Tea party supporters do not agree on a lot of issues, but are firm on two things: cutting government spending and protecting property rights. What do the election results mean for the future of land-use and transportation planning?
On one hand, many of the results look promising for supporters of property rights and efficient (user-fee-driven) transportation policies.
- Wisconsin rail skeptic Scott Walker, who promised to cancel the state’s moderate-speed rail project, soundly trounced the pro-rail incumbent governor.
- Ohio elected fiscal conservative John Kasich, who is also a rail skeptic, as governor, probably dooming that state’s moderate-speed rail plans.
- Florida appears to have elected fiscal conservative Rick Scott as governor. He will probably take a hard look at that state’s high-speed rail programs.
- Texas resoundingly endorsed Rick Perry as governor. Perry, of course, vetoed the state’s smart-growth bill when it was passed by the legislature.
- New Mexico strongly supported Republican Susana Martinez to replace Bill Richardson, who spent millions of state dollars on an insane commuter rail system. Though Richardson was not running for re-election, the fact that both candidates to replace him questioned the rail system is a clear repudiation of his policies.
- After 18 terms in office, Representative James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee and author of a $500 billion plan to subsidize high-speed rail and urban transit at motorists’ expense, lost his re-election bid to a fiscally conservative Republican.
- Tampa voters soundly rejected a measure to increase sales taxes to build light rail.
- Voters in 44 out of 45 communities in Dane County, Wisconsin, rejected the plan to build a commuter-rail line to Madison. The only exception was Madison itself, which passed the measure 52-48. Collectively, however, the vote was 70-30 against.
- Voters in Racine and Kenosha counties also also rejected a Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter-rail line. These and the Dane County measures were largely advisory, but combined with a rail skeptic governor and a Republican legislature, the measures will likely kill Madison and Milwaukee commuter rail plans for at least a few years.
- Portland-area voters rejected TriMet’s “bus” bond measure (that did not require that the money be spent on buses). Suburban voters, at least, are fed up with the high cost of rail, and saw through TriMet’s attempt to close some of the funding gap for one of its rail projects by asking voters to approve funds for buses.
http://www.devensec.com/bylaws/bylaws15.html cialis no prescription If you start noticing dangerous consequences then do visit medical bodies. It is generic tadalafil uk required that the patients also follow the right web development path based on your attitude. Don’t mess it up because of callous misjudgement! Thus, all sides have to be sensitive on how very much they can generate their lovers happy buy cheap viagra http://www.devensec.com/images/aceti-slides/aceti-3.html regarding sex. If you are a same sex couple, reproductively challenged couple or a single individual in need of donor sperm or http://www.devensec.com/forms/Applic_-_LEVEL_2.pdf cialis 10 mg donor eggs.
At the same time, those who want to continue spending gobs of money on rail transit and high-speed rail while imposing all sort of land-use rules and subsidies aimed at controlling “sprawl” can find several results to cheer about.
- Most importantly, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown was returned to the California governorship. Brown is a smart-growth enthusiast and rail supporter.
- California also rejected proposition 23, which would have deferred the state’s draconian greenhouse gas reduction policies until the economy recovers.
- Minnesota appears to have narrowly elected a Democratic governor, which will only reinforce that state’s rail and smart-growth proclivities.
- Washington appears to have narrowly returned Patty Murray to the Senate. A strong supporter of rail transit, she also authored the “Murray amendment” that exempted King County transit from federal laws forbidding public transit agencies from competing with private charter bus service (which was overturned by the
SupremeDC District Court). - Colorado elected John Hickenlooper, the pro-rail mayor of Denver, to the governor’s seat. He was aided by the fact that both of his opponents, paranoid Republican Dan Maes and anti-immigration demagogue Tom Tancredo, were among the kookier candidates in this kooky election cycle (immigration being one issue that does not unify tea party supporters).
- Nice guy but unrepentant liberal John Kitzhaber won an unprecedented third term as governor of Oregon, meaning Oregon property owners will be under the thumb of land-use planners for at least four more years. Of course, his nominally Republican opponent probably wasn’t much better, though it is hard to tell from his tepid campaign.
While this sounds like the good (if you are an antiplanner) outweighs the bad, the real action in 2011 is going to be in Congress, which is scheduled to reauthorize surface transportation funding. While Oberstar is gone, he would have lost his chair anyway. His replacement is likely to be Florida Representative John Mica, who though a Republican has been a strong supporter of both high-speed rail and rail transit and personally endorsed Oberstar’s $500 billion plan.
However, Mica is now suggesting that the Tampa-to-Orlando high-speed rail project should be scaled back to just Orlando, connecting Orlando’s airport with DisneyWorld and other theme parks. He claims that, “to be successful, Tampa needed fixed transit to feed high-speed rail,” and since Tampa turned down the light-rail plan, there is no point in building high-speed rail to it. More likely, he read the election returns.
