Who Needs Transit, Anyway?

Rail advocates often call the Antiplanner “anti-transit,” probably because it is easier to call people names than to answer rational arguments. I’ve always responded that I’m just against wasteful transit. But looking at the finances and ridership of transit systems around the country, it’s hard not to conclude that all government transit is wasteful transit.

Nationally, after adjusting for inflation, the APTA transit fact book shows that annual taxpayer subsidies to transit operations have grown from $1.6 billion in 1970 to $24.0 billion in 2012, yet per capita ridership among America’s urban residents has declined from 49 to 44 trips per year. A lot of that money ends up going to unionized transit workers, but the scary thing is that these workers have some of the best pension and health care plans in the world that are mostly unfunded–which means that transit subsidies will have to increase in the future even if no one rides it at all.

Capital and maintenance subsidies are nearly as great as operating subsidies, largely due to the industry’s fascination with costly rail transit. In 2012, while taxpayers spent $24 billion subsidizing transit operations, they also spent nearly $10 billion on maintenance, and more than $7 billion on capital improvements. In 2012, 25 percent of operating subsidies went to rail transit, but 56 percent of maintenance and 90 percent of capital improvements were spent on rails.

Who, other than rail contractors, union members, and other transit agency employees, is enjoying the benefits of all of these subsidies? To answer this question, I went to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey page and downloaded table B08519, which shows how people get to work by income class, for states and metropolitan areas.

Nationwide, the data reveal, 5.0 percent of workers take transit to work. For low-income workers–those making less than $25,000 a year–the share is only slightly higher, at 5.9 percent. The shares are lower for other income classes except for people earning $75,000 a year or more, 6.1 percent of whom take transit to work. Where just under 1.2 million people who earn less than $10,000 take transit, more than 1.3 million people who earn more than $75,000 take transit.

About half of those high-earning transit commuters live in the New York metropolitan area. But this isn’t too surprising, as 40 percent of all American transit commuters live in the New York metro area. The high-income workers who take the most advantage of transit subsidies, relative to their low-income counterparts, seem to be mainly in the suburbs of New York, Chicago, Seattle, Washington DC, and–curiously–Idaho Falls.

Even in most places where low-income transit riders outnumber those who earn more than $75,000 a year, transit usage is not heavily weighted to the poor. In the Portland metro area, about 8.5 percent of low-income workers take transit to work compared with 6.1 percent of all workers. In the San Francisco Bay Area, it is 18.5 percent vs. 16.1 percent. In Tampa-St. Petersburg, it is 2.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent.

I’ve recently looked at data for Pinellas County, Florida, whose transit agency wants to build a $1.5 billion light-rail line. The county has more than 400,000 workers, but only 6,000 take transit to work. Of 14,000 commuters who live in households with no vehicle, 41 percent drive alone (presumably in borrowed or employer-supplied vehicles), 12.5 percent carpool, and just 15 percent take transit to work.
Your doctor will never suggest you to visit a relationship visit for source viagra price consultant for boosting the circulation of the blood into this region. It contains high levels of the antioxidants available today are page vardenafil cost far too weak to have any considerable effect on the levels of free radicals. Ed-pursuing students faces no issue on the job front. tadalafil 5mg no prescription That is why it is very important for the person to face proper blood supply to the penis. purchase levitra http://appalachianmagazine.com/2016/12/31/sick-this-week-youre-not-alone-cdc-says-flu-is-widespread-in-many-parts-of-appalachia/
This is not particularly unusual. In nearly 75 percent of the nation’s 315 largest urban areas, more commuters who live in households that lack a vehicle nevertheless drive alone to work than take transit. Nationwide, 21 percent of commuters who lack an automobile drive alone to work, but in some urban areas it is much higher: 51 percent in Riverside-San Bernardino, 42 percent in Raleigh, 40 percent in Kansas City and San Jose, 39 percent in San Diego, 36 percent in Indianapolis, and 31 percent in Tampa-St. Petersburg to name a few.

