The Coalition for Mass Transit
Aside from ideological public policy concerns, the fight over whether to spend more of the stimulus on highways versus mass transit may also come down to the interests of those making asphalt versus steel, according to this piece in the NY Times:
The industry, in response, is lobbying the Obama transition team for infrastructure projects that would require big amounts of steel. Mass transit systems are high on the list, and so is bridge repair..."If the president-elect really follows through, he'll fund a lot of mass transit projects," said Wilbur L. Ross Jr., the Wall Street deal maker who put together the steel conglomerate known as Arcelor Mittal USA. "All the big cities have these projects ready to go."
Some have argued that mass transit is the wrong stimulus because it takes longer to build than a highway, but that's because it requires other industries like steel and the producers of the components of transit to produce those components first. Which as this article indicates still requires immediate job creation and hiring, even if the resulting transit system doesn't go up as a fast as a highway. And politically, that seems to mean that a whole new coalition of interests could emerge for mass transit, especially since the auto industry is concentrating politically on its own survival rather than subsidiary politics such as support for highways.
And by jumpstarting a whole new wave of mass transit and rail projects, the stimulus could lock in that new coalition for alternatives to highways in ways that could persist far into the future. And by revitalizing urban centers, that could reshift the demographics of growth away from the exurbs towards urban centers more politically in tune with progressive values.
The bottom line is that the politics of transit have always fundamentally shaped the development of this nation's politics and the stimulus we are about to enact may be creating a radically new phase of that history. We will see if the highway-suburban development political complex reasserts itself, but the steel industry joining the fray strongly on behalf of mass transit is an encouraging sign for the coming battle.
Mass transit it the biggest waste of resources around. It makes no sense for anything other than the Boston-DC corridor, leaving the rest of the country relatively impoverished.
Spend the money on broadband relieving the need to travel at all. It's the biggest bang for the buck.
Next on my list would be the mini nuclear reactors written about here. This would change the world nearly overnight, and all for the better. Can you imagine the benefit of rendering the ME inconsequential? Peace and prosperity would spring up in all sorts of unexpected spaces.
January 2, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ridiculous-- much of the Mountain West is more urban than the east coast:
In Denver, for example, voters have supported expansions of a growing mass transit system. Here's a description of votes by the population from a 2005 article:Last November, in an unmistakable vote of confidence for public transit, Denver-area residents agreed to a small increase in a regional sales tax to pay for the largest mass-transit construction program since the Metro subway system was built in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s and early 1990s. Denver voters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, decided to make the $4.7 billion investment because they are convinced that a fast and convenient public transit system pays big economic, environmental and quality-of-life dividends...
Planners predict that at least a quarter of the Denver area's commuters will get to work on trains and buses. That's an astonishing figure in a region where not terribly long ago people joked that they'd rather die than have the car keys pried from their cold, hard fists.
Denver, in effect, is relying on the transit system as the foundation of a new development strategy that focuses on building from within instead of sprawling ever farther out.Mass transit is actually a tool for changing development patterns and preserving the land and water of the West from development-- and thereby saving what attracting many to the region in the first place.
So yes there is a role for transit far from the Bos-Wash corridor.
January 2, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 2, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Much of the Mountain West is more urban than the east coast."
Sorry, but no. Adoption of growth restrictions and transit systems does not make the West "more urban" than the East Coast. It means its planning philosophy is more in tune with yours. But more urban? No.
January 2, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are different ways to measure urbanization, of course, but the reality is that a high percentage of the population of many Western States live in urban areas, often more dense than the Midwest and the South. This is due to a number of factors, one of them being government and corporate ownership of large stretches of land, but the end result is a high concentration of living in cities compared to many other states.
Take this data for example. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Utah have a higher percentage of their population living in areas defined as urban than most other states. You can play with definitions segmenting off suburban from urban and so on, but the results don't change that much. By urbanization levels, Utah and Colorado are far more like New York and Illinois than they are like more rural states like Arkansas or Maine.
January 2, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I see your point. But just because Colorado is more like New York than Maine, doesn't mean it's really like New York.
Nothing on the scale of the New York to D.C. metro complex exists other than Los Angeles.
