Last month, the Department of Transportation published a strategic five-year plan that illustrates all the reasons why government should not plan. Rather than attempt to provide the transportation services that Americans need and want, the plan aims to “transform” — i.e., socially engineer — America. Rather than focus on processes that will insure that tax dollars are effectively spent, the plan predetermines the modes of transportation that ought to be funded based on touchy-feely criteria.
Obviously written by smart-growth apostles, the plan includes all of the twisted facts and junk science so beloved of today’s urban planners. For example, page 14 says, “Over the last decade, transit ridership has grown over 20 percent, far outpacing growth in automobile travel.” In fact, urban automobile passenger miles have grown by 24 percent in the last decade (1998 to 2008), while transit passenger miles grew by only 22 percent. By comparing transit ridership with total (instead of just urban) auto travel, the plan’s writers are comparing apples with oranges.
Most of the junk science is in the “Livable Communities” section, pages 45-48, which exaggerates the costs of driving without listing any of the benefits. It also places undue emphasis on the built environment. For example, the plan notes that, in 1969, 42 percent of children walked to school, while only 16 percent did in 2001. The plan blames this on suburban design, but in fact it has much more to do with helicopter parents — the percentage of people living in suburbs was already quite high by 1969.
The plan also opines that, since the share of families with children has declined, and households without children make up most of those who live in dense, mixed-use developments, that the market for such developments is growing fast. In fact, the evidence indicates that the market for such developments remains very limited as even households without children overwhelmingly prefer single-family homes. Naturally, the plan attributes this seeming preference to evil zoning codes that force people to live in low-density neighborhoods (a claim the Antiplanner has challenged).
The Livable Communities section has all the usual smart-growth prescriptions, including an emphasis on infill, transit-oriented development, gridded street networks, and sidewalks. Despite research showing that the effect of these actions is “too small to be useful” in reducing urban driving, land-use solutions are the number one tool proposed by the plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, followed by regulation of heavy trucks and construction of high-speed rail (p. 58). Promoting more fuel-efficent cars — the second-most cost-effective way to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions — is only the eighth item on the list, while low-cost congestion relieve provided by such operational improvements as traffic signal coordination — the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — isn’t even on the list.
Curiously, Livable Communities is only the fourth major strategic goal in the plan, preceded by Safety, State of Good Repair, and Economic Competitiveness. Naturally, the plan gives no hint that these goals conflict with one another.
Can Treating Inflammation Benefit Both Psoriasis And Cardiovascular Diseases The exact connection between psoriasis viagra from canada pharmacy and vascular diseases is unknown, but available evidence suggests that inflammation may be the cause of your low libido, in which case it can enhance an individual’s sexual drive, thereby treating the impotence. Others use viagra overnight quit smoking hypnosis or even acupunture treatment to help them stop smoking. Alcohol Alcohol consumption must online cialis heritageihc.com be kept to average amounts to keep the prostate gland healthy. Good fortunes!!! The severity of this disorder cialis generic purchase changes from one man to another.
For example, highway fatalities have hovered around 42,000 per year since 1995. But from 2007 to 2009 they suddenly dropped by nearly 20 percent to less than 34,000, the lowest fatality rate per billion vehicle miles in American history. Driving on urban interstate freeways is now safer than taking a subway or any other form of urban transit. Page 8 of the plan accurately attributes this decline to “safer roads, safer vehicles (e.g. electronic stability control), and motorists driving less.”
In other words, the 1.9 percent drop in driving that resulted from high fuel prices in 2008 helped save 4,000 lives that year and more than 7,000 lives in 2009. Just think: what if, instead of moaning that “you can’t keep up with congestion,” American states and cities had built enough new highways to reduce congestion without reducing driving? We could have saved thousands of lives per year. But the plan’s emphasis on transit and bike paths instead of roads precludes that option.
