Edward Glaeser, one of the nation’s leading urban economists, thinks that high-speed rail is a waste, especially when it is planned for areas such as Alabama and Oklahoma. Not only is this inefficent, he notes, “intercity rail travelers are wealthier than car travelers,” so subsidies to high-speed rail are regressive.
“The case for subsidizing urban mass transit, like the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, is certainly debatable,” says Glaeser, “but it is much stronger than the case for subsidizing rail links between non-coastal cities.” Glaeser dismisses claims that high-speed rail will promote economic growth, saying that “no serious evidence supports such claims.”
For us to maintain our real freedoms, we must best viagra in india refrain from using up all fossil fuels, starting very soon indeed. frankkrauseautomotive.com tadalafil generic viagra Nowadays, several options are available that are painless and fast. The medication in itself prescription free tadalafil is not an aphrodisiac, nor does it treat hormonal imbalances. Avoid cialis canadian prices frankkrauseautomotive.com using condoms that are designed to increase your stimulation instead go for thick condoms that reduce the stimulation.
Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report on Obama’s high-speed rail plan raises many of the same questions posed by the Antiplanner. Noting that the Federal Railroad Administration has no reliable estimates of costs, ridership, and benefits, the GAO questions whether it is appropriate to spend billions of dollars of stimulus funds on an unknown and untested program.
This reminds me of the crap that the (Bad)Reason Foundation and the Labor/Community Strategy Center have worked on together.
I am unsure of what you are referring to as “crap.”
However, I have the interesting history of serving as the chief expert/expert witness to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., client and class counsel for the plaintiffs in Labor/Community Strategy Center v Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which resulted in the consent decree that not only immediately halted MTA’s 11-year loss of an an average of over 12 million boardings a year, but turned it around into an 11-year GAIN of over 12 million passengers a year, AND having prepared several papers for the Reason Foundation over the past fourteen years.
What I can tell you as an absolute fact is that the Reason Foundation and the Labor Community Strategy Center have NEVER worked on ANYTHING together.
From my very long (going on three decades) and detailed history of involvement in transportation projects in Southern California, I believe that I am justified in saying that your analysis appears appears to be equal in quality and value to your command of facts.
TAR, you’re a book cooker!
From the provided link:
Hoo-boy. You know Glaeser is going to get a long, rambling, batsh– e-mail full of links from a particular ideologue here, and some other more sane e-mails from commenters on this site, citing Randal posts to the contrary. Hopefully he has a grad student as filter…
DS
I agree completely with Glaeser’s article, but the Obama administration couldn’t come out and show a map of high speed rail in just the logical areas. He’d get criticized for not being equitable to every area of the country.
High speed rail does make sense in the Northeast, for sure.
Come on TAR, you’re just sleezy, not stupid.
the highwayman [sic] claimed:
> Come on TAR, you’re just sleezy, not stupid.
How’s about some facts to back-up the claim above? You don’t have any, and you know it (though you are not brave enough to admit it, so you resort to name-calling instead).
I have known Tom Rubin personally for many years, and I am proud to refer to him as a friend. I know quite a few people in the transportation field, but none more honest and honorable (and few more knowledgeable) than Tom.
Here’s a suggestion – why don’t you just go away? Not go away mad – just go away (and don’t come back).
Dan, of course Ed Glaeser is arguing that urban mass transit subsidy is more justified than intercity rail (not least from a social justice standpoint of whom is subsidized, though certainly in DC Metrorail riders are fairly wealthy, while Metrobus riders are not), but he agrees that even that case is “certainly debatable”:
And Ed realizes that mass transit only works where you have density, and agrees with Randall that congestion pricing for roads is the way to go.
Ed and Randall’s policy prescriptions aren’t very different at all. Glaeser believes that in the absence of planning and zoning, there would be considerably more density; I believe that this is true in Boston, where he lives and works. Randall
Certainly true. But that means that when we’re comparing alternatives, we have to compare what will actually happen, not some ideal government action. A privatized Amtrak would be able to eliminate money-losing routes that exist only for politics, and to concentrate on the Northeast Corridor. I don’t know if it would be able to be profitable, but if you believe what railfans say (instead of Randall’s dire predictions), it would be possible. In any case, Amtrak also has state-supported lines anyway. Getting federal money means a lot of meddling from states that feel shortchanged. (even if you can argue that those states win out in other programs.)