I just caution the excitment over mass transit. Buses are one thing. Buses are flexible, can change routes and frequency very often.
But the Portland experience is that light rail is very expensive to build and not even that cheap for riders. The routes are set in asphalt, and people have to travel to the light rail, not vice versa.
I just caution people in general from expecting too much of light rail. It's far from a magical cure to our dependence on cars.
January 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I just caution people in general from expecting too much of light rail. It's far from a magical cure to our dependence on cars."
Well then, get on the horn and call up Hogwarts. They must have somebody who knows the right magic spells!
January 2, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, oh belligerent troublemaker, are yourself quite a waste of resources, including time, space, and pixels.
What mass transit refers to here is travel within urban areas. You most likely deliberately refuse to see that, as it undercuts your strawman position.
We do not need one-person cars taking up space in cities. The proper response to commuter driving is to add, and continually increase, surcharges on monthly parking contracts, and dedicate those proceeds to public transit subsidy.
Let annoyances like this waste of human DNA known as "shooter242" underwrite those who are willing to be more responsible and better neighbors.
Get it?
January 2, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter, here's to express the hope that you be strapped for eight full hours to the outside of an MTA bus traveling anywhere between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. You will soon realize the error of your ways.
January 4, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transportation has nearly always been funded without appropriate regard for demand. I am not sure I would say that "Mass transit is the biggest wastes of resources around," but I do think that there are roads and bridges that desperately need repair. Here, in Minneapolis, we had a bridge cave in about a year-and-a-half ago. We have other bridges that have closed, too. There are hundreds of roads and bridges that need to be repaired, so I am in favor of making sure these projects are funded.
At the same time, one point often ignored is this: if we fund transit -- real alternative transit -- fewer people are driving on roads and bridges. That, it seems, is critical. So, in urban areas, we should be able to increase transit funding and, over time, reduce road/bridge funding. In less urban areas, we be able to increase road/bridge funding.
January 2, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree. Transit is nice. It's a good thing to put some money into, but the amount of investment should be somewhat relative to the percentage of people who actually use it.
I'm here in Portland where we seemingly can't spend enough on transit, and we have a high rate of usage (relative to most cities). But it's still a minority of commuters. Most city planners that I know (more than a few) own cars and use them regularly. Most of our rabid bike advocates also own cars and use them regularly.
It's important to not fall into the trap of progressive urban utopianism which holds out that cutting off spending on roads and putting it all towards transit will solve our problems and make everyone happy. I think it will actually make 90% of people miserable.
So spend some stimulous on mass transit, absolutely, but don't go overboard with it.
January 2, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mateo123: You say "Transportation has nearly always been funded without appropriate regard for demand."
I gather you are saying that mass transit is overfunded. Surely it isn't, relative to funding for roads!
Transit creates its own demand. If you build it, they will come. It may take years for development patterns to shift, but transit hubs create density and raise property values.
January 2, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Transit creates its own demand."
It absolutely does not. In the case of the streetcar suburbs, the houses came first. The transit was built at a loss to sell houses. Transit did not bring the houses.
January 2, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In the case of the streetcar suburbs, the houses came first. The transit was built at a loss to sell houses."
That's not what happened in San Francisco. The Twin Peaks Tunnel was completed in 1918, long before the most of the houses in the western half of San Francisco were built. It's unlikely those first major tracts of suburban houses in the Sunset District would have sold through if it weren't for the rail line connecting them to downtown.
January 2, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say that ALL of the demand for transit comes after it's built -- obviously there are places that will immediately supply a large user base to a transit system.
But your "absolutely it does not" is rather... absolutist. Apparently you don't believe that development patterns shift after transit is built? Sorry, I've seen it happen with my own eyes... even in, for example, Miami.
Ronald Reagan called our light rail system "Metrofail" when it opened in the early '80s. Its ridership remained modest for years. But gradually, dense, multi-use development clusters emerged around Metrorail stops.
Even areas that had formerly feared the train stations (because they might bring "undesirables" into the neighborhood) started treating them as assets. Now there is widespread support for major expansion of the system.
January 3, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone supports mass transit, and, of course, everyone wants everyone else to use mass transit. That gets rid of the traffic problems that interfere with my enjoyment of driving everywhere I go.
