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!
Long-time Antiplanner readers will remember that Santa Clara County voters approved a temporary half-cent sales tax for highways in 1984. In 2000, VTA persuaded voters to extend the tax for 30 years and dedicate it all to transit. VTA gave voters the impression that this would be enough money to build BART, expand the region’s light-rail system, and make other transit improvements.
Many voters believed they were cheated when VTA later announced that it needed another tax increase to build BART, and they resoundingly rejected this increase. VTA has considered putting the tax on this November’s ballot again, but has little hope that it would pass.
Boosting the body’s immune response can help to fight with ED? Researchers are not completely sure about caffeine negatively correlated with erectile dysfunction condition in man. sildenafil in usa pamelaannschoolofdance.com This article outlines reasons why people are skeptical about buying anti ED medicines over the internet, because there is no doubt that your chosen penis will pamelaannschoolofdance.com cialis samples establish its highest possible potential. The countries surveyed represent about 96 percent of the world’s population, the researchers report, and reflect the diversity of cultural, economic cialis in uk browse now and political realities around the globe. Some men with order cialis online pamelaannschoolofdance.com ED cannot reach an erection, while others do so inconsistently or only for very short time. In an on-line poll, the Mercury-News asked readers what they thought should be the region’s top transportation priority. Significantly, though the poll asked about transportation priorities, the only projects listed were transit projects — no highways, HOT lanes, signal coordination, or other road projects.
Even leaving out all the projects that might actually reduce congestion, only 20 percent of Mercury-News readers believed BART was the region’s top transportation priority. After all, as some pointed out in their comments, BART would cost more than all the others combined, yet the environmental report written for the project predicted it would have no measureable effect on congestion.
The bad news is that more than half of those voting thought that the number one priority should be to electrify the commuter trains that now run between San Jose and San Francisco. What is the point of that? Electric trains go no faster, carry no more riders, and consume as much energy as Diesel trains.While the energy they consume (at least in California) produces less greenhouse gases, you could save a lot more greenhouse gases by spending the projected electrification cost of $1.16 billion on other things.
Another costly project that will produce few new riders idea received 6 percent of votes: double tracking the San Francisco-to-San Jose commuter line,. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (TriRail) spent hundreds of millions double tracking its line between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. In 1995, before it began double tracking, it carried slightly more than 2.7 million riders. In 2006, when the project was nearly complete, it carried slightly less than 2.7 million riders. High gas prices might increase ridership since then, but it isn’t clear why they needed to spend $338 million for an extra track.
In all, the various commuter-rail projects on the list collectively received 70 percent of the votes. By comparison, three light-rail projects collectively received less than 3 percent of votes. These results show that San Jose readers are disillusioned with light rail, but have been influenced by the BayRail Alliance, a group that opposes the BART extension but supports commuter rail.
While commuter rail may be more cost effective than BART, improving bus service would be even better. Unfortunately, various bus improvements received only 5 percent of the votes. Someone needs to start a BayBus Alliance.
While commuter rail may be more cost effective than BART, improving bus service would be even better. Unfortunately, various bus improvements received only 5 percent of the votes. Someone needs to start a BayBus Alliance.
Maybe the demographic that is more comfortable with trains than buses was the demographic that voted. Since its the Merc, that’s likely.
Using the argumentation often found here, this means folks want rail as transit:
Gawrsh.
DS
I don’t get what that quote shows.
I wonder if the software will let me post this time.
The Caltrain double-tracking project under consideration is not the line from SF to SJ. That line is already double tracked. The proposed doubled tracking project is from SJ to
Gilroy. The only advantage to the Caltrain electrification project would be to allow the line to be extended from the boondocks at 4th/Townsend to downtown, where most of the office jobs are.
Since I’m not a longtime reader of the Antiplanner, I’d like to know: how many plans for highways and other road projects have you opposed in Southern California since 1984? And, what proportion of transportation spending since then has been for rail projects, and what proportion has been for road projects?
rationalitate:
The Antiplanner has not opposed any particular highway projects. The Antiplanner does oppose any proposals to fund more highways out of sales taxes, property taxes, or income taxes. Highways and other transportation facilities should be funded out of user fees.
Nationally, we spend about four times as much on highways as on transit. But 88 percent of highway spending is out of user fees, compared with only 25 percent of transit spending. Subsidies to transit exceed subsidies to highways even though highways carry 100 times as many passenger miles and far more freight.
Is that 88 percent for just highways, or for all roads?
Unfortunately I dont have the data, but one of my economics teacher quoted some figures about transport subsidies and the figures indicated that buses had lower rates of subsidies than road subsidies. Considering the teacher was a pretty far in the libertarian economist realm, I’d say the figures were not subject to the ‘liberal pot smoking hippie totalitarian.’
