Today's Transit Fact

Ryan Avent observes that "A 25 percent reduction in federal highway spending would clear the way for a tenfold increase in annual federal transit spending–sufficient to produce a sea change in the way cities build their transportation networks." Given that driving, though a convenient and appealing way to get around, also involves substantial negative externalities, there's no rational basis for this kind of ratio in our federal spending.

For all the discussion under way about how to use taxes, auctions, and regulations to force people to consume energy less lavishly, there's surprisingly little talk about the desirability of reducing the scale of our subsidies for inefficient uses.

Comments

"there's no rational basis for this kind of ratio in our federal spending."

Sure there is. Our policies help to increase consumption of oil. If the goal is to maximize profits for the oil industry, the last thing you'd do is to increase access to public transportation. You seem to have a misguided opinion about whom our government is working for. Hint: it's not us.

Posted by fostert | April 2, 2008 11:28 AM

The shocking fact is that Americans like cars, not mass transit. We live in a democracy. When gas is $10 mass transit may be feasible politically, but not before. Get over it!

Posted by Alan Vanneman | April 2, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't think the answer is reducing highway spending. Highways are in bad enough shape as it is, and the vast majority of Americans use them as their primary means of transportation. We just need to increase infrastructure across the board and in particular develop high speed rail lines between urban centers to ease urban congestion and reduce emissions.

Of course there's no money and political support for that, so the car wins again.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 2, 2008 11:42 AM

I worked in Switzerland for several months. It was awfully nice having an efficient, clean, and convenient mass transit system at my disposal. I barely used a rental car in Geneva.

Posted by LFC | April 2, 2008 11:45 AM

"If the goal is to maximize profits for the oil industry, the last thing you'd do is to increase access to public transportation."

Just out of curiosity, Fostert, when you say the goal (presumably of BushCheneyMcHitler) is to maximize profits for the oil industry, are you including the state-owned oil producers that control 90% of proven reserves? Is BushCheneyMcHitler's goal to maximize profits for Pemex, Petrobras, Statoil, Canadian Natural Resources, and the like? Or just for US-based evils like ExxonMobil? Because it seems that if the goal were to maximize profits for domestic oil producers (and create more high-paying jobs for American workers) the way to do that wouldn't be to keep domestic energy resources off-limits to exploration and production.

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2008 11:46 AM

Ah, Alan just loves the free market--it's the wonder of the free market, of course, that explains why people drive when driving is subsidized to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year (or is it hundreds?), not counting the free ride for not having to pay for the negative externalities. Viva la free market!

Posted by Goldberg | April 2, 2008 11:48 AM

You're confusing your home with the nation. In medium and small cities, it takes 3-5x as long to get places by public transit. What's efficient about that?

Posted by Jon Kay | April 2, 2008 11:55 AM

Off-topic: NASA shares your concerns about the robot threat.

Posted by BrianZ | April 2, 2008 11:57 AM

There's a somewhat rational basis if you don't know what externalities are or it's in your interest to legislate as if you don't know. The funding for transportation spending comes from gas taxes, and shifting that money to pay for mass transit instead of highways provides an easy target for right-wing criticism.

Posted by Brittain33 | April 2, 2008 12:00 PM

The problem, Matt, is that our nation presently relies on an aging, crumbling infrastructure of highways, bridges, and roads that will take a dramatic increase in federal spending just to maintain over the next couple of decades.

Sure, mass transit is a worthy alternative. But you can't rob Peter to pay Paul. If we try to create an alternative infrastructure of mass transit and more sensible development to replace that one we've got, it's going to take time and an enormous investment. Allowing our present infrastructure to crumble in the interim is a recipe for disaster. What we need, alas, is an enormous increase in both categories of spending - one to keep our roads functional until we can develop a viable alternative, and the other to develop that alternative.

I'm afraid there's no cheap, easy way out of this mess.

Posted by Cynic | April 2, 2008 12:00 PM

I think one of the issues with mass transit is time spent getting to and fro in a bus or pooling or whatever compared to your own auto. Having a life outside of work is difficult enough without sacrificing additional time on the commute. I'm at my job roughly 7:30 to 5 every day. 20 minute commute. If there was a bus route (and there's not) that would get me here the waiting and stops in between would likely double or triple that commute time. There goes an hour or more of my non-work time, precious little of which I feel available as it is. An hour. That's my nightly workout. For others a college class, time with kids, time to visit mom in the nursing home. Whatever. If the U.S. had people work 6-1/2 or 7 hour days maybe 1-1/2 or 2 hours spent waiting on a bus and then sitting in it with a bunch of strangers would go down easier. Or offer tax breaks to companies for encouraging employees use of mass transit. If employee "A" drives his car to work he gets his normal salary. If employee "B" arrives via bus, train or walks he gets the same salary for doing the same work but works one hour less a day to get it. The tax breaks strictly go to subsidize that salary paid for time not worked. You carpool with a minimum of 3 people same break. You're found taking the hour off for the privilege and your car is discovered on company property there's hell to pay. You sacrifice life in the burbs and buy a house or rent within walking distance of work you get the break. Now you're encouraging home ownership in maybe somewhat blighted or "bad" areas of town where wider homeownership would upgrade the area.

Posted by steve duncan | April 2, 2008 12:05 PM

Well, I don't know how rational it is, but as much of what we consume is hauled around by truck, it's not totally irrational to support the system the trucks use.

Also, as others note, it's not like we have this pristine highway system as it is.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 2, 2008 12:06 PM

For the umpteenth time: federal highway spending is paid for by taxes on road fuel. It is not a subsidy.

Posted by SamChevre | April 2, 2008 12:11 PM

Re "Well, I don't know how rational it is, but as much of what we consume is hauled around by truck, it's not totally irrational to support the system the trucks use. "
-----------------
It's not only irrational, it's fucking stupid. Trains can carry freight from city to city far more efficiently --in terms of energy usage -- than can trucks. Most Trucks should be banned from our interstate system -- or at least heavily taxed so they are used only when needed. Trucks are needed to carry material from a city's railyard to businesses in a 30 mile radius.

Posted by Don Williams | April 2, 2008 12:12 PM

Steve:

You suggest tax-breaks and other incentives to reward people for making sustainable choices. Such breaks already exist, albeit on a modest scale.

There are two problems with your logic, however. The first is that you assume that commuting sustainably necessarily involves spending more time. That's just not so. As you note, the highest costs are involved in waiting for the mass transit option at either end, not in terms of time actually spent en route. Thus, the further you go from a city, the lower the ratio. Three and a half million Americans spend 90 minutes or more on their commute every day - each way. Most of those folks could be rerouted onto mass transit, were it available, without spending noticeably more time in transit - in fact, in all likelihood they'd spend less.

The real problem, though, is more basic. You fail to acknowledge that your daily commute is underwritten by my tax dollars. It takes you just twenty minutes to drive because we're all paying to keep the roads paved, the bridges in good repair, the police patrolling, the ERs fully staffed for the more than 3 million injuries in auto accidents, and the snowplows at the ready. And that's not counting the indirect costs of sprawl - the vastly higher sums we have to spend on infrastructure, service delivery, and the like. So as the system stands, we funnel huge amounts of money to support the unsustainable lifestyles of people who want to drive to work, and when we ask them to change, they tell us they'd like to be paid to act differently.

Great.

Posted by Cynic | April 2, 2008 12:18 PM

Given that effective mass transit systems are generally localized to a given metro area, and thus funded and administered by the local governments whereas interstate travel is mainly done via the highway system, looking at federal spending a decrying a lack of funding for mass transit for seems a bit daft. I suppose you could throw more money at the already insanely subsidized per user but still slower and more expensive than driving with limited destinations Amtrack and make it only clearly inferior to driving in only two of those regards.

Posted by MattXIV | April 2, 2008 12:18 PM

Re Alan Vanneman's comment "The shocking fact is that Americans like cars, not mass transit. We live in a democracy. When gas is $10 mass transit may be feasible politically, but not before. Get over it!"
--------------
Actually, gas is already close to $38 per gallon -- $3 per gallon at the pump and another $35 per gallon collected as income tax to support military operations in the Middle East. Not counting roughly 4000 lives -- probably 8000 if you include all the amputees and those blinded for life.

Don't blame Mr Vanneman for not being intelligent enough to realize that -- we have probably 70 million stupid fucking citizens who don't realize it either. Moronic fucking cows who uncritically soak up whatever lies Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter pour into their tiny little brains every night.

Plus we have a Democratic Leadership and 3 other TV networks --who get rich off the PUBLIC airwaves -- who are too fucking cowardly to point out the above situation.

Posted by Don Williams | April 2, 2008 12:20 PM

Given that driving, though a convenient and appealing way to get around

Says who? This is the kind of thing a person can only say if they have never had a rush-hour commute.

Sit through an hour of STOPGOSTOPGOSTOPGOSTOPGOSTOPGONARROWLYAVOIDCRASHSTOPGOSTOPGOGETCUTOFFSTOPGOSTOPGO and then tell me how convenient and appealing it is to start and finish every day trapped in a steel cage in a state of semi-panic.

Posted by dan | April 2, 2008 12:25 PM

Mass transit does not make economic sense in most American cities, period. The costs for heavy rail especially are fantastically more expensive than driving even when you include all the externalities of driving. Light rail is a little better, but still bad. The most practical form of mass transit would be buses -- gas fueled and dependent on roads, but still mass.

Posted by mq | April 2, 2008 12:30 PM

"If the U.S. had people work 6-1/2 or 7 hour days maybe 1-1/2 or 2 hours spent waiting on a bus and then sitting in it with a bunch of strangers would go down easier."

OH MY GOD, I MIGHT HAVE TO SIT NEXT TO A STRANGER!! SAVE ME!!

I live in Los Angeles and am one of those freakish people who take public transportation instead of driving for my work commute. I sit next to "strangers" every workday and I've survived doing that for several years. Why are people so afraid of "strangers"?

Also, I happen to be able to read bus timetables. I know every single day the exact time I have to leave home or the office to be at the bus stop 5-10 minutes before the bus comes. There's no waiting 2 hours for a bus. At the worst and the bus is late -- because idiots in cars are screwing up traffic! -- it's a half-hour max. And do I get mad when that happens? You bet! But I also get mad when there's a traffic snarl that ties me up in a car for an hour. It happens. But that would probably happen less if more people took public transit.

Get over your fear of strangers! They really could give a sh-- about you.

Posted by Mike E. | April 2, 2008 12:32 PM

The shocking fact is that Americans like cars, not mass transit. We live in a democracy.

This is a shockingly stupid non sequitur. What does the one have to do with the other? Clearly the fact that we call our political system democratic poses no obstacle whatsoever to our leaders pursuing policies that large majorities don't "like".

Good lord, the idea that public policies should be dictated by what majorities "like" -- idiotic. I'm sure Americans would "like" an end to all taxation and free ice cream for everyone. And if someone tried to point out that was an unsustainable way to run a country, Alan's response would be, "Get over it! Americans like free ice cream!"

Posted by Ryan | April 2, 2008 12:33 PM

I spent time in both Rome and London using the subway -- it was a pleasant life, albeit as a tourist.

Here on the Main Line, we often use the train to go 20 miles into the city. But once you have the sunk cost of a car, you do tend to use it for everything.