California has a law that requires publicly funded mass transit, which is all of it, to pay a large percentage of its costs with passenger fares. That results in fares high enough to discourage use of mass transit. So, the number of trips is reduced to better match the number of passengers, which makes using mass transit less desirable, which reduces the passenger fare, which reduces.....etc.
We need to face reality. Mass transit works where population density is high. But, the public wants low population density, and if they don't get it in cities, they simply move to suburbs where the density is lower. But, of course suburbs can't collect enough passengers to support mass transit, even for job commuting.
We need to reconcile our desires and get them to fit together better. Or, of course, we can feel much better about how "green" we are by just supporting mass transit for everyone else.
January 2, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo: replace last "fare" in paragraph 2 with "load".
January 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Everyone supports mass transit, and, of course, everyone wants everyone else to use mass transit."
Bingo.
January 2, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does mass transit really take longer to build than highways? Maybe heavy rail does, but light rail and bus-based transit require far less right of way and far less structure in general. (Bus-based transit could require a bunch of extra construction if you need to build additional lanes, but less if you just reuse existing ones. And gosh knows we're going to have enough spare suburban and exurban parking after the retail shakeout.)
January 2, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest issue for me is the EXPANSION of highway systems, which I'd find simply unnacceptable, both socially and economically. It is no doubt that extensive highway systems create environmental waste, and I'd argue sociological detriment. The fact that in many markets across the country the average person drives over 35 miles EACH DAY just to get to work is simply ridiculous.
That said, it is also absurd that the only true dis-incentive to this lifestyle is that many if not most of our highways are in such a sorry state that it is uncomfortable to use them at best, and life-threatening at worst.
Simply repairing the roads we and bridges we have would use a fair-sized portion of this package. Building new roads would, In my view, be squandering of this opportunity.
As to shooters point, mass transit makes amazing sense on the East Coast and I think that the great lakes and west coast present opportunities as well, and if you have never lived in a situation where you have relied entirely on mass transit, and see first hand how it is a boon to the working class and allows people to lift themselves out of poverty, please keep your uninformed comments to yourself ;)
January 2, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I find confusing here is the feasibility of expanding transit infrastructure at a time when states and municipalities are facing dramatic budget cut-backs. While the feds are planning stimulative investments, the other levels of government are doing the oppossite, owing to the need to balance their budgets. They don't even enough money to maintain what they have, let alone invest in and maintain new stuff.
January 2, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have pointed out a real conundrum here. The states, after all, have always been primarily responsible for public works projects concerned with building our infrastructure. As you rightly point out, this economic downturn has hit state and local governments hard, causing them to severely cut back on projects that were already on the board.
In a letter to FDR, Keynes wrote that the primary objective of any stimulus spending must be to inject money quickly into the economy so it can "provide a good, hard shove" to be given "in the next six months."
The best way to accomplish this would be to get funding into the states sufficient to continue the projects already begun. From there, it is imperative that we quickly approve and fund other projects equally as capable of providing a "good, hard shove." Mass transit fits this category, especially for the orders for steel and other manufactured goods that would soon be made in advance of the actual construction. (Providing, of course, that there are limitiations placed upon imported manufactured goods in favor of domestic production.)
The only other prime warning in this was recently offered by Paul Krugman in a recent article in the NYT. Krugman warns against corruption or featherbedding occurring in the granting of contracts for these projects. Nothing will sour the American people on these monies being spent more than if they learn of scandals in the awards process that makes it look like it is being conducted to favor campaign contributors instead of the whole of the populace. I therefore get concerned when I read about all the lobbyists who are attempting to steer the discussion, knowing that the "common good" is too often perceived to be at odds with their own business interests.
This is all tricky business, to be sure. But we are confronted with remarkable opportunity to limit the destruction that will be visited upon us by this economic downturn while providing valuable resources for the future of this country. I keep my fingers crossed that Obama & Co. have the wisdom and the perseverance and the integrity to make it all happen.
January 2, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I was wondering about was the possibility of somehow repealing or suspending the balanced budget requirements at the state level. After all, the consensus appears to be that deficit financing is a key weapon in the economic arsenal, and we're faced with severe challenges. You can also argue that having the feds pour loads of money down through several layers of government leads to all sorts of accountability issues, and it would be better for the states to raise more of their own funds.