This was Canadian data, but I would think the results would be similar for the US. So by that logic the antiplanner should at least agree that he would like to see a reduction in road subsidies. Further, these numbers didnt include many other components of car subsidies, such as required parking spaces for development that those terrible regulations AP is always complaining about require.
Though gas taxes aren’t user fees, they are taxes.
As for the Bay area improving Caltrain operations is more cost efective than extending BART.
Gas taxes are, in a way, user fees. But they are woefully anti-market when compared to the real market price system, given that all the money is poured into a giant fund and doled out by a committee process in the state legislature, rather than being used where it was earned.
And to the Antiplanner: I’ve seen you throwing around a lot of statistics about the subsidies that certain modes of transportation get, but what are your sources?
But they are woefully anti-market when compared to the real market price system, given that all the money is poured into a giant fund and doled out by a committee process in the state legislature, rather than being used where it was earned.
I, of course, agree with the implication in your second para, but the premise in the first para (italicized above) needs work. There is no comparison here. There is nothing to compare. No ‘real market price system’ exists on the ground to compare it to.
In order to ensure that something like a ‘real market price system’ exists, one would have to have a big technology leap to figger where the user actually goes (GPS, presumably), and then to forecast future demand for use and maintenance and upgrades (FedEx, UPS, other delivery trucks, local access roads and their change in residents’ behaviors [via Tiebout sorting, outsourcing, housing bubbles, recessions lessening trips, price increases in asphalt, politicians’ deferring repair]). And who allocates & distributes funding and awards bids in such a scheme? The two magical market fairies (one with the allocator talent and one with the bid-awarding talent)? A group that includes three Lithuanians, a bonobo and the head of a prefecture in the Namib desert? The favorite hooker of the largest paving contractor in the area?
The current alternative to such a system is to have folks decide where the money gets spent. I sat on a committee that did so in WA. The scoring checklist has transportation shed population, TPD, VMT, projected growth, impacts, CIP budget allocations, etc. That is: more of a decision tree than nonexistent ‘real market price system’, which would react rather than try to project demand in order to schedule repair or adjust to capacity demands.
Is the current system the best? No, but it’s the best there is. Recent complaints about the number of sheeple running around should make one wonder about privileging decision-making by a population containing vast amounts of these previously disdained (but now preferred for ideological maintenance) sheeple.
I guess if that’s the only trick one has, though, one just keeps doing that.
DS
Well the whole trust fund system is more of a slush fund system. It might just be better if the 18.4 cent gallon gas tax went into general funds. This could be an unloading of the deck Transport Policy wise.
At this point in the game, any thing to get libertarians and their liberal cronies away from the trough for a change would be worth while.
Highwayman,
The federal fuel tax should be abolished, not redirected into the general fund. If you don’t trust the federal government to efficiently allocate transportation resources (and I don’t), then it is hard to rationalize offering those funds for general federal spending.
Unfortunately, as long as politicians can grandstand about an ‘infrastructure crisis’, the push will be in the other direction.
The highwayman can pedanticly assert that “gas taxes aren’t user fees, they are taxes” as often as he likes but it won’t change the fact that if he looks at the legislation or the debating chamber transcripts he will find the phrase “the principal that the user shall pay” liberally used as justification for imposing these taxes. You need to bare in mind that these taxes were imposed to fund “modern” highway systems at the same time that governments were encouraging telephone systems and rural electrification. It was impractical to have toll gates at every point where local roads joined state highways or to charge drivers everytime they entered a road from a property. That ruled out paying for roads the same way we paid for telephones. Nobody has invented a tamper resistant mileage meter for cars or motorcycles. If someone had then we could have paid for our roads the same way we pay for electricity. In the absence of these simple and cheap to administer collection systems highway agencies recommended a simple and effective alternative. The roads and highways of the first half of the twentieth century were rather flimsy by today’s standards. Construction and maintenance were influenced very strongly by the speed and weight of cars whereas today that is only the case with trucks and buses. Since fuel economy is also strongly affected by speed and weight a levee on fuel was a logical solution to the highway payment problem. By taxing the gasoline wholesaler collection costs and evasion are kept to a minimum. Most governments acceded to requests from highway agencies and Better Roads associations and introduced these cost recovery excise duties, generally with a legal requirement that the fees be paid into an account legally seperate from the government’s general revenue account. This is known as hypothecation or earmarking to distinguish this type of tax from general taxes levied for general revenue.
I find the use of general sales taxes as a dedicated source of funding for highways abhorent. There is absolutely no linkage with highway use or highway benefit. While property taxes are an imperfect way of funding roads they at least have the saving grace that unimproved property values are strongly influenced by both the quality of the road network and the amount of property frontage. Not as good as charging the whole roading cost to gas taxes. But better still, to reflect the shift in dominant cost drivers, the gas tax really needs to be replaced with Dan’s suggestion of a GPS based toll system that can properly assign the cost of highway capacity to only those highway users who actually use that capacity. Why should off-peak travellers pay for a 12 lane freeway when 4 lanes is ample at 2am, or even 6 lanes at 2pm?