Posted by Don Williams | April 2, 2008 12:33 PM

Re mq's comment "The costs for heavy rail especially are fantastically more expensive than driving even when you include all the externalities of driving. Light rail is a little better, but still bad. The most practical form of mass transit would be buses -- gas fueled and dependent on roads, but still mass."
-------------
Here on Philly's Main Line, our SEPTA commuter rail is powered by electricity. We have two nuclear plants to power it. Plus a coal-fired power plant as well, with the coal coming down via rail from a few hundred miles to the north.

Works well and seems pretty energy efficient and sustainable to me.

Posted by Don Williams | April 2, 2008 12:40 PM

OH MY GOD, I MIGHT HAVE TO SIT NEXT TO A STRANGER!! SAVE ME!!

Oh, bite me. The issue is not that strangers are threatening weirdos -- it's that strangers by definition are not your coworkers, not your family, not your friends -- i.e. the time you spend in their company is completely unproductive. Yes, being solo in a car can be alienating, too -- but the earlier poster's point was that it involves less *time* being unproductive.

However, I will concede that technology is changing things somewhat. Laptops, blackberries, cell phones etc. do make it possible for one's time on the bus or train to be at least semi-productive, for some kinds of work anyway.

Posted by Ryan | April 2, 2008 12:42 PM

Never mind Europe, I enjoy spending time in NY, Boston, Washington, Chicago or San Francisco and using public transit. If you're in a place- whether living or visiting- where that can easily get you everywhere you want to go, a car becomes just an expensive pain in the ass. I would be only too delighted to live in a city where I could dispense with mine.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 12:43 PM

i.e. the time you spend in [strangers'] company is completely unproductive.

Read a book/magazine?

Posted by Rambuncle | April 2, 2008 12:54 PM

Ah, Alan, the shocking fact actually is that we live in a republic, not a true democracy. Big difference. Under the republic form of government, the sovereign -- i.e. the representatives of the People -- sometimes can and should advance (within the law, mind you) policies which benefit the common good -- even ones the vast majority of citizens might not like.

Posted by po | April 2, 2008 12:56 PM

The shocking fact is that Americans like cars, not mass transit. We live in a democracy.

That's the way I used to think. Until I moved from L.A. to Chicago. In L.A., public transportation was barely even an option. In Chicago, I dread driving to work. I take the train every day I possibly can. The shocking fact is that most Americans, based on a number of factors, have little to no experience with public transportation.

But once you have the sunk cost of a car, you do tend to use it for everything.

Not me. I have a car (I have to much Southern California blood to go without). In the winter, I drive it maybe once a week (It's five years old, and I've put about 35,000 miles on it). In the summer, I use it to get the suburbs to play golf. No doubt, there are some things for which mass transit is completely useless. And I can see how someone who lives in the suburbs would have to drive more often than someone who lives in the city.

Heck, I know plenty of people here who don't have cars, and I certainly couldn't do that. But I also know a lot of people back in LA who wouldn't even consider taking public transportation to get anywhere. That's not necessarily a problem with the mass transit system (which isn't great, but getting better). It's a problem with the mindset. It's not that they choose not to take it. It's that it's not on their radar. And if I'd never left L.A., I'd probably be the same way. But if I moved back there now, and went back to the Pasadena area (around where I grew up), I'd take the gold line, without a doubt. It's a matter of overcoming the stigma, and getting used to doing it.

Posted by Seitz | April 2, 2008 12:57 PM

Off-topic: NASA shares your concerns about the robot threat.

Posted by BrianZ | April 2, 2008 12:58 PM

Given that driving, though a convenient and appealing way to get around, also involves substantial negative externalities, there's no rational basis for this kind of ratio in our federal spending.

Nonsense. The mere fact that a policy has "substantial negative externalities" does not mean that it is irrational. Show me your argument that spending the money on buses/rail/trams/bike paths/whatever would be more rational than spending it on highways. And since this is public money, rational policy here is defined in terms of the will of general population, not the will of Matthew Yglesias.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 12:58 PM

Mike E.,

Your experiences with buses is probably determined by the geography of L.A. Here in the hinterland, it snows a lot. My municipality has a bus system too, but on days when it snows the buses can be 30+ plus late or, sometimes not show up at all. On a snowy day the driver sometimes cuts stops out of his or her route randomly in order to make up time. One can easily fail a class or get fired because of this. With driving I know I have to leave early when it snows but I know how to adjust my route to get to work on time, and I have a guarantee that I can get there, instead of "oops guess the bus won't come".

I'm sure the subways in New York still run on time even when it snows, but since I've never lived in NY I don't know.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 1:03 PM

People like cars. People like autonomy.

The idea that any but a tiny minority of American would actually prefer to be herded together with lots of strangers in a system where their movements are dependent on the government or a monopoly's schedule, where they have to wait around before the train or whatever actually shows up, where they then may or may not get a seat, where they then have to get off at whatever stop is nearest to where they actually have to be and where a strike could cripple their movements for days rather than just drive their own car to where they want (or have) to be is a classic progressive delusion.

Europe, of course, is much more densely populated than the U.S. What's more, gas is much, much more expensive. Outside of London, for instance, most Brits would love easy car payments and cheap gas.

An argument can be made that energy policy requires us to shift from cars. Fine, make that argument. But don't pretend the vast majority of Americans wouldn't really, really think it sucks.

Don't pretend you wouldn't be trying to sell something that would be immensely unpopular. Literally more unpopular than Matt is capable of understanding.

Matt isn't stupid. He sees black people in Washington, D.C, and on H.B.O. dramas. He thus grasps that there is an urban black poor and he can keep them in his mind, most of the time. But, man, does he have a lot of trouble with the rest of the country. Working-class people (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.) outside the East Coast occupy the same place in Matt's mind that hobbits and Star Wars and does for the rest of us. To Matt they're tedious mythical creatures that some annoying bores insist on talking about at embarrassing length.

This would make an excellent plank on a lose 50 states Democratic platform.

And, yes, as others point out the nation's infrastructure and highways have to be kept up.

Posted by Jack Kerouac's guidance counselor | April 2, 2008 1:03 PM

While Matt and Atrios are right, it doesn't exactly do wonders for their credibility that they don't actually own cars.

Posted by soullite | April 2, 2008 1:10 PM

Jack Kerouacs guidance counselor:

Poor white people don't exist in the minds of the liberal elite. That's why you have sites like 'stuff white people like' which is really just 'stuff rich trust fund babies like'.

Posted by soullite | April 2, 2008 1:11 PM

Wait, stuffwhitepeoplelike is written by a liberal elite?

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 1:13 PM

No soullite, you've got it backwards. It's the people insisting "Americans love cars and hate mass transit", but who have never themselves actually experienced the advantages of going carless in an urban area where cars are a useless excrescence, who have the credibility problems.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 1:13 PM

The shocking fact is that most Americans, based on a number of factors, have little to no experience with public transportation.

Well, if we're talking anecdotes, I have a lot of experience with public transportation, and I still find driving far preferable to public transportation for the vast majority of trips I make in and around urban and suburban areas. Driving is just so much more flexible and convenient. Public transportation is more attractive only for a very limited set of journeys for a very limited subset of the U.S. population.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 1:14 PM

With driving I know I have to leave early when it snows but I know how to adjust my route to get to work on time, and I have a guarantee that I can get there, instead of "oops guess the bus won't come".

Does it snow every day? Because I think the idea is to get people to use mass transit more. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that people give up cars completely. I drive on days where I have to carry a bunch of stuff to work. I drive on days where I need to leave the office to go to a client. There are always exceptions. Problems with taking the bus on days when it snows is a perfectly good reason to drive on days when it snows. What about the 200-225 days of the work year?

Posted by Seitz | April 2, 2008 1:16 PM

Hard to evaluate Mixner's comments without knowing where he lives- that makes a big difference. I live (and work, thankfully- takes me 10 to 15 minutes to drive to work) in the Cleveland suburbs about 35 miles east of the city. But even if I lived in Cleveland or one of its dense inner-ring suburbs I would want to keep my car- public transportation here is really not adequate for a conveniently carless lifestyle. Chicago, on the other hand? I'd ditch my car in a minute. The traffic was not great even way back in the 80s when I was in grad school at Northwestern, and it's 50 times worse now.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 1:22 PM

Steve LaBonne,

The credibility problem is yours. The vast majority of Americans live in suburbs, exurbs, or "urban areas" (cities like L.A., Houston, Phoenix, etc.) where "going carless" is incredibly inconvenient and restrictive, and no remotely feasible expansion of bus services or light-rail boondoggles is going to change that.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 1:29 PM

You're missing the point yet again, Mixner. It being incredibly inconvenient and restrictive is not some kind of act of nature. It's the result of deliberate- and poor- planning and massive, massively misdirected subsidies. Which of course, is what Matthew is just after saying.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 1:37 PM

Transit critics really need to get out more, and go to Canada and Europe and actually give properly funded systems a try.

I recently traveled to London, and had to make a rail connection. After American Airlines arrived 2 1/2 hours late, I had only 1 hour and 50 minutes to stand in line at immigration, clear immigration, get the Heathrow Express to Paddington, transfer to the underground, check in at the connecting station and depart.

And I succeeded. Heathrow Express covers 20 miles in 15 minutes, they sell you a single ticket that covers both the express and the underground, the connection between the mainline stations and the Circle Line on the underground is a single flight of stairs at each station -- super quick -- and the Circle Line trains run every three to four minutes even in the middle of the day.

Had I tried this in any US city, even New York, the airline delay would have sunk me.

When your mass transit is fast, and your national rail system is fast, and services run frequently, point to point, and even to smaller destinations, and connections are easy to make -- yes, public transportation becomes easier than dealing with a car. But in the US, public transportation all too often means slow ground services, concentrated around inefficient hubs, with long walks when making connections, and connecting to airlines or Amtrak services that are beset by delays and cancellations.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 1:38 PM

P.S. Let's see how much people keep enjoying the blessings of the car-dependent exurban lifestyle when gas is $5 a gallon or more. And we probably don't have long to wait, either.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 1:39 PM

I live in L.A. and own a car but still take public transportation into work most days. There are advantages and disadvantages to this:

1. Parking near work is expensive, and the bus drops me off closer to the office than any parking lots anyway.

2. Driving is still faster.

3. However, taking the bus is a lot more relaxing. This is something I didn't realize when I started taking the bus, but once I get on I can pretty much shut down my brain. I can sleep, I can read (at least for a little while --- reading is much easier on light rail), or I can just zone out and watch the Transit TV.

So basically, I'll drive if I'm running very late or if I have something after work that I need to drive to, but by and large riding the Metro Rapid works for me.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 2, 2008 1:43 PM

I thought I'd chime in as a response to the claim about this supposed huge loss of time on public transportation and the alleged impossibility of using public transportation in LA.

I actually live in LA and ride the bus to work every day because my employer participates in TransitChek, which means I get a monthly check I use to purchase my monthly bus pass. I've timed my bus ride vs. driving to work, and driving to work takes about 10 minutes less time, and that's on a relatively good highway traffic day. Unless you live in a rural area and you commute into the city, or your city's transit system is unbelievably shitty, I can't imagine there's really this huge time disparity between the two. I guess it depends on what your priorities are. I can sacrifice 10 minutes a day instead of $50/week, but that's me.

Posted by Skeletor Jones | April 2, 2008 1:44 PM

Freddiemac,

I'm originally from New York. Trust me, I've been on the subway.

Yeah, they run when it's snowing.

But it might interest you to know that most women my age (late 30s) from the city have a disgusting story or two about men rubbing against them when they were teenagers and the train was crowded. It's supposedly gotten a little better, but not much in recent years.

