Nearly two weeks after the American Public Transportation Association issued its deceptive press release about 2013 transit ridership, some reporters are still being fooled. Just two days ago, for example, NPR did a story claiming commuters are “ditching cars for transit in record numbers.”
Ironically, NPR begins its story in Chicago, where (APTA data reveals) 2013 transit ridership declined by 2.7 percent from the year before. “Throughout the entire country, just about every public transportation system saw hikes in ridership,” the story incorrectly claims. In addition to Chicago, transit systems in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Kansas City, Louisville, Memphis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Antonio, and Washington DC all lost riders in 2013. Don’t NPR reporters check their facts?
While reporters might be fooled, three urban planning professors writing in the Washington Post weren’t. “The association’s numbers are deceptive,” they say, and any claims that the nation is “moving away from driving” is “misguided optimism.” In fact, they continue, “transit is a small and stagnant part of the transportation system.”
Upon opening the folder, each manager found a large mirror inside. overnight delivery viagra They not only satisfy their partner, but due to erotic dysfunction of her partner, she always left unsatisfied eroticly which affect them psychologically. buy cheap viagra Our dedicated team of plastic surgeons, supported by cutting edge viagra generic check now technology, is committed to provide the complete services and treatment for the problems. Physiological Leucorrhea is generally harmless and may not be needed in the immediate future viagra tablets 20mg and can be cause variety of reasons.
These planners are no lovers of automobiles, and the Antiplanner can’t agree with them that reducing people’s mobility is a good thing. But they clearly see that “Building transit systems is not the same as having people ride them, and people riding transit more is not the same as people driving less.” Their solution is to end subsidies to driving, a solution the Antiplanner supports–along with ending subsidies to transit.
The Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, provides more detail about the failure of transit to make inroads into the automobile’s share of travel. Of course, transit supporters will respond to anything Cox or the Antiplanner says with innuendo and name calling.
Anyone ever played Rock-Papper-Scissors……..of course you have. I have the rock-papper-scissors of transit. Like rock-papper-scissors, you have three categories that defeat one another. In this case you have….1: Those that support transit don’t use it (the politicians who think ”we” should use it…be it for the sake of the planet, energy, whatever) 2: Those that use/want it cant afford 3: Those that can afford it have no use for it.
Rich people don’t use transit, politicians don’t use it, but enjoy cutting the ribbon, the people that need transit the most are watching it slowly erode.
NPR just reports stories that fit their overall narrative. And holy cow, do they use a ton of cliches.
In just one story/propaganda piece the other day on nuclear disarmament, NPR reported that Obama was “driving the train”, “sucking all the air out of the room”, and “putting his signature on” nuclear disarmament. NPR proved that the program was working with clips from bureaucrats that “my inbox is full of messages every day from China and Pakistan and all over the world”.
“Of course, transit supporters will respond to anything Cox or the Antiplanner says with innuendo and name calling.”
No. I don’t believe it. You’re just being overly sensitive. (end sarcasm)
Or they’ll just selectively apply statistical methods to make it look like transit ridership has increased.
“my inbox is full of messages every day from China and Pakistan and all over the world”
Mine is too! Wow! Sure, they’re mostly offers from Nigerians to scam me or poorly written offers from China to enlarge my manhood or to buy fake veeagra, but hey! This prooooooves something!
By the way, your spam queue won’t let me write p e n i s and v i a g r a in the same post. Go figure!
When the Washington Post allows criticism of the American Public Transportation Association and NPR for reporting false information, you know it has to be really, really false.
The Post has always been a go-to cite for big media and big government types. My bet is that the NPR story gets a lot more mileage than the Post this time. As they say: “Lies circle the earth while Truth is still trying to put on its shoes.” Thank you Washington Post for putting on your shoes this time.
The Antiplanner wrote:
While reporters might be fooled, three urban planning professors writing in the Washington Post weren’t. “The association’s numbers are deceptive,” they say, and any claims that the nation is “moving away from driving” is “misguided optimism.” In fact, they continue, “transit is a small and stagnant part of the transportation system.”
Though the New York Times, in its story on 10 March 2014, did (to its credit) write the headline to read:
Use of Public Transit in U.S. Reaches Highest Level Since 1956, Advocates Report
(note: emphasis added).
These planners are no lovers of automobiles, and the Antiplanner can’t agree with them that reducing people’s mobility is a good thing. But they clearly see that “Building transit systems is not the same as having people ride them, and people riding transit more is not the same as people driving less.”
There are a lot of elected officials around the United States that do not want to expand the highway system for any reason, and additionally want desperately to believe that providing more transit instead of improved highways is a viable alternative, when it usually is not, though those same elected officials are usually opposed to doing anything to limit auto ownership and use by their own constituents.
Those elected officials are backed-up by a lively and loud collection of anti-highway, anti-automobile and pro-transit advocates and advocacy groups, some of which are not-in-my-backyard activists (NIMBYs) opposed to highways; other are opposed to private automobile for various reasons (including largely out-dated concerns about air quality impacts of private automobiles); some promote transit as a way of stopping “sprawling” land use patterns (never mind that transit, including rail transit, allowed late 19th Century and early 20th Century “sprawling” suburbs to be constructed in the first place (both in the United States and other nations)); others are railfans that want the taxpayers to recreate the transportation system of the 1920’s (and sometimes cite “Roger Rabbit” type conspiracies that must (finally) be defeated); some are private consultants that earn handsome fees designing and engineering new transit systems; and some are unions that represent hourly transit workers.
Their solution is to end subsidies to driving, a solution the Antiplanner supports–along with ending subsidies to transit.
Without revenues (usually motor fuel taxes, tolls, parking fees and taxes) diverted from highway users to transit, most federal funding of transit (usually capital costs) would halt – and at the state and local levels, operating subsidies by highway users to transit systems would come to and end, and operation of transit would immediately shut down. In many cases, few people would notice (metropolitan New York City being a notable exception).
But there are people out there that are transit dependent because they cannot drive an automobile for medical reasons, or because they cannot afford to own, maintain and insure their vehicle. I don’t mind providing subsidized service (in some way) for that group of people.
CPZ, since you work for the government, you already know that the political deck is loaded to favour automobiles.
Roads aren’t expected to make money, also the USA is missing 100,000+ miles of rail line.