My preferred solution would be something like block grants to states of all their transportation money. I don’t particularly mind states and locales choosing to divert their gas taxes to mass transit, if that’s what the state and the local drivers want. I suppose there are possible issues where some short-sighted states don’t want to extend transportation links to other states– one example that comes to mind is how North Carolina wants to extend I-20 east from Florence, SC to Wilmington, NC, but of course South Carolina isn’t interested at all, and wants I-73 and I-74 to both go down to Myrtle Beach, SC instead. All about driving tourism dollars.
One could still, as Glaeser does, complain about the formula used to distribute the money. I think every state claims that the formula shortchanges it. Glaeser focuses on per-capita expenditures; some of the less-dense but populous states like Texas, California, Arizona, and the Southeast focus on taxes paid. These states have people driving more, so they pay more gas taxes than they take in. The more dense states may receive less money per capita, but they tend to receive more in spending than they pay in gas taxes. (Of course, the Northeast also tends to be wealthier but have a higher cost of living, so they tend to be donor states by the federal income tax measures, and feel upset that someone who is poor making $75k in NYC subsidizes someone well-off with $50k in MS.)
However, I think everyone agrees that the big empty states like the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Idaho are big winners in the formula, largely because they’re big and have lots of roads, but empty roads.
The current formula attempts to compromise between a lot of different ideas of equity. Total miles of roads, total vehicle miles traveled on said roads, and total gas taxes paid in are all parts of the formula.
Mr. “Highwayman,” whomever you may be, you evidently belong that unfortunate group of humans who have nothing of substance to contribute to an intelligent conversation, so they substitute insults.
Please go away — there are people here who have things to say based on data, analysis, experience, common sense, and intelligence. Since you evidently have nothing to contribute in any of these regards, depart and leave those of us who do to not have to bother with the likes of you.
John, I agree with the main point of your proposal — although, given my preferences, I would go further — why, exactly, do we have a Federal role in local transportation? Why don’t we just leave things to each state/locality to do as it wishes? Wasn’t an important part of the justification for this nation’s original Federalist structure moving decisions to the lowest practical level, closest to the people?
Without question, the role of the Federal government in the Interstate Highway system was crucial (Could the [then 48] states have agreed on universal standards for these roads — or even agreed where the roads would meet at state lines? Could Wyoming have financed I-80 through the Rockies without subsidies from the rest of nation?) — but, that has been built.
We do need standards, and we need these roads maintained — but, why do we collect taxes locally, send them to Washington, to get sent back funding that may or may not have had much to do with the money sent in, with considerable restrictions, and with key decisions as how the money can be used made hundreds or even thousands of miles away? Why not keep the money local, along with the restrictions? Let each state and locality make the decisions as to how they would prefer to use their own money — and how much to collect from the taxpayers and road users.
Tom,
Agreed on your Interstate point, but I think there is a better basis for that point. Rather than pointing out that the subsidies were necessary on a state-per-state basis, or that the states might not have agreed on how to build them, there is the underlying issue that the Interstate Highway system has military applicability. As such, its construction, even if financed entirely federally, is within the proper scope of government: the protection of individual rights. Even the most adamant small-government advocate can recognize that justification for the IHS’s construction.
I would take your following point a bit further… not only local control, but competitive private control would be my endpoint. I recognize that a private grid of roads can’t just drop from the sky, and would require extensive phasing-in. In the meantime, I’d rather do it your way than the way it’s currently being done.
TAR that’s bullshit, you just want the deck loaded to exclude certain transport options, like rail & transit.
This is all just part of the political football game.
C. P. Zilliacus said: I have known Tom Rubin personally for many years, and I am proud to refer to him as a friend. I know quite a few people in the transportation field, but none more honest and honorable (and few more knowledgeable) than Tom.
THWM: Well duh, CPZ you’ve been involved the MWCOG.
You guys just make spin stuff for your political agenda!
Tom Rubin said:
Mr. “Highwayman,†whomever you may be, you evidently belong that unfortunate group of humans who have nothing of substance to contribute to an intelligent conversation, so they substitute insults.
Please go away  there are people here who have things to say based on data, analysis, experience, common sense, and intelligence. Since you evidently have nothing to contribute in any of these regards, depart and leave those of us who do to not have to bother with the likes of you.
THWM: Dear, TAR, O’Toole, Cox & other highway lobbyists.
I’ll be a thorn in your side till the day you stop pushing double standards & interfering with other people’s lives.
I’m a highwayman for good, not road warrior for evil.
Is this a time for state bullet train?
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/walters/story/1530102.html