If car-hater Steve LaBonne actually is from New York I'm sure he can tell you stories like that as well, stuff women he knows have told him. I'm sure Matt can too. Such is public transportation!

I took a Greyhound bus in the late 80s and the driver began the trip with an obviously standard lecture about what would happen if we were caught smoking "crack cocaine." Later a drunk person approached the bus and hung out to it for about ten seconds while were going at a very slow speed. The driver was so freaked out he called the police and we had to sit and wait for them to come and talk to the driver, take down the facts and all.

That was the first and last time I ever took Greyhound.

The trains from New York to D.C. and the like are fine. The commuter trains in New York aren't bad. But I once tried to take a train from Pittsburgh to New York. It was five hours late coming from Chicago. It smelled bad and I found a rat-trap (sticky paper) under my seat. There then was a problem unloading the luggage in Penn station. Yes, in a train station.

That's the last time I ever took the train.

This is public transportation for real distances (not just within a city or its suburbs) for most people in America.

This is why even poor people struggle to have cars. And all working-class people outside a few major urban areas.

Maybe it'd be better with more money, but, frankly, I have real doubts. And, yeah, this is one of those things Matt has no credibility on.

If the environment and various oil concerns make us have to shift away from cars that'll be one thing. But it'll represent an enormous loss of personal freedom and convenience for most Americans.

Posted by Jack Kerouac's guidance counselor | April 2, 2008 1:46 PM

Kerouac's counselor, I did not see your post.

I can tell you first hand that outside London, they're not demanding cheap car payments (which they already have, the days of cars being grotesquely expensive there are over, thanks to EU border deregulation) or cheap gas (which they can effectively get either with the more efficient cars that are actually sold there, or by using LPG, which you can also actually get there and is the same price as gasoline here).

Instead, what they would like is more and better trains -- commuter trains long enough for all the customers to fit on board, and intercity trains that are cheaper than airlines rather than being used as cash cows for the Treasury and their management consultants and their ridiculous rail franchising system.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 1:48 PM

I also live on the Philadelphia Main Line. We have 2 cars as a family, but only have to fill the tanks once every couple of weeks. I take SEPTA into work, and though it can be unreliable (due in large part to the crumbling infrastructure it shares with the highway system), it is faster, more relaxing, and on a day-to-day basis, cheaper, than driving. SEPTA is funny because Philadelphians rely on it very heavily but is seems the rest of the state, like many of the commenters here, loathe public transportation and would prefer to not fund it at all.

Part of the reason I've always lived (and will likely continue to live) on the Eastern Seaboard is the availability of public transportation.

Posted by Pansy P | April 2, 2008 1:50 PM

I bike to work everyday, from NNJ to NY. In inclement weather, I take the bus. It runs in snow. One has to take the same precautions as one would take driving their own car: Leave early.

The arguments against mass transit are emotional and shallow. Clearly there are places where it won't work, due to relatively low population density. But in the places that can support it, there's no defensible reason why we should not fund mass transit at a rate equal, per passenger/miles, to highways.

Properly supported--with funding and intelligent zoning to achieve critical population densities-- mass transit works. I would never in a million years consider driving to work. It is., by far, the worst option of many.

And before some of you start off, "yeah, but you live near NY," I moved here in part because of the extensive public transit options.

Posted by Jamey | April 2, 2008 1:52 PM

If car-hater Steve LaBonne actually is from New York

I grew up in the suburbs, though I've taken the subway plenty of times (without incident) when visiting NY. My extended carless experiences date from college (Boston) and grad school (Chicago). And no, I have never experienced any particular unpleasantness in either city and would happily go back to extensive public transit use if I lived in either.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 1:53 PM

Steve Labonne,

You're missing the point yet again, Mixner. It being incredibly inconvenient and restrictive is not some kind of act of nature. It's the result of deliberate- and poor- planning and massive, massively misdirected subsidies. Which of course, is what Matthew is just after saying.

No, you're missing the point yet again. Most Americans do not live, and do not want to live, in the kind of very densely populated conditions where "going carless" would be attractive. The only Americans who live like that are inner-city residents of old cities like New York and Chicago that were established before the advent of motor vehicles. For everyone else, having a car is vastly more flexible and convenient than relying on public transit, and always will be. The vast majority of Americans are simply not going to give up their cars for buses and trains, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

P.S. Let's see how much people keep enjoying the blessings of the car-dependent exurban lifestyle when gas is $5 a gallon or more. And we probably don't have long to wait, either.

They'll either just swallow the cost or switch to more efficient vehicles. They already are. Smaller vehicles, hybrid vehicles, flex-fuel vehicles, etc. The future of urban and suburban transportation systems is new motor vehicle and highway technology (efficiency, automation, new fuels), not mass transit.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 1:56 PM

Mixner, your comment on the current state of public transportation is accurate -- in most circumstances in the US, driving is quicker and more convenient, whether the competing mode is transit bus, intercity bus, commuter rail, subway, intercity rail, or airline journey of less than 500 miles.

But isn't that wretched state of affairs something you'd want to change? If you'd go to almost any other developed country -- and yes, this includes even thinly populated Canada for the purpose of urban and regional mass transit at least -- you'd realize it doesn't have to be this way.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 1:57 PM

If the point of this post is that transit is woefully underfunded, it's not really a counterargument to say that bus or train service can be kind of lousy. If the argument being made were that everyone should just give up their cars and use the existing transit systems in their towns out of the goodness of their hearts or a sense of shame, then the lousiness of said service *would* actually work as a counter-argument.

Or if bus or train service were always lousy in all circumstances, then that would be a valid counterargument. But the fact of the matter is that for a fraction of people --- small in some cities, larger in others --- mass transit *does* make sense and work for them. With increased funding, it can work for more people in more places, and work better for the ones who already do use it.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 2, 2008 2:00 PM

The idea that any but a tiny minority of American would actually prefer to be herded together with lots of strangers in a system where their movements are dependent on the government or a monopoly's schedule, where they have to wait around before the train or whatever actually shows up, where they then may or may not get a seat, where they then have to get off at whatever stop is nearest to where they actually have to be and where a strike could cripple their movements for days rather than just drive their own car to where they want (or have) to be is a classic progressive delusion.

No but seriously, what magical traffic-free fantasy land do you live in? Please explain to me in what conceivable universe it's better to have your movements be dependent on the random fuck-youness of crunch-time jams, gridlock, and goddamn rubberneckers causing a three-hour backup so they can gawk their hearts out at every minor fender-bender?

Posted by Dan | April 2, 2008 2:01 PM

They'll either just swallow the cost or switch to more efficient vehicles.

I'll take that bet. There is already some evidence of a mini-trend back to more densely populated areas. And it will accelerate substantially when fuel costs escalate further.

The fact is, people did not make a neutral decision in a vacuum to live in the middle of nowhere, and it's incredibly naive to assert that they did. Heavy doses of both marketing and subsidy made major contributions. Both can- and inevitably will, between global warming and peak oil; it's merely a question of time- be reversed.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 2:01 PM

Mixner -- one more point. With energy costs rising as fast as they are, and bulk materials costs rising as fast as they are, we can no longer afford to build cities to as low a density as we have.

It's also worth noting that even relatively low density cities can support terrific public transportation if the political will is there to create a system that is responsive to customers rather than constituencies. Halifax, Canada's bus system is one good example -- 50,000 riders a day for a service area with about 200,000 residents -- and talking of low density cities, London, England, which is about the same population density as Los Angeles, also has a pretty good transit system, I hear.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 2:02 PM

I'll take that wager too. Not only has subway centric NY seen a population boom, but there is a trend of reversal in Chicago and expansion of the subway lines in L.A. In fact mass transit usage is up (50 year high, or so I've read). This is at 3.50 a gallon. At 5 a gallon (depending on how fast we get there) mass transit usage will be at the point where more people will demand its expansion. This of course means more densely populated development.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess Mixner is over 40.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 2:05 PM

One of the things that some people tend to overlook in these debates is that while public transit spending slammed into a wall in the United States after the end of the last energy crises in the 1970s, in other developed countries it continued, and as a result a lot of very interesting new technologies and systems have been developed.

For example, here in the U.S. many people are unaware of just what is possible with a high-end bus system, with a lot more possibilities on the horizon. Take the problem noted above of the frequent stops on a conventional bus service dramatically increasing transit times. Well, if you combine things like a dedicated busway with restricted-access stops (e.g., you might swipe your card to get into the stop, and then when the bus arrives all the people at the stop use all the doors to get on without having to pay, and similarly you swipe to get back out at which point you are charged), you actually get a system which approaches light rail in terms of capacity, convenience, and speed, and yet at a much lower sunk cost.

Moreover, the busway can then also be used by an express bus that makes local stops in just one particular residential neighborhood, hopping on the busway for express service to local employment and shopping centers. From a consumer perspective that sort of system can be even better than light rail, since many more people can live quite close to their local stop. This is sort of like the existing approach of having a bus pick you up and take you to the local train station, but with the same bus then conveniently converting itself into the train, thus avoiding any transfer inconvenience.

Such a busway system is also much more flexible than light rail, as you can add or modify service and routes in response to demand. And on top of all this, such a busway can also be used by emergency vehicles.

In the relatively near future, automation technology could further expand high-end bus systems into regional rapid transit networks. Basically, you could have roving automated bus fleets moving in close proximity at high speed on dedicated highway lanes, with each individual bus joining and leaving these fleets to serve their particular local destinations. Combine that with a busway, and such a system could service both selected local tranportation centers (airports, ports, train stations) and city centers, all on the same vehicle.

Unfortunately, all these possibilities tend to be overlooked by people who more or less assume that expanding the same sort of outdated public transit system that currently exists in their locality is the only option. Nonetheless, the data suggests that ridership on even these outdated public transit systems has already been going up in response to the recent spike in fuel prices, and meanwhile several cities are nearing completion on some more advanced public transit projects. I suspect most of those projects will be very successful in terms of ridership, and that will lead to further willingness to invest in more advanced public transit, and so on.

In other words, I really don't believe that Americans are somehow uniquely resistant to the many benefits of modern public transit systems. So if the era of super-cheap gasoline is in fact over, then I think so is the era of super-high reluctance to invest in public transit.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 2:05 PM

I should add that the long-term neglect that turned the schools (especially), infrastructure and recreational facilities in so many US cities to crap also played major roles in the preferences Mixner imagines are timeless and context-free.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 2:06 PM

Matt, have you ever read The Power Broker? Because you should.

Posted by Senescent | April 2, 2008 2:08 PM

"I grew up in the suburbs, though I've taken the subway plenty of times (without incident) when visiting NY . . .I have never experienced any particular unpleasantness" -- Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne,

Congratulations on totally missing the point!

You're a guy (AN ADULT MALE) from the suburbs who's been to New York a few times and ridden the subways. Good for you!

Ask someone who was a young girl and rode the subways every day when she was growing up if she or any of her friends ever had an incident. (An incident being a euphemism for someone masturbating against her.)

Then go take a Greyhound bus somewhere. I don't know . . . Tulsa.

See what that's like.

Posted by Jack Kerouac's guidance counselor | April 2, 2008 2:11 PM

Mass transit does not make economic sense in most American cities, period. The costs for heavy rail especially are fantastically more expensive than driving even when you include all the externalities of driving. Light rail is a little better, but still bad.

Wow, you're just wrong and don't know things.