Most people believe we originally decided to have government take over transit to help low-income people who were transit-dependent. In fact, Congress first passed the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964 to rescue commuter trains in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco, whose private operators wanted to terminate service. In other words, transit was really a subsidy to big-city downtown property owners, not low-income workers.

Even if you want to help low-income workers, there doesn’t seem to be many many left who are truly dependent on transit anymore. Between high rates of auto ownership even among low-income people, the growing use of shared rides, and the soon-to-arrive self-driving car, there doesn’t seem to be much use for transit anymore.

I’ve noted before that urban planning professor David King worries that transit is “not living up to its social contract” of providing “the social benefits of mobility for non-drivers.” This view is affirmed by my friend Wendell Cox in New Geography, not to mention this graph comparing subsidies to different Bay Area transit systems and the race of the patrons of each of those systems.

One reason transit agencies no longer worry about low-income people who lack automobiles is that there aren’t very many of them left. Most non-vehicle households may be that way by choice, not by circumstance. After all, more than 20 percent of no-vehicle households are in New York, a state that has only 6 percent of the nation’s population.

Unfortunately, the census tables don’t show vehicle ownership by income, but even to the extent that some low-income households lack cars, it would cost a lot less to give each one a car than to continue subsidizing transit at the rate we do. Considering that less than 5 percent of the households in many states lack autos, I estimate that no more, and probably far less, than 5 million low-income households are without a motor vehicle. Less than two years’ worth of transit subsidies could buy Nissan Versas or similar cars for all of those people.

So transit isn’t for low-income people anymore. We also know that transit isn’t particularly green: except in New York and a few other big cities, transit uses a lot more energy and emits a lot more pollution, per passenger mile, than driving. Nor, outside of New York, does transit carry enough people to relieve much congestion, especially when you consider that the real congestion problem is poorly priced roads, a problem that isn’t solved by providing transit alternatives.

All of which leads me to conclude that there is no sound reason for giving $41 billion in subsidies to transit each year. Transit has become nothing more than a source of political favors to unions, downtown property owners, and rail contractors. As self-driving cars will soon begin to provide mobility for the disabled and those too young or old to drive, it is time for regional planning agencies to stop building obsolete rail transit lines and start thining about phasing out public transit subsidies over the next two decades.

Tagged . 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.

44 Responses to Who Needs Transit, Anyway?

  1. msetty says:

    The article at this link http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/23/building-cloverleafs-wont-inspire-americans-to-pay-more-for-transportation/ is closer to the reality of urban transportation in the 21st Century.

    The money quote:
    The policy-making establishment gets ambushed like this because it has lost touch with the grassroots. During most of the twentieth century, owning an automobile of any kind was a mark of prosperity. Drivers took pride in their cars. They felt the lure of the open road and paid willingly to indulge that desire. Taxing gasoline was an unobjectionable way to raise revenue, and building roads was a popular way to spend it.

    That political formula has gone out of date. In today’s suburbs, driving is mandatory. A mid-price car is no status symbol; it is the vehicle of the killer commute. The mental image associated with filling up the tank is a traffic jam. No one wants more of them, and the tax on gasoline is deeply disliked.

    Meanwhile, people under 40 are driving less. They prefer to go where sidewalks are wide, streets narrow, and parking scarce. Best of all are places you can reach by train. The young, and many older drivers too, want better transit, and they are willing to pay for it. Los Angeles, long wedded to the automobile, approved a sales tax increase by a two-to-one referendum vote to pay for an ambitious subway-building plan. In the Washington, D.C. area, a 2010 poll found a 62 percent majority favored expanding transit rather than roads, even though 77 percent travel by car most or all the time.

  2. msetty says:

    Hmmmnnnn…when was last time suburban residents DEMANDED the opportunity to vote for a tax increase for transit? Of all places, in the largest urban area with particularly low densities, e.g., Metro Atlanta?

    http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2014/07/05/clayton-approves-marta-contract-for-november-ballot“.

