public transit
Portland Public Transit Provides Lesson for Boise, Pundit Warns
"Portland's Chief Neo-Libertarian Critic" talks about Boise's streetcar.
By Sharon Fisher, 11-11-09
Public transit, such as Boise’s proposed streetcar, is bad for the economy and bad for the environment. Just ask Randal O’Toole, who works on urban growth, public land, and transportation issues at the Cato Institute, and who spoke in Boise today about public transit based on his experiences in Portland.
O’Toole’s talk in Boise was sponsored by the Idaho Freedom Foundation. The IFF is headed by Wayne Hoffman, a former reporter for the Idaho Statesman and Idaho Press-Tribune—“a less honorable profession,” he said—who has worked for Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna and the Idaho Department of Agriculture, as well as heading up Idaho Young Republicans and acting as spokesman for former Republican Idaho Congressman Bill Sali. Hoffman described the IFF as a “nonprofit nonpartisan free-market think tank.”
The event—held, incidentally, in a chain restaurant rather than in a locally owned business—was standing-room only, though apparently members of some Republican organizations received subsidized attendance. Attendees included Lieutenant Governor Brad Little, Representative Pete Nielsen (R-Mountain Home), and Boise City Council candidate Dave Litster, whose primary campaign issue was the streetcar, and who was asking attendees to sign his petition requiring it to come to a vote of the people.
As noted by his critics, O’Toole has made a career out of debunking Portland, the darling of urban planners. Which I guess makes him the darling of anti-urban planners. His website is even called “The Antiplanner.”
That’s not to say O’Toole didn’t have some good points, most notably that funding light rail by cutting buses doesn’t work. Buses offer a number of advantages over rail transit, such as flexibility—particularly in smaller cities such as Boise and Eugene, Ore. And certainly there is a great deal of controversy about the degree to which the streetcar system as proposed will serve Boise.
The problem is that, as described by a Congress for the New Urbanism report responding to O’Toole’s Portland study, “O’Toole’s attacks on Portland often miss the mark by distorting and misrepresenting data.” His talk in Boise was no exception.
* O’Toole cited a number of statistics about public transit in Portland showing that it was going down, that more people were driving to work, and so on. Aside from the fact that this was debunked at great length in the Congress for New Urbanism report, his statistics all ended in 2007, and didn’t include 2008—when $4 a gallon gas prices drove a lot of people from their cars. In addition, the same Portland Business Alliance he cited for his 2007 numbers noted that that in 2008, 44 percent of people took public transit whereas 45 percent drove—37 percent alone, 8 percent in carpools.
* O’Toole said that much of the Portland streetcar system went through urban renewal districts, which through their use of tax-increment financing were “stealing money from fire departments, police, and schools.” Well, not exactly. The reason it’s called “increment" financing is that some percentage of taxes on the additional value of the property in the district goes toward urban renewal. The taxes collected on the original value of the property can still go to the same fire departments, police stations, and schools where they always went.
* During the Q&A session, one person asked about public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, specifically about commuter rail. O’Toole chose to interpret that to mean the Altamont Commuter Express, a train that started in 1998 to connect San Jose to Stockton. He went on to call it a “disaster,” with only three or four trains running every morning and a few hundred people riding it. And that’s true—it offers four trains daily in each direction with an average daily ridership of 3,700. However, he did not mention Caltrain, the commuter rail system between San Francisco and San Jose, which offers 90 weekday trains and serves almost 40,000 people per day.
* O’Toole spoke favorably of several privately-operated transit systems, such as the Atlantic City jitney and the Puerto Rico Publico. “To make a profit, you have to be private,” he said. Well, obviously if a private company can make a profit at it, more power to it. Surely he’s not suggesting that the government should be competing with private companies to make a profit? That’s why government gets involved in the first place: because there is a public need that is not efficient for a private company to fill.
* “What about when gas goes to $5 or $10 a gallon?” asked one attendee. In an amazing coincidence, O’Toole not only had all sorts of figures at hand about public transit in Europe, where gas is indeed that price, but already had half a dozen slides about it queued up in his Powerpoint presentation.
* O’Toole claimed that driving costs 24 cents per passenger mile, which includes the car itself, maintenance, repair, insurance, taxes, and road subsidies. He did not say where he got this figure. In comparison, according to the American Automobile Association, average costs per mile are 45.3 to 70.7 cents, without including road subisides.
The other problem is that much of O’Toole’s argument was couched in political terms that are unrealistic, to say the least. Not only did he believe that transit should be privatized, but roads should as well, he said. In addition, not only was the current recession caused by urban planners—because their policies created the housing bubble—but called them planning czars who were trying to use social engineering to dictate how and where we live, such as forcing us to live in Soviet-style apartment buildings against our will. He emphasized this by including shots of Moscow (the Russian one, not the northern Idaho one) and East Germany and pretending at first to think they were Portland.
But when Ada County Commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Sharon Ullman asked him whether he’d looked at the Boise streetcar proposal specifically, O’Toole admitted he wasn’t particularly familiar with it.
[End of article]Sharon, the problem with a "public need" is that it's really a private need that nobody wants badly enough to pay for with THEIR OWN money. Of course, I have private needs that I want to be a public need. Specifically, I want a pony, and I want YOU to pay for it. Not YOU the citizens of Boise (for whom the shared cost of my pony is certainly affordable -- particularly when you don't have a choice). No, I want YOU, Sharon L. Fisher, to pay for it.
If you aren't willing to meet my public need -- to buy me a pony, why should the rest of Boise be willing to buy you a streetcar?