I mean I don't know how it even sounds plausible to you in the space of your own head, that hundreds of multiple vehicles each with its own independent power plant taking up vastly more space per individual carried and running on poured asphalt and concrete that needs to be continually upkept at consideral expense, are somehow more efficient than transporting the same number of people in a single vehicle across steel rails.

Posted by dan | April 2, 2008 2:12 PM

Matt, have you ever read The Power Broker? Because you should.

Posted by Senescent | April 2, 2008 2:14 PM

Something else that people think is an individual choice, but isn't, is low density development and sprawl. Usually it occurs as a result of local authorities slapping on zoning laws that arbitrarily limit housing density and arbitrarily segregate residential and commercial development, while imposing a street plan that makes life very difficult for pedestrians and very time consuming for anything that moves more slowly than the average car.

Back off the zoning laws and rediscover street grids that allow people to get from A to B without having to navigate their way to an "arterial" and then sit in traffic, and you'll very quickly see the market move to higher density development and more transit-friendly development.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 2:14 PM

If you'd go to almost any other developed country -- and yes, this includes even thinly populated Canada for the purpose of urban and regional mass transit at least -- you'd realize it doesn't have to be this way.

Huh? First, cars are enormously popular even in old-style cities. London, for example, has a very comprehensive mass transit system, and yet the city is still full of cars (even with the new "congestion charge.") That is a testament to just how much more convenient and attractive motor vehicles are than mass transit, even with congestion and parking problems and $8/gallon gas. And you're never going to be able to build mass transit systems in the areas where most Americans live that are remotely as comprehensive and convenient as the ones that already exist in places like London and New York, even if you invest hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a fantasy.

And second, Americans are simply not going to give up their big houses and yards for cramped apartments and condos, which they would have to do to achieve the kind of population density necessary for comprehensive mass transit systems to be even remotely feasible economically.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 2:15 PM

Congratulations on totally missing the point!

You chose to address me, so I responded.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 2:17 PM

Something else that people think is an individual choice, but isn't, is low density development and sprawl. Usually it occurs as a result of local authorities slapping on zoning laws that arbitrarily limit housing density and arbitrarily segregate residential and commercial development, while imposing a street plan that makes life very difficult for pedestrians and very time consuming for anything that moves more slowly than the average car.

Back off the zoning laws and rediscover street grids that allow people to get from A to B without having to navigate their way to an "arterial" and then sit in traffic, and you'll very quickly see the market move to higher density development and more transit-friendly development.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 2:18 PM

It's really disturbing to see everyone so unaware of the facts. These comments represent a wide range of opinions about this topic, but almost all of them miss the key point:

Most of the federal highway money is spent to repair damages that TRUCKS do to the highway.

According to a study performed by the American Association of State Highway Officials in the late 1950's and early 60's, one 80,000-pound, five-axle truck does about as much damage to a highway as 9,600 cars.

This study was repeated in the 70's, 80's and 90's, by the Federal Highway Administration, factoring in the greater weight of cars and different pavement substances now in use. The current results suggest that one truck (on the correct surface) might 'only' damage roads as much as 750 cars.

The trucking industry (and the businesses who rely on trucking) have received an enormous subsidy for 50 years. Fuel taxes on commercial trucks are, like the grazing fees on federal land (or oil leases), set way, way below the break-even point.

Which means, of course, that fuel tax rates for car owners are way above where they ought to be. If you drive, you're subsidizing the trucking industry every time you fill up.

The trucking industry hasn't just gotten a tax break worth billions of dollars-- they've duped car owners and recreational drivers into thinking that they are responsible for poor road conditions.

The opposite is true, in fact. According to the FHWA's 2006 annual report, trucks are responsible for an estimated 40% of the damage to the highways-- but they account for about 10% of all miles driven.

Remember, the Federal Highway Administration is a division of George W. Bush's Department of Transportation-- not some Naderite advocacy group. The same report cites a study that says "trucks account for at least one-fifth of the delay for all vehicles in the 50 worst urban bottlenecks in the Nation."

So, folks, if you want to have this debate, fine. But could you frame it correctly?

1. If gas consumption taxes on commercial vehicles were increased to reflect a truck's actual impact on roads, it would generate a flood of new income.

2. That money could be spent to improve and expand the rail network.

3. Improving the rail network would reduce the number of people who drive cars. It would also increase the amoount of freight shipped by rail.

4. Since it is cheaper to ship by rail, higher taxes on truck fuel use would not, as wingnuts like to suggest, be passed on to consumers ion the form of higher prices and result in $4 Twinkies.

More likely, the cost increase would induce shippers to switch to rail (which they might do anyway, if the network were in better shape and its on-time performance was better), using those nifty free-market principles Jane Galt always flames about.

5. Result-- fewer trucks on the road, less road damage, fewer delays, fewer accidents (you wouldn't believe) and less pollution. Oh, and lower gas taxes for autos means lower fuel prices.

All without ripping up the highways and replacing them with sod, or prying automobiles from anyone's cold, dead fingers.

Let's argue that contention, rather than drinking the ATA's Kool-Aid.

Posted by Woodrow L. Goode, IV | April 2, 2008 2:18 PM

If you'd go to almost any other developed country -- and yes, this includes even thinly populated Canada for the purpose of urban and regional mass transit at least -- you'd realize it doesn't have to be this way.

Huh? First, cars are enormously popular even in old-style cities. London, for example, has a very comprehensive mass transit system, and yet the city is still full of cars (even with the new "congestion charge.") That is a testament to just how much more convenient and attractive motor vehicles are than mass transit, even with congestion and parking problems and $8/gallon gas. And you're never going to be able to build mass transit systems in the areas where most Americans live that are remotely as comprehensive and convenient as the ones that already exist in places like London and New York, even if you invest hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a fantasy.

And second, Americans are simply not going to give up their big houses and yards for cramped apartments and condos, which they would have to do to achieve the kind of population density necessary for comprehensive mass transit systems to be even remotely feasible economically.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 2:19 PM

It's really disturbing to see everyone so unaware of the facts. These comments represent a wide range of opinions about this topic, but almost all of them miss the key point:

Most of the federal highway money is spent to repair damages that TRUCKS do to the highway.

According to a study performed by the American Association of State Highway Officials in the late 1950's and early 60's, one 80,000-pound, five-axle truck does about as much damage to a highway as 9,600 cars.

This study was repeated in the 70's, 80's and 90's, by the Federal Highway Administration, factoring in the greater weight of cars and different pavement substances now in use. The current results suggest that one truck (on the correct surface) might 'only' damage roads as much as 750 cars.

The trucking industry (and the businesses who rely on trucking) have received an enormous subsidy for 50 years. Fuel taxes on commercial trucks are, like the grazing fees on federal land (or oil leases), set way, way below the break-even point.

Which means, of course, that fuel tax rates for car owners are way above where they ought to be. If you drive, you're subsidizing the trucking industry every time you fill up.

The trucking industry hasn't just gotten a tax break worth billions of dollars-- they've duped car owners and recreational drivers into thinking that they are responsible for poor road conditions.

The opposite is true, in fact. According to the FHWA's 2006 annual report, trucks are responsible for an estimated 40% of the damage to the highways-- but they account for about 10% of all miles driven.

Remember, the Federal Highway Administration is a division of George W. Bush's Department of Transportation-- not some Naderite advocacy group. The same report cites a study that says "trucks account for at least one-fifth of the delay for all vehicles in the 50 worst urban bottlenecks in the Nation."

So, folks, if you want to have this debate, fine. But could you frame it correctly?

1. If gas consumption taxes on commercial vehicles were increased to reflect a truck's actual impact on roads, it would generate a flood of new income.

2. That money could be spent to improve and expand the rail network.

3. Improving the rail network would reduce the number of people who drive cars. It would also increase the amoount of freight shipped by rail.

4. Since it is cheaper to ship by rail, higher taxes on truck fuel use would not, as wingnuts like to suggest, be passed on to consumers ion the form of higher prices and result in $4 Twinkies.

More likely, the cost increase would induce shippers to switch to rail (which they might do anyway, if the network were in better shape and its on-time performance was better), using those nifty free-market principles Jane Galt always flames about.

5. Result-- fewer trucks on the road, less road damage, fewer delays, fewer accidents (you wouldn't believe) and less pollution. Oh, and lower gas taxes for autos means lower fuel prices.

All without ripping up the highways and replacing them with sod, or prying automobiles from anyone's cold, dead fingers.

Let's argue that contention, rather than drinking the ATA's Kool-Aid.

Posted by Woodrow L. Goode, IV | April 2, 2008 2:22 PM

Something else that people think is an individual choice, but isn't, is low density development and sprawl. Usually it occurs as a result of local authorities slapping on zoning laws that arbitrarily limit housing density and arbitrarily segregate residential and commercial development, while imposing a street plan that makes life very difficult for pedestrians and very time consuming for anything that moves more slowly than the average car.

Back off the zoning laws and rediscover street grids that allow people to get from A to B without having to navigate their way to an "arterial" and then sit in traffic, and you'll very quickly see the market move to higher density development and more transit-friendly development.

Mixner, care to post some figures on market share in London on transit and car use? I daresay that if you can remove your head from the sand long enough to find them, and compare them with other cities and with pre-congestion-charge stats, you'll find they so undermine your argument that you simply don't bother to post them.

Posted by Angry Chicagoan | April 2, 2008 2:25 PM

"give up their big houses and yards for cramped apartments and condos, which they would have to do to achieve the kind of population density necessary for comprehensive mass transit systems to be even remotely feasible economically"

This is not true. There are SFRs in New York and Chicago, which have very good mass transit systems. Density does not automatically = downtown Manhattan.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 2:26 PM

Another issue with the convenience and mindset towards public transportation: Stuff & errands. I schedule doctor, dentist, the vet, the dry cleaner and dozens of other common errands and appointments before or after or sometimes unavoidably within my work day. So now not only do I have to clear with superiors and co-workers all these errands and their timing (yes, co-workers-it's a very open and cooperative atmosphere and any single absence needs to be dealt with in the context of everyone else's work) but I also have to consult a bus or train schedule too? Sure, millions do it every day. I don't. May be forced to or enticed into it but I don't now. "Honey, Billy's fallen at school and broken 3 teeth. He needs picked up and taken to the dentist pronto. Will you do it?" "Uh, no babe, I ride the bus to work, remember?" "Damn, yes, now I do. I ride the bus too. What now?" "Hmm, guess I'll take a taxi to the school, then to the dentist, then to the house. I'll get back to you next week once I pull all that off and tell you how Billy fared through the entire ordeal." Good thing there's taxis to drive me around in an emergency so my car isn't spewing pollutants and clogging the roads. Good thing taxis don't do what my car does. Oh, they do? Damn, didn't help the enviroment today I guess. Hmmm, need to pick up some flowers for that anniversary I almost forgot. Bus isn't going to wait for me to disembark, shop, choose, pay and get back on. Guess I'll get in the car when I finally get home and go back out to buy them. And now I find out the Wilson's are visiting unexpectedly and I'm tasked with a list of food and "Haven't seen you in years" gift and cards that'll fill 4 grocery sacks. How in the hell am I going to carry all that on the bus? Can't. Guess I'll get in the car and go back out for it all when I get home. Geez, this taking the bus is wearing me out.

Posted by steve duncan | April 2, 2008 2:27 PM

I'm sorry, Steve. Does that mean that people who take light rail to work are bad parents? Or irresponsible?