Though the Economic Competitiveness chapter nominally recognizes that highway freight movement is important to our economy, it never mentions that highway passenger movement is just as important. While page 35 promises to “make targeted investments in capacity expansion of our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks,” left unsaid is that the plan contemplates no investments in capacity expansion for the benefit of mere passenger autos. Meanwhile, the plan devotes two pages (pp. 36-38) to aviation competitiveness without ever mentioning that a major administration goal is to destroy that competitiveness, at least for short-haul flights, by constructing a high-speed rail network.
The State of Good Repair section contains the usual hoorah about roads and bridges. Yet a careful reading reveals that the condition of roads, bridges, airports, and intercity railroads are all improving. Despite this, it sees a greater role for the federal government in all of these areas. For example, the plan reveals that the freight railroads have significantly improved their physical plants, yet the plan calls for increased federal oversight to make sure they continue to do so. Apparently, market forces no longer apply.
It is no coincidence that the only major part of our transportation infrastructure that is truly in physical decline is the one that receives the most federal subsidies: urban transit. While the anti-auto crowd loves to apply the “fix it first” mantra to highways, their slogan for rail transit appears to be, “built it now, fix it never.” Elected officials always focus on “ribbons, not brooms,” that is, capital improvements, not maintenance, so any program funded by taxes rather than user fees is likely to face a declining future.
Instead of emphasizing “transformational” (but in fact futile) social engineering, the Department of Transportation should get back to basics: providing a framework that allows travelers and shippers to find the most efficient transportation solutions for their needs. This framework can best be provided with a user-fee driven transportation network, not one that depends heavily on subsidies and regulation.
The Department of Transportation invites people to comment on the plan. To help insure that someone actually reads your comments, you should send copies to members of your Congressional delegation.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> The plan also opines that, since the share of families
> with children has declined, and households without children
> make up most of those who live in dense, mixed-use
> developments, that the market for such developments is
> growing fast. In fact, the evidence indicates that the
> market for such developments remains very limited as
> even households without children overwhelmingly prefer
> single-family homes.
I know plenty of politically correct (and fairly recently constructed) condominium complexes in the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan regions that have been forced to rent the apartments because there were no purchasers for them.
> The Livable Communities section has all the usual
> smart-growth prescriptions, including an emphasis on
> infill, transit-oriented development, gridded street
> networks, and sidewalks. Despite research showing
> that the effect of these actions is “too small to be
> useful†in reducing urban driving, land-use solutions
> are the number one tool proposed by the plan for
> reducing greenhouse gas emissions, followed by regulation
> of heavy trucks and construction of high-speed
> rail (p. 58). Promoting more fuel-efficent cars — the
> second-most cost-effective way to reduce
> transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions — is
> only the eighth item on the list, while low-cost
> congestion relieve provided by such operational improvements
> as traffic signal coordination — the most cost-effective
> way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — isn’t even on
> the list.
There are places in the United States (including the part of Oregon near Portland controlled by Metro; Montgomery County, Maryland, my home since 1960; and Arlington County, Virginia) that have been doing this sort of stuff for decades.
The Antiplanner knows much more about Portland than I do, and can (and has) commented about same.
Montgomery County has been attempting (and mostly failing, in my opinion, in spite of numerous awards from the American Planning Associaiton) to prevent so-called “sprawl” development and force its residents and workers (often in ham-handed ways) to take mass transit since about 1970. In spite of those efforts, it remains an utterly suburban place.
Arlington County has had some success with Smart Growth, but it is a special case because it:
(0) Is one of the smallest counties in the United States in terms of land area;
(1) Used to be part of the District of Columbia (it is entirely inside the 10-mile square defined by the U.S. Constitution);
(2) Is a reasonably business-friendly place (and does not have the plaintiff-friendly court system of the District of Columbia);
(3) Compared to D.C., has a relatively low crime rate;
(4) Has excellent road connections to D.C., including two Interstate highways;
(5) Is home to the largest agency of the U.S. government in the form of the Defense Department’s headquarters at the Pentagon;
(6) Is home to a large downtown airport in the form of National, and has good high-speed highway access to domestic and international long-haul flights from Dulles; and
(7) Has three Metrorail lines that connect directly to the downtown area of D.C.