Sharon Fisher ~ You are leaving out the bulk of what I asked Mr. O'Toole. My point was that everything this man said about other areas and systems could be said about the proposal here in Boise: the vast majority of the proposed streetcar is in Boise's Urban Renewal area so, even if it does bring economic development to the downtown core, thanks to Tax Increment Financing the newly generated property tax dollars will go to the Capital City Development Corporation rather than to the other taxing districts. Boise City and Ada County taxpayers will have to pick up the cost of providing fire protection, police services, ambulance coverage, roads, etc.
The bottom line is that the $65 million price tag for this 2.6 mile streetcar, that will cause greater traffic congestion and problems for cyclists in downtown Boise, is not justifiable.
Thanks for elaborating on your question.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-11-09O'Toole isn't by himself. He has written a number of books and done a lot of research during the last few decades as have others of his ilk. His numbers and research stands up to scrutiny and is rarely found to be false. On the other hand the "smart growth" friendly, info sources sound like pure "brave new world" propaganda to me.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-11-09By the way, O'Toole isn't a pundit. He is a legitimate transportation researcher who doesn't happen to agree with new urbanest, smart growth, anti-automobile, anti-sprawl policies and he isn't alone.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-11-09"A pundit is someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are knowledgeable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit_(expert)
"1. a learned person, expert, or authority.
2. a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pundit
Word meaning and usage evolves more rapidly than dictionaries can be revised. "pundit" is currently used as a pejorative and derogatory term more often than not. The context of your article indicates than "pundit" was not a compliment.
Comment By Andrew Studley, 11-11-09@Russ, there is indeed debate as to the correct role of government. But that debate is best carried on when the disputants present the evidence honestly, and debate the question directly. I am sympathetic to the argument that public transit is an inappropriate subsidy to those who ride it. O'Toole didn't seem to present that argument (yes, I attended this presentation). He asserted statistics that were not backed up by his own claimed sources, which casts all his arguments into doubt.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-11-09Come on kiddies! If you're hot to trot for trolleys, you can buy a few buses that look like trolley cars and save the tax payer big bucks.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-11-09Transit References & Experts for those with an open mind.
http://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/transitinfo.html
Thanks, Mickey, that looks like a great single source for reports by O'Toole and other people of his viewpoint.
Comment By Julie Fanselow, 11-12-09Sharon, thank you for pointing out that this was held in a chain restaurant (that coincidentally displaced a longtime local favorite) rather than one of the dozens of locally owned venues downtown. To me, that speaks volumes about the IFF/Tea Party mindset and how its adherents really view the importance of local economic development.
I'm also laughing about Wayne H's comment that his current role - or perhaps his work for Bill Sali? - is more honorable than newspaper reporting.
Finally, it's nine days after the election, so it'd be nice for David Litster to remove his big sign from the side of Protest Road.
Good story. The streetcar plan may or may not be right for Boise, but it is refreshing to see this debunker so thoroughly debunked.
Oh, thanks, Julie. The choice of restaurant -- and they did mention that it has a fake streetcar inside it, so perhaps it was chosen on purpose for that reason -- really did seem to symbolize things for me.
As far as the 'more honorable profession,' Wayne was referring to the IFF. “I get to talk about freedom and liberty all day," he said.
What a conundrum...
We have a proposal in Boise to spend 65 million dollars to build a two and a half mile Light Rail system. There are some who refer to this as a "Streetcar", perhaps in an attempt to bring back nostalgic memories from the days before General Motors and Firestone Tire Company got together and bought up most of the Inter-urban trolley systems and promptly closed them down so they could sell more cars, buses, and tires.
The irony. A handful of years back a new leg of the "Light Rail" system in Denver opened, and just prior to the ribbon being cut, the dignitary giving the grand pronouncement of its opening stated, and I must paraphrase - "Fifty years ago we were tearing up the rails, and now we are putting them down again."
But Denver isn't Boise and Boise isn't Portland and our economic Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and things will never be the same again. And one of O'Toole's comments illustrate the point if one can read between the lines, assuming one is well read to begin with. Here's some "Change you can believe in". To quote: "Not only did he believe that transit should be privatized, but roads should as well."
Where did such radical thinking originate?
From the "Chicago Boys" from the University of Chicago - Milton Friedman and his acolytes, whose philosophy was so clearly articulated in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." Effectively, and pardon the pun, "capitalize" on a crisis, whether the cause of the event is natural or spontaneous, or worse, deliberately caused by the financial class so they can advantage themselves of the circumstances.
O'Toole apparently suggested that public roads be taken from those who funded them, i.e. the taxpayer, and either sold or leased to private companies to manage their operation, who then in turn bill those who paid for the construction and regular maintenance in the first place. A sweet deal indeed, and we are to assume "market forces" will regulate these monopolies. Right.
This sort of experimentation become practice was pushed by Friedman and Co. in the Third-World, as his disciples would move into nations undergoing crisis,often times with the help of our "Intelligence Agencies", the State Department, and not too rarely, with the help of our military. In most cases, nothing but disaster followed, as these multinational monopolies bought up, for pennies on the dollar, roads, water systems, electric grids - you get the idea. Then they would charge the penniless a dime for what is essential.
Again, "Sweet Deal". And again, things will never be the same again. O'Toole's seemingly new vision unfortunately has some traction well beyond Idaho. In the last couple of weeks, the City of Chicago, as it descends into hellish status after what cream was left has been skimmed away by the political class, leased its parking meters to some outfit in Europe. Other cities have done the same with roads, is some cases sold them outright. Yes, those same roads paid for by the taxpayer. Whether the cities are run by Democrats or Republicans - it's all the same.