January 2, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
States, like California, are so obsessed with reducing taxes, which few of us have to pay, that they can barely fund their obligations in good economic times. Allowing them to borrow and spend, simply passes along the problem to later years. California has already used that approach for the past 5 years or so, and it hasn't helped at all.
Modest tax increases in states like California would solve our budget problems, but Republicans won't allow any tax increase, not even on left handed, purple skinned, 100 year old immigrants from Jupiter. And, the public supports that attitude. (We all love the purple people!)
January 2, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're lucky to have balanced budget requirements, although I understand the temptation to get around it once in awhile.
But if you look at the federal deficit spending with no plan or intention of ever paying it back, it seems unwise to start letting the state do the same thing in our names.
January 2, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting suppositions. I think a revival of our domestic steel industry will turn out to be wishful thinking without strong legislative incentives, as well as deterrents, (read import tariffs), on China's steel production capacity, (currently about 5 times the US output).
January 2, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good argument. When I was a little kid we still had cable cars in Mpls.
January 2, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the short run, a fair amount of stimulus money is going to be going to the states because they're the ones who actually contract the work on roads, bridges etc. (It's federal money, or federal matching, but it's typically the state DOT that manages the work.) That will help a lot because states have been cannibalizing other parts of their budgets to keep roads passable and bridges open.
In the longer term, half a trillion to a trillion dollars is pretty close to what the states would have had available (federal money, state receipts) if GWB hadn't flimflammed through those tax giveaways to the rich in 2001. So that's a set of loopholes that need to be closed once and for all.
January 2, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised at the lack of comment on the mini nuclear reactor idea. Is this because most haven't heard of it, or aversion to nuclear power in general?
The idea of reactors the size of a shed and safe enough for students to use is hugely exciting to me. Imagine cheap, independent, power in Africa, South America, and anywhere else you can imagine. What projects could be pursued, like irrigation, manufacturing, or farming? How about just raising the standard of living everywhere, nearly overnight by orders of magnitude? It would be the beginning of the 21st Century's golden age.
Am I wrong here, and this sort of stuff isn't interesting to this site?
January 2, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the mini-nukes are interesting from the power station perspective. However they change nothing about the very real problem of fuel life cycle management.
My father has worked at a nuclear plant, and we have discussed its basically competent management for many years. The power plants (when situated properly, etc. etc.) are in general not problematic until age requires their refitting and/or removal from service. As long as the costs of both construction and proper refit/disposal are amortized honestly, the plants are not a terrible problem.
Much ink has been spilled on the issues of nuclear fuel and waste management, and to date the problem remains essentially unsolved.
I personally support the use of nuclear technology but only under strict conditions balancing cheapness versus NIMBY hrough competent and honest management of the entire lifecycle.
Historically, fuel processing (such as the Fernald plant here in Ohio and difficulties in Washington) show that either managers of the existing nuclear fuel processing facilities or their funders are unwilling to recognize the true expenses of doing it correctly.
The current problems with both high-level and low-level nuclear waste need to be solved, and that simply has not happened yet. The temptation to avoid the true expense of the fuel cycle has proven too great to manage it properly.
January 2, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well . . .
As the saying goes, "There's nothing new under the sun."
TRIGA
~OGD~
January 3, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well as to shooters inquiries into the mini nuclear reactor, I still have yet to read this sort of panacea attitude towards nuclear power from critics around the world. I read about these little guys some time back and it would seem that these might have a viable use, though I am not sure about it's use in neighborhood near you any time soon. I would agree with you that France and Japan supply almost all of their power from Nuclear power and I would also agree that they have been reprocessing this fuel for continued use. But and other advocates of these facts seem to allude towards the conclusion that their is no waste, and that is simply not the case. In fact their are lots of wastes, including treated water, radioactive material bi-products, the cost of operating these facilities from harvest to waste as well as others. However, as I understand things Coal-fired power plants produce more radio-active waste than your run of the mill nuclear power-plant.
I believe like many I have to accept that all options must be on the table, that said Solar and Wind have been pushed around by coal and oil for too long.