The House Transportation Committee will get 20 to 25 new members, but since it has 75 members, most there to bring pork home to their districts, this is not going to be a decisive change. The ranking minority member of the committee is likely to be Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, who never met a rail line he didn’t want to subsidize or a self-funding highway proposal he could support. So while we are in a slightly better position for surface transportation reauthorization than we were a year ago, we still have an uphill battle.
On the other hand, the apparent Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has vowed to stop spending federal dollars, particularly stimulus dollars, on high-speed rail and other wasteful projects. Let’s hope this carries over to non-stimulus dollars as well.
The election of Walker, Kasich, and Scott will take some of the wind out of the sails of the high-speed rail advocates. The big question is what will happen in California. Brown and Boxer may like trains, but the state’s finances are on the rocks, and the failure of proposition 23 likely means it will stay in a recession longer than other states. No doubt some businesses are already planning their moves to Texas. So the state won’t be able to afford to build high-speed rail, and the feds don’t have any money for it.
Unfortunately, these things never die. Tampa tax advocates and Madison transportation supporters will have to keep working against rail projects in those cities. Siemens Engineering will continue throwing money at high-speed rail ads and lobbying. Hickenlooper will probably push insane plans to build rail lines from Denver to Aspen. If, as Matthew Yglesias claims, I did have a full-time job talking “smack about federal investments in rail,” I would still have plenty of work to do.
The Antiplanner wrote:
However, Mica is now suggesting that the Tampa-to-Orlando high-speed rail project should be scaled back to just Orlando, connecting Orlando’s airport with DisneyWorld and other theme parks. He claims that, “to be successful, Tampa needed fixed transit to feed high-speed rail,†and since Tampa turned down the light-rail plan, there is no point in building high-speed rail to it. More likely, he read the election returns.
Huh?
It seems crazy to build (what sounds like) a “high-speed” short line.
Orlando International Airport to Universal Studios is about 16 miles (26 km).
Airport to “downtown” Disney is about 22 miles (36 km).
The two resorts are about 14.5 miles (23 km) apart, mostly along I-4 (which is “free,” unlike most other freeways in Orlando, which are tolled).
Such a rail system would need to be “Y” shaped or maybe “T” shaped, though I don’t know that Universal and Disney really want to be linked directly by any kind of rail line, since it would (presumably) make it easier for guests at one resort area to visit the other.
The Antiplanner also wrote:
If, as Matthew Yglesias claims, I did have a full-time job talking “smack about federal investments in rail,†I would still have plenty of work to do.
Why is the spending of tax dollars on passenger rail projects always called an “investment?” Can someone answer that? Such “investments” are always just large capital subsidies and never earn any return for the “investors.” Indeed, the “investment” usually ends up requiring even most spending in the form of operating subsidies.
To me, “investing” in high-speed rail is no better than “investing” in the capital stock of Enron. Unlike passenger rail systems, which require operating subsidies (essentially) forever, Enron was shut-down and liquidated. Though I suppose the cost of criminal trials and imprisonment for some of Enron’s executives was a form of operating subsidy.
However, Mica is now suggesting that the Tampa-to-Orlando high-speed rail project should be scaled back to just Orlando, connecting Orlando’s airport with DisneyWorld and other theme parks.
————————-
I was just down in orlando and they have a very fast #111 express bus that takes you to the resort areas and uses the freeway most of the time. For $2 or $3 dollars leaving every 1/2 hour. It took me to my motel on the way to Disney and dropped me off at the front door.
It was one of the few transit trips I would recommend over renting a car.
“Unfortunately, these things never die.”
Yup. I don’t expect much “change.”
Why would a city build a high speed rail for just the tourists? It wouldn’t even help rush hour because the tourists travel on their own schedule and not just at the rush hour times.
Surely no one expects either Dems or Repubs to be able to “fix” anything, when both of them got us into this mess in the first place. That said, any sort of anything to address large-scale issues is likely dead as we should expect very little to break through the coming gridlock, as the Repubs will try to go back to breaking everything in sight and the Dems being too incompetent to stop them.
DS
What is a “self-funding highway proposal”? And why would politicians need to be involved if it’s “self-funding”?
They are always involved. Usually trying to stop the construction of any highways. Even toll roads need to be approved by planners and politicians.
Doesn’t sound like the usual politician, trying to stop a big government spending program…
You make it sound like today’s highways are a product of entrepreneurship that are being thwarted by politicians.
Politicians don’t usually propose highways. State DOT’s or the feds call for one, and then local “smart growth” politicians/scum get involved to stop it.
“Surely no one expects either Dems or Repubs to be able to “fix†anything, when both of them got us into this mess in the first place.”
I am again in total agreement with Dan.
