New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority expects to have a “gap” in its 2008 budget of $345 million, climbing to more than $1.1 billion in 2009, nearly $2 billion in 2010, and more than $2 billion per year after that. To close the gap, it proposes to cut service, including some trains and several buses, and raise fares by 23 percent.
Does this deserve your subsidy?
Flickr photo by Jenniferrt66.
Even after these changes, it projects losses of $266 million in 2010, $454 million in 2011, and more than $600 million in 2012 (see page 18). The big problem is that the city and state of New York are both tapped out — “Neither the city nor the state has any money,” says Mayor Bloomberg. Governor David Paterson adds the state has “vast budget problems.”
As a result, the nation’s largest transit agency has to rely more on — would you believe it? — transit revenues to fund its operations. If the budget is approved, subway riders will pay for 83% of operating costs (up from 59%), bus riders 48% (up from 39%), and commuter rail riders 51% to 61% (up from 44% to 55%) (see pages 16-17).
Some transit riders are outraged about this “redistribution.” Says Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, MTA should not be “putting more of these expenses on the riders and less on the sectors that benefit from the transit system.”
A few rehabilitation centers viagra india viagra also accept Medicare and Medicaid, check your healthcare provider if they deal with such genital weakness. The http://robertrobb.com/trumps-irresponsible-budget/ buy cialis online quality of erection is satisfactory to turn an intercourse into sexual pleasure. buy cheap cialis Wind Releasing Pose or Pawanmuktasana: Pawanmukta means releasing air or wind. Being formulated in jelly format, the medicine enhances the timely eruption of hard penile cialis samples online erection.
Why the heck not? Transit officials like to say that transit is a “public good,” meaning people benefit from it even if they don’t use it.
To some degree, almost anything — food, shelter, transportation, even entertainment — can be considered a public good.
For the most part, these things are private. Nearly all of the benefits of passenger transportation go to the people who are being transported, so they should pay the cost. But shouldn’t society pay that part represented by the public good?
The problem with that is that such payments almost immediately become politicized, meaning those who have the most power get most of the benefits.
Why should taxpayers in upstate New York pay for transit service on Long Island (whose residents have far higher incomes)? Why should auto drivers in Arizona or Michigan (who historically pay gas taxes than their states receive from the federal government) subsidize transit riders in New York (which historically receives more federal transportation funds than its auto drivers pay in gas taxes). As Russianoff says, this represents a redistribution of income — from the poor to the rich.
If society believes that low-income people need subsidies or a safety net, that is a different question and can be dealt with by giving people transportation vouchers. But the idea that businesses benefit from transit and so they should be forced to pay much of the cost is not economically justified.
New York City may be the only part of the U.S. that really depends on its transit system. If city businesses think they can’t live without transit, they are free to subsidize it, preferably by paying part of their employees’ and customers’ transit fares. But just how does the rest of the U.S. benefit from keeping Manhattan the way it is instead of becoming what it would be without heavily subsidized transit?
“But just how does the rest of the U.S. benefit from keeping Manhattan the way it is instead of becoming what it would be without heavily subsidized transit?”
The rest of the country does not benefit from providing cheap transportation for one of our richest cities. Let them pay the full cost of their high density and not live off of welfare provided by lower income people.
I just attended a talk by Gordon Price, Vancouver BC city councilor. For 90 minutes we heard of the Vancouver high rise/narrow towers miracle. People giving up cars. Happily living in high density. Walking to nearby stores for all their needs. Tree lined walkable streets.
At Q&A someone asked for a comparison of costs of those high rise condos to a typical single family home in Portland or Houston.
Answer: $1000-1500 / sq ft. Which gives $2-3million for a condo the size of a typical home. Some utopia if only the ultra rich can afford it.
One student asked where someone like her would live on $10,000/year. His response was that there was subsidized housing all over the area.
Bottom line: the Portland planning community brought this guy to Portland to help make Portland into a millionaire paradise with a few token middle income people left to wash the toilets.
Some utopia. So typicl of planners – no sense of reality or caring for oridnary people.
Plans first! People last!