As for mass transit, I am for it. There are so many reasons for it and I believe that they far outweigh the negatives, but as you can see from the post above, Americans still love them some cars. Living in Texas, a state that can take almost an entire day to drive across, I would love transit between the major cities of Texas. Screw I-35 and I-10, can you just imagine how many drunks we will take off the road if they can actually walk and ride to their pub of choice. I mean the Texas-OU game in and of itself would probably eliminate two dozen deaths every year surrounding this event. Go rail, go rail, go rail!
January 2, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll make one more comment about Nathan's interesting post.
If we do invest more in mass transit, I hope its because we feel its the right thing to do, and not because of lobbying by the steel industry or anyone else.
If this stimulus is designed by lobbyists, we'll get a lot less bang for the buck. Let's at least get lots of transit or roads projects actually built, and not let the money disappear into the pockets of this and that special interest.
January 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public transit is one facet of a multi-form solution. Use it where it works - travel to and from inner-ring suburban areas to city cores, and around in the suburb-to-suburb patterns that have evolved in recent years, with ring lines.
To reduce congestion in urban cores - a desirable end in itself - add steep surcharges to monthly parking lot and ramp contracts. Where transit is available for the regular user, provide a strong disincentive to avoid using it. And dedicate those funds to subsidy of the transit for those who will use it and become better neighbors as a result.
In other areas, buses might make more sense. Between properly-spaced city pairs, high-speed passenger rail can make a significant difference, for this reason: It can, in some cases, offer a time-competitive alternative to air travel. I'm thinking 600 miles, give or take a few, is about right, once the Homeland Security Theater issues and commute to and from the airport - rarely build in a central city area - are factored in. And for those who are going to a core area, that's another incentive right there.
There is no single answer. Different things work for different situations. Light rail in urban areas makes a lot of sense, if properly designed and placed. Intercity rail between properly-spaced city pairs also makes a lot of sense. They also create both the construction jobs and long-term jobs in their operation, something a road does not do on its own.
January 2, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To reduce congestion in urban cores - a desirable end in itself - add steep surcharges to monthly parking lot and ramp contracts."
Smacks of social engineering.
New York demonstrates that an extensive web of available transit doesn't get cars off the road. The fact that New Yorkers don't have/can't afford to park cars, has led to their replacement with cabs. And people pay handsomely to take them rather than the subway or bus.
I don't like congestion or pollution either, but to think that society (especially American society) will go back to not relying heavily on automobiles seems crazy to me on its face.
The solution has to be technological: clean cars. "No cars" or even "signicantly fewer cars" is a pipe dream.
January 2, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now-- I'm not going to argue that every city is going to become NYC with mass transit, but don't believe that cabs are a significant part of transit in NYC. 54.2% of workers commute to work using public transportation in the city; in Manhattan, 75% of residents don't own cars. Cabs are not irrelevant but they aren't used daily by any group other than a small elite group.
NYC is ecotopia-- residents use an estimated one-half to even one-third of the energy use of the average American. Most cities probably can't reach its level of public transit use, but it's not an unreasonable goal to try to move far more significantly in that direction for more cities. Many people will choose to live in places that require driving, but the goal should be to create far more urban areas where people who don't want to drive don't have to.
January 2, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try driving into Manhattan from the suburbs anytime after 6:30am and you'll have a different view about NYC as an "Ecotopia"
Nathan focuses on the people who live in NYC. But fails to mention that so many people in the suburbs still drive to work
January 3, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they driving when there are great commuter rail systems (NJ Transit/PATH/LIRR/Metro North)? Again, it's still a tiny portion of those working in NYC, especially Manhattan, who drive into the city. I think those who do drive are masochists.
And yes, NYC is ecotopia including most commuters who use rail and other transit to get into the city.
January 3, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ask me to be a mind reader. But if you've ever tried to drive on the LIE or Grand Central at 7am it's a parking lot.
You live in Jersey City - so go sit outside the Holland Tunnel during rush hour and ask people in their cars
January 4, 2009 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out Curitiba’s “surface subway” system. It is an attractive and viable option in places where light rail is not feasible.