What are the ridership projections for this project? Capital costs? Operating costs?
No ‘real market price system’ exists on the ground to compare it to.
So? Don’t we have ample proof that capitalism works? Do we really need to prove it in every single industry? And we did have a “real market price system”: before the government took on the task of planning transportation infrastructure in America (i.e., roads), the market did decide. Only, the market realized that the road/car system is inefficient (internal combustion engine and all) and not profitable, and so instead of building roads and charging its users, it built very complex systems of mass transit which worked very well. For examples of this, just go to any major metropolitan area in the US and get on a public mass transit system. And while the system might seem inadequate today because of all of the suburban and low-density development since then, at the time, it was very much adequate. 100 years ago, it was a private mass transit system, not a public one. Voilà– a “real market price system”!
In order to ensure that something like a ‘real market price system’ exists, one would have to have a big technology leap to figger where the user actually goes (GPS, presumably), and then to forecast future demand for use and maintenance and upgrades (FedEx, UPS, other delivery trucks, local access roads and their change in residents’ behaviors [via Tiebout sorting, outsourcing, housing bubbles, recessions lessening trips, price increases in asphalt, politicians’ deferring repair]).
Ever heard of a toll road? Or E-ZPass? Or license plate cameras? Or London’s congestion pricing? And as for forecasting future demand and maintenance and upgrades and all that crap, what industry doesn’t have to do that? The miracle of capitalism is that just because no one person can design an entire system, doesn’t mean the system can’t be designed.
The current alternative to such a system is to have folks decide where the money gets spent. I sat on a committee that did so in WA. The scoring checklist has transportation shed population, TPD, VMT, projected growth, impacts, CIP budget allocations, etc.
While I’m sure you took your job very seriously, I’m also sure that you did a bad job of it. Why? For the same reason that the Soviet Union and every other communist system failed: government planning simply doesn’t work. Just like no one committee can accurately predict how much steel the territory east of the Urals will need next year, or like no committee can plan for the food production for the USSR, your planning committee cannot accurately predict the most efficient use of resources in transportation.
That is: more of a decision tree than nonexistent ‘real market price system’, which would react rather than try to project demand in order to schedule repair or adjust to capacity demands.
Get a job in the private sector, and you’ll see that private companies are perfectly capable of projecting demand and paying attention to more than just yesterday’s cashflow. How else do you explain companies that operate at losses for long periods of time, but manage to stay in business because investors predict future profits? Some even turned out to be pretty damn successful.
Is the current system the best? No, but it’s the best there is. Recent complaints about the number of sheeple running around should make one wonder about privileging decision-making by a population containing vast amounts of these previously disdained (but now preferred for ideological maintenance) sheeple.
Um, I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. But if by “decision-making by a population containing vast amounts of these previously disdained sheeple” you mean capitalism, then I think just by virtue of you being a communist, we’re going to disagree on just about everything.
Capitalism doesn’t work in a vacuum. All decisions are made in roughly the same way. When I worked in the private sector, for a very large bank, I wondered how we did what we did. When I traveled to other banks to assess their system’s compatibility and their loans to ours, I wondered how these companies did what they did. When we got bought, the new crew was totally dysfunctional and seemingly inept. Somehow it gets done.
It is a big wishy-wish/projection/ideological relevance maintenance/hope to think that private sector does better in all instances than public sector. Sometimes yes, but that sometimes doesn’t make all of it a given, as it all gets done by humans – whether public, private, semipublic, criminal, whatevah.
And again, who would be accountable for public funds distribution under such a scheme as outlined above? The government? A board appointed like charter schools? Buds of the paving company? What instrument in capitalism makes these people more accountable for public funds (Blackwater anyone? Enron?), besides nothing?
DS
Isn’t the presumably voluntary high density of the early 1900s explained by the obvious absence of any private vehicle transportation alternative during that time? How many people could afford automobiles up until the 1930s? Mass transit was the only option and since it could not go everwhere living densely along the mass transit corridors was the only option.
rationalitate, Good arguments.
Except fot this one “before the government took on the task of planning transportation infrastructure in America (i.e., roads), the market did decide. Only, the market realized that the road/car system is inefficient (internal combustion engine and all) and not profitable, and so instead of building roads and charging its users, it built very complex systems of mass transit which worked very well.” The road/car system didn’t exist 100 years ago. At that time it was the road/horse system, and that was so inefficient that any halfway decent railed system was superior. As you point out subways are still superior to the road network in places with extraodinarily high population or employment densities. The road/car network is simply hopeless with those sorts of densities, in the same way the transit is hopeless at post-WWII suburban densities.