(No prize for guessing who asked the first question.)
Thanks
JK
Why are people willing to pay more to live in Vancouver than in Houston?
For that matter, why are Mr. Karlock and the Antiplanner willing to pay exorbitant housing costs in a growth-managed state like Oregon when they could be living the dream in Houston?
I do see the need to raise fares some what, though let’s remember that with roads people that drive are only directly covering 20% of the expense.
“Why are people willing to pay more to live in Vancouver than in Houston?”
-D4P
IIRC @550,000 people live in Vancouver and less then 2 million in it’s metropolitan area. The city of Houston itself has more people living in it than live in metropolitan Vancouver. That is, less people may be willing to pay more to squeeze into Vancouver but more people are willing to live in places like Phoenix or Houston. In fact, more people have chosen to live in Metropolitan Houston than live in any single city in Canada. Maybe it’s the architectural equivalent of boring suburban subdivisions that Vancouver has errected in the form of look-alike condo high rises in the West End. Or maybe it’s because Vancouver doesn’t have enough rail-based transit to attract more people. Then again, it just might be that more people like Houston than Vancouver.
I like Vancouver. In fact, an old friend of mine and his wife liked it a lot too. But they couldn’t see how they’d ever be able to afford a house there. They ended up moving to Halifax.
D4P wrote:
> For that matter, why are Mr. Karlock and the Antiplanner willing to pay exorbitant housing costs in a growth-managed
> state like Oregon when they could be living the dream in Houston?
Maybe because Oregon is the place that both of them consider, um, home?
What business is it of yours where they choose to live anyway?
I don’t recall either of them ever presuming to tell other people where they should or should not live (and yes, I know both of them personally, and consider them friends).
As a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, I can relate to the Antiplanner and to Mr. Karlock.
My county (and to a lesser extent, my state) have tried (and largely failed) to implement large-scale programs with emphasis on Smart Growth generally, and densification, land rationing and mass transit in particular. Montgomery County was trying to do this sort of stuff well before anyone ever heard of Portland or Portland Metro.
Do I agree with such policies? No! But that does not mean that I am going to pull up stakes and move to Texas or Georgia, where such misguided ideas seem less popular? Probably not.
Getting back to the original subject of this posting, do you live in New York City? Or the District of Columbia? Or the City of San Francisco? If no, why not?
In some ways I agree with O’Toole on this one. I’m not familiar with the cost and revenue structure of the NYC transit system, but I do know about such issues here in Austin. We have some of the lowest prices for bus riders I’ve ever seen. The drivers just went on strike and the transit agency (capmetro) is having trouble financing new services. They tried to raise the standard fare for a one way ride from $.50 to $1 and people flipped out. For $1 you can ride the bus all day in Austin! I believe that subsidies for transit is appropriate in many different context but I also agree that riders should be paying more of their way in a variety of contexts.
As for Karlock’s insanely misguided view of planners… Look, know-it-all. Do you really think that planners are out there trying to create a utopia? If you do then you need to listen better, because it aint so. Planners know that planning is not perfect. The solutions planners construct today create the problems of tomorrow (see the suburbanization of the USA and major highway projects in the west in the 50’s and 60’s). As a planner, there is no doubt in my mind that New Urbanism, Smart Growth, form-based codes, etc. will create a host of problems that we haven’t even begun to realize, not to mention the problems we already know about. Planners tend to be pragmatist (or they should be). I mean look at this post. The government planners in NYC are suggesting that rider fares need to be increased and some services cut!!! In fact, any planner that work in financing public services makes choices like this every day.
Truth is, the real false utopia, is the libertarian fantasy world, where the solutions to our COLLECTIVE problems will be magically solved by everyone acting in their own self interest (and roads are paid for with user fees, hah).
Antiplanners spend their days criticizing states like Oregon for being elitist, expensive, anti-freedom, etc. etc. etc.
Antiplanners spend their days waxing poetic on the virtues of places like Houston, for being affordable, pro-American, etc. etc. etc.
Yet, Antiplanners routinely choose to live in the “growth-managed” states they constantly criticize.