Things will never be the same.
But back to Boise - That 65 million for a "trolley" is a down-payment, as operating costs follow just like with anything else. How many buses will sixty five million buy? Flex-fuel too. Even fueled by natural gas. And you can buy cute little buses that look like trolleys too if nostalgia is where it's at. Does Boise need to go 65 million in debt to the same cretins who caused the financial mess we're in as well as feed the insatiable, gluttonous appetites of Friedman's intellectual offspring?
I say no, regardless of what Portland has done. What Portland did was then and this is now, and things will never be the same again. Ever. "Living in the Past", particularly one where all our largess was fueled by credit and an idea of "progress" that was defined solely by growth is not what the future holds. We may well be fortunate to avoid complete dystopia, and another 65 million in debt ought to be avoided.
Not only are O'Toole's political suggestions unrealistic, his ideology about how current and future transportation problems will be solved is outrageous. The anti-planner blog (linked in the post) has a review of O'Toole's new book, in which he purports that the solution to traffic and congestion are cars that drive themselves. It would be a laughable suggestion, except that it’s coming from someone who is considered an utmost “expert” on these issues and is actually taken seriously by people with a specific agenda.
Comment By Horst, 11-12-09The economy as celebrated from Reagan to Bush is why we are in the circumstances we presently are suffering. Had we continued the public programs begun in the seventies we would not currently be suckling at the Chinese teat.
The economy is not a religion and capitalism is not a sacred icon.
Ah, but public transit is a secular religion and trolleys and trains are its religious icons.
Comment By Tom von Alten, 11-12-09I think the trolley can (and should) rise or fall on its own merits. I remain unconvinced by what's been said to date that it'll be rising that way.
But if it takes the work of the IFF, and a less-than-credible pundit (and I'm happy to use that term in its pejorative sense) to argue against it, maybe there's more to it than I thought?
As much as I love trains (as an experience, as the hobby my grandfather was passionate about, and as effective urban transportation), it doesn't seem like that's what we're talking about. Boise's support for rail transportation is ably expressed in the so-called "Tour Train" (gag me) and a new coat of paint for Big Mike every couple of decades. (And gee it would be nice to have Amtrak swing by again, as long as somebody else can subsidize it enough.)
The heavy lifting in the transportation department is out on I-84, thank you. Check with Pam Lowe about how the good old boy network behind that is prepared to consider alternatives.
Randal O'Toole is a blowhard who's never let the facts get in the way of his opinions. He's seen as a laughingstock in Portland, but seems to have made a nice business for himself going around the country selling his brand of libertarianism.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-12-09You can denigrate the messenger if you don't like his messenger all you want. But the actual facts against public transit as he and plenty of others present them are in his favor.
Comment By Chris Blanchard, 11-12-09Thanks for filling us in on the meeting, Sharon. O'Toole brings nothing to the debate - that's why I skipped it. I only hope our electeds are clever enough to realize that they ought not be taking the advice of a guy that "attended forestry school," when it comes to making decisions about transportation engineering.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-12-09Actually, Mickey, I should thank you, because I'm pretty sure you're the person who told me about Randal O'Toole in the first place. Otherwise I might not have been familiar with his work and might not have noticed the announcement of his appearance.
Comment By John Molloy, 11-12-09I think it a tad foolhardy to dismiss public transit with a grand sweep of the hand. The key to whether there are measurable benefits to such are related to the geography and demographics of the particular city said transit is to serve.
Can anyone imagine New York functioning without it? Philly, D.C., or Chicago? Moscow, London, Paris and the like? Even San Francisco, L.A. and Denver? Add those jillion extra cars on the road for commutes, let alone consider how many residents who live near the cores of these metroplexes simply do not own vehicles because of public transportation. These circumstances are a measurable good.
Okay, one can question whether these places actually function, and yes, perhaps the world would be better off without them functioning at all, but the fact of the matter is that rail, whether overhead, surface, or underground is essential in those cities. In Boise? Not hardly.
And hey, I'm a big train fan. I love them. Passenger or freight, it doesn't matter. And I've got a fantastic collection of O-Gauge stuff, both old and new. Lionel, Mikes Train House, K-Line, Atlas... I've even got O-96 curves! 8 footers, so I can be like Casey Jones and keep the throttle wide open.
Frankly, the rail infrastructure in this country is a disgrace. We have far too many tractor-trailer rigs on the highway system, thank to government subsidies that both built and maintain the damn things. 80% of what "moves by truck" should be moved by rail nearer the final destination. But alas, we can't. As freight moved to eighteen wheels off of eight back in the 1950's, short lines and inner-city tracks were abandoned and torn up, the steel sold for scrap and the rights of ways lost. Now it's by truck or forget it.
Frankly this question in Boise is more along the line of "We won't be a great city if we don't..." If Boise was to have rail in the city, it should have been done back in the 1920's and then never abandoned as what happened in so many other locales. You want rail in Boise so bad, forget the cute little trolley. Run light rail from Nampa, Meridian, Eagle, etc, and have a good bus system available to pick up the commuters to deliver them to their final destinations. But then again, just because you build it doesn't mean they're going to come.
