Mono(rail)mania

You would have thought that The Simpsons' episode "Marge vs. the Monorail," would have killed off publicly funded boondoggles such as this train-of-the-future wreck playing out in Seattle.

But no, reports the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Monorail leaders yesterday unveiled hypothetical scenarios designed to show that even with less tax revenue coming in, the Ballard-to-West Seattle line can still be built.

But the hypotheticals aren't pretty. They assume that the expensive tax on vehicles would remain in place for 40 years and tens of millions of dollars would be shaved from the $1.75 billion plan voters approved last year.

Monorail officials said they're still months away from coming up with a concrete plan to deal with the unexpected revenue shortfall. By releasing the possibilities, Monorail board Chairman Tom Weeks said the agency was trying to ease concerns the project could not be built because the agency is collecting about 30 percent less in taxes than it anticipated.

All together now:

Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail! …

[Link via Free-Market.net]

Comments

[Curt Warner]

Adding lanes to reduce traffic is like loosening your belt in an effort to lose weight.

[PLC]

joe - in Seattle, there were essentially NO ROADS built in the suburbs in the last ten years (outside of neighborhood roads). No freeway miles, no aertials, nothing. And yet, the population moved to the suburbs.

It is a ridiculous fallacy that paving breads development. Demand breads development.

Also, so what if the capacity will be used up? The traffic can not possibly get any worse, and if the capacity that is built gets used, that is a GOOD THING - it essentially means that more people have been granted an net increase in their freedom of mobility.

What you are saying is essentially this: "all else being equal, people would prefer to live in the suburbs and drive their cars, but this means that urban areas will decline, so we need to use the government to limit the ability of people to leave the city - because a "vital urban community" is vastly more important than free citizens living thier own lives according to their own choices."

[joe]

New York, London, and Paris started with one line, too.

[Steven Crane]

Trouble is most suburbs aren't dense.. and it's going to be quite a walk from wherever your station stop is to get home. Unless, of course, you drive to your commuter stop, which may or may not be practical.

[Anonymous]

You either get dense population or dense traffic. Take your pick.

[JDM]

No, PLC, its just so much more efficient to live in dense areas. That's why cost of living is so much lower in the cities. Ummm... wait.

[Gilbert Martin]

I'm waiting for the invention of flying cars - like the Jetsons - then I won't need roads or a monorail.

[PLC]

"You either get dense population or dense traffic. Take your pick." Have you ever been to America? I've been to all 50 states, and I can assure you that the denser the population, the denser the traffic. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Try driving around Manhattan versus Mazama, WA or Billings, MT.

"New York, London, and Paris started with one line, too." Yes, and the population density in the urban core of these cities exceeds 40,000 per square mile (83,000+ in Manhattan). In Seattle, you're looking at more like 5000 people per square mile.

[PLC]

The "flying car" has already been invented. It's really just a small personal aircraft that can take off and land vertically. As soon as this thing is legal, I'm getting one.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/

[James Merritt]

I had heard that PRT (personal rapid transit) had also been considered, either as a monorail feeder or as an extension/replacement for the monorail system (providing local neighborhood circulation, for example). Yet I see no evidence of that in coverage I've read recently of the Seattle monorail situation.

In a town where people already "love" and use a theme-park ride as part of the everyday transit infrastructure, I am surprised that more serious consideration is not given to things like PRT, which, despite many solid arguments in their favor (e.g., safety, low cost, good service, efficient use of resources, etc.) are often characterized as "theme park rides," not suitable for "real-world" transit infrastructure. It would seem that the "theme park ride" charge would not stick in monorail-happy Seattle, freeing people to consider the actual merits of the PRT proposition.

Speaking of the proposal and its actual merits, you can find a great deal of good info about PRT at http://www.acprt.org/index.cfm. Some say that PRT is so cost-effective that it could be built by private enterprise and soon turn a profit, given cooperation by the municipality in terms of rights-of-way and zoning. I am wondering why the boosters of futuristic transit plans aren't creating a business plan to put PRT in place as a commercial project, regardless of local government support or subsidy for mass-transit. When the government drags its feet, shouldn't private enterprise step in to do the job faster, better, and cheaper? Where are the free-marketeers with courage of their convictions and an eye for opportunities to undermine the credibility of the public-sector mass-transit paradigm?

[JDM]

I bet joe can come up with a hundred reasons not to allow the skycar.

[PLC]

He only needs one - it will increase the freedom of people to flee his beloved cities.

[PLC]

James:

PRT still doesn't address the root problem with fixed rail transit systems - they are too inflexible. And could you ever seriously imagine a city government allowing private enterprise to operate one of these things?

The real answer to urban mobility is improved, privatized bus systems. Buses are much more efficient than trains, they are more flexible, as needs change, the routes can be changed. You could have three or four seperate bus system operators in one city (similar to multiple cab systems).

With private buses, the average size of a bus would fall, the number of routes driven would fall, but the service provided would vastly improve. And there is no need to spend billions on some ridiculous train.

[JDM]

Right. That's his actual motivation. I was talking about rationalizations. "Reasons" was sarcastic. Normal people put quotes around things like that to denote the sarcasm. Hyperkinetic geniuses like me are often forced to look back at what we've written in dismay and realize that there's no way anyone could figure out what the hell we were talking about.