Why are Antiplanners choosing to live in such horrible places?
Antiplanner wrote:
> If society believes that low-income people need subsidies or a safety net, that is a different question and can be
> dealt with by giving people transportation vouchers.
Seldom have you been more correct, in economic or moral terms, than you are with the words above.
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear that more tax dollars need to be spent on mass transit operating subsidies “because the poor need access to transit.” And I find it highly offensive when billions of tax dollars are spent on transit capital and operating subsidies when many of transit’s patrons (in markets like Nassau and Westchester Counties, N.Y.; Fairfield County, Conn.; Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Md. and Fairfax and Arlington Counties, Va.) are out-and-out wealthy.
Of course, if people were charged the fully-allocated costs of transit in the form of out-of-pocket cash fares, then many of them would likely look for other modes of transportation.
Why are transit users and supporters unwilling to pay their fare share of the real cost of the transit options they demand?
D said:
“Why are people willing to pay more to live in Vancouver than in Houston?” and
“For that matter, why are Mr. Karlock and the Antiplanner willing to pay exorbitant housing costs in a growth-managed state like Oregon when they could be living the dream in Houston?”
Cp said:
“do you live in New York City? Or the District of Columbia? Or the City of San Francisco? If no, why not?”
You guys have drank too much of the Tiebout kool-aid.
Why are transit users and supporters unwilling to pay their fare share of the real cost of the transit options they demand?
Why are auto users and supporters unwilling to pay their fair share of the real cost of auto usage? Pollution, congestion, having to bomb Iraq every decade, etc. etc. etc.?
“Why are transit users and supporters unwilling to pay their fare share of the real cost of the transit options they demand?”
Here in Austin it’s because it’s mostly the poor that use the bus system, and the way Austin has been developed it is impossible to viably get around on foot or an a bike (despite the tireless efforts of the planning community). But the AP’s are strong in TX and they “no sense of reality or caring” for poor people.
“And I find it highly offensive when billions of tax dollars are spent on transit capital and operating subsidies when many of transit’s patrons (in markets like Nassau and Westchester Counties, N.Y.; Fairfield County, Conn.; Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Md. and Fairfax and Arlington Counties, Va.) are out-and-out wealthy.”
Context is so important. The wealthy don’t ride the bus in Austin, so low transit fares are more feasible than transit vouchers.
IIRC @550,000 people live in Vancouver and less then 2 million in it’s metropolitan area. The city of Houston itself has more people living in it than live in metropolitan Vancouver. That is, less people may be willing to pay more to squeeze into Vancouver but more people are willing to live in places like Phoenix or Houston.
No.
This is a faulty conclusion to your logic. Using your logic:
should be the conclusion based on this logic, as this conclusion allows us to avoid false equivalencies. 2007 estimates.
This logic used above also doesn’t consider the severe topographical and geographical constraints of Vancouver (e.g. hills and water limit developable land). Nor does this logic consider growth rates relative to entire province/state or country.
HTH.
DS
Portland was not always expensive. It was after the planners put urban growth boundaries and started planning that Portland went from one of the most affordable cities to where it is now. In the name of saving affordable housing and planning for the future. When we just built our way out of congestion and allowed neighborhoods to decide how a neighborhood should grow.We only lived on about 3% of the state and it was a very nice place to live that did not have a sprawl problem.
Context is every thing.
Bennett, transport policy in North America is failure by design, subsidize automobile use and land development. Then demonize transit spending.
Double standards can only go so far.
Portland was not always expensive. It was after the planners put urban growth boundaries
What inspired the use of urban growth boundaries in Portland and the rest of Oregon?
Besides the little matter of $1.4 billion (not $1.1 billion) gap in the operating budget, the bigger problem is $30 billion that the MTA needs for its 5-year capital plan. That cited farebox ratio is a fantasy, as the MTA’s accounting modus operandi is to push operating expenses (e.g. painting, signage, and repairs to steps, railings, fences, and platform decking) into the capital budget. Since there is no political will to bring the MTA back into the city administration, the only possible result is more of the same. Brooklyn and Queens, say hello to east river bridge tolls and service cuts.
