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.
“78 percent of real estate developers disagree with you.”
I know the source isn’t quite satisfying, but I’ve ordered the book
and will read it as soon as I get it.”
Let me save you some time. I have read Levine’s book and, at the risk of ruining the ending for you, I can offer some comments on the quality of the work.
First, Levine is an unabashed Smart Growther. This becomes clear from the tone of his argument. The argument of “…but these aren’t real land markets becomes tiresome as it is repeated about every two pages.
Levine begins by spending an entire chapter setting up a strawman. He argues that much of last decade of research on land use and travel behavior is irrelevant because they do not meet his hypothetical concept of pure land markets. This is largely for show and to refute the findings of Randy Crane and Marlon Boarnet’s 2002 book on land use and travel behavior, which review a large number of empirical studies and find only weak evidence for a relationship between urban form and changes in travel behavior.
The evidence Levine provides in his book in favor of more dense development comes in 3 stages. The first is to cite someone else’s research, which attempts to control for regulatory effects across two states in determining the ease of constructing multifamily housing. The second is his survey of developers, cited here. The third is a stated preference survey of residents in Boston and Atlanta. The second and third pieces are basically useless, since they don’t ask people to make decisions under actual, resource-constrained situations. This is a major weakness of stated preference research in general, but has extra relevance here.
What would be more convincing would be to analyze prices and construction trends in areas with building or land use controls that restrict density. If what Levine says is true, we should see densities rising to maximum allowable levels under existing height resrictions, or conversely, land consumption occuring at the minimum allowable level on each parcel. If supply of the types of neighborhoods Levine prefers is truly restricted, prices should be rising rapidly and consistently as well.
Yet revealed preference research in this volume is scarce. That and the overall argumentative tone lead me to believe that there is more going on this book than a push toward liberalization of land use regulation.