Ettinger, You are probably right. The even higher densities of the 1800s could be explained by the obvious absence of any public transportation alternative during that time. How many people could afford omnibus fares up until the 1890s? Living within walking distance of where you worked was the only option and that often meant living cheek by jowl with tanneries, foundaries and every type of smoky, smelly industry you can think of. Today of course there is no reason for these indusatries to emit smoke and odours so there is no longer any real reason for the single use zoning that prevents mixed use high density walkable communities whenever the market expresses a demand for them. The very types of developments that have been all the rage in Europe for the past twenty years. Mind you, these developments have tended to happen decades after the old industries and docks went out of business. It took that long to local authorities to let the private sector plane the redevelopments and risk their own capital.
The even higher densities of the 1800s could be explained by the obvious absence of any public transportation alternative during that time.
There was little/no public transportation at that time. Mass transit, yes, but it was privately owned. It’s an important distinction, but one that people often don’t bother to make. And economically speaking, there are always alternatives – it’s just a matter of cost.
The road/car system didn’t exist 100 years ago
Fair enough.
The road/car network is simply hopeless with those sorts of densities, in the same way the transit is hopeless at post-WWII suburban densities.
But what caused post-WWII suburban density to begin with? Which came first – the roads, or the cars? (And by roads, I mean any state-sponsored car-related infrastructure or laws; by cars, I mean the private aspect to the car/road model.) You’re right, mass transit is hopeless at these sorts of densities, but these sorts of densities are hopeless in a market environment. It’s only when you have laws, regulations, and spending that severely tilt the economic calculus in favor of the car that you can even dream of approaching the low densities that America has now.
The road/car system didn’t exist 100 years ago
But a road system existed. And back in the day in early America, folk would build a structure wherever they wanted, even in the middle of the road. The reaction was to enact a law to stop such madness and to create “rights of way” where structures were not allowed to be built.
At the time, everything shared the road – horses, carts, people, donkeys. Then bicycles came into fashion, then wide acceptance, and the bicycle lobby was successful in getting paving to make roads smoother to ride bikes on.
But enough of that. I like this raţionalitate guy.
DS
Rationalitate,
Certainly coercion can exist both ways, either favoring high density or low density.
However, my personal experience is that, in the US one can, at least, almost just as easily choose to live in either high or low density, because the price premium for living in low density is not that high. In most cases you do not have that choice in one particular neighborhood because the neighborhood density is regulated, low mid high etc., (I have my opinion on that but perhaps it is a topic for another time). However in the US, there are enough choices that you can, to a large extent, choose the density you like with your feet, by changing locality.
Contrast that with the mandated high density of Europe where the premium for living in low density is so high that for most people it is not really an option. It is only an option for very few very successful people or, most often, those that are born into money, or inherit real estate (which in Europe would make you automatically very wealthy).
All that being said, while the US has more varied restrictions, and thus offers more choices, my opinion is that there is still much room for a more liberalized, market oriented approach to zoning even in the US. Obviously, the answer to more freedom of choice is not to move to the more coercive, forced high density only, European model.
However in the US, there are enough choices that you can, to a large extent, choose the density you like with your feet, by changing locality.
78% of real estate developers disagree with you.
However in the US, there are enough choices that you can, to a large extent, choose the density you like with your feet, by changing locality.
From that same source:
I know the source (an Amazon book review) isn’t quite satisfying, but I’ve ordered the book and will read it as soon as I get it.
I do not find the imposition of high density on a particular neighborhood, by Smart Growth advocates, to be the greater offense to freedom of choice, or at least no less offensive than the imposition of low density.
What I mostly object to is the attempt by Smart Growthers to impose a near zero density everywhere else so that the high density new developments become ever more the only realistic dwelling option (as is the case in most European cities). And I also object to the subsidies they receive in order to achieve their goals.
What I mostly object to is the attempt by Smart Growthers to impose a near zero density everywhere else so that the high density new developments become ever more the only realistic dwelling option (as is the case in most European cities).
Can you give me a real-world example of where this has happened?
And I also object to the subsidies they receive in order to achieve their goals
Low-density development receives subsidies and favorable regulations that absolutely dwarf the amount of legislation that smart growth advocates get. Any government favoritism vis-à-vis transportation and land use is silly – I agree – but to crusade against smart growth without mentioning the flip side of it is intellectually dishonest. While I’m heartened to see you come out against low-density mandates, I’m disgusted by the Antiplanner’s nonchalance towards the most pervasive plans, while he single-mindedly crusades against policies that are almost irrelevant when compared to the broader regulatory/economic trends in transportation and land use policy.
Rationalitate: “Can you give me a real-world example of where this has happened?â€Â
You mean you are unaware that the major component of any Smart Growth plan is to limit any building outside the so called Urban Growth Boundaries? And thus densify the area inside the boundary?
As a matter of fact, in environmentally motivated smart growth philosophy, any development is bad, even high density which is simply accepted as the lesser of two evils. Since even smarth growthers see the inevitable fact that people must somehow be housed somewhere, they propose high density as a necessary evil. But they do not really like that either. They’d rather go with no growth at all, or a little high density growth which displaces a lot of low density.
If smart growth is so pervasive, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to give me a specific example of this specific practice. To quote a wise philosopher, links or it didn’t happen!
Sorry rationalitate but if the statement…
“…the major component of any Smart Growth plan is to limit any building outside the so called Urban Growth Boundaries and consequently also densify the area inside the boundary as a necessary evilâ€Â
…seems so foreign to you, then you need to do some homework on your own first. I cannot take time to spoonfeed you links. Perhaps somebody else…
Pity, because, unlike most of our typical “man is a greedy pig, save the whales, enviro-NIMBY planners†you seem somebody one could talk to.
Of course I’ve heard of smart growth. I also hear a lot about mass transit projects. I didn’t mean to imply that nobody wants to mandate what you suggest (though I personally think that would be about where the cookie crumbles if transportation and land use were left to the market – but obviously I would support whatever pattern that emerged, so long as the system was sufficiently free). But look outside – it’s certainly not what you see. It’s not how Americans live, and, like I said, smart growth is a footnote in the greater book of American transportation policy. We are not in danger of becoming stacked like sardines, but our land, economy, and future have already been ransacked by subsidies and government planning skewing the economic calculus in favor of low density, roads, and suburbs. I was very heartened to see a blog dedicated to market-based transportation, but was severely disappointed in what most people around here think passes for market-based.
rationalitate “…but to crusade against smart growth without mentioning the flip side of it is intellectually dishonest….â€Â
I’ve always agreed with your opinion that imposed low density is just as coercive as imposed high density.
However, my own experiences living in various countries suggest that, it is low density that is the threatened species in this brave new world that we live in, where every human activity is now deemed to have unacceptable externalities. So, as a matter of practicality, defending freedom of choice, in my opinion, right now, boils down to defending low density (although, ironically, as I have mentioned in previous posts, I financially profit from the housing price inflation that smart growth inflicts upon low density areas).
I cannot speak for AP with certainty, but to the extent that he seems to be viewing things in a similar way, I support his efforts.
If, for one, I saw smart grothers abandoning their campaign to try to restrict expansion of cities outside their committee defined urban growth boundaries, then my criticism to mandated low and high densities would also become more symmetric.
But, in any case, criticisms to mandated low density aside, I’d be interested in what you would propose. What would your zoning framework be (if any)?
Let me begin by saying that, in my view, a move to a more market oriented zoning environment could, for example start by liberalizing zoning for new areas (BTW, in case you have not noticed, expansion to new areas is automatically an anathema to smart growthers, so everything they will discount everything past this sentence).
We could, for example, move away from heavy handed government zoning towards more voluntary market demand zoning. Why can’t, for example, zoning, at least for new developments, be more voluntary? The owner or the developer could zone it high, medium or low density depending on what they think people will pay. The zoning then could become binding for future owners, in much the same way that housing association rules are now for some subdivisions, same as easements. Zoning would thus be a private contract that goes along with the land / dwelling that you buy. It could even be written so that it expires after a predetermined amount of time.
So, for example, an owner could draw up a very restrictive zoning contract and then subdivide and sell or develop his property. Or, he could subdivide and sell lots with a very lax zoning contract, which would leave a buyer, who buys the lot to build his home, open to the possibility that somebody else on the next lot would build a 5 story apartment building. But it would also simultaneously allow him more freedom to do other things with his property perhaps as his life situation, ambitions and desires change. With a little imagination one could then come up with all kinds of zoning contracts.
There is probably a market for all types of zoning, free and potentially chaotic zoning, mildly restrictive zoning, very restrictive zoning (high, mid, low density), no dog zoning, no car zoning etc.. Why not give more freedom to all these kinds of zoning?
Would there be no problems with this approach? Isn’t the devil in the details? Sure, but I suspect that market oriented minds can probably come up with market based solutions to most of the details.
If a new development is zoned high density and one goes and lives in it, why should he care so much if somewhere else another sprawling new development is low density (other than the usual arguments about climatic catastrophes and the fact that he wants open space without paying for it) ?
Rationalitate :â€Â…But look outside – it’s certainly not what you see. It’s not how Americans live,…â€Â
Perhaps if one views America in isolation, that indeed is still mostly the case – for now. But worldwide we have always been and increasingly represent an island of American Dreaming in a sea of sardines, which BTW envy us and to some extent hate us for our low density choices. I come from sardineland.