Of course, after all those billions down the hole, perhaps Russianoff (a lawyer who, like most crusader rabbit types, has not spent one minute of his adult life in private business), may wish to ponder why the average Manhattanite has a more time-consuming daily commute than a Houston resident. C’mon Gene, time to get your hands dirty.
Craig wrote:
“Portland was not always expensive. It was after the planners put urban growth boundaries and started planning that Portland went from one of the most affordable cities to where it is now. In the name of saving affordable housing and planning for the future. When we just built our way out of congestion and allowed neighborhoods to decide how a neighborhood should grow.We only lived on about 3% of the state and it was a very nice place to live that did not have a sprawl problem.”
Craig, it’s a vicious circle, this is why I keep saying that people have to pay for every mile that they drive, even if it is only $1 per mile.
It started out with former Govoner Tom McCall and his idea along with others that we need to plan for future growth and that morphed later into mandates how we should plan and how we must live. Including urban growth boundaries and then the idea that we must build up instead of out. And of course Light rail instead of capasity on our freeways.
It started out with former Govoner Tom McCall and his idea along with others that we need to plan for future growth
Yes, but what inspired those ideas? Why didn’t people start thinking that way 100 years previous? What was happening in Oregon that provoked a change in approach?
Didn’t a lot of the first transit systems start out as for-profit businesses and only became “public” after the market dried up for those services (i.e. street cars, etc.)? Larger cities like New York aside, of course.
Portland had a transit system that paid taxes, Rose city transit or Rosie to the locals.
They wanted to raise the fare by a nickel but the politicians said no, it is too much. So they ( the State )took it over and imposed a business tax that was equal to a 25 cent fare increase and it has been down hill ever scene
I have to review the book by Bill Moshofsky, Regulatory Overkill, that explains how Oregon’s land use system evolved, and discusses what went wrong to refresh my memory of the pre history of Oregon’s problem
TexanOkie wrote:
“Didn’t a lot of the first transit systems start out as for-profit businesses and only became “public†after the market dried up for those services (i.e. street cars, etc.)? Larger cities like New York aside, of course.”
Well you’re on the right path, though it has a lot to do with politics, in that they were mostly taxed to death.
Why are people willing to pay more to live in Vancouver than in Houston?
Because most cannot get a US visa? 🙂
And indeed, why is less pleasurable geography/climate Houston attracting more people than the Silicon Valley or Vancouver paradise?
In a nutshell, because the inhabitants of those paradises suppressed opposing local minorities and raised protectionist barriers to keep other people from moving into their area.
“We’re in! So let’s shut the door†“…and please somebody tie up that old farmer in the corner (who was even here long before we moved in) who wants to keep it open.â€Â
But this is the current reality, so…
Don’t just complain about it. Seize the opportunity and buy as many houses with big back yards as you can, because people will still want to live in them even if they hang Al Gore posters on the walls. Those who had the foresight to do such acquisitions in Europe 50 years ago are now handsomely rewarded. The rest of you are most likely on your way to becoming Smart Growth ($500-$1500/sqf) apartment renters, just like most Europeans have become.
Let’s all move to Houston where we can enjoy the worst air quality in the US. We can all get asthma together.
But we won’t blame freedom for bad air quality. We’ll just blame it on bad luck, or some mysterious forces beyond our control.
If you’re placing posters of Al Gore on your walls, you’ve got many issues.
Portland was not always expensive. It was after the planners put urban growth boundaries and started planning that Portland went from one of the most affordable cities to where it is now.
Craig, you are incorrect.
IOW: evidence please.
Go to Portland State or any good Uni library and review the literature. Get back to us on what it says (hint: not what you claimed in the italicized).
DS
And indeed, why is less pleasurable geography/climate Houston attracting more people than the Silicon Valley or Vancouver paradise?
As I showed above, “more” is relative.
That is: Vancouver is attracting a larger fraction of the country’s total population that Houston.
In this respect, you are wrong also. Again.