As an aside, what kind of drugs are these urban planners on? We haven't even entered the phase of the commercial real estate bubble deflating, there remains that quadrillion dollars or better derivatives time-bomb ticking in the background, the country is what, 15 trillion in the hole, and when counting unfunded liabilities it's closer to 70 trillion, and these great minds want to do what? Did these people ever take any sort of economics classes at all? Do they not think these minor little problems, along with the rest of the world about to abandon the dollar, do they not think there might just be a little paradigm shift around the next bend? Like the end of the world as we knew it? Oh yea, and those two little wars with the third about to break out. Hey - no bother, right?
WAKE UP! WE'RE IN TROUBLE!!!
Yes, there's a train on the track all right, and it isn't a trolley. We're all poor Nell bound tightly to the tracks, and Dudley Do Wrong ain't around to save us! And these bright sparks want to blow 65 million dollars on what? A trolley? Hell, we're going to need that just to fund soup kitchens, and these "planners" should think long and hard about that because "urban planning" isn't exactly much in demand when we're sliding our way into Third-World status. A trolley. Wake up!
@Chris, why do you give so much credence to college education? Did YOU stop learning when you left college? Why do you think Randal has?
BTW, Randal isn't the only person who believes that robo-cars are the future of transportation. Brad Templeton is a big promoter of them as well.
Luddites who make their cases on the bases of current population in the West need only look so far as the Treasure Valley in Idaho and the front range in Colorado to see what an ephemeral cudgel they are using.
I used to hunt pheasants in the boondocks all around Meridian, Idaho; and remember when Karcher was simply a highway intersection on the way from Nampa to Caldwell.
I can also remember when La Porte, Ft Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Broomfield and Boulder were distinct little communities between Laramie and Denver on U.S 287.
Now is the time to build a public transportation system with those memories in mind.
Its amusing the reaction of people who have just noticed O'Toole. Especially the folks who are adherents of the Public Transportation, smart growth, anti-highway, anti-auto, anti-suburb religion. I began noticing O'Toole and others almost 20 years ago when I noticed the religious fervor mostly devoid of research that "brave new planning world" planners advocated. There happens to a large group of researchers who independently agree with O'Toole many of whom have currently politically correct degrees. On average public transportation riders pay 25 percent of the cost of their ride and the taxpayer picks up the remaining 75 percent. The ignorance of the public transportation acolytes is telling. If their belief in public transportation was fact based instead of faith based they would have been familiar with contradicting research long ago.
Comment By Horst, 11-12-09Amazing how you seem to be at the cutting edge of all rightwingcrazy postions, mick.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-12-09Unfortunately, you're demonstrating that left wing loonies are every bit as dumb and sheep like as right wing nut cases. Ideology devoid of common sense. Both extremes are attempting to grab power in order to boss people around to their way of thinking.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-13-09Hey. Both of youse. Lay off the personal attacks, please, or I'm going to have to get Jill in here. Thanks.
Comment By Sam Lowry, 11-13-09Rome was not built in a day. Portland's experience has shown that unless you start somewhere - in our case, with light rail in the mid-70s, funded with federal transit dollars and money from a killed freeway project, when (please note) private transit companies everywhere were going bankrupt - you don't get anywhere. And starting takes money; with transportation, it always has and always will. Our planet is dominated by large automobiles in unfortunate ways; please note that Portland is no exception! But we are trying to think and act our way into a "multimodal" future with realistic options besides driving 6x15 foot machines EVERYWHERE. Call it religion if you will; perhaps "belief" is a better term - belief in thinking about the way things can be, not just the way they are. Good luck to you, Boise.
Comment By Dan, 11-13-09O'Toole is funded by Oil/Auto Industry. What do you expect him to say?
Always research and find out who funds a persons work and you'll see the motive behind the biassed "analysis".
Interesting, Dan. Do you have a cite for that?
Comment By dan, 11-13-09For Example, heres a quote from the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.
http://www.midwesthsr.org/fact/index.html
"A few groups are making baseless claims against high-speed rail to advocate for the status quo – the same status quo that has brought us gridlock, high fuel costs and severe pollution.
Most of the “research” and quotes online and in the media can be linked to just three conservative groups: The Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, which receive funding from the likes of Chevron and Exxon Mobil"
O'toole is from the Cato Institute. Put 2 & 2 together.
@Dan, people and businesses give financial support to those with whom they agree. "Follow the Money" is a good way to learn more about someone's beliefs and motivations, but I expect that any idea I disagree with, is supported by others I disagree with. If I automatically ignored everything presented or backed by those with whom I disagree, how would I learn anything new? How could I change any mistaken beliefs I might hold?
Comment By dan, 11-13-09the cato institute talking about public transportation is like glenn beck talking about health care reform. they're not adding anything constructive to the debate.
Comment By Dan, 11-13-09I'm not saying the man is completely wrong. But for the most part he's anti-transit, anti-rail, which leads me to beleive that he want's us to think that driving your car everywhere is the future. I don't think so. We were born without car keys and we can live without them.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-13-09Ah, ok, thanks, Dan. So it's not O'Toole specifically but the Cato Institute. Interesting. Still, I wish that site you mentioned offered more definitive proof on where the Cato Institute gets its funding, rather than just their say-so.
Comment By Russ Nelson, 11-13-09Dan, a full automobile is more efficient than a half-empty light rail vehicle. True, most automobiles are driven with only one driver. But *at best* a light rail vehicle must be on average half-empty because they also have to be big enough to handle the peak load. If they aren't, and people can't get on, they won't be able to rely on public transit and will get back into their cars.
So the problems seems to be more one of using social networking to make sure that every car is full. We can do that, using 21st century technology. Seems silly to aspire to 19th century technology (even though I personally love to ride a train and will ALWAYS choose a train over a bus or taxi).
dan, yes, you can rely on the cato institute to tell the truth. Unfortunately, sometimes the truth is ugly and not very happy-making. I would be much happier if my personal desire for railroads and my desire for good public policy coincided in light rail advocacy. Unfortunately, they don't.
Dan, I expect that O'Toole has trouble getting funding from the railroad industry. Why are you surprised that he therefore has to look elsewhere for funding? Seems like the conclusion that logic (rather than the innuendo you hope to smear him with) would lead you to.
A more interesting 21st century transportation technology than the 19th century light rail is the RUF: http://www.ruf.dk/ - combines the best aspects of trains and personal automobiles.
Public spending policy should be based on factual evidence not on who you happen to think the good guys and bad guys are, although that's very western and very fun. FACT: Most light rail lines consume more energy per passenger mile than the average SUV and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than the average automobile. Additionally, auto efficiencies are increasing while rail transit efficiencies are declining. In other words persuading 1 percent of auto owners to purchase a car that gets 30 to 40 miles a gallon or more the next time they buy a car, will do more to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions than building rail transit.
Comment By Joan, 11-13-09Sharon...great article. Appreciate your analysis of O'Toole's presentation and the points he tries to make. You only have to visit Portland and speak with the people who actually live there to realize what a huge success their public transportation system truly is for the residents. As a frequent visitor, I enjoy the convenient options and low cost transportation their system provides.
Comment By Chris Blanchard, 11-13-09Russ - I am not critical of O'Toole because he does not have a college degree (from what we can gather from his website). As I have noted before, Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford are two of the greatest urbanists of our time - and not trained as urbanists. I object to O'Toole for many reasons which you can read over at my blog:
http://megafrontier.com/people/when-an-expert-is-not-an-expert
Of course the new urbanists will "debunk" O'Toole. He debunks them back.
Someone here brought up Noo Yawk. The infrastructure there is a case of "lowest cost." Or probably, lowest MARGINAL cost. The density of NYC and other old-style, old-urbanist metroplexes, makes mass transit a least-hurtful option. 40 people in a bus versus 40 people in 40 cars that have to be parked? In Manhattan? Which isn't Boise.
And Sharon, I really, REALLY must jump down your throat about:
"That’s why government gets involved in the first place: because there is a public need that is not efficient for a private company to fill."
That statement right there sums up why the deficit is in orbit, taxes are so high, why nothing makes sense. Everyone is trying to pick the pocket of everyone else for stuff they want that they are not willing to pay for themselves. Russ is completely correct, and you should reassess what you wrote. Really, does it make sense, or is it fair, to have someone else pay for your stuff?
I think -- rather, I know -- it is absolutely insane to spend 65 million on a couple miles of trolley track. I did a study years ago, vetted by industry experts, that I could rebuild Class Five main line track for a million a mile. The heavy wire for freight trains was another million and a half. Double that with inflation, and we are still way, way under 25 million or so a mile for a danged 15 mph STREEEEEEEET CAR? I don't care if 40 or 45 million of that is "supposed" to come from TIGER money...right, Boise is going to be competing in the arena with bloody knife fighters from every other city in America seeking to score the lard.
ROToole is right in many ways, especially in one respect. Users should pay directly for the infrastructure they use...then they get exactly as much as they really want and/or need, without massive, stupid misallocations of other people's money.
And that's why I'm a conservative, and you're not.
You call yourself a conservative, sir; but you are no more a conservative than was Alan Greenspan or any of the rest of the libertarians who have been moving around as neo-conservatives for the past thirty years--until the decider exposed you for what you actually are--and have been since the ninteenth century--Luddites of the most pretensious variety.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-14-09Well said, Dave. Despite hundreds of billions of Dollars of taxpayer money spent on public transit since 1950, transit's share of national motorized trip miles is still less than 5 percent. Attempting to lure people out of their automobiles using tax dollars and cute little trolley folly schemes is a futile and wasteful enterprise.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-14-09O, Sire Greene, thou hast exposed me! Thou thinkest wrongest.
Okay, I'm a FISCAL conservative...and there are lots of things about America I like that I would prefer not be "changed" while leaving penny change in my pocket. But a neocon, I be not, unkind sir.
And I think your declamation that those of us not in love with Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood Trolley are somehow Luddite is sort of ironic. A trolley is actually pretty basic tech. You need to pay closer attention to what Ned Ludd was all about.
Never mind what is going on along the Front Strange. Isn't the RTA now having trubble finding the money for its empire?
Dave Skinner ~ Great response!
Comment By Jay Greene, 11-14-09Unfortunately the neo-conservative community has similarly congratulated each other for such responses since 1981--as our nation has collapsed beneath waves of contempt between the left and the right wings of corporate greed--and smug socio-economic complacency of our middle-class society.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-14-09Jay, you're just being a pill because there's a neoconservative Jay Greene who is more famous than you.
Comment By jay, 11-15-09Nahhh, dave. I had never heard of Jay P. Greene before. My middle initial is D. And I had plenty of chances. Muffed them all; but fame is one I never even sought.
The age of convenience and privilege is ending--finally. Perhaps a system of cooperation with nature might ensue..?
Remind me what Peter O'Toole proposes to do about peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal? That's right, let's thrust all our money and hopes on inserting computers into cars, roads, and traffic lights so it can all handle itself because we know this is cheaper and guaranteed to succeed even though it's barely a preliminary technology and hasn't been put to work on the smallest of scales. Let's privatize the roads while we're at it...an idea that has worked most in Sweden because of heavy government regulation and subsidy. Why it's much better than building bus, bike, and rail transport systems which have persistently proven themselves to move people more economically, faster, and efficiently in cities all over the world, even under private profit models.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-15-09Sorry Rex, you're confused and making stuff up. 1. "peak coal"? In the U.S. alone, we have at least 500 years of coal left before we hit "Peak coal". 2. "preliminary technology"? There are demonstration projects in other countries and they are working. The idea is simple. You get charged electronically by how many miles you drive on which roads with what weight class of vehicle. The funds could be transferred directly to the private company or local government that is responsible for building and maintaining the road you're using. It called a user fee. Usually better than taxes. And Finally 3. Public transit systems do not "move people more economically faster, and efficiently in cities all over the world". The automobile, running on clean fuel technology, is the most efficient and effective means of transportation now and in the future. Individuals can decide when an where they want to go and what they can take with them, including pets and people, without regard to bus and train schedules or passenger rules. Additionally there are many more jobs available to you if you have an auto to find them and get to work at times and places not served by public transit.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-15-09Peak coal? Rex, we haven't even scratched the surface, and THAT is why the enviros are throwing millions into demonizing the stuff. If the goal is, like Jay says, ending the age of "convenience and privilege" -- and darn those clever bastiges, but they found a way back, well, no wonder the Green totalitarianiks are hammering on coal, have unjustifiably marginalized atomics. The audacity of dopes.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-15-09Mickey, those GPS systems you mention -- while it's true we have the technology -- have serious civil liberty and privacy concerns, particularly in the U.S. Perhaps you feel differently, but I'm not sure I want something in my car from the government tracking where I've been.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-15-09The technology can be tweeked so that the government can't track you. Presently, law enforcement can get a warrant to track you through the location of your credit card and phone card use if you become a fugitive. The same principle could apply to this road use billing system.
Comment By horst, 11-15-09It is so 18th century to worry about the government knowing where one is while ones very environment is becoming like a lobster's last bath.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-15-09horst, you are hopelessly and thoroughly brainwashed. Your mind appears to operate in a manner much more primitive and superstitious than the 18th century. Damn little reason and lot of fear, loathing, and hysteria.
Comment By Horst, 11-15-09I suspect I must feel, after that bit of <I>ad hominem<?I>, much as Galileo felt when upbraided by the church.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-15-09Galileo's facts and evidence contradicted the Church's faith just as evidence and facts contradict your faith in anthropogenic climate change.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-15-09Man, if this were Olympic fencing, Mick would have a GOLD MEDAL~!
And Sharon, I hear tell in the Great British Isles the road poleece can get you for speeding if you hit the checkpoints too fast. That and cameras. Jolly good show, wot?
So, I'll pass on the On-Star option.
The Pope looked pretty safe back in that early 17th century quarrel too.
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-15-09Dave, I'm not sure. I know I've heard stories about that, but I haven't researched it to be sure one way or another.
Mickey, please, no personal attacks.
Sharon & Jill must be from the same convent. Trading insults over public policy is as ancient as the gene that gave humans the ability to speak.
Comment By Jason, 11-16-09If any you haven't done so-I suggest going to Portland and utilizing their light rail and street car. I've found it to be a wonderful system-and quite popular with the locals as near as I can tell.
Comment By jedediah, 11-16-09Perhaps it is evolution, Mick? The girls seem to have evolved a tad; whereas you cling sullenly to the old ways.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-16-09Portland Data 2001-2005: 1. Downtown employees getting to work by bus decreased 9 percent. 2. Downtown employees getting to work by light rail decreased 43 percent 3.Downtown employees getting to work by SOV increased 10 percent. 4.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-16-094.Downtown employees getting to work by biking and walking doubled from a small base 2%-4% and 3%-6%. 5. Downtown gained 167 businesses and lost 4008 jobs. 6. Government agencies are the top 3 employers in downtown Portland.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-16-09Nothing sullen about me. I'm the life of the party.
Comment By horst, 11-16-09"Nothing sullen about me. I'm the life of the party." That would be thewhig or the know-nothing party?
Comment By Sharon Fisher, 11-16-09Mickey, since you persist in making personal attacks, I will need to escalate this.
As far as your statistics, note that they end in 2005, in the same way that O'Toole's ended in 2007. I quoted more recent statistics in my story that show increases.
In defense of Mickey, Sharon, der Horst is not exactly innokenti when it comes to insults, either.
In response to Jason, I have, thankyouverymutch, utilized the Portland light rail system. Some of it I like, some of it is just bizarre, like the way the airport line peels off into a 10-MPH gantlet section. As soon as the new downtown bits are built to Union Depot, I'll be satisfied with it, eminently.
Being in Montana, it costs a zillion-kajillion dollars to fly out, and taking 27-28 to Portland and nabbing a two-dollar ride straight to the ticket counter at PDX is a "good thing." That is, if 27 is ON TIME. If not, then you get to blow 30 bucks on a taxi from Vancouver and hope like crazy you make it.
That all said, I've ridden enough to be unimpressed with the riff-raff that also utilize the service. Dreads, pot smoke fumes, strange meth-induced twitches, general bad addytudes...and not much personal space. That's a factor for a lot of people less resistant to intimidation that I am.
Stats are constantly being collected and updated even as we speak. In any case long term trends are more significant that short term stats. Public transportation's market share has been steadily declining for 100 years, while public spending on transit has increased. In other words Transit spending over all apparently has had a negative effect on transit ridership. The point behind O'Toole's European stats is that even with 10 dollar a gallon gas prices and plenty of public transit, public transit passenger miles are decreasing and automobile passenger miles are increasing. As far as the Congress for the New Urbanism, I keep up with them on a regular basis. My impression is lots of propaganda and little verifiable data by planners and companies that have a vested interest in pushing the "New Urbanism".
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-16-09A couple of websites not run by O'Toole but also use more verifiable data than propaganda are:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/
http://www.demographia.com/
How to provide effective transportation according to http://www.publicpurpose.com/ and http://www.demographia.com/
Lease everyone Jaguars.
I can't make this stuff up, people:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/jaguar.jpg
And speaking of seedy characters riding the municipal rails as described by Dave. Again from the Portland Business Alliance annual survey. 45% of downtown business feel negatively impacted by, drunks, transients, and vagrants and 45% of downtown businesses feel negatively impacted by the effects of graffiti and vandalism.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-16-09The point being is that is how much the taxpayer spends for every new commuter it gets to ride light rail transit in case you don't comprehend the message.
Comment By Chris Blanchard, 11-16-09I fully understand what they are trying to do in building a simplistic and really meaningless comparison. Guys like Cox and O'Toole think that a new Jaguar is an equivalent substitute for any rail transportation, and that is completely ridiculous on its face. If they just want to point out how expensive getting riders is, why not say you could buy a family of five new Rolex watches every three years for the same price as getting a transit rider?
Cox and O'Toole are broken records on the subject of transit. We know they oppose it. Great. That adds zero to the discourse. Try an objective article that is historical, contextual, and comparative if you want to look at actual costs. This is a good one:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=554055
Of course the real bummer for O'Toole and Cox is the lead article in the current American Economic Review (the world's leading economic journal) where economist Ian W.H. Parry (Ph.D. University of Chicago - one of the more conservative schools in the country) finds "The results support the efficiency case for the large fare subsidies currently applied across mode, period, and city. In almost all cases, fare subsidies of 50 percent or more of operating costs are welfare improving at the margin, and this finding is robust to alternative assumptions and parameters."
So again, if it is credible research you are looking for, this is it:
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-07-38.pdf
Credible research and broken records depend on the eye of the beholder. There are much cheaper ways of subsidizing transportation challenged people (welfare) than building a large transportation authority bureaucracy. You can buy them a ticket to ride or make their lease payments on a small econo-car. The same principal applies to hungry people. You don't build and staff a special government grocery chain to feed them. You give them food stamps. These guys deserve to be in a padded cell in an ivory tower. What Einstein said a long time ago applies to them. "If you can't explain it to a 5 year old, then you probably don't understand it yourself."
Comment By jay, 11-16-09Too many Americans--too many people everywhere--are that simplistic. Any notion of sympathy or empathy is generally greeted by those kind of mindless responses.
Comment By Chris Blanchard, 11-16-09Be interesting to read some sociological research too, to see just why people use public transportation. I work three days a ween in Boise and two days a week in Portland - so I fly to Portland every week. And I really don't want Randall O'Toole leasing me a Jaguar. I like the simple convenience of jumping on the Red MAX, transferring to the Green MAX and getting dropped off right at my destination. No parking hassle, no $20 a day parking fee, no gas money spent, no insurance required. Thanks, Oregon.
But the other thing Mickey that you and O'Toole and Cox ignore, or won't talk about is the absolutely astronomical costs of maintaining the road system. The American Society of Civil Engineers says that the U.S. needs to spend almost $1 trillion over the next five years on roads, yet has budgeted "only" about $350 or so million - leaving more than a half-trillion dollar shortfall.
Meanwhile, the ARRA contains a whole $8 billion for rail. A whole $8 billion for rail. $8 billion. $1 trillion. I am certainly not into wasting tax dollars, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't worth spending the time fighting over $8 billion fellas. That's one week in Iraq . . .
"Sympathy or Empathy"? I agreed that welfare is a proper government activity but it needs to be cost effective and targeted, and eventually lead to the welfare recipient being less dependent on government not more. Owning and operating a small fuel efficient auto is better for the individual liberty and government solvency than public transportation.
Comment By Jay, 11-16-09Not so good, however; for the environment.
And not so good for the budget when all of the expenses of fossil fuel are factored into the reality.
Thanks for the links, Chris. A couple of interesting reads.
As for the two "other" sites you suggest, Mickey... they look like two arms of the same fellow, Wendell Cox. And not that web design (or editing and spelling) is essential to the question at hand, but OMG.
Jay: sorry, but it's not possible for you to be sympathetic or empathetic with money you took from somebody else at gunpoint. (If you think taxes aren't taken by people with guns, try not paying yours!)
Comment By Russ Nelson, 11-16-09Chris Blanchard, how many people's transportation is that $1 trillion paying for? How many people's transportation is that $8 billion paying for? Is it fair for the automobile riders to be paying that much more per person for the railroad riders to have their choo-choos?
I ride the Red MAX when I'm in Portland, too, because I love it when Portland taxpayers pay most of my fare. I like a gift as much as the next guy!
The desirability of public transit over roads and autos is mainly mythological. Many of the myths concerning public transit have been repeated on this thread by local transit advocates and "visionaries". Check out the myths and the realities.
http://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/rppi245.html
Good for you, fellahs. This is a pretty good kidney voiding contest.
The question not asked is, do federal taxpayers subsidize freeways for the urban areas, or spend the same zillions on track?
And why subsidize either? Gotta admit I hated the toll plazas on the Thruway and other locations, but why not just raise fuel taxes and fares to the break-even point?
Russ,
the rightwing are all becoming paranoid. I assume it is just their basic white supremacist sympathies; but what do I know?
If you raise fares to the break even point, transit ridership will nose dive which is O.K. with me. The highly political and convoluted way that federal and state gas taxes are redistributed is highly undesirable and corrupt. Raising gas taxes will only increase this convolution and corruption. It seems to me that direct user fees based on road mileage and vehicle weight on a particular road is the fairest and simplest way to charge for road use and maintenance.
Comment By Horst, 11-16-09Who do you reckon ought to pay the military to keep that fossil fuel flowing in from our|"colonies," mick?
Comment By sharon fisher, 11-16-09Ignoring the whole issue of privacy rights and civil liberties, which I continue to believe is going to be difficult to work out, I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. Okay, a lot of people drive on I84 between Portland and Boise, but what about the six people who drive on a rural Idaho road? Do they have to be responsible for the entire maintenance of that road, just because they're the only ones who happen to be driving on it?
And how does it work, exactly? I drive around and then am horrified to get a bill at the end of the year because I didn't know how much it would cost me to take the scenic route rather than the freeway? Is it going to be like the phone bill, where sometimes you use a strange pay phone and then you get the phone bill the next month and it cost $20?
Sometimes convenience and privilege--and that good old Yankee individualism just sucks, doesn't it, Sharon?
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-17-09No need to ignore privacy and civil liberties. Right now the government can track you electronically and tap your phone if they show probable cause to a judge. A GPS based billing system need not change that. As far as road maintenance, currently property taxes pay for county and city road and street maintenance combined with state and federal grants for reconstruction and that probably wouldn't change. Some adjustments would have to be made for seldom used rural roads whose light use would not support maintenance. And you would probably would get a monthly bill rather than an annual bill. Your mileage billing rate based on the weight class of your vehicle would probably be the same regardless of which road you were on.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-17-09Horst, contribute or zip. You too, Jay.
Sharon,
The six users on the rural Idaho road probably don't need that much of a road, unless one is a county commissioner. The user fee thing would probably be most rational based on a national system where the use levels are high enough to justify installing the payment infrastructure. Local and secondary roads off the network could probably be billed as a segment of the total driving mileage. If you drive 10,000 miles, and 5,000 miles are on tracked segments, the other 5,000 is put over in the general use, local-taxation pool, paid either though property, local fuel, or other taxes. Call that the Ada or Idaho state user fee.
The system needs to be sophisticated enough to fairly allocate the costs of use, but the price of "perfection" might be too high.
Mickey's model based on weight takes into account the main factor of road wear, pounds per tire inch. Once tire-inch weights get past a certain point, the pressure on the road becomes enough to cause structural wear and/or damage. So a Prius would be comparatively cheap, while a Peterbilt at max load would not be, as trucks do in fact cause the most roadway wear aside from climate. I would further assume that all vehicles would have a base rate. A Prius takes up as much space on the highway as an Escalade, ya can't do much about the physics of that, so there has to be a charge for your buffer between you and that nitwit Twittering away.
You calling the shots now, skinner. What a travesty that would be!
You just keep pretending to know all the answers--let Jay and I keep calling you down. What a poseur.
No, Horst, I don't call the shots.
Under the First Amendment, you have a perfect right to your snarky peurility. But the fact remains you have not made any comment on this thread even close to the subject matter, that does anything but put out the same old rote insults, and it is my right to point that out -- and not with my index finger, either.
"A Prius takes up as much space on the highway as an Escalade"
You don't say.
How is 16% longer, 16% wider, 29% higher and 95% heavier "the same space"?
The idea of precisely metering road use and collecting user fees would be a fascinating technology project, but there are a lot of sinkholes for public investment along the road to a result which is by no means assured of increasing public welfare.
Among other potential problems, we folks in the flyover red states would likely see a drastic reduction in our subsidies from the blue states.
Something else I meant to post a while back, but ran into the NewWest blacklisting software for some strange reason.
The U.S. DOE has a Transportation Energy Data Book:
Site = http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
Document = /ba/pba/transportation_databook.html
(workaround for the blasted blacklist filter)
Chapter 2 is informative:
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Edition28_Chapter02.pdf
Automotive efficiency is increasing, but it appears that rail is at least holding its own. (Mickey's claim about "most light rail lines" may or may not be literally true, but it's presented in such a way to obscure both its provability and utility.)
Most important I think is the caution the DOE puts on its statistics: Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.
Aw, gee whiz, Tom, you of all people?
Ever heard of the two-second rule? That's why. You don't get to pack a stream of 70 MPH Priuses any tighter than a stream of Escalades. And you ESPECIALLY shouldn't want to pack a stream of Priuses, Escalades, and Peterbilts any tighter...unless of course you want to eliminate all the liberals through attrition, right?
Good point on the subsidies "to" red states, however. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a dang bit if our infrastructure was a bit more minimalist and rugged...fewer Priuses, fewer Escalade/Lincolns and more Jeeps, with the proper sociological trickle-down. Fewer Lears and more Super Cubs, too.
I have pretty damn quick reflexes for an old man but its the 4 second rule for me.
Comment By Tom von Alten, 11-17-09Ok, when things whiz by, it doesn't really matter how big they are. I'll try to remember that.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/portland_public_transit_provides_lesson_for_boise_pundit_warns/C108/L108/