Eight Reasons Journalists Should Learn Economics

A writer for MarketWatch.com, which is part of the Dow Jones-Wall Street Journal group — has penned one of the most smugly ignorant articles about our economy I could imagine. The article is titled Eight Reasons You’ll Rejoice When We Hit $8 a Gallon Gasoline.

His reasons include:

1. RIP for the internal combustion engine

2. Economic stimulus

3. Whither the Middle East’s clout

4. Deflating oil potentates

5. Mass transit development

6. An antidote to sprawl

7. Restoration of financial discipline

8. Easing global tensions

Continue reading

Let’s Talk about Gentrification

The New York Times has a love affair with Portland, but a recent article points to a dark side of Portland that the Antiplanner has commented on before: it is (as Harvard economist Edward Glaeser once put it) a “boutique city catering only to a small, highly educated elite.”

That means there isn’t much room in Portland for chronically low-income blacks. The black “ghetto,” as we called parts of Northeast Portland when I was growing up there, has been gentrified by yuppies who can’t afford homes elsewhere in the region’s urban-growth boundary. This has pushed blacks from rental housing in those neighborhoods, leaving just a scattering of blacks who owned their homes.

What is left “is not drug infested, but then you say, ‘Well, what happened to all the black people that were in this area?’ ” Margaret Solomon, a long-time black resident told the Times. “You don’t see any.” As California writer Joseph Perkins put it, “smart growth is the new Jim Crow.”

Continue reading

Cost-Effective Reductions in Greenhouse Gases

A new brief from the Brookings Institution says American cities should “expand transit and compact development options” in order to reduce their “carbon footprints.” The brief is based on a study, but frankly, I don’t think the study supports the conclusions.

The study compared per-capita carbon emissions from transit systems with a crude estimate of carbon emissions from driving. But it failed to note that per passenger mile carbon emissions from transit tend to be more than from driving. The study also looked at residential carbon emissions, but not emissions from other sources. The study used so many shortcuts — for example, estimating carbon emissions based on miles driven rather than using actual fuel consumption data — that it is likely rife with errors.

Continue reading

Gas Prices Up, So Cut Transit Service

Gas prices are at record levels, transit ridership is growing, so what do transit agencies do? Cut service!. Denver’s Regional Transit District says it plans to cut some of its “lowest-performing routes,” including one of its light-rail lines.

Of course, transit agencies face higher fuel costs, too. And since transit fares cover only 28 percent of average transit costs (and just 13 percent in Denver), increased ridership doesn’t pay for much of the increased cost.

RTD says that one of the buses it plans to cut costs $330,000 a year and only carries 295 riders a day. Assuming they mean “weekday” (and annual ridership tends to be about 300 times weekday ridership), that works out to an operating cost of about $3.73 a rider. But the average bus operated by RTD costs $3.46 a rider, which isn’t much less.

Continue reading

Bad Planning in India

India built a bus-rapid transit line, but put the bus stops on median strips in the middle of a busy highway. Since it opened nearly a month ago, there have been This energy will allow you to take the medication in the first place. buy levitra wholesale Most of cialis for women the adverse reactions have been reported shortly after sexual activity. You need to have the correct facts when you are using order levitra online kamagra. Men suffering from ED no prescription viagra go into worst conditions. three to four pedestrian accidents a day.

Maybe it was just poorly designed. But maybe spending $52 million on a seven-mile bus-rapid transit line wasn’t such a good idea anyway.

The Handwriting Is on the Wall, but VTA’s Board Can’t Read

A newspaper in Gilroy, a little town south of San Jose famous for its garlic festival (even though they don’t grow garlic there anymore), is ecstatic that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is beginning to “accept the reality” that the 16-mile BART-to-San-Jose line will never be built. But this jubilation is premature.

According to the article in the San Jose Mercury News that led to the Gilroy editorial, VTA’s general manager, Michael Burns, says, “we can’t afford all the projects” in VTA’s long-range plan, “and this will generate questions, especially about BART.” However, Burns didn’t dare suggest that they shouldn’t build BART at all, but merely proposed that they “phase it in.” They might build the first 12 miles to the edge of San Jose, then later build the last four miles (which, because they would be underground, will cost as much or more than the first 12) later.

At least some members of the board (which consists of members of the various city councils in the region) were not persuaded. “Clearly, BART is the No. 1 project,” says San Jose’s mayor, adding that “it needs to go all the way.” Damn the lack of funds; full speed ahead!

Continue reading

Another Day, Another 2 Million Dollars

Rail transit construction is so farking expensive that the people overseeing lose all sense of proportion. Take Denver’s FasTracks program, which is supposed to build about 119 miles of rail transit over eight years for $6.2 billion. That’s more than $2 million a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

So its not surprising that Denver’s transit agency, RTD, would casually spend $15 million on land it doesn’t need. That’s $50,000 an acre for land that is pretty similar to other land in the area that normally sells for $10,000 to $15,000 an acre.

Continue reading

Economists Rule!

Before the weekend, Hillary Clinton was expected to win Indiana by 5 percent and lose North Carolina to Barack Obama by only about 8 percent. Then, on Sunday before the election, Hillary made the mistake of offending a group of people who she thought were irrelevant.

You know the rest: Hillary barely won 1 percent more votes than Obama in Indiana and lost North Carolina by more than 14 percent.

Continue reading