  3. metrosucks says:

    So msetty translates voters wanting to vote on a transit measure as support for any transit boondoggle, namely gold-plated rail, that irresponsible transit agencies want to build.

    Of course, what he also forgets to mention is that the Atlanta area transit agency was strongly slapped by voters in its effort, 2 years ago, to pass a huge funding bill that would create a lot more boondoggle rail transit and a little bit of road improvements thrown in as a bribe. The wailing & gnashing of teeth from rail fanatics could be heard ’round the world after that setback.

    Surely msetty forgot to mention this as a completely honest & coincidental oversight, not as any attempt at dishonesty. Surely.

  4. gilfoil says:

    ” To answer this question, I went to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey page and downloaded table B08519, which shows how people get to work by income class, for states and metropolitan areas. ”

    The results are from 2005. Interested to know why the Antiplanner would choose numbers from 9 years ago when newer numbers are available from, for example, http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/ridershipreport.aspx.

  5. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    But looking at the finances and ridership of transit systems around the country, it’s hard not to conclude that all government transit is wasteful transit.

    Even if government should set transit routes (at least to the extent we are stuck with transit that runs on rails, where it is nearly impossible to change those routes), there is no reason that tenured government employees should run and maintain transit, when those jobs can be handled at lower cost by private-sector employees.

    Capital and maintenance subsidies are nearly as great as operating subsidies, largely due to the industry’s fascination with costly rail transit.

    I concede that rail transit plays a huge role in getting people onto and off of the Island of Manhattan, but is there anyplace else in the U.S. where rail makes much sense?

    In 2012, while taxpayers spent $24 billion subsidizing transit operations, they also spent nearly $10 billion on maintenance, and more than $7 billion on capital improvements. In 2012, 25 percent of operating subsidies went to rail transit, but 56 percent of maintenance and 90 percent of capital improvements were spent on rails.

    Interesting how that works. For the most part, buses run on pavement that is built, owned and maintained by an entity other than the transit operator. So all the transit agency has to concern itself with is the upkeep of its bus fleet and maybe the streetside and roadside bus stops.

    msetty wrote (quoting a Streetsblog):

    The policy-making establishment gets ambushed like this because it has lost touch with the grassroots. During most of the twentieth century, owning an automobile of any kind was a mark of prosperity. Drivers took pride in their cars. They felt the lure of the open road and paid willingly to indulge that desire. Taxing gasoline was an unobjectionable way to raise revenue, and building roads was a popular way to spend it.

    How about the reliable mobility that cars provide – and that transit often does not?

    That political formula has gone out of date. In today’s suburbs, driving is mandatory. A mid-price car is no status symbol; it is the vehicle of the killer commute. The mental image associated with filling up the tank is a traffic jam. No one wants more of them, and the tax on gasoline is deeply disliked.

    What about suburbs that have been around for well-over a century? Suburbs that grew up along rail lines (intercity or streetcars or interurbans) but are now every bit as auto-dependent as the Levittowns that the Smart Growth industry dislikes so much?

    We could get rid of transit subsidies that are paid out of motor fuel taxes, so they are less disliked.

  6. msetty says:

    gilfoil said:
    Interested to know why the Antiplanner would choose numbers from 9 years ago when newer numbers are available…

    It’s called “cherry picking” the data, e.g., why use data that may contradict the point you’re trying to make?

    People like Wendell Cox do it all the time.

    BTW, Stupid Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel, the transportation sales tax in Atlanta was mostly a highway measure, proving the point of the Streetsblog article. You prove you’re an idiot once again.

  7. msetty says:

    BTW2, Stupid Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel, the Atlanta region sales tax proposal in 2012 would have spread out dozens of highway projects around that region, in a bid to buy voter support and raise lots of local match for state and federal highway funds. That is, a major part of the classic highway lobby political formula that no longer works in the 21st Century political climate.

  8. gilfoil says:

    It’s called “cherry picking” the data, e.g., why use data that may contradict the point you’re trying to make?