True, but the blame was more on Democrats’ side than Republicans’. Dan is simply making an appealing rhetorical argument to hide the fact that he is, in fact, a liberal. You will see more liberals trying to hide the fact that they are liberals in the next few weeks.
metrosucks said: True, but the blame was more on Democrats’ side than Republicans’. Dan is simply making an appealing rhetorical argument to hide the fact that he is, in fact, a liberal. You will see more liberals trying to hide the fact that they are liberals in the next few weeks.
THWM: Well you seem quite liberal your self.
How much is the Highwayman being paid to troll on this blog?
metrosucks said: State DOT’s or the feds call for one,
THWM: Why should a DOT or the Feds call for a highway, shouldn’t that be a private sector venture to begin with? 😉
metrosucks; then local “smart growth†politicians/scum get involved to stop it.
THWM: Why can’t you make up you mind when it comes to NIMBY’s?
metrosucks said: How much is the Highwayman being paid to troll on this blog?
THWM: I’m not a troll, I’m the voice of reasonability.
Also don’t get paid to comment here.
I have to work for a living at real job, unlinke Mr.O’Toole.
Your so-called “real job” is trolling on this blog. You are a liar and an idiot.
metrosucks said:
Your so-called “real job†is trolling on this blog. You are a liar and an idiot.
THWM: Yeah sure, as if. Why, thank you! 🙂
What’s unbelievable about the elections are that Andrew Cuomo & Barney Frank won, two of the guys most responsible for the loose loans in the mortgage crisis.
California is even more doomed, with unemployment destined to stay 25% higher than national & get worse, because:
1. Greenism, AB32
2. Higher taxes on success
3. Even more pro-unionism
4. The useless HSR will be pushed (not even green)
5. A majority of voters are still clueless about econ & business
(ie wanting to pay higher labor costs).
6. Continued influx of undocumented aliens
7. Continued influx of legal immigrants
Both of those 2 add many more laborers competing for jobs at lower 20%, increasing unemployment at that level, and creating much more need for spending.
8. Prevailing wage laws
9. CEQA
10. Endangered Species More Important then Humans Act
11. BANANA
12. NIMBYism
13. _____
14. _______ Commenters can add
How did Repubs supposedly increase the amount of bad loans & jack up home prices? They are falsely blamed for that.
Here’s a good summary.
“Surely no one expects either Dems or Repubs to be able to “fix†anything, when both of them got us into this mess in the first place. ” -DS
Spot on.
“Minnesota appears to have narrowly elected a Democratic governor, which will only reinforce that state’s rail and smart-growth proclivities.” – The Antiplanner
I wouldn’t count on it. Minnesota used to be that way. It’s a lot less clear cut than it used it to be. That’s why MN’s had a Rep. Govenor like Pawlenty. In the past if they were a Republican they were more like Arnie Carlson, very, very centrist. Candidate Emmer [sic] isn’t in that mold. And with a recount on the horizon it’s not clear that Dayton is going to win. Even if Dayton does, the Republicans won control of both the state house and senate. And to boot, all those pro-rail plans are counting on a lot of Federal funding, something that isn’t a given if for no other reason than in a way the Feds don’t have transportation money to be doling out the way they used to.
“How did Repubs supposedly increase the amount of bad loans & jack up home prices? They are falsely blamed for that.” – Scott
W43 played the same games with Fannie and Freddie that BillyBob and BO did.
So, State DOTs are not political entities? They are virtuous, rogue entrepreneurial entities that propose only “self-funding” projects only to have their great ideas thwarted by politicians/scum who hate spending money and are ashamed of the make-work highway projects?
Yet, when these same virtuous DOT agencies propose transit, they are BAD BAD BAD.
Come on. Let’s get get back to reality and analyze this consistently. The highway projects, just like transit, are built so politicians/scum can brag about what they accomplished. Meanwhile, they let the existing infrastructure deteriorate until it must be totally reconstructed at the expense of future taxpayers.
Socialized infrastructure is as much a ponzi scheme as social security. Eventually, the system collapses under its own weight…
“Even toll roads need to be approved by planners and politicians.”
Thank god!
Got this email from Randal, which clarifies what he meant:
My response:
Scott speweth:
California is even more doomed, with unemployment destined to stay 25% higher…
I thought Scott has said he lives somewhere in Santa Clara County.
If so, Scott, why haven’t you left yet, for say, Idaho, where your view of things is a large plurality, rather than a fringe opinion? Those of us left in California won’t miss you, please be assured.
You can’t go to either Nevada or Colorado, since Reid and Bennet were reelected!
All in response to #25.
Hey Michael Setty,
Others should find interesting.
Category of economics, politics & choice.
Yes, this is lengthy; I went overboard. Little points just expanded to need explaining. There are just so many misconceptions & shortcomings on knowledge. I can back my positions, unlike many of those in favor of large government.