Although to be fair, consulting the train schedule takes me literally seconds every couple of months.

Posted by Pansy P | April 2, 2008 2:40 PM

How come people keep bringing up the situation of mass transit in LA AS IT IS NOW? The point of increasing funding for mass transit would be to improve it! And then, it would be better and more efficient than it is now. The fact that the buses suck where you are now (and they do where I am), makes it clear that we need more funding for mass transit.

Posted by jacobus | April 2, 2008 2:42 PM

Hey Mixner? Fuck your convenience. It's been fucking the rest of us for years.

Posted by chiggins | April 2, 2008 3:06 PM

Another common problem in these discussions is that some people imply that the only two available residential choices are Manhattan or a sprawling modern subdivision. In truth, there are lots of things in between, and lots of demand all along that range.

For example, I also frequent some websites where people go to find out about the available housing in places to which they are moving (e.g., because of a job or school). Lots of these people are looking for single family homes in neighborhoods which are safe, friendly, convenient to work/school, and "walkable" (meaning you can walk to local attractions such as restaurants, shops, libraries, parks, and so on). For these people, the best option often ends up being former "streetcar suburbs", or recent developments in the "new urbanism" style (which in fact take a lot of cues from the streetcar suburbs).

As in fact the streetcar suburbs proved, the densities of these neighborhoods are easily high enough to support public transit for the purposes of commuting. Of course, that doesn't mean these people can't have cars too, which they might use for errands and other non-commuting transit tasks.

So, it really is silly for people to insist that unless most people want to live in city centers, public transit can't work, because public transit also makes sense for a wide range of other living circumstances (not all circumstances, of course, but many more than some people acknowledge).

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 3:07 PM

For these people, the best option often ends up being former "streetcar suburbs"

These places are treasures, and the way in which our stupid anti-urban policies have encouraged their decline- around these parts, I think especially of Cleveland Heights, a once and potentially future great place to live which is currently under severe pressure- is an enormous and vastly under-reported waste.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 2, 2008 3:14 PM

Steve LaBonne,

One of the things I find fascinating about streetcar suburbs is that some have remained fashionable whereas others experienced terrible decline (and sometimes were basically just leveled). But in most places I know of, many of the remaining streetcar suburbs that didn't remain fashionable but weren't leveled as a result have started becoming fashionable again, and I very much agree it makes sense to do everything possible to preserve them for renovation and redevelopment.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 3:46 PM

This is not true. There are SFRs in New York and Chicago, which have very good mass transit systems. Density does not automatically = downtown Manhattan.

I don't know what "SFRs" means.

Without Manhattan-like population densities, you're not going to be able to support a mass transit system that can effectively replace cars. Of course, even in Manhattan, cars are overwhelmingly the preferred form of transportation. The subway and buses are for people who can't afford cabs and car services. And the rich have their own cars and drivers. Even in Manhattan, people use mass transit because they have to, not because they like it better than using a car.

The level of wilfull blindness exhibited by the advocates of mass transit here to how people actually live and want to live really is amazing. Good luck on your quest to persuade people to give up their houses and cars for condos and buses. I wonder just how long it's going to take you to realize the absurdity of your goal.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 4:30 PM

Shorter Mixner: "I am a black hole of self-centeredness."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess Mixner is over 40.

Nah, my guess is that he's a silly little boy in his early twenties with a big ol' on McArdle, another one who's mastered 'I love me, what's your second choice?'

Elsewhere: Greyhound buses are scary? Fuck, yeah. When people get out of jail, they're given a Greyhound ticket. Give a dog a bad name, indeed.

But that's one variant of the fallacy committed several times here, which is to extrapolate from a marginalised set of services without appreciating that investment, and efforts to make them more popular, change their character.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 2, 2008 4:38 PM

I'll take that bet. There is already some evidence of a mini-trend back to more densely populated areas. And it will accelerate substantially when fuel costs escalate further.

What evidence? Produce it. The overwhelmingly dominant trend of the past half century or more has been towards lower population density. This is true not only in the U.S., but in other developed nations too. People have been moving out of high-density urban areas into lower-density subrban and exurban areas. The average size of housing has increased dramatically. Retail, dining and entertainment facilities have become increasingly decentralized. Businesses and places of work have also moved into the suburbs and exurbs. High-density housing is a small, niche market serving the wealthy (luxury high-rise condos and apartments in city centers) or small demographic groups like childless yuppies.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 4:42 PM

Mixner,

SFR is Single Family Residence. They have those in Manhattan, as well as the other 4 burroughs. So your dichotomy of giving up SFR living for apartments and condos is a lie. A certain level of density is required for mass transit, but that is more dependent on zoning type, not huge concentrations of people. Centralized commercial districts and satellite residential districts provide adequate density with the need for high rises. See: Oak Park Illinois.

It is interesting that you continue to claim that high rises are necessary for mass transit, even though others here have continued to provide examples where that is not so. Why do you continue to make these bogus claims?

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Mixner,

You claim: "Without Manhattan-like population densities, you're not going to be able to support a mass transit system that can effectively replace cars."

First, to use your own favorite tactic: prove it.

Second, public transit doesn't have to "replace" cars. Rather, public transit and cars can be complementary, in that people can use both modes of transport for different purposes. Indeed, many people do that already, such as the people who own and use cars but also fly using airlines. There is no principled reason why people can't use additional modes of transport beyond cars and airlines, and indeed again many people already do just that.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 4:53 PM

Mixner,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/04/national/main3572261.shtml

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EED7143FF93AA15751C1A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Suburbanization was a 50 year trend that seems to have run its course. You present no argument that a trend which began in the 1950s will continue forever other than you refuse to see the evidence that I and others present, or that you could easily google yourself. Once again I will ask: how old are you?

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 5:05 PM

As in fact the streetcar suburbs proved, the densities of these neighborhoods are easily high enough to support public transit for the purposes of commuting. Of course, that doesn't mean these people can't have cars too, which they might use for errands and other non-commuting transit tasks. So, it really is silly for people to insist that unless most people want to live in city centers, public transit can't work, because public transit also makes sense for a wide range of other living circumstances (not all circumstances, of course, but many more than some people acknowledge).

It only "makes sense" for people who can't afford, or are otherwise unable to use, a car. Which is very few people. Most American cities and suburbs are organized on a grid system, and bus routes typically run along a single street on that grid. Unless the start and end points of your journey are on that one street, buses are very inconvenient. You're going to have to transfer at least once and take two or more buses to get where you're going. And wait for each one. Often in unpleasant weather. And you may also have a long walk from the bus stop to your actual destination at each end. It can easily take many times as long as the same journey by car.

Light rail services are even worse. They typically consist of just one or two lines. Again, unless the start and end points of your journey are conveniently located near a station, it's far more trouble than it's worth even under favorable circumstances. You're much, much better off driving.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 5:05 PM

"Most American cities and suburbs are organized on a grid system"

Correction: most American suburbs are not organized on a grid system.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 5:11 PM

Mixner: transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods tend to be hugely expensive because demand has radically outstripped supply. Those with the most options and the most control over where they live--namely white, childless, college-educated professionals--are snapping up urban neighborhoods one after another. Do you believe in markets?

Posted by haighterade | April 2, 2008 5:18 PM

SFR is Single Family Residence. They have those in Manhattan, as well as the other 4 burroughs. So your dichotomy of giving up SFR living for apartments and condos is a lie.

Huh? I'm not sure why you think a family could not live in an apartment or condo. The point is they don't want to. They can get much bigger, much better housing for their money in the suburbs and exurbs. Unless they're very unusual, they're not going to give up a 2,000 sq ft. house with a yard and garage in the burbs for an 800 sq ft apartment in the city.

A certain level of density is required for mass transit, but that is more dependent on zoning type, not huge concentrations of people. Centralized commercial districts and satellite residential districts provide adequate density with the need for high rises. See: Oak Park Illinois.

Again, you're not listening. Yes, the suburbs can support a small amount of mass transit. Some bus services. Perhaps even a light rail line. But without a really high population density, the idea that mass transit can effectively replace more than a small fraction of car journeys is absurd. And even for journeys for which mass transit is a reasonable option, most people are still going to use their cars most of the time. And for most suburban trips, mass transit isn't even going to be a realistic option. Perhaps you are willing to waste an hour on a bus for a trip that would take 15 minutes by car, but I somehow doubt most other people would.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 5:25 PM

Mixner,

First, prove every declarative statement you made in your 5:05 post.

Second, trying to generalize about something as complex as the layout of American cities and suburbs is a ridiculous task.

Third, I have already explained there are alternatives to the sort of bus system you are describing, and indeed versions of such alternative bus systems are already serving several American cities.

Fourth, it is also ridiculous for you to claim that light rail is "far more trouble than it's worth even under favorable circumstances," given the large numbers of people who regularly choose to use light rail when it is convenient for them to do so. Many of these people are also car owners, by the way (see my previous post about multiple modes of transit), so it isn't the case that light rail only serves people who can't afford or operate a car.

Generally, you are making extremely broad assertions that not only lack any supporting evidence or data, but also are contradicted by easily observed facts. And on top of that, you often demand that others support their far less broad (and uncontradicted) assertions with specific evidence, and also a tendency to then simply ignore such evidence when it is provided.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 5:25 PM

Mixner,

It seems you have trouble reading:

"Huh? I'm not sure why you think a family could not live in an apartment or condo."

I didn't say they couldn't. Why would you think I said that?

"The point is they don't want to. They can get much bigger, much better housing for their money in the suburbs and exurbs. Unless they're very unusual, they're not going to give up a 2,000 sq ft. house with a yard and garage in the burbs for an 800 sq ft apartment in the city."

1. prove that "they don't want to".
2. I didn't say that they would have to give up a 2000 sq ft house with a yard and a garage to live in the city and access mass transit. In fact I said the opposite is true, even in New York City.

"Again, you're not listening. Yes, the suburbs can support a small amount of mass transit. Some bus services. Perhaps even a light rail line. But without a really high population density, the idea that mass transit can effectively replace more than a small fraction of car journeys is absurd."

Again you're not reading. Oak Park Illinois is not terribly dense, though denser than say Stockton California. It is also well planned along a grid, and is serviced by bus, heavy rail, and light rail. I see that reality is absurd to you.

"And even for journeys for which mass transit is a reasonable option, most people are still going to use their cars most of the time. And for most suburban trips, mass transit isn't even going to be a realistic option. Perhaps you are willing to waste an hour on a bus for a trip that would take 15 minutes by car, but I somehow doubt most other people would."

Ah yes, good old false dichotomy. Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I suppose it comes with the "poor reading comprehension" part.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 5:34 PM

Mixner,

To follow up my last post, in another post you wrote:

"But without a really high population density, the idea that mass transit can effectively replace more than a small fraction of car journeys is absurd."

Prove that mass transit cannot be an effective commuting option for residential neighborhoods where the densities are consistent with 2000 sq. ft. detached homes that also have yards and garages.

"[F]or journeys for which mass transit is a reasonable option, most people are still going to use their cars most of the time."

Prove that most people will not use reasonable mass transit options when they are available.

"Perhaps you are willing to waste an hour on a bus for a trip that would take 15 minutes by car, but I somehow doubt most other people would."

Prove that bus service necessarily takes four times as long as an equivalent car trip.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 5:35 PM

I have a 25 minute bike ride to work. 30-45 minutes by light rail or bus. I live in a large american city, but I also live in a quiet neighborhood with mostly SFRs and 2-4 unit apartments. Groceries on the corner, movies a 20 minute walk. It's glorious.

I'm by no means rich, either, ~12% above the local median income. I recognize that part of my good fortune is due to local planning which has both encouraged density, public transit, walking, and bicycles, and discouraged car use by making parking expensive and streets more accommodating to the other modes of transit.

Cars suck for commuting. I hate finding (and paying for) parking. I hate paying for gas. I hate being stuck in traffic. Car-commuter culture breeds sociopathy: I hate pretty much every living being after I've been struggling for an hour to go 10 miles.

I wish more people had the option to walk, bike, or take public transit to work. If I were forced to move, I'd go to where I could minimize my commute and my reliance on cars for daily or weekly necessities.

On weekends or vacations, when I want to pick up something from the hardware store or go camping, I use my car. Just not to get to work.

Posted by DavidK | April 2, 2008 5:43 PM

We already know Mixner doesn't believe in markets. A few weeks ago he was arguing that sky-high real estate prices in urban neighborhoods don't indicate high demand to live in those areas. Please, don't waste any more of your time arguing with him about this.

Posted by too many steves | April 2, 2008 5:46 PM

First, to use your own favorite tactic: prove it.

The absence of any such mass transit system anywhere in the U.S. proves it. As I said, even in Manhattan, people who can afford it use taxis and car services rather than the subway or buses. For the vast majority of journeys, cars are just a much better option.

Second, public transit doesn't have to "replace" cars.

It does if you seek Steve LaBonne's goal of "going carless."

Rather, public transit and cars can be complementary,

For the vast majority of journeys in urban and suburban areas, cars are a far more convenient, far more flexible, far more attractive method of transportation than public transit. This includes the vast majority of daily commutes between home and workplace. That's the fundamental reality you're ignoring. And it's why your goal of massive expansion of public transit in American cities and suburbs is a fantasy and always will be. Fifty years from now, Americans won't be riding buses and trains any more than they are now. They'll be zipping along roads and highways in their privately-owned, fuel-cell-powered automatic cars. That's the future of urban and suburban transportation, not your collectivist vision.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 5:51 PM

Mixner also doesn't seem to understand the concept of change at the margins. Just because *most* people would continue to use cars doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to encourage *some* additional people to take public transit. It would reduce traffic for all of those people still in their cars.

I will say that a lot of the claims of the new urbanism are a little excessive. I've heard countless times that this new "transit-oriented" suburban development will need less parking because it's right next to the train station. Lifelong suburbanites might drive *less* if they have access to public transit, but they're not going to give up their cars because of it. Hoping that people walk to the grocery store also seems like wishful thinking. You ever see the groceries a family of 5 has to take home? It's too much to carry. Yes, poor people who don't have cars do it all the time, but I bet if they had a choice they'd drive.

Posted by too many steves | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM

SFR is Single Family Residence. They have those in Manhattan, as well as the other 4 burroughs. So your dichotomy of giving up SFR living for apartments and condos is a lie.

Huh? I'm not sure why you think a family could not live in an apartment or condo. The point is they don't want to. They can get much bigger, much better housing for their money in the suburbs and exurbs. Unless they're very unusual, they're not going to give up a 2,000 sq ft. house with a yard and garage in the burbs for an 800 sq ft apartment in the city.

What is the point of quoting the first paragraph, if you're just going to completely ignore/misunderstand it?

More fundamentally, I don't get your schtick, Mixner.

You clearly seem to be in love with your car-centric lifestyle. That's cool. There are probably lots of people who share your preferences. And nobody is going to take your cars away.

Tens of millions of other people pretty clearly prefer dense, livable cities with lots of transit options. And there's lots of evidence that investing in those options is good public policy.

So, unless you've got some kind of principled objection to paying the full price for the extra pollution, congestion, etc. associated with your lifestyle, what's the problem?

You're welcome to live how you please. Let everyone else do the same.

Posted by jack lecou | April 2, 2008 6:00 PM

As has been pointed out earlier, some people (even some not named Mixner) are being too absolutist here. We're not talking about forcing people to take the train or bus when it would be terribly inconvenient, nor about everyone with a car always using it for everything. I live in an area (southern Westchester County, N.Y.) with an interesting mix on this. Contra Mixner, while everyone I know has at least one car, most people who commute into the city take the train rather than drive. Driving can be faster, when there's no traffic, but there really aren't days without traffic. Even when the highways are clear, it can take as long to cover the couple of miles into Midtown as it did to get down from the suburbs. And of course parking is nightmarish, either wildly expensive or impossible to find.

Now, it's not like mass transit is idyllic, and it's not like we're car-free--we drive to the station and park there, for a hefty annual fee (that's still way less than it would be to park in the city). But I find it's actually more reliable and consistent than driving would be. When I leave my office, I know pretty assuredly which train I'll make, barring rare subway delays, and Metro-North's on-time performance (defined as within six minutes of schedule) is around 95%. Traffic conditions seem to vary more widely. I do sometimes call for a car service home when it's very late at night and the roads are clear, which can shave a half-hour or more off my commute, but by and large, mass transit is the way to go. And I know one guy, a big-time lawyer who's been commuting solo in his Audi A8L, who plans to switch to the train because he's sick of being such a polluter.

For local errands, mass transit in Westchester makes no sense at all, though. No one I know takes the bus with any regularity, if at all. Still, overall, I think public policy should further encourage the use of mass transit in situations where it makes sense (and should expand those situations as feasible).

Posted by John E. | April 2, 2008 6:12 PM

Mixner,

First, you write:

"As I said, even in Manhattan, people who can afford it use taxis and car services rather than the subway or buses. For the vast majority of journeys, cars are just a much better option."

None of that is proof--that is just a bunch of unsupported assertions on your part.

Second, being carless may be Steve's personal goal, but rendering the people who use public transit carless isn't a necessary goal of a public transit system. Again, we already know that many people both own cars and regularly use various modes of public transit.

Third, you write:

"For the vast majority of journeys in urban and suburban areas, cars are a far more convenient, far more flexible, far more attractive method of transportation than public transit. This includes the vast majority of daily commutes between home and workplace. That's the fundamental reality you're ignoring."

If that is a fundamental reality, you should have no problem proving it (and again, your personal assertions aren't proof). So, prove it.

"They'll be zipping along roads and highways in their privately-owned, fuel-cell-powered automatic cars. That's the future of urban and suburban transportation, not your collectivist vision."

So do airlines have any place in your vision of the future? Or are those "collectivist" too?

The fact is that Americans are as reasonable as any other people, and they will use whatever reasonable transportation options are available--as they always have. For some transportation tasks, cars are indeed likely to remain the most reasonable option for the conceivable future. For other transportation tasks, cars are already not the most reasonable option, and Americans are unlikely to insist on using cars if there is a more reasonable option available--as in fact many Americans prove every day.

So, your entire argument depends on the bare assertion that public transit fundamentally cannot be a reasonable option for any significant urban and suburban transportation needs, despite the fact that public transit is already regulary serving many Americans in those ways, including many Americans who own cars.

Well, once again, if all that is really fundamentally true (despite the daily counterexamples), then it shouldn't be a problem for you to prove it. So get to the proving already.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 6:16 PM

Of course, even in Manhattan, cars are overwhelmingly the preferred form of transportation. The subway and buses are for people who can't afford cabs and car services. And the rich have their own cars and drivers. Even in Manhattan, people use mass transit because they have to, not because they like it better than using a car.

False.

Folks in Manhattan at all earning levels do use the subways, to the tune of millions of people getting on and off the island a day. They're faster than cars (whether private or cab). They also take cabs when it's the right option, but then you're stuck in traffic. They also ride bikes, frequently the fastest option of the three.

Taking your own car, if you're dumb enough to have one on Manhattan, is the least desirable mode of transport for getting anywhere accessible by other means.

Posted by chiggins | April 2, 2008 6:22 PM

Prove that mass transit cannot be an effective commuting option for residential neighborhoods where the densities are consistent with 2000 sq. ft. detached homes that also have yards and garages.

I'm not sure why you're asking me to prove a claim I never made. I said: "Without a really high population density, the idea that mass transit can effectively replace more than a small fraction of car journeys is absurd."

Prove that most people will not use reasonable mass transit options when they are available.

The fact that they don't. Even where people today have the option of using a bus or a train to go to work or shopping or entertainment, they usually drive instead. Only for trips where mass transit is clearly more attractive than driving do people use it, like rush-hour commutes from the New York suburbs into central Manhattan. Only a tiny fraction of all urban and suburban trips in America meet that condition, or ever will meet it. As I said, the overwhelmingly dominant trend of the last fifty years has been the movement of residents, businesses and workplaces out of the cities and into the suburbs. There is no sign this trend will end, let alone reverse. Americans and American corporations are moving away from the dilapidated, densely-populated cities of the northeast and into the sprawling sun-belt suburbs and exurbs of the south and west--Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 6:23 PM

Folks in Manhattan at all earning levels do use the subways, to the tune of millions of people getting on and off the island a day. They're faster than cars (whether private or cab). They also take cabs when it's the right option, but then you're stuck in traffic. They also ride bikes, frequently the fastest option of the three.

You missed the point. Yes, some people at all earning levels in Manhattan sometimes use the subway and buses, but in general subway and bus riders are lower-income people. Middle class and rich people are much more likely to use cabs and car services, because they're much more convenient, even in Manhattan.

And the subway is faster than a cab or car only for certain kinds of trip, not for most trips. Unless your start and end points are right next to a subway station, and you're travelling around rush hour, and you don't have to wait long for the train, a cab will almost always be faster than using the subway.

Taking your own car, if you're dumb enough to have one on Manhattan, is the least desirable mode of transport for getting anywhere accessible by other means.

Yeah, that must be why Wall Street bankers usually ride the bus or the subway rather than taking cabs or cars. Have you ever even been to the city?

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 6:39 PM

Mixner also doesn't seem to understand the concept of change at the margins. Just because *most* people would continue to use cars doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to encourage *some* additional people to take public transit.

But the proposal was not merely to "encourage" greater use of public transit, but a massive diversion of federal spending from highways to public transit. That's the proposal you need to justify with a clear and compelling cost-benefit analysis. No one has even made a serious attempt to do so. And politically, I think the proposal is laughable.

I doubt there will ever be another major rail project in the United States. Long-distance passenger rail has been dying for decades. The few parts of the country where heavy-rail commuter service makes sense already have it. Urban light-rail might make sense in a few cities, but I think most such systems are a boondoggle--the costs far outweigh the benefits. There will never be another new subway system in America, just modest expansions of the existing ones, if that. About the only significant expansion of public transit that might make sense is more buses.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 7:05 PM

DTM,

So do airlines have any place in your vision of the future? Or are those "collectivist" too?

Personal aircraft are not yet economically/technologically feasible for the typical American, and won't be for the foreseeable future. So airlines will continue to dominate air travel. But the use of private aircraft by the wealthy has grown dramatically in recent decades, thanks to declining costs, the growth of the charter business, and innovations like fractional ownership. I expect that trend to continue. And the new generation of cheap small jets like the Eclipse 500 may greatly reduce the cost of air taxi services, making them affordable for routine business and personal travel for upper-middle-income Americans, as James Fallows has described.

So no, I don't expect airlines to go away any time soon. But the trend in air transportation is definitely in the direction of more private/individualized journeys. And eventually the mass-market "flying car" may become a reality. But long before that, we'll have automated, driverless, "clean"-powered private cars that will be able to make much more efficient use of existing roads and highways than today's vehicles. That'll be another nail in the coffin of public transit, especially rail.