    Gosh, that sounds like something only an anti-transit ideologue would do. But the Antiplanner clearly disavowed that ugly label, so it remains unclear why he’d choose such old data to look at.

  9. MJ says:

    The young, and many older drivers too, want better transit, and they are willing to pay for it. Los Angeles, long wedded to the automobile, approved a sales tax increase by a two-to-one referendum vote to pay for an ambitious subway-building plan.

    Sounds to me like they’re not willing to pay for it, but rather are willing to have someone else pay for it.
    That’s your ‘money quote’?

  10. Dave Brough says:

    Your curiosity with Idaho Falls is probably answered by the fact that each day close to 3,000 high-income workers are bused to and from the remote desert location of the Idaho National Laboratory, aka “the Site”.

  11. MJ says:

    The results are from 2005. Interested to know why the Antiplanner would choose numbers from 9 years ago when newer numbers are available from, for example, http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/ridershipreport.aspx.

    Maybe because he wasn’t looking for aggregate ridership statistics. To repeat what he originally wrote (emphasis added):

    To answer this question, I went to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey page and downloaded table B08519, which shows how people get to work by income class, for states and metropolitan areas.

  12. metrosucks says:

    Shhhhh MJ, you’ll interrupt their mutual circle jerk!

  13. msetty says:

    Another perspective on the reality of transportation today, one pointing out how grossly overextended the road system is in the United States, both financially and physically:
    http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/7/24/some-perspective-on-the-gas-tax.html.

    But then there are the naive, a priori knee-jerk anti-tax idiots with a subtext that new roadways should be paid for by either “magic fairy dollars” or more likely, general tax revenues, so they can continue to drive, drive, drive to their heart’s content: http://www.texasturf.org/. Just wait for this bunch to scream bloody murder when they figure out what the “user fees” would have to be to meet existing costs of roads, let alone the legitimately documented “externalities” such as “free” (sic) parking or the impacts of vehicle accidents NOT covered by motor vehicle insurance.

  14. metrosucks says:

    Yeah msetty, don’t forget the $50 trillion stolen from transit users, who paid that money out of their own pockets, and given to rampaging automobile-driving hordes. We should have a Blue Ribbon Commission on this gross injustice!

    Now, when you take your hand off your wiener, we can return to reality, where road users pay most of their way, roads benefit every living being in the US, and rail transit users are grossly subsidized, welfare sucking losers.

  15. Tombdragon says:

    Sorry msetty – But “Fairy Dust?”, Really? You just don’t seem to understand. More road capacity means more economic productivity, and expanded market reach for consumers, producers, service providers, and labor? Do you know what that means? It means more gas tax receipts, more income tax revenue, and more jobs. I make measurably more money on the road traveling to be in front of my customers, I pay less when more service providers compete for my dollars, and because of that I benefit as a consumer. Expanded road capacity would pay for itself in so many ways, and people like you are nothing but a roadblock to productivity, job growth, and higher prices. Your – “it can’t be done” philosophy is the plague that is killing this nation.

  16. Frank says:

    Who needs transit?

    Michael Setty, who lives more than 10 miles from town on a rural road? Does Michael Setty need transit? He certainly wants us to pay for his books. I’m sure he wants us to pay for his private taxi, too!

    Dan Staley, who lives 20 miles from Denver in a sprawling suburban development? Does Dan Staley need transit? He certainly wants everyone else to live in density. I’m sure he wants us to pay for his two-hour commute on light rail/bus to Denver.

    Come on, boys. Abandon your sprawling rural/suburban lifestyles and move to density and walk to work. If only it were cheap enough… wah, wah…

  17. Frank says:

    And by work I mean fake work. You know, what you call consulting. That’s what unemployed people do. They consult. That means they live on wifey’s income and fly around the country—thereby increasing their carbon footprints—and give speeches about things that will change the world!

    Because they can’t find productive work.

