The Arizona Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a transportation measure could not be placed on the ballot this November. The measure would have increased sales taxes by a penny to raise billions of dollars for roads and transit.
Contrary to what some people might think, the Antiplanner would have opposed this measure even if all of the funds were dedicated to roads. Transportation facilities should be built using user fees, not taxes.
No matter how disastrous rail transit plans turn out, their advocates can always count on public innumeracy to overlook the problems. Take the case of FasTracks, the plan to build 119 miles of new rail transit in Denver.
When approved by voters in 2004, RTD, the region’s transit agency, estimated it would cost $4.7 billion. Last May, that estimate went up to $6.2 billion, which RTD reluctantly admitted (two months later) it could not afford.
Now, the latest report indicates that the cost will be $7.9 billion. That’s 68 percent above the voter-approved $4.7 billion cost.
The U.S. went through a couple of gas crises in the 1970s, and now we are in the midst of another one. High prices at the pump have got politicians debating about drilling for oil in ANWR, off shore, and other places.
Recently, the Antiplanner’s esteemed colleagues and faithful allies, Indur Goklany and Jerry Taylor, pointed out that gas is actually less expensive today, when measured proportionate to personal incomes, than it was in 1960. Jerry (who has also been debating whether or not to drill for oil in the L.A. Times) expands on this point, with charts, on the Cato blog.
The point they were making is that we aren’t really in a serious crisis, and politicians should not rush to adopt ill-considered policies that are “exactly the wrong thing” — policies like ethanol subsidies that end up costing a lot and producing few benefits. I completely agree with this point, and to underscore it I’d like to scrutinize the data a little more.
If I had waited another day before posting on the future of democracy, I could have had the benefit of reading about Dr. Doom, aka Nouriel Roubini. Roubini is an economist who has been issuing similarly pessimistic warnings about the future of America for several years.
In a recent post on his blog (registration required), Roubini says the “American empire” is in decline for three reasons. First, it “squandered its power by relying excessively on its hard military power in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan,” rather than using “diplomacy and multilateralist approaches.” Second, other countries and regions such as China, Russia, India, and the European Union are catching up. Third, “the US squandered its economic and financial power by running reckless economic policies, especially its twin fiscal and current account deficits.”
I’d like to think that’s pretty much what I said last week. For what it’s worth, I disagree about a few details. I don’t consider Russia to be an economic or political rival. It is not capitalistic enough — property rights are not secure and its economy is based more on crony capitalism than true capitalism. It is growing fast enough, but most of the benefits of that growth go to those at the top.
The Antiplanner rarely comments on geopolitics, but the conflict in Georgia provokes some broader-than-usual thoughts. This war, and the coinciding Olympics, suggests that we have spent the last seven years worrying about the wrong dangers in the world. While we concentrated on so-called Islamofascists, the real danger facing America and democracy was somewhere else.
Published in 1987, Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of Great Powers makes it clear that, to be a great military power, you first have to be a great economic power. More specifically, you have to be able to build wealth. Kennedy points out that Britain was a superpower in the nineteenth century, and its economy grew throughout the century. But because some other countries were able to grow a little bit faster, by the mid-twentieth century Britain was relatively unimportant.
One of the perqs of having feet in both the environmental and libertarian worlds is that the Antiplanner gets emails from people of a wide range of political persuasions. But I was still surprised to get an email from someone promising to “bring the good news about Ethanol and renewable energy for American energy independence.” In fact, as the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Ken Green, points out in a recent paper, it is really hard to find any good news regarding ethanol in the United States.
When mixed with gasoline, Green reports, ethanol produces more nitrogen oxides (which, aside from being a constituent of photochemical smog, is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) than gasoline alone. As a result, an article in a recent Science magazine reported that corn-based ethanol “nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years.”
One of the little surprises in the Antiplanner’s analysis of regional transportation plans was that the plan for Houston — which the Antiplanner normally likes to point to as a paragon of freedom and efficiency — proposed some of the most intrusive anti-sprawl measures. The good news is that Houston’s metropolitan planning organization doesn’t have much power over the cities in its region.
These dense, but non-pedestrian-friendly, townhomes are the kind of new development Houston is getting without zoning or intrusive regulation.
The bad news is that the city of Houston is proposing to regulate urban corridors (meaning rail transit corridors) to promote transit-oriented developments. The web site for the corridor plan contains the usual alarmist language about population growth, and suggests that corridor planning and regulation can do something “about all this growth.”