First, not quite sure why my comments are portrayed as “spew.” I mentioned , in 19, how the economy of CA has been worse than the the national average, and that with the election results, the economy will worsen.
Sure, one can [inaccurately] disagree with my analysis & prediction. Can the disagreement be validly explained, rather than just dismissed with a one-word, baseless label? I could type pages on why, & offer many links to articles; only brief points (10+) listed.
Secondly, slight elaboration on why the CA economy will worsen:
1. Governor-elect Brown: will raise taxes, especially on success; is pro-union (& owes them for his victory); is pro-property restrictions; will not do much to enforce illegal entrance (trespasser sanctuary); does not have experience or knowledge on how businesses operate (meeting consumer wants, by choice, & revenue meeting costs); has many other negative, anti-growth stances.
2. The enforcement of AB32 (reducing total CO2/GHG emissions to 1990 level) will have disastrous results (net job loss (+1 green job = -2 other jobs), higher energy costs, forced less consumer consumption, etc.).
3. The Legislature did not improve.
4. Overall, even more residents & businesses fleeing.
5. City Councils did not improve.
If you see “spew†in comments, please point out errors &/or how the CA economy will not get relatively worse, with new voting results (& existing structure).
Yes, I do live in SCC, specifically, near SJSU. You typed. why haven’t you left yet…?
Here’s my response, in a general way, that can apply to anybody on staying or leaving for many situations:
1. Just a few days [after election], is way too early to leave, for many reasons.
2. The options [for other states], that you mentioned, are irrelevant for the points I made.
_ a).US Senators don’t do that much for individual state conditions. Federal pork transfers can vary, but have mixed & limited results. Boxer is bad for the whole country, not just CA.
_ b). A person being among similar minded ideology (ie “plurality) can be irrelevant. This is not about homogeneity or the interaction/socializing with same.
3. Bad economic conditions: might not necessarily affect a person (based upon income or other), not be that individually detrimental or they will be dealt with it.
4. There could be other reasons (ties, likes, finances), that keep a person in their current home/job/city/nation, which over-ride their want to move, in finding better conditions elsewhere.
Weighing pros & cons is good for any action. Too bad that many politicians often ignore the multitude of considerations. Actually, many times the ramifications & such are ignore, because of hidden agendas (power, payback, personal gain, etc.), by both parties. The other “agendasâ€, inherently exist much more in the underlying, main view, for big gov (vs limited gov), such as:
1. Creating dependent classes, upon gov programs, to gain votes.
2. Favor-trading
_ a.)Union support: manpower, money, fear & shenanigans
_ b.)Business donations for subsidies & sales (green, transit, etc.)
3. Their want to modify behavior.
4. Their want to modify, regulate, control, charge.
It’s much more than public safety & efficiency.
A really “strange thing”, often exhibited [by statists] is for people moving to a certain area, and then expecting & demanding certain new/more items (often at other taxpayers’ expense), for which the conditions are not there, mainly population & density, to support.
Particularly, living in Marin County, or many edges of the Bay Area, & wanting much mass transit, is ridiculous, especially when SF & Oakland (+ nearby suburbs) are so close.
Put another way, some people want nature/open-space along with high-density urbanization. Opposites? Having, many parks, does not cut it. Having the average of both, such as the very high-end of suburban density (7,000, LA), doesn’t even cut it & is frowned on as sprawl.
Everybody understand now? See the errors, conflicts & contradictions in certain types of thinking?
Well you’ve made your point Scott, you along with O’Toole, Cox, Rubin, Karlock & etc. Hate society with a passion.
Actually, Fraudman and leeches like him hate society. With a passion. They are constantly agitating to do away with cars, a basis of our society and a source of freedom and mobility, and install their laughable, ridiculous choo-choo trains.
Well I’m the kind of guy that pisses off both the car haters & the transit haters.
So I must be doing some thing right! 🙂
Actually you are a transit lover and a car hater. Don’t pretend to be some unbiased observer, troll.
I drive about several times a month though, I mostly use public transit & walk to places.
Highman, There are no comments about “hating society” from me or the others mentioned. Nothing even close.
Why do you even think that?
You are really showing, again evident for yourself to be institutionalized, based upon your inability to process information, & maybe being unable to function. Not enough info here, to really make the latter determination.
If you drive only several times/month, each trip is really expensive, probably well over $100 each. BTW, in case you are not aware, that’s in amortizing all the car costs per trip.
For your use of transit, good for you, or bad for you.
Who cares?
Why do you want to force your lifestyle on others?
Why do you want others to pay for your transport?
Thanks for playing
Good luck
$100? There are these things called car sharing, that bring down costs.
My mistake. You’re not playing.
Private companies make money by renting out private capital goods for public use? Is that legal? Sounds like a scam. There oughta be a law.
“Bring down costs” What a novel idea?
If only the government knew of such a concept.
Nobody in this administration has the slightest clue.