  18. msetty says:

    I see some commentators here resort, again, to ad hominem attacks when they don’t have credible responses.

    BTW3, Stupid Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel, that’s $50 to $100 trillion swiped from taxpayers, anyone who ever paid for real estate, and every activity paid into it, except for the direct act of driving.

    As for the value of added roads, there is very little to none. Tombdragon, you need to brush up on the concept of “diminishing returns,” which we’re far past when it comes to motor vehicle infrastructure. You don’t believe that projects such as this: http://keycity.co/how-to-blow-20000000-on-1100-people/. Such a $20 million project to “upgrade” a tertiary roadway with less than 2,000 ADT through a small town in Minnesota makes the most outrageous “transit boondoggle” look stellarly cost-effective.

    Also, here’s a reference on diminishing returns that isn’t Wikipedia: http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/diminishing_returns_law_of.

  19. msetty says:

    For the benefit of the reasonable people who reads The Antiplanner blog, the same guy who questions the $20 million road boondoggle on a route carrying 1,100 ADT in Minnesota, also is a streetcar skeptic:

    http://keycity.co/tbt-why-streetcars-were-awesome-then-and-why-they-kinda-suck-now/.

    My take is simply that streetcars may be justified on a transportation basis in locations where (a) there is enough ridership potential to justify the higher cost compared to buses; and (b) sufficient measures taken to neutralize the impact of congestion on streetcar operations. And of course the signal preemption needs to be turned for the Green Line in the Twin Cities.

  20. Frank says:

    Yes, all of you assholes who engage in ad hominem attacks, you’re “Stupid Troll”s. TM [sic]

    I will keep being a hypocrite, because that’s what I do best. That and consulting. Which isn’t a real job.

  21. gilfoil says:

    Not sure why the Antiplanner feels the need to defend himself against the accusation that he’s anti-transit. If transit is such a wasteful failure, why not say, “hell yes, I’m anti-transit!” Just own it and be proud of it, right?

  22. metrosucks says:

    Sociopathic government planners don’t even pretend to be public servants anymore; now they angrily demand to know why we dare be displeased with what they bestowed upon us mere mundanes.

    Let us note how the dialog has been twisted by thuggish operatives like msetty. Under his facetious little screed, government planners and corporate welfare types become the victims, and displeased citizens the predators.

    How sad for msetty that he can’t simply seize the government’s system of regimentation and taxation and use it to achieve his political goals.

    For rail is a purely political goal. We cannot point to an area and say with evidence, “this area is suffering from a lack of rail”, unlike legitimate, necessary services like water, roads, fire, electricity. Because msetty has a personal goal to cover the usa in subsidized rail (is it still considered only a subsidy if 100% of it is paid for by non-users?), and a grievance against autos, doesn’t make his ideas valid.

  23. msetty says:

    So, Frankie the Troll(tm), you’re also calling Randal’s profession as a consultant to partially Koch brothers-funded operations like the CATO Institute to be “non-productive!?” Well, my clients don’t think my work is “non-productive” since it is helping improve mobility for non-drivers. So, fuck you.

    One of our “thuggish” leaders, one Chuck Marohn, recently wrote the following here: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/7/24/some-perspective-on-the-gas-tax.html.

    Our real problem is that we have not had to think about what we are doing for a long, long time. We’ve been so wealthy and affluent that funding the most bizarre transportation arrangement on earth became akin to the American way of life. Congestion-free roadways and ample parking are to the United States what bread and circuses were to Rome. Get out your fiddle, that smoke is real.

    The question facing us now isn’t whether or not to increase funding for transportation but whether or not to reform – or even question – the very nature of our approach to transportation.

    An America where we don’t have to think very hard, one with an embarrassment of riches available to cover up our immediate folly and allow us to put off anything truly difficult. One where the only real feedback is total failure. That’s a fragile place. It is yesterday’s America. This generation’s challenge is to change it.

    We’re running out of money. It’s time to start thinking.”