Montgomery County’s planners and elected officials (and some of their peers in fellow Washington suburban jurisdictions) frequently state that they want to be “more like Arlington,” yet none of them have the ability to replicate the reasons that Arlington is Arlington.
Getting back to the Antiplanner’s point about the U.S. Department of Transportation and its new plans, I do not think it has a chance of re-making any part of the U.S. so it looks more like Arlington – or, for that matter, the Beaverton Round (discussed by the Antiplanner some years ago here).
AP: “The State of Good Repair section contains the usual hoorah about roads and bridges. Yet a careful reading reveals that the condition of roads, bridges, airports, and intercity railroads are all improving. Despite this, it sees a greater role for the federal government in all of these areas.”
Shocking.
The justifications change, but the prescriptions never do: more power, please.
Speaking of transformational rhetoric:
Compelling and transformational rhetoric, surely.
DS
In fact, the evidence indicates that the market for such developments remains very limited as even households without children overwhelmingly prefer single-family homes.
Whoopsie! We forgot to say that is changing, Randal. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100509/ap_on_re_us/us_changing_suburbs_2
The plan blames this on suburban design, but in fact it has much more to do with helicopter parents
The evidenceless assertion ignores mucho evidence.
By comparing transit ridership with total (instead of just urban) auto travel, the plan’s writers are comparing apples with oranges.
Yet there is nothing given to show a lack of transit where the oranges dwell.
Compelling rhetoric, surely.
DS
Having tired of the psychic stress of anticipating negative feedback to his comments, Dan–whose salary is provided by taxpayers who mostly pay for him to post at AP–has now taken to making bullet lists of antiplanner vocabulary.
In this, he believes he has found the perfect balance: he can register his disapproval while keeping it so void of actual substance as to exempt himself from the negative feedback he dreads.
In fact, his new game is both transparent and meaningless: one could not oppose Dan without making it onto his vocab list, so it should be considered an honor to make the cut.
See how clever I am?
I think Dan pointed something out that most of us already know about this place we call the antiplanner blog. This is a venue in which the pot is welcome to call the kettle black. Let’s face it, the bulleted list of rhetoric Mr. O’Toole used today is really an open invitation for his opponents to stoop to that level. Many around here are quick to criticize the bombast of others, with comments loaded with… bombast. I actually find it entertaining and it is one of the many reasons I come here every day.
We’re all hypocrites.
Get people to ride transit, live at high density?
Right.
How many needs/wants can be met?
What opportunity, or loss of, at no driving? More than just jobs (shopping).
Cram, jam, bam?
NYC MTA is far from being self-sufficient.
Want Tokyo or Hong Kong farebox recovery & use?
C’mon, get real.
Good for all; all for good?
Benefit 85%, for roads?
Benefit <4% for transit, paid, mostly, by others?
Planning is so-so , almost good?
Intentions?
Results?
Money sources (others, non-users)?
What a great system.
Anarchy? No!
Big gov? Excessive!
Having tired of the psychic stress…See how clever I am?
Compelling rhetoric, surely.
Whaddevah notwithstanding, I agree with Randal that we’d save a lot more energy and have far fewer emissions if we had a transportation network that [doesn’t depend] heavily on subsidies and regulation.
Of course, that would eliminate the airlines first (tons of subsidies), then the internal combustion engine (oil subsidies), both of which Randal likes a lot. And argues for above. Ah, well. Whaddya gonna do?
DS
Public goods, yeah now.
Build now (actually little of that; buy votes). Pay later, regardless of those using, even not born. “Let me & my offspring pay for my neighbor.”
These planners & big-gov types sure have the okay idea.
Profits, made by providing what people are willing to pay for, are wrong. _ ???
Dan said: Of course, that would eliminate the airlines first (tons of subsidies), then the internal combustion engine (oil subsidies), both of which Randal likes a lot. And argues for above. Ah, well. Whaddya gonna do?