What I mostly object to is the attempt by Smart Growthers to impose a near zero density everywhere else so that the high density new developments become ever more the only realistic dwelling option
I second the motion. Examples please.
I see none yet.
DS
What is an urban growth boundary? Isn’t that explicitly restricting growth to occur within those borders? And as a result have little if any growth outside of them?
“We are not in danger of becoming stacked like sardines, but our land, economy, and future have already been ransacked by subsidies and government planning skewing the economic calculus in favor of low density, roads, and suburbs.”
I don’t care if we’re stacked like sardines or not. I would care to better understand what subsidies and government planning are “skewing the economic calculus”. Here in Denver I see it the other way around. Right now we’re in the middle of spending over $6 billion dollars on Fastracks. We do not have a single major highway project in the works. The last one, T-Rex, was specifically funded by a new tax. And at that over half of it went into building a light rail line, not the road.
I see Lakewood give Belmar, a smart growth project, $100 million in subsidies. I don’t see where the $100 million in subsidies are going on in fast growing Douglas County. Hell, IIRC $100m would be 3/4th of the town Castle Rock’s annual budget. I just don’t see where the subsidies are occurring. I did note developers in West Lakeland Township MN building roads and storm water drains in their developments. I have noticed that new water hook ups for new housing in Colorado cost something like $38k and that’s just water! So where are they? I don’t doubt they occur; I just want to see if we can’t get these numbers sorted out.
@prk166:
Well, for one, according to you, the T-Rex highway project was funded by a specific tax – and unless it was a specific tax on fuel, it wasn’t paid for out of user fees, but rather out of income and sales taxes, which were paid by all, regardless of whether or not they actually used the highway. So that in and of itself is a subsidy.
And then there are the general subsidies and regulations that roads everywhere receive. I can’t give you specifics on how this applies to Denver, except to say that these trends are ubiqituous throughout America – with the exception of #3 and #4 (but only in Houston) and #5 (I’m not sure how widespread this is), these characteristics apply to 100% of America.
1. Local, feeder, arterial, etc. (i.e., the vast majority of roads that you likely drive on on a daily basis) are generally built and/or maintained not out of user fees, but out of a general fund.
2. Police department budgets (of which 40% of their time is spent on traffic-related things) are never paid out of user fees.
3. Zoning regulations which limit density (a regulation rather than a subsidy, which makes it impossible to compare quantitatively).
4. Parking requirements on commercial businesses. Again, a regulation rather than a subsidy.
5. Even nominally private highways receive huge tax abatements and loan guarantees.
So where are they? I don’t doubt they occur; I just want to see if we can’t get these numbers sorted out.
I understand your concern – I, too, would like hard numbers on what proportion of road spending in America is paid for out of user fees, and what proportion is paid for out of general funds. I posed the question to the Antiplanner, but all he could tell me was that 88% of all highway costs are paid for out of user fees, but I couldn’t get him to cite a source or explain his methodology. When I asked him what proportion of all roads – not just highways – are paid for from user fees, he never responded to my e-mail. Which is weird, considering he started the e-mail exchange to begin with. This would seem to be a very important number, but the Antiplanner refuses to address the issue. Would you like to e-mail him and see if you can get a response? His e-mail address is rot@ti.org. I, too, will try again, but you might have better luck.
Urban Growth Boundary = No urban growth outside the boundary.
Why would anyone waste time posting links to explain a self defining term?
Why would anyone waste time posting links to explain a self defining term?
You confuse Smart Growth and Urban Growth Boundaries. Hence the request for examples.
DS
UGB = one of the main (regulatory/coercive) tools of SG.
Ettinger,
“Let me begin by saying that, in my view, a move to a more market oriented zoning environment could, for example start by liberalizing zoning for new areas…”
In my experience it is zoning in existing areas that needs to liberalized first. If there is a subdivision covenant preventing infill housing that is fine, it is a contractual arrangement between buyer and seller. But in politics “the wishes of the community” usually means the wishes of a handful of activists, whether environmentalists or investor home owners, Minimum lot size regulations are usually the result of the desire of a few residents to inflate their house prices either for capital gain or simply to keep out the riff-raff rather than to preserve “the character of the neighbourhood”.
Police department spend 40% of their time on traffic-related things because it so lucrative. Even more so for Highway Patrols because they are funded at least 50% from the Highway Trust Fund.
UGB = one of the main (regulatory/coercive) tools of SG.
No.
You confuse Smart Growth and Urban Growth Boundaries. Hence the request for examples of SG imposing zero density everywhere else.
Cough them up please, as the main principles document I linked to doesn’t mention the coercive tool. So the burden of proof is on the claimant (for those who claim to be confused about providing evidence [as opposed to those who claim confusion in order to change the subject because they have no evidence to back their claims]).