    Chuck has succinctly summarized the transportation mess in the U.S. for the past 70+ years. It is also very amusing to see the Defenders of the Transportation Bullshit(tm) collective heads explode, and whistle past the graveyard. Your lack of credible replies is very reassuring to indicating that Chuck, myself and others of my ilk will prove to be correct.

  24. metrosucks says:

    “Your lack of credible replies is very reassuring to indicating that Chuck, myself and others of my ilk will prove to be correct.”

    One supposes you should be allowed, if not encouraged, to entertain these delusional fantasies, because then the crash to reality will be that much more painful and rude, giving us a good laugh.

  25. msetty says:

    Actually, Frankie, our leader and Head Thug(tm) is Buzz Aldrin.

  26. metrosucks says:

    We’re running out of money. It’s time to start thinking.”

    This is ironic, considering that rail is the single most expensive method of transportation, and most inflexible, by far, that exists today. Nothing else costs so much, and delivers so little. That is, unless you’re Michael Setty, Stacey & Witbeck, or some other corporate welfare dependent leech on society.

    Here’s some more interesting information that will show, once more, what a worthless piece of shit leeches like msetty are:

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-increases-reparations-for-holocaust-survivors/

    Germany has paid, overall, about $89 billion in reparations to the survivors of the Holocaust. Michael Setty, on the other hand, thinks that his hurt feelings and lack of government teet to suck on for himself and other rail apologists for not bankrupting the world to build all the rail he wants, is worth between 50 and 100 trillion, or 561 times to 1123 times what has been paid out as compensation for the immeasurable suffering and death toll from one of the most horrible crimes in history. One that was, of course, carried out by government planners.

    Ironically, the 89 billion that has been paid for that suffering is enough to maybe build 150-200 miles of light rail at the current rate the cost of boondoggle construction is shooting into the stratosphere.

    So instead of calling attention to great injustices like this, Michael Setty pretends that the world not being railed up according to his desires is worth hundreds of times more than millions of people. I don’t remember a Holocaust survivor ever demanding $100 Trillion for the collective suffering, even though they are definitely due that and more, but Michael has no problem pulling this preposterous figure out of his enlarged anus as “reparations” for “crimes against rail”. I invite everyone to chew on that.

  27. Tombdragon says:

    msetty – using your methodology we should be indeed building higher capacity roads, and NOT build Light Rail because most don’t realize a measurable benefit. Why not argue using an already congested road, in an area with the largest percapita food stamp recipients in the country? Portland’s Highways are congested at least 18 hours a day, it is not unusual for it to take 2-3 hours commuting 25 miles – one way – on I5, or I84, and their is no bus or train that can take you because the percapia earnings cannot support the transit infrastructure we have today – business is leaving – give me and answer that applies to a majority of Urban residents. You obviously don’t live in the West or have any idea of the distances involved.

  28. msetty says:

    The Troll That Is No Bart Sibrel,

    You really need to get back on your meds. Your reading incomprehension is showing.

  29. msetty says:

    Of course, as The Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel shows, some auto/road apologists are quite insane, particularly when someone talks back to them.

  30. gilfoil says:

    “Portland’s Highways are congested at least 18 hours a day, it is not unusual for it to take 2-3 hours commuting 25 miles – one way”

    That sounds terrible. I feel bad for the people who have to do that. On my commute I read, listen to music, or watch movies.

  31. metrosucks says:

    You just can’t get through to a sociopath. He always dodges your reasons and shifts the debate. Nothing will make him admit defeat. Even getting caught calling for almost 10% of the entire US NET WORTH:

    http://dmarron.com/2010/01/04/whats-the-united-states-worth-1-4-quadrillion/

    to build rail boondoggles won’t phase him.

  32. metrosucks says:

    As for gilfoil, he also doggedly refuses to admit that the congestion suffered by Portland residents is because planners have taken all the money designated for road improvements and poured it down the rathole of rail boondoggles, so a select few losers like him can ride in comfort at the expense of every other Tri-County resident.

