Social Security, CalTrains, Going Broke

It is hard to imagine that anyone inside the DC beltway is not feeling a rising sense of panic over the news that Social Security is out of money. As the New York Times graphic shows, Social Security revenues were expected to exceed receipts through 2016, but in fact are expected to be less than receipts from 2010 on.

The year 2016 is comfortably far enough away that elected officials whose terms are no longer than six years don’t bother worrying about it. But if social security is out of money now, then the entire federal edifice — much of which has been funded by borrowing from the social security surplus — is on the brink of collapse.

Continue reading

Nix on Rocky Mountain High-Speed Rail?

After getting burned by Denver’s Regional Transit District, Colorado Moreover, order viagra overnight works best when taken on an empty stomach. All these herbs are blended in right combination to boost secretion of testosterone. cialis online best When will a cancer patient who has had treatment experience impotence? Depending on the cialis online pill midwayfire.com treatment, the experience of the surgeon, and the progress of the cancer, it may be right away. There can be physical, mechanical, interpersonal or emotional problems and these should be resolved canadian generic viagra to prevent dissatisfaction and confusion in conjugal life. doesn’t seem eager to drink the Kool-Aid again.

LaHood Favors Non-Motorized Transportation

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood issued new rules for bike- and walkways and announced at the National Bike Summit that “This Is the End of Favoring Motorized Transportation at the Expense of Non-Motorized.” This led to more critical remarks from the BoydGroup, an aviation consulting firm that previously criticized LaHood for “advising” airlines not to oppose high-speed rail.

LaHood’s dichotomy between motorized and non-motorized transportation is politically astute but historically inaccurate. For most of the last century — roughly 1920 through 1990 — our institutions favored forms of transportation that paid for themselves as opposed to those that required huge subsidies. Those were primarily highways, aviation, and rail freight.

Continue reading

$21 Billion for Not-Particularly-High-Speed Trains

Last week, the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority — a grandiose name for something that is little more than a state-funded study committee — proposed to spend close to $22 billion building new high-speed rail lines in Colorado. (Actually, $21.1 billion; the media rounded up to $22 billion.) Based on several highly questionable assumptions, these rail lines are expected to attract more than twice as many passengers as Amtrak’s Boston-to-Washington corridor and generate enough fares to cover their operating costs.

The $21.1 billion is only the initial cost estimate, of course. The real cost is likely to be close to twice that much if only because of political pressures to extend the rail lines to communities not on the proposed routes.

A $1.5 million feasibility study (scroll to the bottom to download the executive summary and the study itself) compared alternative rail technologies with top speeds of 79, 110, 125, 150, 220, and 250 mph. The 150 and 250 alternatives used maglev; the rest were conventional steel wheels on steel rails. The low-speed alternatives were rejected as not attracting enough passengers, while the maglev alternatives were rejected for having capital costs that were nearly three times as much as conventional rail. Two basic routes were considered, one north-south from Cheyenne to Trinidad and one east-west from Denver Airport to Grand Junction with branches to Aspen and Steamboat Springs.

Continue reading

LaHood Threatens Airlines

“Let me give you a little political advice,” Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood told airline officials yesterday: “Do not be against high-speed rail.” Since airlines depend on the federal government to maintain and — they hope — fix the nation’s antiquated air traffic control system, they may feel like they have to follow this advice even though they are the most likely to be hurt by high-speed trains.

According to one aviation consultant who was present, LaHood’s statement was an “open threat to anyone who might question or oppose the administration’s as-is plan for high-speed rail.” Indeed, except for Southwest Airlines’ objection to high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas, no airline has spoken up publicly against the administration’s plans to heavily subsidize this new competitive threat to an already risky business.
Male organ due to ED does not levitra 40 mg get hardness enoughto penetrate and to become erect. You have to get used to getting an erection Trouble in keeping an cialis no prescription cheap erection Reduced sexual desire Men suffering from obesity, atherosclerosis, high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and neurological diseases are some causes of impotence. You will also find that the course curriculum in the online format presented in canadian sildenafil a very engaging format including video lessons. Extensive newspaper coverage bestowed widespread and generic cialis in usa enduring international notoriety on the Ripper.
As American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpy told the same conference, air travel in the United States is incredibly affordable, costing (he said) as little as 4 cents a passenger mile. (More like 14 by the Antiplanner’s calculations — see previous post — but that’s still less than a quarter of the cost of Amtrak and less than a fifth of the cost of high-speed rail.) Yet this highly competitive industry returns little profit to shareholders, and subsidized trains in key markets are going to make the airlines even more marginal.