With respect to growth rates, you are wrong also. [ 1. [van], B. [van], X. , Q. [hou ], Z. [hou ] ]
Aside from the wildly different goals being not compatible to direct comparison. Houston is doing well. So is Vancouver.
Weight the numbers against the national numbers and then compare, as direct comparisons are problematic.
And lack of zoning isn’t an argument, as HOU has de facto zoning as we’ve pointed out here numerous times, so stop it.
DS
It always comes back to Portland here, doesn’t it?
BTW, anyone notice that Portland did not report its population to PSU this period? Considering that the Census Bureau has estimated a population loss, I’m sure the city planners are desperately searching for a few more bodies to count –they don’t want to end up like San Francisco or Chicago.
However, I’m confident Portland’s planners will be able to preserve their bobo paradise;
the white people are on it!
Also, not sure how Vancouver got into this, but much like Portland, its PR exceeds the reality. Both Vancouver and BC have recently lost out to their less glamorous neighbors, Alberta and Edmonton, in population growth rates, median income, and housing affordability. Houston doesn’t even belong in the discussion — its GAP is about 20% of Canada’s GDP. It may be true that Vancouver attracts a greater percentage of its country’s inhabitants than Houston; of course, if that is somehow a measure of success you might as well say Kosovo is realtively more successful than Houston.
Both Vancouver and BC have recently lost out to their less glamorous neighbors, Alberta and Edmonton, in population growth rates, median income, and housing affordability
…which implies that Alberta and Edmonton were previously behind Vancouver in those factors.
Which is consistent with the model I’ve described before.
People discover a place (like Vancouver) and move there in large masses. Housing gets expensive due to increased demand, and people want a cheaper place to live. So they then move to Alberta and Edmonton in large masses. Then Antiplanners criticize Vancouver, and praise Alberta and Edmonton. Until Alberta and Edmonton become the next BC, at which point: lather, rinse, repeat.
Though Edmonton has had light rail since the 1980’s.
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt-projects.aspx
They also have one of the large mall too.
http://www.westedmall.com/about/default.asp
Never said there was a movement of “large masses” to either Vancouver or Edmonton. My point was that the supposed population movement to Vancouver, much like the supposed movement in the U.S. from suburbs to metro, is not borne out by the facts (even a planner should find it odd though that Edmonton is becoming the people’s choice despite having a public transit ridership that is barely two-thirds of Vancouver’s).
What is remarkable is actually how low population growth in Vancouver metro was from 1996 to 2006 (Statscan’s reporting period), considering the influx of immigrants from Hong Kong and all the Americans who couldn’t bear to live under the Bush administration.
Of course, if it turns out that all the UGBs and trolley cars and bike lanes and gentrification didn’t result in a denser Portland or Vancouver or [insert small self-important city of your choice here], or worse, ultimately caused a population loss, planners will need a new paradigm. Perhaps a model that recognizes that real cities =/ Sim Cities.
Housing gets expensive due to increased demand, and people want a cheaper place to live. So they then move to Alberta and Edmonton in large masses.
Don’t forget they are cashing out the money they made on their houses and buying cheaper housing, maybe pocketing the rest or maybe investing.
That is: houses are an investment. It is in the interest of many to have housing prices increase, as this is the primary investment vehicle for US and Canada.
This is why zoning won’t go away and why Private Property Rightists have no voice in the US.
DS
#36:
You’re spouting nonsense argumentation. Certainly you can do better. Can you try again without strawmen and hasty generalization fallacies? And evidence that PDX or VAN had pop losses (esp due to the things you hate)?
Sheesh.
DS
Antiplanners like to complain that planning increases property values, and they like to complain that planning decreases property values.
I don’t think Antiplanners really care WHICH criticism sticks, as long as one of them does.
DS: “That is: houses are an investment. It is in the interest of many to have housing prices increase, as this is the primary investment vehicle for US and Canada.â€Â
“A society should strive to make its housing more expensive because the more expensive housing becomes the better off (more prosperous) that society is!â€Â.
Have you ever made that argument aloud in an auditorium in your economics class?