January 3, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the economic stimulus goes, it doesn't matter how long it takes to finish the project. What matters is how long it takes to get it started. There is no point in allocating billions of dollars to a project if the next 5 years are going to be spent arguing about the environmental impact or where it should go. For the stimulus itself, what matters is getting people to work in 2009 and 2010.
That's why infrastructure projects should only be a part of the program. There ought also to be tax cuts aimed at the less well off. people criticize tax cuts because they too often go to the rich, which is true butt doesn't need to be true. they also say that many people will just use them to cut theirs debts. But they have to do that before they can start spending. So if they don't do it now they will do it later, prolonging the recession. So tax cuts for the less well off, or speed up fixing health care which would remove a big financial burden from people and companies.
The other really worrying thing to an outsider ( I am British and we are grappling with many of the same problems) is just how deeply the lobbyists have got their teeth into the whole business. It does look as if Washington is about to throw a side of beef into a pond full of piranhas.
January 3, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Salt Lake City's light rail has been very successful. There is room for a lot of expansion in it too.
January 3, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading some of these comments has been a surreal experience, personally. Mini reactors? Are you kidding? Even some of us who support transit have a somewhat strange view of how much it costs and how many resources are needed to get projects going. Yes, transit is moderately expensive. But so are a lot of other projects. Any stimulus package under consideration by the Obama Administration will include lots and lots of other stuff, not just transit projects. It's not all light rail systems. So, for those communities in desperate need for a functioning transit system (like mine), there are these projects. But for others, there are bridges, highways, maybe even some levies (shock!). It's across the board.
Transit helps everyone, even people who don't use it or even want to pay for it! Rich people benefit from people mass transit. Poor people benefit. Car enthusiasts benefit. Pedestrians benefit. People who like burning lots and lots of gas benefit. People who like riding their bikes benefit. It helps manufacturers and service industries alike. It helps suburbs and cities. It quite literally benefits everyone.
Some of the bizarre vitriol I've heard and read directed towards mass transit investments are so strange, so out of touch, so rooted in total, utter idiocy, that I'm beginning to wonder if there is some lobby out there paying people to sound like morons. I just cannot allow myself to think that people are this stupid.
January 3, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake writes: I'm beginning to wonder if there is some lobby out there paying people to sound like morons.
Yes, there is. Google "light rail" and "von Mises Institute" and you'll find that that outfit has flooded the Internets with anti light rail propaganda. Von Mises is the Trotsky of crank libertarianism, but obviously someone has been pouring a bundle of money into this outfit to bash light rail and uphold the virtues of suburban sprawl.
If, as I suspect, this was all being promoted by people with a vested interest in the real estate bubble, the Ludwig von Mises Institute may find that its fundraising and endowment are in a world of hurt.
Daphne42 writes: The other really worrying thing to an outsider (I am British and we are grappling with many of the same problems) is just how deeply the lobbyists have got their teeth into the whole business.
Lobbyists are the villains du jour, but something equivalent is pretty much inevitable when communities, industries, and pretty much everyone out there is competing for a pot of funding. There is no pristine way to make these decisions.
January 3, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the auto industry (don't laugh) could get behind the mass transit system as a way to continue operations in plants slated to close or to re-open already closed plants. The auto industry has the capacity to build mass transit "vehicles" so to speak--trolleys, trams, railway cars, busses, etc. Even promoting the "bullet train".
Actually, it would be in their (and our) best interest if the Big 3 promoted this idea to the Obama Administration.
This industry would not be getting rid of automobiles, but supplementing them.
An aside, I live in the Detroit area and would love to have a capable mass transit system, ala Chicago. When I have travelled to Chicago, I use the train and the mass transit systems available ther.
January 3, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm disappointed in the lack of substantive discussion about the main points nathan's made, which is the economic linkages from urban transit development yield a higher economic multiplier than road construction. i believe the good folks at good jobs first (www.goodjobs.org) looked into this some time ago and came away with the conclusion that building transit and repairing existing urban transportation infrastructure yields a better ripple effects than building new roads on the urban fringe. an important point made in the GFJ study was that the urban transportation infrastructure also reinforced the dynamics that yield political benefits for democrats - density, diversity, and broader distribution of economic benefits.
this actually leaves me with the question of where the building trades unions - both in the AFL_CIO building trades department and in change to win - are in this discussion. this is all the more important since labor would ostensibly be able to amplify the call for urban investment. the trades would have a particularly important role since the development that would occur in these urban areas once we begin to climb out of recession would have a much higher propensity to be built under union conditions.