“We can seize the opportunity we have, knowing that Houston is going to grow considerably, to find ways to shape our city,” says the web page. At least some of the planning is supposed to be voluntary, but when planners write about “shaping our city,” residents should get nervous.
Pain during intercourse: Also called dyspareunia, cheap viagra order pain during sex is experienced by young as well as old men. You can avail the advantage of buying generic sildenafil citrate is that it can be used to fight malaria, diabetes, bacteria, and it can serve as a natural aphrodisiac. viagra prescription http://raindogscine.com/anina-en-san-pablo-nueva-york-y-buenos-aires/ Treatments for rheumatology diseases Treatment of Rheumatologic cialis prescription raindogscine.com ailments is presented to the students in an interesting and gripping manner that can be easily understood. Similarly, Bremelanotide is another drug, which is under clinical trial and commercial supply chains and viagra cost in canada risk profiles.
In certain “core pedestrian zones,” the corridor plans will require the usual pedestrian-oriented designs, including extra wide sidewalks, buildings fronting on those sidewalks, and 75 percent of the fronts of those buildings must be “transparent.”
These are all recent urban planning fads, but I fail to see how they are going to help accommodate the 2 million people who planners predict will move to Harris County in the next 30 years. If it’s density the planners want, developers are already building lots of mid-rise and high-rise developments near Houston’s center, where land values are highest. They aren’t necessarily pedestrian oriented, but they will house lots of people.
In other corridors, these things will be optional but “incentivized” by allowing developers who meet pedestrian-friendly standards to waive other requirements. Now, I really don’t see the point. If the waivable requirements are so unimportant, then why are they required in the first place? It sounds to me like planners are keeping them on the books as a form of extortion, just so they can make developers comply with the pedestrian-friendly design.
The good news is that, even if Houston imposes these requirements, and they prove too onerous, developers can step outside the city and build for the market rather than the planners’ utopias. This, in turn, will pressure the city to minimize or relax any requirements it passes.
The primary mission of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), says its web site, “is to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.” But in 1992, Congress also gave HUD the responsibility of overseeing and regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs) that buy mortgages from banks.
The purpose of the GSEs is to provide banks with the same kind of assurance about the mortgage market that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is supposed to provide for bank depositors. They are supposed to be for-profit corporations, but with the implicit backing of the federal government, Congress worried that they might take inappropriate risks. HUD oversight was supposed to guard against that.
But the political reality is that secretaries of HUD don’t get rewarded for announcing that Fannie Mae didn’t go bankrupt again this year. Instead, they are pressured by Congress to announce that homeownership rates — especially for historically disadvantaged people such as blacks — are rising.
The Antiplanner grew up in the Rose City Park neighborhood of Portland, Oregon, zip code 97213, so it is with some pride that I read that Forbes magazine has declared 97213 to be one of the 10 most overpriced zip codes in the U.S. Forbes considers housing overpriced when the monthly mortgage you would have to pay to buy a house is significantly more than the rent for that house. Since few houses are for sale and for rent at the same time, as a proxy, Forbes divides the median home price by the median annual rent on homes with the same number of bedrooms in a zip code.
Frankly, this is just another effort by Forbes to get you to watch one of their advertisement-laden slide shows. So, to save you the time, here are the magazine’s rankings of the 10 most overpriced zip codes:
U.S. DOT data show that Americans drove almost 10 billion fewer vehicle miles in May, 2008 than in the same month of 2007. Urban driving declined by 5.8 billion vehicle miles, or about 3.4 percent. For the first five months of 2008, Americans drove 2.5 percent less than the same period in 2007, while urban driving declined by 2.1 percent.
The Wall Street Journal points out that the decline in gas purchases is leading to financial problems for highway agencies dependent on gas taxes. Naturally, transit lobbyists want more money spent on mass transit even though the latest data for transit, for March 2008, show a decline in ridership from March 2007.
What is the appropriate policy response? A month or so ago, the Antiplanner conducted an unscientific survey of readers asking how they were coping with high gas prices. Based on this survey, the Antiplanner concluded that most people were reducing driving slightly by trip chaining and eliminating unnecessary trips, while few were switching to transit or other modes.
Commuting guru Alan Pisarski agrees. “while American lifestyles are sure to undergo a shift” due to high gas prices, he says, “it will not be away from the automobile.” The biggest short-term shift, he says, will be to drive the more fuel-efficient of the multiple cars most families own. The long-term shift will be to buy more fuel-efficient cars in the future.