DS
“Environmentalists promote Smart growth by advocating urban-growth boundaries…â€Â
Or is there a Smart Growth subgroup/variety (if only perhaps with a single member called Dan) which promotes Smart Growth but shuns the UGB method?
What is your point anyway? You are now against UGBs? Form over substance?
Kevyn Miller: “In my experience it is zoning in existing areas that needs to liberalized first…â€Â
I did not want to touch that subject because it seems to me a more complicated one. The main problem I see is a conflict between coercion and the honoring of a long standing contract. Even if the contract (zoning) was forced, most people have planned their personal lives around the expectation that the contract will be honored. Perhaps there is a method to gradual liberalization. I have not thought much about the subject, but would I would follow with interest any future discussion on the matter.
Existing zoning, seems to me similar to social security and some other mandatory government schemes. There’s some obligation to not withdraw from promises made to long time participants, even if those participants did not want to join in the first place (or perhaps more so, exactly because they did not even want to participate in the first place).
The strange thing here is that these UGB’s are a response to a market that is out of whack. Though still it’s not as if there is some sort of movement to put land in to some sort of a park system, a “Green Belt” perhaps. Even Henry David Thoreau stressed that point back in his day.
“Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst… [Journal15 October 1859]”
Or is there a Smart Growth subgroup/variety (if only perhaps with a single member called Dan) which promotes Smart Growth but shuns the UGB method?
What is your point anyway? You are now against UGBs? Form over substance?
First, my point was I wanted to see the evidence for your evidenceless statements above (zero net growth), and for which you continue to not provide evidence.
Second, I reiterate for the third time you are confused. In the example above in 41, this time you confuse environmentalists with Smart Growth planners.
Perhaps you think they are the same, in which case I ask to see your evidence.
So now the task is to provide evidence for the following assertions:
1: Smart Growthers want to impose a near zero density everywhere else so that the high density new developments become ever more the only realistic dwelling option.
2. Smart Growth advocates are the same as environmentalists.
But first things first. Evidence for #1 plz.
DS
Dan. Smoke and mirrors.
Smart growth seeks to confine urban growth into a limited urban nucleus as defined by the urban growth boundary. Environmentalists support this mostly because corralling residences into a limited area increases the amount of open space.
These are the policies supported by most of your posts to this website. If you do not agree with them, you can simply say so.
You support these policies, …while I do not, at least from an ideological standpoint. Because,
1st,
I recognize the detrimental effect that these planning policies have on living standards since they make what people want unaffordable by limiting the supply.
2nd,
I think that it is detrimental (I won’t bother getting into the unethical part) to overegulate what people can do with their property. The detrimental effect of moving to a societal environment where what an individual owns today, tomorrow or in 10 years depends on the whim of the public, is greatly underestimated by Americans (who naturally have not quite seen where it leads). When what you own depends not on what you offer society but rather on your relationship to regulation and public opinion, then you loose your desire to do any productive work and (rationally so) concentrate your efforts to being one of the few recipients of regulatory profits, a zero sum game (actually negative sum because productive energy is simply wasted).
But in practical terms….
When all is summed up… regulation does not bother me that much, because although I am ideologically opposed to it, in practical terms, as a real estate investor, I greatly profit financially from the housing price inflation that it brings. You just preemptively buy a lot of what you anticipate regulation will steer into short supply, wait a while, and readily profit without effort. No need to invent new cancer therapies.
…Bottom line,
You will keep proposing regulation, useful idiot voters will keep supporting it, those of us who have been pre-trained to engage into the inevitable profiteering that accompanies regulation will keep getting wealthier, and the world will keep revolving around, until the US is sapped of its productive energy and meets its inevitable destiny, which is, a Europe like society – a society populated by very competent people whose creativity rots trapped under a cloak of regulation and top down management of economic activities.
Meanwhile, by the time America meets it’s European destiny, we, who are well versed into the inevitable profiteering that accompanies regulation, will have formed and be part of the new American aristocracy. An aristocracy that unlike today’s wealthy American entrepreneurs lives and profits not by productive work but by sitting atop the regulatory regime. Then, you will not only have wealth inequalities but the inequalities will also be largely uncorrelated to ability or useful work, therefore calling for more regulation and income redistribution and setting off a vicious cycle that will only deepen with time.
Keep this post. It will be interesting to have your children and grandchildren read it when they grow up – together with the other posts.
Ettinger, New Zealand’s short colonial history may have made it easier to abandon minimum lot size zoning. New Zealand’s colonial immigration began during the middle of Queen Victoria’s reign and the immigrants were mainly:
1) the younger sons sons of landed gentry who could not inherit the family estate but whose annuities and contacts in England’s financial capitals provided them with enough money to become large land owners in a new colony,
2) tenant farmers seeking to become freehold farmers,
3) members of utopian companies and societies whose new cities would be free of the scourge overcrowded slums.