Posted by Mixner | April 2, 2008 7:28 PM

Mixner-

Drivers do NOT pay the full costs of highway use. Congestion costs alone were estimated at $63 billion in 2003. The GAO published a report in 2006 talking about a massive expansion of tolling to pay for expansion, but also pointing out that more roads won't solve congestion.

That is the inevitable result of 60 or more years of funding highways at 40 or more times the level of public transportation. There is just no reason to believe that that is the correct ratio, and lots of reasons to believe it isn't. I'm sure there are quantitative studies to prove it, but it just doesn't pass a laugh test.

We need to begin to correct this situation. We need more public transportation. Maybe you don't like to ride it, or only poor people take the subway. It's kind of irrelevant. The system we have is economically inefficient. It needs to be fixed.

50% of federal highway funds are spent on "capital projects" (i.e., expansion, not maintenance), and a "massive diversion" of a good portion into transit projects would be an excellent start.

Posted by jack lecou | April 2, 2008 7:59 PM

Oh, bite me.

Only if you're made of sugar.

The issue is not that strangers are threatening weirdos -- it's that strangers by definition are not your coworkers, not your family, not your friends -- i.e. the time you spend in their company is completely unproductive.

I read and watch movies, both of which are very stimulating and productive. What productive things can somebody do while sitting in traffic in a car? How about nothing?

P.S. I already spend enough time with my co-workers at work.

Posted by Mike E. | April 2, 2008 8:06 PM

Mixner,

You are still just asserting things:

"Without a really high population density, the idea that mass transit can effectively replace more than a small fraction of car journeys is absurd."

Prove it.

"Even where people today have the option of using a bus or a train to go to work or shopping or entertainment, they usually drive instead."

Prove it.

"Only for trips where mass transit is clearly more attractive than driving do people use it, like rush-hour commutes from the New York suburbs into central Manhattan. Only a tiny fraction of all urban and suburban trips in America meet that condition, or ever will meet it."

Prove it.

"Middle class and rich people are much more likely to use cabs and car services, because they're much more convenient, even in Manhattan."

Prove it.

"Urban light-rail might make sense in a few cities, but I think most such systems are a boondoggle--the costs far outweigh the benefits."

Prove it.

By the way, I've notice you are starting to backpeddle, and are now admitting there are indeed several circumstances in which public transit is a more reasonable option. I suspect that is because you are realizing the fact that each day people walk by their cars and take public transit to work kinda makes that obvious.

But you are now basically claiming the current public transit systems are perfectly adequate to meet all the potential demand there is now or will ever be.

Well, prove it.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 9:11 PM

It only "makes sense" for people who can't afford, or are otherwise unable to use, a car. Which is very few people.

How about the young, the elderly (a growing segment), and the disabled? Plus, of course, the poor. It's not a majority, but it's a fairly significant fraction of the population. What's your advice for them?

Plus, it makes sense for a number of urban commuters, as evidenced by the fact that a significant number of urban commuters who aren't poor, young, elderly, or disabled choose to use mass transit. Or do all those people (like me) just not count in your book?

Look, I *love* driving. I drive long distances for pleasure, to blow off steam. But I don't like being behind the wheel when I'm stuck in rush-hour traffic. Living and working in transit-accessible areas is a big plus for me, and a growing number of other Angelenos.

[On light rail lines]Again, unless the start and end points of your journey are conveniently located near a station
True, but guess what? Land use and transportation planning are closely entwined these days. Much of the growth in Southern California, for example, is being planned near transit stations, and recent years have seen more dense development being built near (and sometimes directly over) rail stations. And they're not having any trouble selling these residences.

They'll be zipping along roads and highways in their privately-owned, fuel-cell-powered automatic cars.
And you're accusing rail advocates of having faith in changing the status quo? Be sure to let us know when the technology for cars that zip along highways automatically actually exists.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 2, 2008 9:57 PM

Obviously none of this will matter when we are all flying around with our cold-fusion-powered personal jet packs.

By the way, as I noted above, cars might benefit from automation (and alternative fuel engines), but rapid bus systems could benefit as much or more from such technologies. Again, some people obviously have a problem grasping that public transit technology has progressed, and will continue to progress, beyond what they may be seeing in their community today.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 10:49 PM

Shorter Mixner: "if humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? See!"

There is no sign this trend will end, let alone reverse. Americans and American corporations are moving away from the dilapidated, densely-populated cities of the northeast and into the sprawling sun-belt suburbs and exurbs of the south and west--Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc.

And will be fucked when the water runs dry. Unless you're going to come up with a process that extracts it from the bullshit you spout. Quite remarkable for a glibertarian, though, to project so absolutely from his own closed mind. I suppose he's waiting for the time when he can upload it into a cyberskeleton and be an immortal uberbeing along with Glenn Reynolds.

For local errands, mass transit in Westchester makes no sense at all, though. No one I know takes the bus with any regularity, if at all.

This actually extends into car options. The GOP laughed at the Smart car in Congress, but the idea of a 'shopper' car is well-established in Europe. And the Smart's not even a great example here: the Honda Fit is selling for above sticker price, because it taps into demand. If you want to haul shit, rent a van or a pickup for a weekend. If you want to drive cross-country, rent a Mustang convertible.

And I still think Mixner's a silly little boy in his early twenties.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 2, 2008 11:56 PM

There is no sign this trend will end, let alone reverse. Americans and American corporations are moving away from the dilapidated, densely-populated cities of the northeast and into the sprawling sun-belt suburbs and exurbs of the south and west--Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc.

And will be fucked when the water runs dry.

Amen. And of course it's not exactly correct to say that people are moving away from the (dilapidated!) NE. The country is just, you know, growing.

Which makes one sort of wonder. If the sunbelt does somehow figure out the water problem, then it keeps growing. What do you do when there're 9 million people in Phoenix? Build wall to wall freeway offramps? Start migrating to the up-and-coming "Yukon Belt"? Maybe somebody ought to start thinking about putting in a couple subway lines and some trolleys, no?

Mixner's banking a whole lot on the solar-powered flying car plan.

Posted by jack lecou | April 3, 2008 1:15 AM

Incidentally, I ignored the Sun Belt comment because it is largely irrelevant: you can plan new communities, and indeed new suburban communities, to make use of public transit. In fact, ironically given Mixner's other comments, Phoenix is scheduled to open this year the first segment of a brand new light rail system. And aside from the public transit point, there are some interesting things going on in some of these Sun Belt economies now that the housing bubble has popped (not interesting in the good way), so I wouldn't count on some of those trends remaining unchanged.

As for cars as a complement to public transit, it turns out that carsharing is a booming industry (see, for example, the rapid expansion of Zipcar), and studies indicate carsharing does indeed work best in areas with a lot of public transit. That makes sense, of course: if you don't need a car for your daily commute, just occasional errands and trips, then the carsharing model starts to look pretty attractive. Incidentally, this is yet another area in which technology is improving the prospects of public transit, because things like wireless technology have helped carsharing decentralize and become more on-demand, thereby becoming a lot more convenient and flexible, all of which indirectly makes public transit more attractive as well.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 1:33 AM

I read and watch movies, both of which are very stimulating and productive.

Good lord, you're obtuse. The point is not that it's *impossible* to find something to do with the time you spend on the bus. The point is that some people would prefer to use that time for *something else*, like spending time with kids/spouse/working/sleeping in. Driving sometimes gives you those options. Riding the bus takes them away.

What productive things can somebody do while sitting in traffic in a car? How about nothing?

Which I acknowledged in my very next sentence. The point is that if driving is *faster* (which the original commenter noted is often the case), then there's *less* time spent commuting and more leftover time to do the things you'd prefer to be doing.

I like public transport. I like reading. But I'm not so self-centered as to claim that these are always the optimal commuting options for all people. Commuting by public transport can be very alienating, and again, not because strangers are threatening weirdos (more of your obtuseness) but because it's time not spent with people you care about.

Posted by Ryan | April 3, 2008 12:07 PM

Ryan,

I don't disagree with most of your post, but I just wanted to note again that some bus services can actually take less time than driving.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 12:22 PM

Agreed, DTM. I said "often" and "sometimes", not 'always', and as you note, the reverse is often true as well. The relative times involved are one of the several factors people consider when choosing their commuting method. No one method is always best for all people, and even if some of the public-policy changes being proposed here (many of which I approve) are enacted, that will continue to be the case.

Posted by Ryan | April 3, 2008 1:31 PM

But I'm not so self-centered as to claim that these are always the optimal commuting options for all people.

OK, I agree with you. There are ideologists on both sides, though, who will argue that (on one side) public transit is a complete waste or (on the other side) that it's every right-thinking citizen's duty to go "car-free" almost regardless of their personal situation.

Currently mass transit works for some in certain situations but not in others. Where people like Mixner are mistaken is in thinking that the existing ratio is essentially immutable, that people who use cars today could never be convinced to do otherwise, regardless of improvements in service, or that doing so would require some kind of draconian redistribution of funds contrary to the will of the people.

On the contrary, there are numerous examples of land use planning and transportation planning working together to accommodate growth and make transit more feasible for more people, and the public has supported many of these transit propositions. Plus, the Mixner p-o-v fails to recognize that the current situation didn't come to be without the influence of subsidies and regulations.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 3, 2008 3:12 PM

Adam-

While it's probably out there somewhere, I haven't really seen any signs of the self-righteous-hippie dynamic here. Which leaves Mixner railing against pretty much nothing.

Bottom line: There are millions and millions of people out there stuck in traffic for a couple hours a day who don't want to be. We know we can do things about that: rethinking zoning, building up transit, pricing congestion. This will give more people the options of living closer, taking trains, and driving on faster, less congested roads.

Or there's Mixner's flying-car plan.

Posted by jack lecou | April 3, 2008 4:08 PM

While it's probably out there somewhere, I haven't really seen any signs of the self-righteous-hippie dynamic here.

True. You can find it over here:
http://www.carbusters.org/

They used to have a discussion forum that was pretty lively until it got taken over by spammers; they seem to have eliminated the forum now.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 3, 2008 10:20 PM

Well, I'm a native New Yorker, but I've also lived in LA, Vermont, San Francisco, and Seattle. I've owned a total of 4 cars in my life, two toyotas and two saabs, and I've ridden a bike since I was 4, including 5 years as a bike messenger in the 1980's.


I can understand some peoples feelings about the subway. Back in the '70's and '80's, when NYC basically let the subways rot, they were pretty scary sometimes. I'll never forget the "Magical Mystery Trains" of the '70's, where you'd get on the lexington at boro hall in Brooklyn, ride halfway under the river, stop for half an hour, go backwards to where you got on, the doors wouldn't open, and then you'd be switched to the 7th avenue line and discharged at South Ferry without any explanation, miles from your destination, and an hour behind schedule.


That hasn't happened since about 1990. The subways today are fast, dependable, and cheap. $75 a month gets me an unlimited ride metrocard that lets me get on and off all buses & trains as much as I want for 30 days. Doing my weekly grocery shopping, I'll hit Commodities in the East Village, hop the 1st Ave. Bus to the Retail Market on Essex st & delancy, then get back on the bus to chinatown, and get my spices & housewares, and finally get the f train home to Sheepshead bay, about 10 miles from the East Village. Elapsed time, about 1.5 hours.total transportation cost: about $1.25. I also get to read while I ride. While waiting for the train, or riding it, I often run into friends I haven't seen in ages.