THWM: Though that’s the irony with Teabaggers in general.
They hate government, yet their life styles depend heavily on government.
Dan,
First, BTW, there has been no mention of a fagot act or “hating” gov.
Please stifle your puerile tendencies. Would you ever care for an intellectual discussion?
Huge dif between, not wanting excessive, wasteful gov, & how you characterize the ideology as anarchy or misanthropy.
What is the oil subsidy? Sources please.
You cannot find it. It’s not there. No US gov budget has expenditure for oil, other than its own operations.
Good point on airport subsidies. Those should be self-sufficient. The late Murtha was Mr. Pork for that. Of course about all cities have some expenses, not supported by direct/user taxes, for airports. Tickets & fees should cover all.
Although, who “loses” on general taxes for airports? The infrequent flyers don’t pay many taxes, on avg. The real frequent flyers are bigger gainers, but pay more taxes, on avg, &/or generate more econ activity (business related).
Regardless, 100% of people use petroleum. Only <4% for public transit.
After you search & find no backing for your claim & admit it, then, please explain, theoretically what the problem would be if oil is subsidized…
Do you have problems with medical being paid for & other programs?
Just about any gov service has far fewer users, than oil or highways.
Those against any general taxes for highways would be consistent to want gov to be <10% of GDP.
Depend heavily on gov? Who? How?
Well, the lower 47% of income earners pay no Federal Income tax.
The lower ~30% get many programs, especially HS dropouts & those with bastards.
Neither of those describe the people who favor limited, responsible gov.
Why do you favor big gov, that has many “services”?
Or in pure # terms, why should gov be over 40% of GDP:?
Rather than ~28%?
It also places undue emphasis on the built environment.
So here are some real estate scholars placing emphasis on the built environment. Whether you were to categorize this as “undue” depends upon whether your ideology is threatened by their conclusions, perchance:
THE WALKABILITY PREMIUM IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
GARY PIVO AND JEFFREY D. FISHER
February 2010
Shucky darns. “Soshul injuneerin” makes money. Who knew there were people out there who didn’t fetishize the car to the degree it was part of their identity and colored their perceptions of reality?
DS
No car would be good, if I could only get where & when I wanted.
If other people had the same needs, maybe there could be mass infrastructure (dedicated surfaces), paid by users.
I don’t understand your point, Dan. If walkability is important to home buyers, that is great! That an online source rates houses for their walkability, that is great! People will make their choices, and the houses that have the right mix of walkability will be more valuable. That is great! Planners for private development and investment should look at that information. But why does the government need to get involved?
Because Free Markets(TM) do not and cannot procure public goods.
DS
Because Free Markets(TM) do not and cannot procure public goods.
Forget for the moment that there is private charity. History is littered with examples of public goods being voluntarily provided by private interests.
I still don’t understand your point, Dan. You said in bold type (at comment #12) that “the benefits of walkability are capitalized into office, retail and industrial property values with more walkable sites commanding higher property values.”
So weren’t you saying that free markets did value walkability? That would indicate that walkability was valued by people who were buying properties. Good, great. Then why is government involvement needed?
“We find that, all else being equal, the benefits of walkability are capitalized into office, retail and industrial property values with more walkable sites commanding higher property values. ”
Did they just discover that office space downtown is more expensive than other locations?
Did they just discover that office space downtown is more expensive than other locations?
No.
HTH.
DS
@18 Borealis:
1. The Free Market(TM) wasn’t involved in creating the built environments studied in the paper.
2. I can’t find where I stated that free markets did value walkability in this context. Perhaps you can contextualize my statement and I can respond to this point.
DS
Dan,
I don’t understand your comment. The paper you cited said “We used data from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF) and Walk Score to examine the effects of walkability on the market value and annual investment returns of more than 4,200 office, apartment, retail and industrial properties over the past decade in the USA.”
Perhaps you can read the article and then we can discuss my question.
We’re obviously misfiring here. You claim I said something about free markets, I asked you where I claimed it, and you reply I should read the article I quoted from.
DS