…having said that, I recognize that the more housing prices rise, the better of we all are. Especially the Ettingers who can rest secure that:
as DS says: “This is why zoning won’t go away and why Private Property Rightists have no voice in the US.â€Â
American middle class dynamics and politics are such that we are poised to converge to European housing price levels. Investors take heed. Follow Ettinger’s advice, buy as many houses with big back yards as you can. The children of SG planners will be knocking at your door with blank cheks.
Don’t forget they are cashing out the money they made on their houses and buying cheaper housing, maybe pocketing the rest or maybe investing.
With statewide smart growth initiatives gaining ground, they will soon become unable to find cheaper housing elsewhere. They will have to come to uncle Ettinger.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Why the heck not? Transit officials like to say that transit is a “public good,†meaning people benefit from it even if they don’t use it. To some degree, almost anything  food, shelter, transportation, even entertainment  can be considered a public good.”
It’s a public good, because everyone that uses the metro means one fewer car on the road. This impacts on congestion and parking, particularly in such a high density city.
Antiplanner wrote:
“To close the gap, it proposes to cut service, including some trains and several buses, and raise fares by 23 percent. ”
Although having said that, $2.50 for a fare isn’t THAT much. It is very tempting to subsidise transit – it greatly increases ridership – but then that’s money that cannot be spent elsewhere.
Well, if the roads cannot be widened, and the transit doesn’t work so well, what’s next?
Why should roads be widened?
Hi Dan!
Didn’t say Vancouver lost population, just stated that it is not growing as fast as its neighbor. There are a couple of recent threads on bojack.org regarding Portland’s failure to report its numbers to PSU. As reported by the Census Bureau (2000-2006 reporting periods) Portland city’s growth (1.5%) lagged far behind both the county and state (8 something); if you use the ACS estimates through the last reporting period in 2007, you get an annual pop. growth of about .70. What happens to both and their like now that the cheap money has run out and bills have to paid is anyone’s guess. San Francisco’s missing population problem was extensively reported and is now the subject of a challenge brought by American Psycho lookalike Gavin Newsom against the Census Bureau–sfgate.com has the details. However, all you need to know can be found at statscan.ca and census.gov. I know it may not be as elegant as citing abstracts to articles I haven’t read, but hey, sometimes simpler is better.
BTW, I know you can appreciate the humorous side of planning and the people that love it — I think you would really get a kick out this episode of South Park. Enjoy!
“It’s a public good, because everyone that uses the metro means one fewer car on the road. This impacts on congestion and parking, particularly in such a high density city.
And yet New York City (=5 boroughs)has the longest commuting times in the nation. Go figure.
“Well, if the roads cannot be widened, and the transit doesn’t work so well, what’s next?
this?
Segways? You’ve got to be a cripple to use a segway.
Craig, you are incorrect.
IOW: evidence please.
Go to Portland State or any good Uni library and review the literature. Get back to us on what it says (hint: not what you claimed in the italicized).
DS
——————
I don’t need to, you seem to know the answer and now you want me to do a report for you . not happening
No Craig, I’m just pointing out you have no evidence to back your assertion. Thanks!
———-
Here’s a thought experiment: what is the %age of vacant parcels in PDX? Are there lots of them? Then, what is the rate of redev? Is it greater or less than the typical city’s 2%?
That is: is the rate slowing because of unavailability of bare ground, th’ regalayshun, or because the citizens have decided that they don’t want to grow at 3% (likely unsustainable)?
DS
The children of SG planners will be knocking at your door with blank cheks.
Projected demand in 2050 is not for Patriot Murrican-type single-fam detached on large lots for everyone!
That’s right: projected demand is for only ~25% of all new units to be SFD by 2050. Everyone else will be in an alternate product. Too bad for a certain ideology, eh?
See, demographics then won’t be like now. Things change. The Fountainhead may not even be on library/e-shelves by then.
DS
“…projected demand is for only ~25% of all new units to be SFD by 2050. Everyone else will be in an alternate product.” Dan, The Antiplanner, 2008
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
Isn’t it remarkable that The Fountainhead sells 100K copies a year 65 years after its first edition, and The Population Bomb is out of print?