  33. msetty says:

    Well, I see The Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel must of flunked first grade arithmetic, too. Hey, us transit advocates would be happy with $2 trillion over the next 30 years to restore and expand the transit infrastructure that was destroyed during the now waning Highway Era.

    Oh, now I understand. Anyone who dares disagrees with The Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel and might favor transit, like gilfoil, belongs to the “select few” (sic) loser category. Sorry, I should have know of The Superior Intelligence of The Troll Who Is No Bart Sibrel. Darn.

  34. metrosucks says:

    So you would like more every year than highways and roads get, wow how nice. What percentage of commuters does transit carry, again? What does that matter to you, you’re a selfish sociopath that wants to reshape the whole country out of misplaced nostalgia, and the opportunity to make a quick scam buck consulting for this bs.

  35. sprawl says:

    I’m tired of reading posters insult each other with 4 letter, crude personal attacks. It is boring to the rest of the readers.

  36. gilfoil & msetty,

    What makes you think my numbers were from 2005? They were from 2012. The American Community Survey began in 2005, but has continued every year since then. I don’t cherry pick data.

  37. msetty says:

    Sprawl, I agree with you. But you’ll notice it is Metrosucks who always throws the first crap and thinks anyone who dares disagree with him should rhetorically be shot and thrown in a ditch in the same manner as the SS did to Jews when they swept through Poland and the Soviet Union.

    In this thread I also notice that no one has provided a reasoned response to the quotes by Charles Marohn I linked to, e.g., the gist of which is that the highway/auto system is severely overextended both financially and physically–the current problems with the Highway Trust Fund being Exhibit 1A. I think Marohn makes a very strong argument that “your side” including Randal needs to deal with.

    Instead, in general, we get technophilic musings that robocars will magically swoop in and save the day, there is no legitimate needs for transit–as if Uber, Lyft and similar private sector services will also swoop in and suddenly serve the needs of non-drivers (who are a small minority in most places for historical reasons, and who are the primary customers of most transit systems, BTW, and are still much cheaper in most cases to serve with buses rather than taxi-like services, but I digress).

  38. Builder says:

    OK, here is my “reasoned response.” The highway trust fund is in trouble. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Congress has mandated that it spend more money than it takes in. Second, Congress has diverted a significant fraction of the funds to non-highway purposes, mostly mass transit. The funding mechanism for roadways could be much better.
    However, this does not detract from the fact that highway users can and would easily pay for the cost of the roadways that they use. This is very different from almost all mass transit in the United States that relies on subsidies from others, often automobile users.

  39. msetty says:

    Builder, Marohn and I agree in general that gasoline taxes and other methods of highway financing need to be increased to cover more of the costs. But to some extent, the provision of increasingly large contributions from the Federal “general fund” for highways makes the “user fee” argument moot to some extent, as well as the “diversion” argument.

    My approach is to also point out that in most European countries, gasoline taxes are sufficiently high enough to generate generous road funding but also significant surpluses that go to general revenues, including support for transit. As a policy matter, this is consistent with helping mitigate some of the many negative externalities of the auto/highway system (though some people argue that the taxes aren’t sufficiently high to do this completely). If it were strictly up to me, this is what we would do in North America, though the politics of “We’re ‘Mericans! So we’re entitled to cheap go-juice forever” will never allow it.

    However things may be in Europe, Marohn points out the much bigger problem: the current road system is greatly overextended both financially and physically, pointing out in a recent post that to meet the ASCE projections of “need,” the gas tax would have to go up by nearly 80 cents per gallon. Politicians tend to support new construction because it is “sexy” and also helps pay off their buddies, as opposed to boring but necessary ongoing maintenance. The current transportation planning process is also broken, still mainly consisting of wish lists put together by politicians and engineers as opposed to real analysis.

    One commenter on Streetsblog suggested subjecting road projects to the same sort of detailed scrutiny as “New Start” rail and BRT projects receive; I doubt this would change the political temptations to develop wish lists, but it might provide politicians and other decision makers with more real information about how costly many road projects really are.

    “How to reform” the current situation is very much a work in progress. One thing that Marohn and his associates are working on is a book outlining their proposals for reform. This book is scheduled to be released at their Strong Towns “National Gathering” in Minneapolis in September. For those seriously interested in transportation policy and reforming the transportation planning process, I suggest attending (this includes yes, You, The Antiplanner! I recall Randal has collaborated with Chuck Marohn before a few years ago…) Link: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/3/13/strong-towns-national-gathering-sept-12-14.html.

  40. metrosucks says:

    Hmm, oddly enough, my first response on this post has some sarcasm, but no name-calling whatsoever. Could it be? Another lie from msetty? Nah, that’s not possible, he’s an honest “consultant” who works hard and helps governments fool their citizens into supporting the cockamamie density plans planners love so much. Oops, I shouldn’t have said that, cat’s out of the bag. My sincere apologies msetty, I only meant to say that you’re a loser who lives with his sister, hypocritically, against all he preaches. Oh oops, my apologies, forgot that you have the all important Personal Circumstances. So I guess you’ve covered all your bases, you have great, though generic, excuses, for all the hypocritical things you do.

    PS, you seem to think people look forward to the sewage spills you loose here on this blog, but the reality is, except for your circle jerk members Dan, gilfoil, and highwayman, no one wants you here. You like to pop in with what you think are your clever allusions to Randal lying or the rest of us needing psychiatric care because we don’t like density or your delusional plans for the US. If you disappear to go down on some guy in a Napa Valley field and don’t come back, no one is going to ask “where is msetty, i really i miss that dude”.

  41. gilfoil says:

    Ok – I was wrong. I see now that the survey *begins* at 2005 and ends in 2012. The link for 2012 is here:

    http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_B08519&prodType=table

    However, there’s no way that I can see to verify the Antiplanner’s figures other than manually adding up the state totals.

  42. metrosucks says:

    Yes, because it is sooooooooo important to soothe the skepticism of a government planner/apologist like gilfoil.

    However, there’s no way that I can see to verify the Antiplanner’s figures other than manually adding up the state totals.

    since government planners don’t do anything useful with their time besides actively destroying society, maybe you should take a break from your evil occupation and verify the figures yourself if the Antiplanner is such a liar and you planner types such holy, innocent, truth-respecting babies.

  43. msetty says:

    Metrosucks speweth:
    PS, you seem to think people look forward to the sewage spills you loose here on this blog, but the reality is…
    Only in response to your garbage and insults, buddy.
    …except for your circle jerk members Dan, gilfoil, and highwayman, no one wants you here.
    Sound to me more like at least a few people who disagree with us (e.g., those on “your side”) would like you to disappear, or at least when you’re trolling.

    Do you visit a lot of right wing blogs where they routinely ban people for disagreeing with the party line? If so, I could see how those who beg to differ could cause you to overreact like you routinely do.

  44. Tombdragon says:

    Here is the problem msetty. You, as well as most of the planning advocates who read this CLEARLY don’t have to live – as a lower middle class income family with the “planned assumptions” that dominate your philosophy. In my “planned” world we have had, over the last 17 years, our property taxes doubled, our water/sewer fees increased by a factor of 10, as well as shouldering the cost of connecting to sewer, while our transit service has been reduced to nothing, neighborhood businesses where we worked forced out of our neighborhood, while the density of our east Portland neighborhood was forced to accept the entire infill goal of the City of Portland. We talk of Transit and in reality id sould be a public service meant to connect low income residents with jobs, and to connect low income consumers with markets they need to live a better life. All you talk about is how people should live rather than empowering them to choose to live better. So far the “planned” environment of Portland doesn’t afford us to live better, it only pays the well-to- do to live as planned by the bureaucracy they pay to represent them in office.

    http://topics.oregonlive.com/tag/broken%20promises/index.html

Leave a Reply