What Next for Congress?

What does House passage of a health-care bill mean for transportation and planning issues? For one thing, the bill just passed includes the now-familiar (but wrong) assumption that we can make people healthier through social engineering. More important, it means some in Congress are going to start gearing up for reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs (even though no one seriously believes a bill will be passed in 2010).

One idea that has been around for awhile is for an infrastructure bank. But as faithful Antiplanner ally Ron Utt points out, what people call an infrastructure bank will be far from a true bank. Instead, it is likely to turn into an open-bucket pork fest in which states and cities come up with the most wildly expensive, inane projects to make sure they get “their share” of the take. Yes, at least some of the money the bank gives out will be in the form of loans, but it will be easy for states to “borrow” money against the taxes they expect to collect someday from their taxpayers.

The bigger debate, of course, is going to be between collective transport and personal transport. The door-to-door convenience of driving is so great that, even with huge subsidies, it is hard to imagine collective transport ever taking significant market share away from the automobile. And yet people fantasize endlessly about the benefits of high-speed rail, streetcars, and so forth.

Continue reading

Rail Transit vs. Driverless Cars

After two years of delays, Austin’s Capital Metro plans to finally begin operating its commuter-rail line today. This is not before at least one more example of the agency’s incompetence to build and run a rail line — it spent millions on steel ties only to discover they were not properly insulated for the system’s electronic signaling system.

The Antiplanner has often said that the only reason to build rail transit is if you have a lot of money burning a hole in your pocket, and that was apparently the case in Austin. Capital Metro had $200 million in the bank and feared taxpayers would cut its subsidy or demand that some of the money be given to other agencies. So it blew the money on commuter rail, is now nearly broke, and its general manager was forced to resign in disgrace. 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.

Continue reading

Peer Review? So What?

“If you’re so smart,” people sometimes ask the Antiplanner, “why haven’t you published any articles in peer-reviewed journals?” Part of my answer is that I’ve seen so many peer-reviewed articles that are simply junk science that I don’t have much respect for the process. (The other part of my answer is that I am not seeking academic tenure, which used to be the major reason for writing peer-reviewed articles.)

A prime example of peer-reviewed junk science is the spate of articles a few years ago linking obesity to suburban sprawl. As noted here before, back in 2003 a group called Smart Growth America breathlessly announced a peer-reviewed study supposedly proving that sprawl “has a hand in the nation’s obesity crisis” which “demonstrate[s] the urgent need” for smart growth. Actually, the results of the peer-reviewed study were much weaker, only claiming that sprawl “had small but significant associations” with obesity.

Small is right. As Wendell Cox discovered, the data used by Smart Growth America indicated that residents of dense Boston weighed just 1.7 pounds less than Boston suburbanites, while those of denser Chicago weighed just 1.4 pounds less than that city’s least-dense suburbs.

Continue reading

Student Protests

The Antiplanner has long observed that everyone can justify the subsidies they get from the government. So it is no surprise that university students across the nation are protesting increases in tuition. Even though the students themselves are the ones who primarily benefit from their educations, some of them have the nerve to call tuition growth “tax hikes.”

To be fair, when the Antiplanner entered college, my tuition was just over $400 a year, which (after adjusting for inflation) is about $2,000 in today’s money. Today, in-state tuition at Oregon State University, my alma mater, is about three times that amount. Still, that’s just a third of out-of-state tuition, suggesting that in-state students pay only a third of the cost of their educations.

Continue reading

A Question for John Hickenlooper

A governor is the taxpayers’ last line of defense against money-hungry bureaucrats who incessantly seek their “fair share” of worker incomes in the form of higher taxes for all sorts of boondoggles. Governors can limit the amount of money that agencies request, they can veto excessive spending bills, and they can make sure bureaucracies don’t waste money that legislatures have appropriated.

To successfully defend taxpayers, governors must be skeptical of claims made by bureaucrats and the special interest groups that benefit from excessive spending, and they must be open to listen to citizen views of proposed spending programs. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who is now running for governor of Colorado, has failed to meet these tests.

In September, 2004, during the campaign to spend billions of dollars on Denver-area rail transit, Hickenlooper endorsed the new tax for more trains, saying that Fastracks would “take at least 250,000 cars off the road — thereby relieving congestion.” This was a complete fabrication.

Continue reading