Then, there's the bike. When the weathers nice and I don't have lot to carry (most days) I can make it from my place to my office in tribeca in about 45 minutes: Up the tree-lined streets through Kensington to Prospect Park, through the park to Union Street, across Union and through gorgeous Park Slope and Boerum Hill to Clinton Street, and then through Carrol Gardens, Cobble Hill, and Brooklyn Heights to the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan. If I want a cup of coffee, or some stuff to eat at work, I grap an Espresso from a REAL italian cafe in Carrol Gardens (where the made-guy's mom's live), and a few cannoli's for later. My hair looks great ( and the girls whhere I work tell me so) from the wind blowing through it, so my $15 dollar haircut looks like some fancy stylist spent an hour on it. I have thigh muscles like an olympic skier, and abs like a yogi, and i look about 10 years younger than my 47 years from the blood circulation and muscle tone that biking an average of 350 miles a week gives you. My BFI is 7% and my BMI is 21. I eat like a pig, but I live like a wolf, so I stay lean, healthy, and ripped, and I sleep like a baby a solid 8 hours a day, but don't have any issues with getting by on six.


When I lived in Vermont, I biked about 45 miles a day until the snow started to come down. Then I had to drive. Vermont was joy until car season began, but then that 20 mile drive into Montpelier became a form of torture. In the summer it had been an adventure, and my daily workout.


In LA, well, I lived in a house with 2 porducers, an actress, a director, a writer and me (FX, writing, and co-producing.) We were in Old Hollywood, in a vast deco mansion, originally owned by Rudolf Valentino. The supermarket was 4 blocks away, but all my roomies drove to it. They thought I was insane for walking. There was a cafe and restaurant up the block from the supermarket, and bookstore, but anywhere else was a minimum half hour drive, and in a given day, doing meetings, eating, the obligatory LA parties (which is where you get your work), we booked a good 100 miles on the road. The drive to the studio on the 101 was a good half hour of sheer terror, especially during El Nino, since angelinos don't slow down in the rain, but scream along at 70, unaware that they're hydroplaning. I spent about $100 dollars a week keeping gas in my saab, which got about 32 mpg, and another 500 per quarter on maintenance. At the time I was in LA, btw, the subway hadn't been built yet. My health suffered, because with all that driving, there was no time for excercise, and no excercise built-in to the routine. I gained weight, my stamina declined, and my mood declined.


I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Buses and Trains aren't the only alternative here, but they're better than cars, and offer benefits that aren't obvious to the uninitiated. Mass transit that's designed to do more than just shift you from the bedroom to the office is the stuff that works, and it has hidden benfits, like satisfying the nomadic hunter-gatherer need to roam and forage. Bike are the best solution, though, and trains that allow you to take a bike along are the very best solution.


The bloated suv is the foundation of the "super-size me" way of life. The Bike is the opposite. The train is the compromise.

Posted by Joshua Whalen | April 4, 2008 5:18 AM

Well, I'm a native New Yorker, but I've also lived in LA, Vermont, San Francisco, and Seattle. I've owned a total of 4 cars in my life, two toyotas and two saabs, and I've ridden a bike since I was 4, including 5 years as a bike messenger in the 1980's.


I can understand some peoples feelings about the subway. Back in the '70's and '80's, when NYC basically let the subways rot, they were pretty scary sometimes. I'll never forget the "Magical Mystery Trains" of the '70's, where you'd get on the lexington at boro hall in Brooklyn, ride halfway under the river, stop for half an hour, go backwards to where you got on, the doors wouldn't open, and then you'd be switched to the 7th avenue line and discharged at South Ferry without any explanation, miles from your destination, and an hour behind schedule.


That hasn't happened since about 1990. The subways today are fast, dependable, and cheap. $75 a month gets me an unlimited ride metrocard that lets me get on and off all buses & trains as much as I want for 30 days. Doing my weekly grocery shopping, I'll hit Commodities in the East Village, hop the 1st Ave. Bus to the Retail Market on Essex st & delancy, then get back on the bus to chinatown, and get my spices & housewares, and finally get the f train home to Sheepshead bay, about 10 miles from the East Village. Elapsed time, about 1.5 hours.total transportation cost: about $1.25. I also get to read while I ride. While waiting for the train, or riding it, I often run into friends I haven't seen in ages.


Then, there's the bike. When the weathers nice and I don't have lot to carry (most days) I can make it from my place to my office in tribeca in about 45 minutes: Up the tree-lined streets through Kensington to Prospect Park, through the park to Union Street, across Union and through gorgeous Park Slope and Boerum Hill to Clinton Street, and then through Carrol Gardens, Cobble Hill, and Brooklyn Heights to the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan. If I want a cup of coffee, or some stuff to eat at work, I grap an Espresso from a REAL italian cafe in Carrol Gardens (where the made-guy's mom's live), and a few cannoli's for later. My hair looks great ( and the girls whhere I work tell me so) from the wind blowing through it, so my $15 dollar haircut looks like some fancy stylist spent an hour on it. I have thigh muscles like an olympic skier, and abs like a yogi, and i look about 10 years younger than my 47 years from the blood circulation and muscle tone that biking an average of 350 miles a week gives you. My BFI is 7% and my BMI is 21. I eat like a pig, but I live like a wolf, so I stay lean, healthy, and ripped, and I sleep like a baby a solid 8 hours a day, but don't have any issues with getting by on six.


When I lived in Vermont, I biked about 45 miles a day until the snow started to come down. Then I had to drive. Vermont was joy until car season began, but then that 20 mile drive into Montpelier became a form of torture. In the summer it had been an adventure, and my daily workout.


In LA, well, I lived in a house with 2 porducers, an actress, a director, a writer and me (FX, writing, and co-producing.) We were in Old Hollywood, in a vast deco mansion, originally owned by Rudolf Valentino. The supermarket was 4 blocks away, but all my roomies drove to it. They thought I was insane for walking. There was a cafe and restaurant up the block from the supermarket, and bookstore, but anywhere else was a minimum half hour drive, and in a given day, doing meetings, eating, the obligatory LA parties (which is where you get your work), we booked a good 100 miles on the road. The drive to the studio on the 101 was a good half hour of sheer terror, especially during El Nino, since angelinos don't slow down in the rain, but scream along at 70, unaware that they're hydroplaning. I spent about $100 dollars a week keeping gas in my saab, which got about 32 mpg, and another 500 per quarter on maintenance. At the time I was in LA, btw, the subway hadn't been built yet. My health suffered, because with all that driving, there was no time for excercise, and no excercise built-in to the routine. I gained weight, my stamina declined, and my mood declined.


I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Buses and Trains aren't the only alternative here, but they're better than cars, and offer benefits that aren't obvious to the uninitiated. Mass transit that's designed to do more than just shift you from the bedroom to the office is the stuff that works, and it has hidden benfits, like satisfying the nomadic hunter-gatherer need to roam and forage. Bike are the best solution, though, and trains that allow you to take a bike along are the very best solution.


The bloated suv is the foundation of the "super-size me" way of life. The Bike is the opposite. The train is the compromise.

Posted by Joshua Whalen | April 4, 2008 5:19 AM

Well, I'm a native New Yorker, but I've also lived in LA, Vermont, San Francisco, and Seattle. I've owned a total of 4 cars in my life, two toyotas and two saabs, and I've ridden a bike since I was 4, including 5 years as a bike messenger in the 1980's.


I can understand some peoples feelings about the subway. Back in the '70's and '80's, when NYC basically let the subways rot, they were pretty scary sometimes. I'll never forget the "Magical Mystery Trains" of the '70's, where you'd get on the lexington at boro hall in Brooklyn, ride halfway under the river, stop for half an hour, go backwards to where you got on, the doors wouldn't open, and then you'd be switched to the 7th avenue line and discharged at South Ferry without any explanation, miles from your destination, and an hour behind schedule.


That hasn't happened since about 1990. The subways today are fast, dependable, and cheap. $75 a month gets me an unlimited ride metrocard that lets me get on and off all buses & trains as much as I want for 30 days. Doing my weekly grocery shopping, I'll hit Commodities in the East Village, hop the 1st Ave. Bus to the Retail Market on Essex st & delancy, then get back on the bus to chinatown, and get my spices & housewares, and finally get the f train home to Sheepshead bay, about 10 miles from the East Village. Elapsed time, about 1.5 hours.total transportation cost: about $1.25. I also get to read while I ride. While waiting for the train, or riding it, I often run into friends I haven't seen in ages.


Then, there's the bike. When the weathers nice and I don't have lot to carry (most days) I can make it from my place to my office in tribeca in about 45 minutes: Up the tree-lined streets through Kensington to Prospect Park, through the park to Union Street, across Union and through gorgeous Park Slope and Boerum Hill to Clinton Street, and then through Carrol Gardens, Cobble Hill, and Brooklyn Heights to the Brooklyn Bridge and Manhattan. If I want a cup of coffee, or some stuff to eat at work, I grap an Espresso from a REAL italian cafe in Carrol Gardens (where the made-guy's mom's live), and a few cannoli's for later. My hair looks great ( and the girls whhere I work tell me so) from the wind blowing through it, so my $15 dollar haircut looks like some fancy stylist spent an hour on it. I have thigh muscles like an olympic skier, and abs like a yogi, and i look about 10 years younger than my 47 years from the blood circulation and muscle tone that biking an average of 350 miles a week gives you. My BFI is 7% and my BMI is 21. I eat like a pig, but I live like a wolf, so I stay lean, healthy, and ripped, and I sleep like a baby a solid 8 hours a day, but don't have any issues with getting by on six.


When I lived in Vermont, I biked about 45 miles a day until the snow started to come down. Then I had to drive. Vermont was joy until car season began, but then that 20 mile drive into Montpelier became a form of torture. In the summer it had been an adventure, and my daily workout.


In LA, well, I lived in a house with 2 porducers, an actress, a director, a writer and me (FX, writing, and co-producing.) We were in Old Hollywood, in a vast deco mansion, originally owned by Rudolf Valentino. The supermarket was 4 blocks away, but all my roomies drove to it. They thought I was insane for walking. There was a cafe and restaurant up the block from the supermarket, and bookstore, but anywhere else was a minimum half hour drive, and in a given day, doing meetings, eating, the obligatory LA parties (which is where you get your work), we booked a good 100 miles on the road. The drive to the studio on the 101 was a good half hour of sheer terror, especially during El Nino, since angelinos don't slow down in the rain, but scream along at 70, unaware that they're hydroplaning. I spent about $100 dollars a week keeping gas in my saab, which got about 32 mpg, and another 500 per quarter on maintenance. At the time I was in LA, btw, the subway hadn't been built yet. My health suffered, because with all that driving, there was no time for excercise, and no excercise built-in to the routine. I gained weight, my stamina declined, and my mood declined.


I guess what I'm trying to get at is that Buses and Trains aren't the only alternative here, but they're better than cars, and offer benefits that aren't obvious to the uninitiated. Mass transit that's designed to do more than just shift you from the bedroom to the office is the stuff that works, and it has hidden benfits, like satisfying the nomadic hunter-gatherer need to roam and forage. Bike are the best solution, though, and trains that allow you to take a bike along are the very best solution.


The bloated suv is the foundation of the "super-size me" way of life. The Bike is the opposite. The train is the compromise.

Posted by Joshua Whalen | April 4, 2008 5:19 AM