Consequently row-housing and tenements were eschewed in favour of individual cottages.
In the 1890s a populist politician managed to get a minimum lot size included in the Public Health Act even though the act’s purpose was to compel local authorities to protect water supplies from contamination from sewerage. That minimum lot size was a modest 1/8th acre although it was “recommended” that 1/4 acre was a preferred lot size.
When the Town Planning Act was passed in the 1950s most local authorities didn’t have qualified town planners so they resorted to a “guideline” town plan which seperated residential, commercial and industrial activities and imposed a quarter acre lot size in new resedential developments.
By the late 1960s many of the larger cities had recognised a need for smaller dwellings for the likes of pensioners and spinsters so they began to allow row-houses or town houses in established residential areas. At the same time many councils recognised that 1/4 acre sections severely restricted the numbers of ratepayers that could be accomodated within their boundaries and they reverted back to the 1/8th acre lot size.
After local authorities were merged in 1987 and the Resource Management Act replaced the Town Planning Act in the early 1990s most of the new Cities created city plans that aimed to gradually increase the number of ratepayers within existing built-up areas in an attempt get enough money to replace failing infrastructure. On this point they were finally taking the advice of engineers who have known for over half a century that natural land movement and repeated frosts will break pipes and roads before users can wear them out and that most residential infrastructure can’t be built down to the minimal capacity actually required by low density housing. In this country househeolds use more water outside their homes than inside which results in infilled lots using slightly less water than 1/4 acre lots. Residential road capacity is only constrained by limits to kerbside parking which is not a problem here as kerbside parking is regarded as slumming it.
Because New Zealand has never had high density housing or even medium density there was a gap in the market for accomodation of burgeoning ranks of dinks and divorcees and young singles. So the gradual arrival of central city apartments, inner city town houses and suburban infill was a happy mixture of deregulation and market forces. The numbers of existing residents adversly affected by these changes were about equal to the numbers wanting smaller easier to care for properties so initially there was no backlash except in certain snobby older suburbs.
It helps that New Zealander’s “know” that property ownership is a surefire retirement investment. The ability to infill is “known” to add resale value so most owners know that if everybodyelse infills they will be compensated when they sell out and move to a less crowded neighbourhood.
Kind of the reverse of what’s happening in Europe.
If American’s view homeownership in terms of living space rather than as part of an investment portfolio then I can well understand why infill will have the opposite percived effect on prices from what it does in New Zealand.
Thank you Ettinger. You cannot provide evidence to back your assertions. That is all I wanted.
DS
Kevyn Miller : “It helps that New Zealander’s “know†that property ownership is a surefire retirement investment. The ability to infill is “known†to add resale value so most owners know that if everybodyelse infills they will be compensated when they sell out and move to a less crowded neighbourhood.â€Â
…
â€ÂIf American’s view homeownership in terms of living space rather than as part of an investment portfolio then I can well understand why infill will have the opposite perceived effect on prices from what it does in New Zealand.â€Â
Indeed, and that is something that American suburbanites often do not understand. If somebody demolishes his house and puts up a 10 unit apartment building while you cannot (i.e. somebody with connections to city hall is given a special permit), then clearly the value of your home would go down some.
If, however, the right to infill is given across the board then on one hand the value of your home, as is, would go down, but on the other hand that would be more than compensated by the increase in value that comes from the right to also replace your home with a 10 apartment unit building. Therefore the overall value of your property will, in most cases go up – up significantly that is. The value of a 1 acre plot in the average low density neighborhood is lower than the value of a 1 acre plot in a high density neighborhood even if the neighborhood is a slum.
In general, to me …
There is a HUGE difference in individual freedom between the simple right to infill vs. an overall regional policy that aims to direct all future growth to infills, by nearly eliminating any growth outside the so called Urban Growth Boundaries.
That being said, individuals should have an option (market driven, rather than government mandated) to move to an area where a VOLUNTARY market driven covenant (ideally perhaps a covenant established at the time of development) guarantees a certain density regime.
—-
â€ÂKind of the reverse of what’s happening in Europe.â€Â
I did not understand your point about Europe.
Ettinger, Sorry, my comment about Europe was poorly worded. i was referring to comments that Europeans, with their long history of medium and high density housing in villages, towns and cities, have now developed a desire to live in large lot single family homes. The exact opposite is happening in New Zealand where large lot single family homes had beem the only form of housing available. It the last couple of decades we have seen a huge explosion in town house and high-rise apartment developments. Buyer driven rather than planner driven. These developments tend to be within walking distance of existing commercial areas rather than the standalone mixed used developments favoured by smart-growthers.