer together).

    You are not sure I understand the goal of density and then admit it is exactly what I say. Is there a question?

  3. pdxf says:

    “Can we build out of congestion?” – I’d be interested to hear your a direct response to whether continually adding lanes to a freeway is an actual solution. Are you an advocate of this as a solution. Are you an advocate of this expansion indefinitely? Also how does the limitation of UGB’s decrease the need for freeway capacity expansion?

    “You are not sure I understand the goal of density and then admit it is exactly what I say. Is there a question?”
    Sorry, I should have worded that better, Perhaps this rephrasement will help:
    I’M NOT SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE GOAL OF DENSE NODAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG STREETCAR LINES. THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THE OUTCOME EXACTLY AS YOU DESCRIBE, THE REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION INTO DENSER CONFIGURATION WHERE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO DRIVE TO THE STORE, …

  4. JimKarlock says:

    “Can we build out of congestion?” – I’d be interested to hear your a direct response to whether continually adding lanes to a freeway is an actual solution.

    JK: Suppose we doubled the lanes on every freeway – would you expect people to drive to work TWICE each AM and home each PM? Or would congestion decrease?

    Thanks
    JK

  5. pdxf says:

    “Suppose we doubled the lanes on every freeway – would you expect people to drive to work TWICE each AM and home each PM? Or would congestion decrease?”

    Sorry, I’m not quite following, why would I expect people to drive twice?? Perhaps you can rephrase…I had a late night, so perhaps I’m a little sleepy!

    If I suppose that we doubled the lanes on a freeway, I would expect congestion to decrease for a period of time, until further development and population growth along the freeway increased the congestion once again, thus requiring the addition of more capacity, which would work for a while, but then, congestion would once again increase, etc…..

  6. pdxf says:

    I would still love a response to whether or not adding lanes to a freeway will solve the congestion problem in the longterm, either from the antiplanner or JimKarlock.

  7. Pingback: Exaggerating the Benefits of Transit » The Antiplanner

Leave a Reply