[Mo]

I can come up with one. People can barely drive in 2 dimensions, could you imagine the chaos when people have to deal with 3? There will be so many accidents, it wouldn't be funny.

I always felt that the only way a flying car could work is if it was run by a computer, rather than a human, and it had some sort of radar system so that it knew where all vehicles were within a mile so that it could adjust its course accordingly. A bunch of people in Jetsons car would be the aerial version of Red Asphalt.

[JDM]

mo,

According to the flying car website, NASA and the FAA are working on a system to fly the things. You'd just punch in your destination and sit back. I'm sure it will be ready in a few short generations.

[PLC]

Mo:

Your concern has already been addressed. Unless you have a pilot's license, the personal skycar would be driven by computer. The new air traffic control system just launched keeps track of all aircraft in flight over the US at all times to within a few feet. There is a lot of sky up there; with GPS and big database, we would only need to employ a tiny bit of it to enable everyone to have a skycar.

[mdw]

Clearly, what we need is a flying monorail.

[PLC]

mdw: actually, Japan and Germany are working on floating trains using magnetic levitation. Not quite a flying monorail, but nearly as ridiculous....

[JDM]

PLC,

The PRT is definitely more flexible than a regular train. The small car size (2 people) would make it easier to schedule. The problem is the same as with all rail solutions - there wouldn't be enough stops in the system as it looks now. If they could build the rail into the street, it could work as well as small buses. It seems like it would cost a lot more, but you wouldn't need drivers, so maybe not.

[Troy Hakala]

This post is misleading. The debate in Seattle is not whether to build a monorail or do nothing, it's whether to build a monorail or build light rail. Light rail is far more expensive, won't cover the necessary areas, is unable to climb hills (Seattle is full of hills), causes more noise pollution, causes more deaths statistically, costs more to maintain, will require expensive underground tunnels, etc. The monorail is not only more popular with the public as evidenced by the repeated votes for it, it's more beneficial to the city's transportation problems and is less expensive. Additionally, the light rail plan is endorsed by big money only (the companies that make light rail trains are far wealthier than those who build monorails). The Simpsons is a great show, but it's not the best place to learn about public policy or city planning.

[JDM]

More importantly, this is a quote from the PRT website:

"PRT doesn't attempt to change the habits of the American commuter to match the requirements of a public transit system. It changes the transit system to meet the requirements of the traveler."

So at least they're actually trying...

[JDM]

Troy,

They're going to build both. Get used to the idea. Everyone else should get used to it too - much of the light rail funding is coming from the feds.

Also, they've cleverly solved the hill problem by planning to dig the deepest, most expense light rail tunnels in the world.

[JDM]

"stations" not "tunnels"

[ken]

Joe, you're right, New York, London and Paris did start with one line, 120 years ago! Can't wait for how great things will be in 2123.

[PLC]

JDM - actually, a senator from Oklahoma just pulled back the federal funds for light rail in Seattle. He basically accused the whole system of being a collasol waste of money. So, maybe there is hope.

Troy - see my first post. The political class supports light rail over monorail for some very shady reasons. It goes like this: construction firms hire union workers who contribute to politicians who tax citizens in order to hire construction firms to build a light rail system. In short, the politicians are indirectly getting a piece of the pie, so why the hell would they ever admit that light rail is complete waste of money? It ain't wasting their money.

[Steven Crane]

I've seen a PRT system before (Morgantown, WV) and it's a neat solution for a certain purpose, like getting people to the football stadium, it doesn't seem terribly practical for general use. I work for a freight railroad, and I love to see rail and rail-type systems in use, it's much more efficent than motor vehicles... but it's damn expensive to build a corridor through already-developed real estate (unless, of course, you grab everything through eminent domaion.) There are some places, namely denser cities, where rail-based transportation works great. There's no better way to get from downtown to Wrigley Field than taking the Red Line. Purpose-built things work well, too... the MetroLink in St. Louis is a godo way of avoiding the disaster that is the I-65/55/44/70/US 50 bridge. In a place like Seattle, though, where the population isn't nearly as dense, it doesn't look very practical. These places that became major metropolitan areas (Atlanta's another) during the age of the car will live and die by the car.

[JDM]

I read that about the funding, but it will eventually get through. The fun part is that to get it through, Washington congressmen and senators will have to vote for funding of yet another boondogle in Oklahoma.

The thing about all this is that the plan the voters approved is now shown to be nonsensicle. Is it possible to sue them to stop, since the plan they are following is no longer the one that was approved. They weren't given the money to spend on coming up with another plan. How far can they bend it? I get the feeling that soon they are going to use the funding to put the monorail on 2 rails and put it underground.

This being a libertarian website, I thought I'd float a conspiracy theory:

I read a few weeks ago that the tax numbers were off because the data about the number of cars in Seattle was wrong. The data was provided by Sound Transit, the light rail people.

[Floyd McWilliams]

"Adding lanes to reduce traffic is like loosening your belt in an effort to lose weight."

Not adding lanes to reduce traffic congestion is like narrowing someone's arteries in an effort to lower blood pressure.

Public services are so incompetent that the only way for them to cope is to treat demand as if it were a problem. Utilities try to get you to use less electricity, municipal water companies say you shouldn't flush your toilet -- and pro-government types think that the evil is traffic, rather than traffic congestion.

[JDM]

"Not adding lanes to reduce traffic congestion is like narrowing someone's arteries in an effort to lower blood pressure."

Actually, it's more like narrowing someone's arteries to *raise* blood presure in an effort to force them to do something.

Pulic services seem incompetent because they are not actually trying to serve the public, they are trying to herd us.

[Mark A.]

Steven Crane,

I live in Morgantown, WV, and you are correct. It's a small city (pop. ~26,000) and my wife and I know many dozens of people, but we know no one who ever uses the PRT on a regular basis, and only a few who have ever used it all. It's ridership is comprised almost entirely of WVU students.

Perhaps with a larger population or population density this would be different, who knows. Also, since it was a joint project by USDOT and WVU, its intent was mostly to shuttle students between the two WVU campuses, i.e., it doesn't go to many places that we locals might want to go to. I suspect WVU basically got the feds to pony up some cash to help the university out. There are a few miles and several hundred feet elevation separating the downtown campus from the newer one.

[joe]

"In a place like Seattle, though, where the population isn't nearly as dense, it doesn't look very practical."

The Seattle metro area is going to grow by several hundred thousand people in coming decades. What shape this growth will take has yet to be determined. Seattle can get ahead of the game, and build a transit system that promotes a system of growth that protects its interests, or it can resign itself to and endless series of futile road widening projects.

[joe]

"Without more asphalt, the city itself will decline ever more quickly into a west coast Detroit."

Big car lovers in Detroit. No transit at all. How's that working out, PLC?

You keep using the word "inflexible." Does Seattle intend to move its downtown and inner city neighborhoods in the near future? Pedestrian scale neighborhoods, where you can get where you're going without a car, only need one stop every half mile to provide excellent access to the entire area.

Buses are great for some uses, like local travel within a low-density suburb, but they are limited by traffic and, at a minimum, operating speeds. Many commuter trains approach 100mph, without stopping for red lights or traffic jams.

Where the density actually exists, or will in the future, fixed route transit works.

[CharlesWT]

Or we could just wait for Self-Driving Cars...

[Steven Crane]

No city built in the age of the parking lot will ever be as dense as cities built before the parking lot. Think about it.

and Mark A., I'm nout surprised the PRT exists at WVU. The only surprising thing is that it doesn't say "Robert C. Byrd Grand Memorial Monorail" in big neon letters.

[joe]

Steve,

Put the parking lots out at the edge of the city, run transit from the lots into town, and you can build a city at an actual urban density. Look at new cities in Japan and the Netherlands.

[PLC]

"The Seattle metro area is going to grow by several hundred thousand people in coming decades. What shape this growth will take has yet to be determined."

The "shape" of that growth will be determined by individuals choosing where they would most like to live, unless the government artificially constrains that choice.

Given the freedom to choose thier own destiny, the vast majority of the population increases will occur in the suburbs. This is what terrifies urban planners. No one wants thier product.

In the last ten years, 250,000 net choices were made to move to the suburbs in Seattle. If those people had wanted to live in a city, they could have chosen to do so - there are plenty of empty brand new buildings in Belltown. Despite the traffic congestion and the high price of housing in the suburbs (due to the Growth Management Act), almost all growth occured in the suburbs. The same is true around the country.

We don't need cities anymore - the suburbs provide all the benefits with none of the problems. To someone like Joe, though, the suburbs are evil because they make it more difficult to control the population and they are evidence of free will.

At heart, urbanists hate freedom.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe we could train homeless people to stop pissing all over bus stop benches, then people might ride buses more often. A lot cheaper than monorails, and more flexible in the routing.

[JDM]

I think a good first step would be to keep them from pissing on the buses.

[Gilbert Martin]

"To someone like Joe, though, the suburbs are evil because they make it more difficult to control the population and they are evidence of free will."

Indeed.

The suburbs also allow people to escape from the tax base of big cities and therefore escape from paying for a lot of social welfare schemes financed by those (excessive) taxes. That's what the urban "elitists" REALLY hate!

[PLC]

"Or we could just wait for Self-Driving Cars..."

Unfortunately, this doesn't address the root concern of the urbanist - it still allows for far too much individual freedom.

[brett]

What makes Seattle different is geography. It's shaped like two parallel north-south hotdogs, with the occasional bridge or ferry connecting them. That means BOTH that a monorail, light rail, or other fixed-route transit system is much more usefyl than it would be in a more rounded urban area, and that all north-south roads (including the heinously congested I-5) are way overtaxed. Just because something doesn't make sense for Peoria doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for Seattle.

And PLC - "At heart, urbanists hate freedom."?? Get the hell over yourself. What an asinine thing to say. Some people prefer to walk instead of drive, and prefer an urban, communitarian setting to a suburban one. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I think they hate freedom. They're not Al-Qaeda, for God's sake. No serious "urbanist" (and what the hell does that mean? someone who lives in a city?) wants to abolish suburbs.

[PLC]

"No serious "urbanist" (and what the hell does that mean? someone who lives in a city?) wants to abolish suburbs."

Are you kidding? Read the comments of "joe".

[brett]

Do you think everyone who supports fixed-route transit agrees with him? Obviously there are fringe elements in every political discussion. I said "serious". Is it your position that fixed-route transit is *never* appropriate?

[PLC]

Rail transit was appropriate in the 1800's and in a very few instances where there is adequate demand for point-to-point transit (such as Disney Land or the Boston-NY-DC corridor). New transit systems almost never make sense, because they are 1.) too expensive compared to alternatives, 2.) completely inflexible, 3.) publicly run beaurocracies, and 4.) they ignore the realities of demographics.

Also, if by "serious" you mean "adult", "reasonable", or "rational" then there could be no such thing as a "serious urbanist". Urbanism, like environmentalism, has become a cult-like religion of true believers. Both religions see the suburbs and the automobile as the ultimate evil.

[brett]

Well, at least you have an open mind.

If you think rail transit is dead, come here, to Portland, Oregon. Our light rail system is going strong - it is full during commutes and carries significant ridership even on weekends and at night. Last year, a line going to the airport opened, and is now heavily used. Another new line is set to open in April, six months ahead of schedule and millions of dollars under budget. See tri-met.org for details.

How's this for a radical idea: Combine rail and automobile transit. Many light rail stations here in Portland have Park-n-Ride lots; they allow commuters to park their cars (for free) and ride light rail downtown from both the eastern and western suburbs.

If you like suburbs, you should like our light rail system, because it's designed to take people between downtown and the suburbs. It relieves some traffic congestion and allows the car-less to get around. We even now have a new streetcar, which is exceeding expectations on its limited route. See portlandstreetcar.org.

I do not doubt that there are Simpsons-like monorail boondoggles out there. But the fact is that rail does work in certain situations, and Portland is a good example. I don't doubt that Seattle is amenable to a similar situation.

[Steven Crane]

Hey, I'd love to see the "City Of New Orleans" go flashing through Illinois at 110 mph the way it used to, instead of poking along at 79 mph. I'm only 23... I missed the days of quality city-to-city passenger rail service by well over ten years, and intra-city passenger service in all but the biggest cities by a lot more. I'd love to see 1930's Chicago, just once. It's a pipe dream, though, to imagine that, say, the old streetcar line in St. Louis will be rebuilt. or that the Metrolink will be anything more than a semi-close substitute for I-64/55.

And joe, where are you going to put these parking lots? Have people drive OUT of town te get back in town? The farther away you get, the more waiting time there's going to be...and the more people you have waiting, the more chanses that something ugly will happen, especially if the system shuts down like Washington's Metro did last week.

[JDM]

brett,

No one's arguing that you can't force people into cities and make them ride trains. We're arguing that its a bad idea. How's the urban growth boundary coming along in Portland?

[brett]

It's coming along great. Are you kidding me? I take it from your snide tone that you disfavor the UGB. You should come out here and check the results. The UGB is widely popular in Oregon; it has saved us from the kind of sprawl that is currently choking Seattle. It is not, as I'm sure you're picturing, some draconian city-wall type arrangement that forces everyone within a tiny area. The fact is, it is readjusted by Metro every five years to allow for potential growth. We are able to drive fifteen minutes out of downtown and be in the country; without the UGB, that would not be possible. And the UGB allows for plenty of suburbs, plenty of malls, and plenty of sprawl; it just has to be within the UGB. Check out Beaverton if you disagree.

The UGB is one of the defining factors that makes Portland Portland, and makes Oregon Oregon. As a native, I have zero doubt that if you put it to a vote, either in Portland or statewide, it would survive.

I think we have to be open to all possibilities where transit is concerned, including trains and including cars. There is plenty of room for both. I notice you don't dispute that MAX (light-rail) is a success in Portland.

I think the net immigration into Oregon and into Portland over the past 10 years, which continues today, even when our economy is the worst in the nation, is evidence that people here aren't being "forced into cities". Some choose to live there, and some don't. No one is making anyone ride MAX; people are choosing to. Isn't freedom about choice?

[JDM]

"people here aren't being "forced into cities""

So they wrote the law just for fun. People would have chosen to live that way anyway. I see.

It's the same here in the Seattle area with the Growth Management Act mandating minimum density of new development. People would freely choose to live in dense developments, but the law is there just because... well something anyway.

[brett]

People did choose to live that way. Their representatives enacted it, after all, 30 years ago, well before the current density fad. It's not as if you can't live outside the UGB; you just can't plow up hundreds of acres of farmland to develop it.

I share your dislike of density; I just bought a house with a large lot (inside the UGB, by the way), and I love it. I previously lived in an apartment, and disliked it. But that was my choice. Both choices are available here, as they are in Seattle. It's just that each choice comes with a cost. We don't have a minimum-density rule, although I'm sure you'll argue that the UGB qualifies.

Lots of people do freely choose to live in dense environments, in both Seattle and Portland and elsewhere. Ask residents of Capitol Hill if they like it there. I don't understand why density has to be evil even if people choose to live in dense environments; ever been to New York? I'm not advocating mandated density, just a reasonable limit on growth as embodied in the UGB. Must everyone agree with you and hate cities?

[JDM]

I'm not claiming there is anything evil about density. Just the extent to which the regional planning makes less dense areas more expensive and less available.

The cost of the choice to live in a less dense area is artificially high because the people writing the plans hate less dense areas, not the other way around.

[Ken]

Brett, you might want to point out that people take the train in Portland to places where cars aren't allowed. Big difference. If I couldn't drive into downtown Seattle, I'd be forced to take the accursed monorail.

[James Merritt]

I read about the Morgantown system, and it doesn't seem to match what I have read recently of the PRT concept. It can provide non-stop service between stations, for instance, but is often run in serial mode, with all cars stopping at all stations. Also, the cars are quite a bit bigger than "personal," increasing the expense of the cars and the track, as well as the impetus for not running the system in non-stop mode. Also, as was noted earlier, the track route seems designed to serve the needs of the university student budy and faculty rather than the locals. Could anybody here who is familiar with the Morgantown system confirm these impressions? If they are correct, then a real PRT system would probably perform better and serve local needs better than the Morgantown prototype. The cars would be smaller and less expensive; the guideways would be smaller, less massive, and less expensive; most trips would be non-stop and most cars would be occupied at or close to capacity, with riders enjoying more privacy and security.

Not to put the Morgantown system down, you understand. From what I read of IT, I really want to go there and try it out. But comparing Morgantown's system with the PRT concepts being floated today does seem to be comparing, if not apples to oranges, then at least pippins to red delicious. Most PRT proposals I have seen so far address the problems cited for Morgantown.

The other thing about the Morgantown system is that it wouldn't exist except for government participation in transit. From what I read of PRT, you could run a PRT guideway pretty much along a series of (fortified) streetlamp posts. Every suburban development has (or soon acquires) streetlamps. So what would be the delta in cost to create or extend a PRT system at the same time that lampposts are being put in or replaced? Couldn't this be something that a developer could finance, as part of filling-out a suburban tract? Why must government be involved? Indeed, why shouldn't homeowners and businesses that buy into such a PRT-equipped tract (presumably paying an upfront premium in consideration of the special amenity) get a share in any profits generated by the system (at least, up to their initial premium investment, plus reasonable interest)? PRT proponents keep implying this can be a pay-as-you-go solution to transit problems. I'd like to see some real-world proof.

It seems like this technology is of the right scale to permit a great deal of bootstrapping; so where is the bootstrapping, I wonder?

[brett]

JDM - I agree with you there. Of course, opponents would argue that the cost of less-dense areas is artificially low because the infrastructure is supported by the taxes of city residents. But there's no end to that debate. Policymakers have chosen, and the majority is behind that choice.

Ken - I'm not sure what you mean. The trains here run next to, and in the case of the streetcar, in the middle of, streets and freeways.

[JDM]

"Policymakers have chosen, and the majority is behind that choice."

Terrific. I guess that's it then.

"opponents would argue that the cost of less-dense areas is artificially low because the infrastructure is supported by the taxes of city residents"

I'd bet that combined utility fees and tax flows travel from the wealth generated by suburban residents to the cities. I know that that's the case in Seattle, since the city owns the water rights, and charges the suburbs to use them, and taxes definitely flow into the city. I'd also bet that this amount is dwarfed by the increased costs of real estate caused by artificial land shortages imposed by regional planning.

Not that you've made this particular argument, but I'm not sure how urbanists can argue that new highways will always fill to capacity, and that there is not pent up demand to move away from urban areas in the same conversation.

In any case it is contradictory on its face to say that sprawl must be contained and that you aren't limiting people's choices to do it.

[brett]

Limiting choices is different than abrogating them. It's the old freedom vs. vested rights canard: your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Similarly, people in Portland are free to choose where they want to live and develop, within the constraints of the Oregon Land Use Plan, including the UGB. Sprawl is something that the public (at least here) has determined should be contained. Surely government has some role to play. Absolute freedom is impossible, as it's anarchy. The key to the equation is preserving as much freedom as possible while also preserving an environment conducive to people's enjoyment of that freedom. In my view, Oregon's system strikes the right balance in that equation. I'm not familiar with Washington's system, so I can't speak to it.

In short, we *are* limiting people's choices, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have meaningful choices. It's not black and white.

It's hard to dispute that a majority here in the Northwest is behind the concept of density, regardless of what you and I think about it. Policymakers would be foolhardy to not respond to that support, and wouldn't last long. We can advocate all we want, but it doesn't appear likely to change anytime soon.

[Kevin Carson]

JDM,

Part of the reason people "choose" to live in suburbs is that utility infrastructure is extended to them at the expense of people in older, more densely-populated areas. Not to mention things like FHA redlining, and funding for roads that isn't apportioned to users on the basis of the costs they impose on the system.

The automobile-highway complex is a welfare client that puts AFDC and food stamp recipients to shame. Whatever happened to the free market principle that the people who consume a good should pay for it with their own money? Rothbard argued a long time ago that providing government services without reference to cost leads to bottlenecks and chronic shortages. Sounds an awful lot like the freeways to me.

And one reason the "suburbs" are distinguishable as suburbs (i.e., single-use residential, as compared to old-fashioned, mixed-use railroad suburbs), is GOVERNMENT zoning restrictions against neighborhood grocers, drugstores, and home businesses.

Who is it that hates freedom, again?

[Eric Pobirs]

I know where they can get the money for transport stuff in Seattle. Tax all those fancy coffeee drinks they love so much. Here in California taxing stuff to pay for completely unrelated things is working great!

What?

Oh, sorry. Forget I said anything...

[James Merritt]

Kevin Carson asks, "Whatever happened to the free market principle that the people who consume a good should pay for it with their own money?"

Hmmm ... proceeds from tollbridges go for ferries, outlying roads, mass transit, and other, non-automotive purposes, then people try to raise tolls, taxes, or bonds to repair and improve the bridges.

Hmmm ... roughly 50c is added in tax to the price of every gallon of gasoline sold in California. Until recently, most of those revenues that were skimmed off by California were dumped into the general fund to pay for that $38B deficit that is inspiring Gray Davis "tar and feathers" parties these days, or for mass-transit projects. The Morgantown PRT was very likely purchased on the backs of motorists paying the federal portion of that gasoline tax.

Hmmm ... people pay for driver license, vehicle registration, and additional vehicle tax in California. The lion's share of that huge pile of money seems to be redistributed to the Counties and Cities for THEIR general funds, or to mass-transit projects. You certainly can't see much evidence of it in lowly road and highway improvement.

I wouldn't have any problem at all, living with only the automobile infrastructure that all of these taxes could purchase. Unfortunately, the feds, states, counties, and cities seem hellbent to skim off most of it for their own purposes, and then call the motorists who are footing the bills "welfare queens" and "free riders." This is one reason why I and millions of other Californians (69.1% of the vote) recently voted for proposition 42, to reserve gasoline tax proceeds for transportation purposes exclusively. "Pay as you go" ought to mean exactly that.

[Kevin Carson]

James Merritt,

Taking it one step further, though, the collection of funds should be tied to particular routes, based on the traffic that goes through. That's the only way resources can be rationally allocated according to demand, and at the same time demand can be tied to the cost of providing the service. I'm all for tollbooths, and getting rid of the gasoline tax alltogether.

[JDM]

Kevin,

In Seattle as well, public transit (the bus system) is subsidized by gas taxes, paid for by drivers. According to nearly everything I can find, public costs per passenger mile of transit is 2-3 times that of automobiles. From everybodies favorite libertarian think-tank, RPPI:

"Public transport is heavily subsidized while autos and highways are not. Total government
expenditures on highways average about 3.2 cents per passenger mile, of which almost 3 cents is paid out of highway user fees. By comparison, government expenditures on transit averaged 71 cents per mile in 2001, of which fares covered only 18 cents. This means taxpayers had to cover most of the remaining 53 cents per passenger mile."

The reason for this is that a large part of the automobile infrastructure - the automobiles - are paid for by the people who use them.

From what I can find, builders pay about 60% of infrastructure costs for water and sewage hookups etc. I agree they should pay 100% of it, and the costs should be passed on to the people who buy the home. These costs, however, pale in comparison to the increased cost of land brought on by attempts to restrict people from moving out of the cities by limiting the rights of farmers to sell their property to a builder who wants to put up nice houses on 2 acre wooded lots. If the builder wants to put up stores in the middle of it, I could care less, and I don't think the government should stop him. I don't have a problem with covenanting governing land use restrictions.

[JDM]

ack! "everybody's" not "everybodies." Damned public schools.

[Kirk]

The Seattle monorail is an interesting case - the politicians have tried to kill it over and over and over again, but every time they try, there's another voter intiative that wins big reiterating that the voters really want it built. Utterly impractical, hugely expensive - no question, a total boondoggle. But the voters love the damn thing . . .

[matt]

Hopefully someone up there will come to there senses, but if not I hope it is run more efficiently than marta is down here in Atlanta.

[PLC]

Kirk:

If you reverse the role of the political class and the citizens in Seattle, you have Sound Transit Light Rail System (politicians love it, citizens hate it). I don't think you can understand the motivations around the monorail without understanding what's happening with light rail - which is a vastly more expensive and less useful boondoggle.

Why do politicans think they can sell a static, inflexible, urban-centered, ugly, inefficient, and dangerous piece of 18th century technology as the wave of the future? Building new train systems makes about as much sense as laying down a new telegraph.

[joe]

And that underground trail thing they're building in NYC? When will the liberals learn, no one rides public transit?

[david f]

mono -d'oh!

an excellent episode. wasn't that one written by conan o'brien?

isn't it true that the monorail is merely a relic of the worlds fair (like the old kingdome -- which pj o'rourke described as being shaped like a toilet, but not as comfortable) where static thinking ruled? and isn't it also the case that there are only something like three stops on it, and that only we silly tourists use it?

thanks,
drf

[Jason Ligon]

I've got it! You build a monorail that stops every Sunday at your local publicly funded football stadium.

Synergy!

[joe]

Yea, no more outdated technology! What Seattle needs is more asphalt, to run ICE-driven automobiles! Not that's the future!

Next thing you know, they'll be loading cartridges into firearms and running current thought wires! Damn 19th century technology!

[PLC]

David F - the current monorail is a relic of the world's fair and is actually run by a private management firm; basically, as a tourist attraction. The proposed monorail would remove the current section and replace it with a new, much larger loop of downtown.

[david f]

thank you!!!

[PLC]

You're correct joe - what Seattle needs is more asphalt, and a whole hecka lotta it. In the last ten years, the population of urban areas in Seattle increased by 10,000 people, where-as the population of the suburbs increased by 250,000 people. During this time, there was essentially no transportation infrastructure built to serve the suburbs. Now the roads are pretty much at peak congestion and people/firms that might otherwise have located in the urban core are opting to move out to the suburbs, because that's where the workers live.

In the next ten years, the trend will be the same - lots of growth in the suburbs, stagnation in the city. Without more asphalt, the city itself will decline ever more quickly into a west coast Detroit.

[joe]

Asphalt fills up when you lay it. Any extra capacity will spur more suburban development, which will put more traffic on the road. Putting the same resources into an urban transportation system will promote urban development.

Development follows infrastructure. Laying asphalt to respond to sprawl-induced congestion will just mean more sprawl, and more congestion. Adding lanes would actually make the traffic situation in your suburb worse.

You mention that the suburbs have grown swiftly, while the central city is stagnating. Pleae note that this has occurred during a time when there have been nuerous roads built in the suburbs, but no public transit in the city.

[Justin Slotman]

Has anyone ever read anything really refuting the well-known Internet theory that the decline of the Simpsons occurred at about the same time that Conan O'Brien left the show? Groening always denies it, but Groening hates the Internet.

[matt]

joe,

I actually think you have a good point there. Government roads have contributed to the stagnation of the cities and the growth of the suburbs. But it goes along with the whole "public good" fallacy. The building of more government roads causes more consumption (or in the case of roads, more use) than under normal market conditions. This seems to reduce the cost for those who leave the city for the 'burbs.

[mdw]

Outside of Seattle, we have the perfect solution to suburban congestion: Another monorail!

Maybe we can fund it with an espresso tax.

[joe]

Ditto for other infrastructure. A favorite game in some states is for a developer to announce that he's donating land for a school - 20 acres or so, in the middle of a 1000 acre spread at the edge of the developed area. The government, needing to build a new school to handle the growing student body of this sprawling suburb, takes the land, and builds a road, water main, and sewer main to reach the school. The developer now has utilities extended into his parcel, allowing it to be developed cheaper.

[Matt]

David F - you are correct. Conan O'Brien did in fact write that episode.

Justin - I don't think that's true. O'Brien left in '93, I believe. The show was good for several season after that. In fact, I think it peaked in the '94-'97 range.

[joe]

mdw - man, that's stupid. The point of monorail is that you build it in extremely dense, built up areas, where you don't have the space for an at-grade system. 60 mile monorail through the suburbs. Good lord.

[Ken]

To the person who tried comparing NYs mass transit to Seattle's ludicrous monorail, imagine if there were one subway that went from Van Cortland Park to Flushing. How helpful that would be. Fix my freeway, dummies, some of them are worse than the dirt road I used to live on in New Mexico.

[joe]

btw, is "the JDM" ok, or is it like "Batman?"

Makes you sound even more like a federal office.

[joe]

"In the suburbs, when they begin a new development, people CAMP OUT in their cars for days in order to get the opportunity to buy a new, single-family, suburban home."

The massive market distortion caused by the oppressive snob zoning by suburbs has created massive pent up demand for any kind of decent housing, so whatever comes on the market gets snapped up. It's the same in greater Boston, too. Look at what happens to units that come on the market downtown, and look at what they sell for. That's not say that there isn't a demand for single family homes on lots large enough for the zoning, just that that option is the only viable one for most buyers. Do you think builders allowed to built units at 2 or 6 times the density of your neighborhood would have any trouble selling them? Hint: your town had to pass a law forbidding them from doing so.

Meeting the market's pent up demand in the city is limited not by zoning, but by access. Neighborhoods in old cities without transit actually have a worse transportation system than they did 80 years ago, when they grew up around street car lines. (Which new suburbs cannot do, because of zoning, and because the transportation funds and land are put into a highway system, and more infrastructure per unit). Now, the urban neighborhoods are left with only automobile access, which is actually worse than the automobile access they had 80 years ago (because of the traffic congestion, legendary in Seattle), while being forced to carry the entire transportation burden. This congestion, by the way, is largely caused by people driving in from the suburbs, most of whom would love to have less traffic to fight. These neighborhoods cannot handle even the level of activity (number of units, amount of commercial space) they supported when they were built, nevermind more. Thus, supply exceeds demand in those areas, and vacancies result - even as there is a severe regional housing shortage. Providing decent transportation options to those neighborhoods will allow them to (largely) accommodate the population and economic growth the region is going to see, while improving the quality of life and prosperity of the city, and allowing it to achieve, once again, economic self sufficiency.

Of course, the demand in these areas is artifically low, because the snob zoning of the suburbs allows them to export their problems to the city.

If you're actually interested in knowing something about this subject, go to the library and find an old map of streetcar lines.

[tzs]

I lived in Tokyo for many many years and spent some more time in London.

Note: most commuters in Tokyo and all the large cities use a combination of subways, trains, light rail, and wandering around on foot. It works.

Anyone who is an urban planner should go to Venice and see how compact things can be (quite comfortably) when you don't have to deal with cars.

If the US wasn't so enamoured of cars and driving everywhere, maybe urban planning could think a bit more about the pedestrian and other ways of getting around. And with all that walking, the U.S. wouldn't have the obesity problem we now have (meaning the medical costs for diabetes are really, really going to do in the budget if Social Security for the baby-boomers doesn't do it first.)

[Eric Pobirs]

TZS, both of those cities had their major layouts in place long before any form of non-muscle powered transport was in use. Places like Los Angeles saw much of their layout occur in the last century when the freedoms and conditions introduced by modern transportation. These things cannot be ignored and just written off as an American love affair with cars. New York is much older than LA and it shows.

The effect of powered transport also shows. Every day millions of people enter and exit Manhatten. Most of them wouldn't live there even if they could afford it because they don't want to live in a hive. Likewise, business may take me into downtown Los Angeles a few times a months but the idea of living anywhere nearby would be horrifying.

[James Merritt]

Kevin Carson says, "I'm all for tollbooths, and getting rid of the gasoline tax alltogether."

Me too, provided that some way of paying the toll without slowing down is implemented, or that paying the toll would only be required at places where one would naturally be stopping, anyway. For that reason, paying at the pump seems, if somewhat less libertarian, nevertheless more practical, because you're paused to fill-up anyway, so no time is wasted slowing down for a tollbooth, fumbling for change, etc.

In theory, however, I agree that a tax on gas is only a poor proxy for tollroad-style pay-as-you-go. What do you want to bet, however, that if that ever becomes the model, the government will STILL tax the gasoline? If we, at some point, switchover to toll roads, we need to turn off the tax revenue spigot at the same time. That will be a hell of a fight, I predict.

[James Merritt]

Stephen Crane says, speaking about the Moragantown PRT, "Also, for factor-of-safety reasons, the structure itself is a big concrete thing... hardly reinforced lampposts."

Yet, the material I have read about the currently-circulating PRT proposals (e.g., at the URL I posted above) takes pains to point out that the posts for the guideways for their 2-4 people PRT cars really ARE just slightly bulkier, sturdier lampposts. They even say that model posts and guideway segments have been produced to show the scale of the structures. The pictures I have seen do show guideways and supports that are quite a bit more compact than the pictures I have seen of the Morgantown system.

All I know is what I have been able to pull up in multiple sources online, from around the world. As yet, the best prototype of a "modern" PRT appears to be in Cardiff, Wales (info at this URL: http://www.atsltd.co.uk/). Apparently, the prototype of the PRT system designed in Minnesota just finished a run at the State Fair. Did anyone out there see that, who can comment on the comparison between guideway support poles and "extra-sturdy lampposts"? I'd be curious to learn your opinion, if so.

[joe]

'The "shape" of that growth will be determined by individuals choosing where they would most like to live, unless the government artificially constrains that choice.'

You mean like the large lot, single family residential zoning in the suburbs (the kind that requires people to drive everywhere?)

It will also be shaped by carrots, such as the construction and maintenance of the highways the JDM wants to spend more tax dollars on. When the government makes development in the burbs more accessible, the developers go there. When the money is spent to make already-developed areas more accessible, the development goes there (see Metro Centerk, Rosslyn in the DC area).

Suburbanization as a free market phenomenon. Aren't you a little old for fairy tales?

[Steven Crane]

Yah.. the Morgantown tram is mainly to get students from the downtown to the main campus.. but it's probably also handy on football game days for the town population. If you've ever seen Morgantown, there's not a flat space anywhere, and driving is a major bitch. Still, though, it has the same sort of limitations as any PRT system. The cars cannot pass each other, if one happens to break down. In the lower station, at least (I've never seen the upper one) there's not much of a platform, so on high traffic days, the cars MUST move in serial to get people on and off quickly.. but in the meantime, there's a line waiting to get off. Also, for factor-of-safety reasons, the structure itself is a big concrete thing... hardly reinforced lampposts.

[PLC]

Joe - one last time: development will go to where there is demand. If no one wanted to live in single family zoned houses, no one would buy them. And yet that is where everyone seems to choose to live.... hmmmmmmmmmm.... let's see if you can figure it out.

In Seattle, the city subsidized all sorts of development in "walkable" urban neighborhoods (to the opposition of the residents who hated the gentrification), and guess what - those buildings are EMPTY! All this despite the fact that there were only 10,000 net new souls living in the city over the last 10 years.

In the suburbs, when they begin a new development, people CAMP OUT in their cars for days in order to get the opportunity to buy a new, single-family, suburban home. All this despite the fact that 250,000 net new souls have moved to the suburbs in the last 10 years.

So, where is all the pent-up demand?

And again - the taxes on cars pay for the god-damned roads, and the god-damed trains, and the god-damed buses. The suburban commuter more than pays for the services provided to them - it is the cities and rural communities where the tax money sinks into a giant black hole.

Jesus - you really should consider confronting reality on occasion. My God, your ignorance is stunning.

[CharlesWT]

We've had a bit of luck here in Texas in that farm land is taxed on its production capacity, not its real estate value. Consequently, we have large plots of farm land in the middle of suburban communities like Plano with the property owners perhaps paying less taxes than someone owning a modest track home. If the property was taxed based on its market value, the owners would be forced to sell it to developers or develop it themselves just to pay the taxes. Of course, property owners have to engage in at lease token agricultural operations on their property or it looses its farm land status and will be taxed on its real estate value.

[joe]

"If the US wasn't so enamoured of cars and driving everywhere, maybe urban planning could think a bit more about the pedestrian and other ways of getting around."

American urban planners think about the pedestrian all the time. We just get our asses kicked by the concrete, petroleum, automobile, (3/4 of) real estate, and trucking industries, and the politicians they buy.

But sending American planners to Venice is one of the most noble, yet practical, causes I've ever heard of. Please give.

[joe]

To be fair, tzs, the people over at NR would be whining about road pricing even if it had been suggested by Ronald Reagan. Their support for the supremacy of the automobile, and right of its driver to have the world created according to his desires (Maximim Overdrive?) is genuine, and deeply felt.

[Sweney Michael]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://online-sports-gambling.best-gambling.biz
DATE: 01/20/2004 01:33:13
Suits and religions rupture if you force them on.