January 3, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we could get 15% of people in most cities living and/or working along mass transit lines (and using them), this would be a great accomplishment with significant ecological benefits. I think this is a laudable goal.
But it also leaves 85% of the population using the street/car system. That's really my point.
All that neglecting the highway system does is make people miserable and snarl economic activity. (Everything you buy at the store gets there in a truck. Every item.)
Now, I definitely would say that running large NEW highways or freeways into virgin suburban/rural lands is not a good choice. But maintaining and even adding capacity to what we already have is unavoidable, and should be a large part of any stimulus package.
January 4, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of this mass transit/car-commuting/city vs suburbs living controversy has to do with insidious social constructs that to some degree actually counteract citizens' responses to changing conditions. The strange thing is that a lot of commenters seem to have difficulty perceiving that a different intersection of social and economic factors could easily drive a different result, and instead assume that the way things are is the way they "ought" to be.
Previously we had a bunch of intersecting factors--cheap gas, easy availability of credit for home/auto purchases, ample freeways, a consumer culture that favored large homes and cars, government subsidies for and collaboration with auto sales--which cooperated to create and sustain the american car culture where people live in the suburbs 15-20 (often many more) miles away from work and commute on highways every day.
Now, several of these factors have reversed themselves--gas is likely volatile for the perceivable future, consumer credit has dried up (and likely won't return to future levels), and highways are crowded--in short, a situation where it makes perfect sense to construct a new paradign that accomodates these changed circumstances. A coalition between steel, manufacturing companies, mass-transit, and urban density construction interests is one potential way among many to tool our lifestyles to respond better to these changes. But there is nothign inherently undemocratic about advancing different priorities to respond to economic conditions; just the complaining of individuals who have adjusted to the existing paradigm and refuse to change.
January 4, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This discussion by Nathan is an important one.
There seems to be a disconnect, between dreams and realities.
The Country, States, Municipalities, is acting as though there’s going to be money, to finance anything at all.
Why would we want to fund projects that will need subsidization for eternity?
Wrapping a millstone around our collective necks.
I used to hate the idea of toll roads, but this current financial crisis has convinced me otherwise. I have no extra money lying around, to pay extra taxes in order to fund projects.
I believe that if YOU use it, YOU pay for it. Many people are having a hard enough time paying their own way, let alone subsidizing rail or road service for others.
Have we not learned, that there will always be potholes and roads to fix, but not enough money to fix them?
Of course we can find a way to ADAPT. Finding A Dumb A.. Pool of Taxpayers.
From reports I’ve heard, many light rail projects are not fully self-supporting, and depend, on a continuing outside source of revenue.
Who is this outside benefactor? The taxpayer, who has lost his job, has no revenue, has nowhere to go and where the train goes has no need.
If you build it, the only thing coming, is the shakedown, you may never use it personally, but you’ll pay and pay and pay for it.
Ride a Rickshaw or ride a bike or a motorscooter. But I don't expect you to pay for me to ride your train, in your Disneyworld monorail, unless it's self supporting.
Has any one ever seen pictures of the passenger trains in India, people hanging on the outside, overcrowded, with stench. That's my perception of future of rail service. You peasants ride the train, and the elites will drive the streets.
January 5, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, transit is subsidized. So what? Elevators are subsidized. (When is the last time you paid a fare to ride one?) Most highways are subsidized. Urban transportation is a public good necessary to the function of an industrial society. There is no inherent reason why the cost of one form of it should be put on the direct users, and doing so distorts usage patterns.
January 7, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have to be clear what we want to accomplish before we argue for mass transit. If all that is wanted is to get suburban commuters out of their cars and into mass transit, I think that is short-sighted. We need to be developing cities that are both more walkable and well served by public transit for all sorts of trips, not just getting to work. Mass transit is too expensive to be a band-aid for poor urban design.
January 5, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink