Infrastructure

Building a really good mass transit system is terrifyingly expensive. And yet, cities that have such systems can derive huge benefits from them. The construction of Metro laid the groundwork for Washington, DC's current renaissance and cities like New York and London continue to reap enormous benefits from transit infrastructure investments that were initiated far, far in the past. Politicians, however, don't get appointed to 50 year terms that allow them to take credit for the long-term benefits of their decision to spend big money up front in the short run.

Consequently, there's been a lot of discussion recently in the political world of tweaking the way we finance infrastructure so as to make long-term investments more viable in budgetary terms. Rob Goodspeed has a good rundown of the current state of play.

Comments

"Politicians, however, don't get appointed to 50 year terms that allow them to take credit for the long-term benefits of their decision to spend big money up front in the short run."

You, Matt, have clearly never been to Chicago.

Hilariously, in a nice shot to across the bow of your cherry-picking point, we've had like 6 major transit disasters in the last 3 months.

Posted by Greg | June 7, 2008 3:33 PM

I've spent the past 10 years of my life within walking distance of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. It's a model of efficiency. The disposable income has allowed me to purchase shiny new iPhones, flat screens, expensive nights out, vacations, etc.

I wonder when people will begin to see these investments as beneficial tradeoffs for quality of life, as I do.

Posted by Al | June 7, 2008 3:36 PM

I hope you're not insinuating that DC has a "really good" system. If you are, though, I suggest you ride with me to work in the morning.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 7, 2008 4:07 PM

"renaissance" ???

Let's have a look here, shall we:

Population:

1980: 638,333

1990: 607,000

2000: 572,059

2003 estimate: 563,384

I guess "renaissance" means "I like it here, so it must be good". The schools still suck, the violent crime level is still astonishing, people are still fleeing for the suburbs - and the metro system works for the relatively small number of people who want to head into the downtown area. Whenever I have to visit a business in Northern VA, metro is a non-option or a highly useless one.

As to those great metro systems in NY, and London, and Boston: I'll note with amusement that they were originally built as businesses, not as government projects. That might have something to do with their general utility.

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 4:26 PM

And James Robertson wins for the single least-informed comment here this week. Next time, consider using google first.

(For the lazy people in the audience: the New York City subways were, in fact, government projects.)

Posted by Doctor Memory | June 7, 2008 4:41 PM

Fine, I was wrong about the NY subway. The greater point about the state of DC is accurate. The city is not in a "rennaissance", and the metro system works well only for the relatively small number of people heading downtown.

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 4:45 PM

And yet, cities that have such systems can derive huge benefits from them. The construction of Metro laid the groundwork for Washington, DC's current renaissance and cities like New York and London continue to reap enormous benefits from transit infrastructure investments that were initiated far, far in the past.

Subways are hugely expensive and disruptive to build and make sense only in a few densely-populated cities. Urban rail projects of all kinds almost always cost far more than projected. The actual cost of the Washington Metro was almost twice the projected cost. Planning, approval, and construction can take decades. Even the most cost-effective systems require decades of operation to yield benefits commensurate with their startup costs. Any benefits urban rail systems may provide today in terms of reducing pollution, congestion and energy consumption are likely to be largely eliminated by upcoming advances in motor vehicle propulsion technology and automation. The mass transit of 2050 will not be rail, it will be zero-pollution, fuel cell-powered, driverless automated buses and taxis travelling on roads and highways.

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 4:57 PM

It seems the two new expansions to the DC Metro systems (the Dulles extension and the Purple Line) will be above ground because putting them below ground is "prohibitively expensive". I can't help but notice that a good chunk of the DC Metro system is below ground. So at some point in the past the costs were not prohibitive.

Does anyone know what changed? Does it cost more to bury a train these days? Or are we just not willing to spend as much as we were forty years ago?

Posted by AGT | June 7, 2008 5:00 PM

I suspect that the cost of acquiring the rights of way have gotten progressively more expensive as the land has gotten to be more scarce (i.e., more built up)

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 5:07 PM

I think we should use the same sort of accounting for wars. After all, the war spending on Iraq and Afghanistan will have benefits for years, long after the current politicians are gone.

Posted by Thomas | June 7, 2008 5:07 PM

AGT,

The cost of the land above the tunnels has skyrocketed when compared to the cost 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. So, the price of using the land has gone up, either from RE prices or opposition to the evils of construction (ripping up streets, noise pollution , etc.).

Recall that when the NY and London subways were installed, the land wasn't worth as much, and, hell, everything was filthy, noisy and disgusting. NY, for example, had hundreds of thousands or even millions of horses, and both cities relied heavily on coal fired plants.

Finally, both were still centers of manufacturing, outside of certain richer areas, so the material disruption of construction didn't matter so much to people then. Meanwhile, Washington's lines are orders of magnitude smaller than London's or NY's, and so resulted in a lot less destruction. They were, furthermore, installed during the early 70s, one of the few times gas prices were prohibitively high to American consumers.

Posted by Greg | June 7, 2008 5:12 PM

"...cities like New York and London continue to reap enormous benefits from transit infrastructure investments that were initiated far, far in the past..."

In the cities like New York, London and Tokyo where the subways are integral to life, they were laid down before the population had automobiles. City growth was then structurally and institutionally aligned along the subway lines.

IOW, these cities aren't just benefitting from generic investment in transit in a way that any other city can match today -- these cities were physically built, structured along and upon those lines. That's why subways are integral to them today.

But in cities that grew after the arrival of the automobile, growth has been across planes -- since autos can travel point-to-point across the dry surface of the earth.

The idea that these cities will somehow physically restructure themselves along newly built transit lines to match the situation in London, NYC or Tokyo, so subway transport will be as useful and important to them, is silly, as it is a mere superficial intellectual misapprehension.

But when huge amounts of tax money that could be spent on actually productive things get thrown behind this niave misbelief, we have a problem.

Going forward, a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the long-term effects of new city transit lines that politicians will heed and follow is devoutly to be desired --- it would end huge amount of waste in these investments.

BTW, the original pre-auto subways of NYC etc, were explicitly desinged to promote urban sprawl -- e.g., to allow people to still work in lower Manhattan while getting their homes out of the hugely overcrowded slums there, moving to the wilds of upper Manhattan and the Bronx.

And they were hugely effective at rapidly achieving urban sprawl. A great success story at that!

Posted by Jim Glass | June 7, 2008 5:14 PM

AGT,

It's lot cheaper to build at or above ground level in suburban areas with lower population densities and less development than in the inner city. That's why the below-ground portions of "subway" systems tend to be limited to inner city areas. Take a ride on any subway line from the city center to a terminus in the suburbs and you're likely to enter below ground and exit above ground.

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 5:19 PM

Re James Robertson

The Washington Metro System is now the second largest, in terms of ridership, in the country, exceeded only by New York City. Somebody is riding it.

Posted by SLC | June 7, 2008 5:41 PM

The DC metro system doesn't work well if you need to go to on of the many suburban located jobs in Northern VA. It works great if you want to head into DC proper. So sure - it works well for the smallish population of inside DC workers. It's an expensive boat anchor for the vast majority of people who work elsewhere in the greater DC area.

As well, Matt's point about a DC "renaissance" is just absurd. As I said above, high crime, bad schools, and a falling population point to something, but "renaissance" isn't it

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 5:51 PM

it works well for the smallish population of inside DC workers.

Which is, apparently, much larger than the population of metro riders on every other metro system in the USA, except for NYC.

The DC metro isn't perfect, and it was designed around the older hub-and-spoke model, but it's still an excellent system.

Posted by Tyro | June 7, 2008 5:57 PM

Fine, I was wrong about the NY subway.

No, you weren't.

And James Robertson wins for the single least-informed comment here this week. Next time, consider using google first. For the lazy people in the audience: the New York City subways were, in fact, government projects

People who don't understand a superficial reading of one sentence in Wikipedia really shouldn't throw such stones.

The original IRT and BMT subways were built on time and under budget as private businesses and operated profitably as such for about 40 years.

They were a "government project" in that the city government was desperately looking for a way to promote urban sprawl, to get the 3.5 million people crammed into Manhattan south of 14th Street out of there, so it was an organizational partner with the companies that supported them politically It also guaranteed the company's bonds that financed capital construction.

The companies paid every penny due on the bonds and a significant fee to the city, so the city made a profit. The city gov't was also happy because the completion of the subways resulted in the greatest sudden flood of urban sprawl in US history -- more than 2 million people left lower Manhattan for the wild empty uptown and Bronx.

But in later years a new generation of politicians hostile to the subway companies came to power. They price-fixed the fare at 5 cents for their own political benefit through years of inflation, then put mandates on the companies during the Depression that stopped them from responding to revenue losses -- depleting their profits.

The city govt then started building its own IND line expressly to break the "monopoly" of the private companies, closely paralleling existing lines instead of taking service to new areas.

Under city management the IND was a cost travesty, costing literally multiples in construction and wage cost compared to the privately run lines. Mayor LaGuardia then decided to bail out the IND by eliminating what he called "wasteful competition", and forced the private lines to sell out to the city (by assuring them they'd never make a profit again). He believed he could get the private-company managers to run the combined entity and cut the IND's costs.

The reverse happened, the political managers took over the entire system -- and in five years the operating results of the subways went from a profit (in today's money) of $270 million to a loss of $450 million. The city govt then tripled the fare to 15 cents.

By the late 1970s the city-run subways were in total collapse. The trains were garbage-strewn and graffiti covered wrecks (see the movies of the era). Break-downs were endemic, and cars literally came out of the repair shops in worse condition than they went in.

The State then took management of the subways away from the city and put it in a semi-governmental agency, the MTA. The result has been that service quality as been restored but cost in real terms has doubled, over a 35-year period in which all other transport costs have fallen.

OK, now "Doctor Memory" is himself a little better informed. And it's really the biggest, clearest, case-study example there is of the results of govt management of US urban transit.

Posted by Jim Glass | June 7, 2008 6:03 PM

Re James Robertson

The Washington Metro System caries more passengers then the Chicago system, even though Chicago has some 5 times the population of D.C.

Posted by SLC | June 7, 2008 6:09 PM

The idea that these cities will somehow physically restructure themselves along newly built transit lines to match the situation in London, NYC or Tokyo, so subway transport will be as useful and important to them, is silly, as it is a mere superficial intellectual misapprehension.

Let's consider the most recent expansions of London's rail system: the DLR, the Jubilee Line extension, and the current transformation of the East London line. In all of those cases, the areas of the city covered by the expansion underwent large-scale redevelopment in conjunction with the transport expansion. Those areas were hardly barren, even though they weren't on the Tube map: instead, east and south London were physically restructured to reflect the situation elsewhere in the city, and the restructuring will continue in preparation for the 2012 Olympics out in Stratford.

In the meantime, the silly glibertarian boy is going to pout and whine about why we should all wait for Jetson cars.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 7, 2008 6:13 PM

SLC,

Just one more example in a whole host of ways the Daley Elevated Sewage Line is a piece of shit.

Posted by Greg | June 7, 2008 6:14 PM

Here's the hot tips that various transit fans refuse to pick up on:

1) There's not an increase in jobs in center cities.

2) Crime - especially violent crime - is bad in many cities (DC being one of them). You won't see in migration given high rates of ugly crime

3) Urban schools suck. Suburban parents are not about to move into an area where educating their kids will be harder

Until those things get addressed, it doesn't really matter what you do or don't do with transit. The other question for Matt, and people on his side of the spectrum: after decades of rule by Democrats, why is it that urban areas have such horrible schools and such awful crime rates? And no, it's not poverty. People were way poorer during the depression, and crime rates were lower.

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 6:23 PM

The Washington Metro System caries more passengers then the Chicago system, even though Chicago has some 5 times the population of D.C.

Nothing brings out my inner pedant like misleading statements about demographics.

This comparison sited above doesn't really mean very much. Chicagoland's population as a whole is nearing the ten million mark, and the figure for the corresponding configuration of greater D.C is north of eight million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Combined_Statistical_Areas

Chicago's a larger metropolis than Washington, D.C., but not by very much, and I would expect the nation's capital to become the country's third largest urban center at some point in the not too distant future.

Posted by Jasper | June 7, 2008 6:32 PM

Re Greg

I haven't ridden on the Chicago subway/elevated system for some 20 years but it didn't seem so bad at that time. I rode it from O'Hair through downtown to the Illinois Transportation Building which is, as I recall, on the Forest Park branch of the blue line.

Re James Robertson

Mr. Robertson is apparently unaware of the widespread construction and gentrification going on in D.C., even in near Northeast and near Southeast. I suspect that Mr. Yglesias is, perhaps, more aware of this, being as how he lives in D.C. I also suspect that the crime reports are greatly exaggerated by the news media for the purpose of selling newspapers and attracting viewers to the evening TV news. There is plenty of crime in certain areas of Fairfax Co. (e.g. Hybla Valley) that doesn't make the news.

Posted by SLC | June 7, 2008 6:45 PM

Bob's Your Uncle in nc,

Let's consider the most recent expansions of London's rail system: the DLR, the Jubilee Line extension, and the current transformation of the East London line. In all of those cases, the areas of the city covered by the expansion underwent large-scale redevelopment in conjunction with the transport expansion.

Utterly irrelevant to Jim Glass's point. London was established long before the rise of the automobile and has very high population and development densities. The long-neglected Docklands area was a prime candidate for redevelopment and expanded transit due to its location. That obviously doesn't mean that building a light rail or subway system in a newer city with an established low-density, car-oriented structure is going to work. For at least fifty years, American cities and suburbs have been designed around the car. The vast majority of Americans live in such areas, not in areas that resemble the Docklands or the East End of London.

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 6:53 PM

Re Jasper

1. I was referring to the Cities of Washington, D. C. and Chicago. The City of Chicago has 5 times the population of Washington, D. C.

2. The combined statistical areas of Washington, include Baltimore, Winchester, parts of West Virginia, etc. These are hardly candidates for Washington Metro ridership.

Posted by SLC | June 7, 2008 7:15 PM

SLC,

We had a derailment on the Red Line five days ago, and the list grows longer.

In the last couple of years:

"On July 11, 2006, a Blue Line train derailed in the subway between the Clark/Lake and Grand stops, causing a smoky fire to break out. About 150 people were hospitalized, mostly for smoke inhalation.

"On Dec. 19, 2006, two cars of a four-car an Orange Line train headed for Midway Airport derailed near Roosevelt Road. No one was hospitalized, but 24 people were evacuated and eight were examined by paramedics."

[from http://cbs2chicago.com/local/red.line.derailment.2.739100.html]

And in the last two months,

"This past April 15, passengers self-evacuated when a Blue Line became stuck due to mechanical issues near the Clark/Lake stop, prompting the CTA to shut down power and bringing massive chaos. The derailment caused 1,500 commuters to be stuck in the subway, some for more than two hours. Seven people were hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.

"In addition to the major incidents, there was also a minor derailment on April 20, when a Red Line train was pulling out of the Howard Street terminal. No one was injured, but passengers had to leave the train."

What the article omits is that on May 28th we had a train derailment on the South Side, where a Green Line train derailed and almost fell off. IE. we had a major accident a WEEK before the most recent one.

Chicago's public transportation system is a mess. If anything the buses are even worse, since they've had accidents recently, they're never on time, they come in bunches, and they're run on redundant lines.

The thing about all this is that Daley and his creatures all think we're getting the Olympics. What's clear is that none of these assholes have ever taken the El to work.

Posted by Greg | June 7, 2008 7:19 PM

It's hard to ignore the fact that the fastest growing cities (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc) are attracting people who want large, cheap housing. That doesn't quite sit well with urban transit systems.

Posted by Thehova | June 7, 2008 9:02 PM

To the extent D.C. is experiencing any sort of "renaissance", (A dubious proposition, as has been pointed out.) it's because D.C. is capitol city of a federal government experiencing cancerous growth. The more of the nation's life blood that is diverted through Washington, the more gets fed into the local economy.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 7, 2008 9:06 PM

2) Crime - especially violent crime - is bad in many cities (DC being one of them). You won't see in migration given high rates of ugly crime

Crime can be bad in the suburbs too. And if you look at a crime map of a major city you'll notice that most of it clusters in certain neighborhoods (especially if you can somehow filter out domestic violence and date rape). Most cities have neighborhoods that are perfectly safe to live in, at least as much so as any suburb. Your point about the schools is probably the more telling one: people like me (just moved to Baltimore and will be living in the city) who have no kids can live in cities. People with kids have an extra hurdle to navigate.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 9:12 PM

The irony for me, JonF, (at age 21) is that my relatives in both the rich Republican suburbs of San Diego and the middling to poor suburbs of Chicago view my city (New York) as some festering pit of crime.

Despite the fact that Chicago and San Diego are, to my memory, much more dangerous. Especially Chicago, where I live now. AND, suburban CA and IL is definitely more crime ridden than Westchester.

Posted by Greg | June 7, 2008 9:18 PM

Ah, the silly glibertarian boy is too busy dreaming of cars that run on his own farts to bother dealing with my argument, which was to question Jim Glass's semi-strawman dismissal of the idea that 'cities will somehow physically restructure themselves along newly built transit lines'. Of course, if you are a silly glibertarian boy whose transport policy consists of raising the bar, you might feel smug if the restructuring doesn't deliver London-level density in 25 minutes, but that would miss the point.

(The McMansion model of residential development, after all, is not exactly built to last.)

But we can easily put aside his close-minded bullshit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 7, 2008 10:01 PM

> (For the lazy people in the audience: the
> New York City subways were, in fact, government
> projects.)

The New York and London subways both started out as private businesses - every single one of which went bankrupt and was taken over by a government entity (the London Underground was first purchased by the big New York subway magnates who then lost money on it just as they had at home). The Chicago El started out as private traction businesses, most of them owned in one way or another by Samuel Insull, not all of which went bankrupt until the Depression. IIRC the Chicago subways were government owned from the start.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 7, 2008 10:10 PM

"Building a really good mass transit system is terrifyingly expensive."

$180 billion would be a good start, no? That's the (latest) amount the antiwar Democratic congress just voted to continue the BushCo/AIPAC wars.

Our "2 party" system hard at work.

Posted by kafka | June 7, 2008 10:22 PM

Bob's Your Uncle in nc,

...to bother dealing with my argument...

You didn't really make an argument at all, bubble-and-squeak. You mentioned some recent development in London, which is utterly irrelevant to Jim Glass's point for the reason I explained.

(The McMansion model of residential development, after all, is not exactly built to last.)

(The "McMansion model" of residential development has been the prevailing model in the United States for at least half a century. It is likely to remain so as long as private motor vehicles are the dominant mode of transportation, as they are likely to be for the foreseeable future.)

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 10:28 PM

One need only look to Arlington and how creating a decent mass transit system can encourage wise development. Naysayers may not realize it, but if the federal government amped up its support of mass transit in cities, we will be able to reduce the 25 percent contribution of tailpipes to CO2 emissions in this country.

By the way, a McCain administration would continue the shitty policies on transit just as the Bush admin. At least Obama has a position on transit. Its one thing to talk about how you're for fighting global warming, and another thing to actually know what to do about it.

Posted by neb | June 7, 2008 10:37 PM

Naysayers may not realize it, but if the federal government amped up its support of mass transit in cities, we will be able to reduce the 25 percent contribution of tailpipes to CO2 emissions in this country.

There are obviously many ways of reducing the contribution of autos to CO2 emissions besides expanding mass transit. Mass transit comprises such a small share of the total number of trips that even doubling or tripling that share would have only a small impact on CO2 emissions. Alternative policies such as the promotion of telecommuting, carpooling or a switch to cleaner cars would likely produce a greater reduction in pollution at lower cost.

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 10:58 PM

"Mr. Robertson is apparently unaware of the widespread construction and gentrification going on in D.C., even in near Northeast and near Southeast. I suspect that Mr. Yglesias is, perhaps, more aware of this, being as how he lives in D.C. I also suspect that the crime reports are greatly exaggerated by the news media for the purpose of selling newspapers and attracting viewers to the evening TV news. There is plenty of crime in certain areas of Fairfax Co. (e.g. Hybla Valley) that doesn't make the news."

I'm well aware of that, just as I'm aware of the tiny cluster of upscale homes near the waterfront in downtown Baltimore. However, the murder rate in DC has been going back up in 2007 and 2008 - see the Washington Post.

The "checkpoint" policy the DC police just instituted is not something borne of a safer, calmer city.

And the schools? They're zoos in DC, zoos in Baltimore, and zoos in most large cities. There are very few cities in the US that a sane parent would move into right now, and that has an influence on transit policies. Build all the great metro systems you want - if the crime rate stays high, and the schools suck, you'll continue to see people flee the cities for the suburbs. Paying extra for gas is a lot better than dodging bullets.

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 11:12 PM

"Mr. Robertson is apparently unaware of the widespread construction and gentrification going on in D.C., even in near Northeast and near Southeast. I suspect that Mr. Yglesias is, perhaps, more aware of this, being as how he lives in D.C. I also suspect that the crime reports are greatly exaggerated by the news media for the purpose of selling newspapers and attracting viewers to the evening TV news. There is plenty of crime in certain areas of Fairfax Co. (e.g. Hybla Valley) that doesn't make the news."

I'm well aware of that, just as I'm aware of the tiny cluster of upscale homes near the waterfront in downtown Baltimore. However, the murder rate in DC has been going back up in 2007 and 2008 - see the Washington Post.

The "checkpoint" policy the DC police just instituted is not something borne of a safer, calmer city.

And the schools? They're zoos in DC, zoos in Baltimore, and zoos in most large cities. There are very few cities in the US that a sane parent would move into right now, and that has an influence on transit policies. Build all the great metro systems you want - if the crime rate stays high, and the schools suck, you'll continue to see people flee the cities for the suburbs. Paying extra for gas is a lot better than dodging bullets.

Posted by James Robertson | June 7, 2008 11:14 PM

IOW, these cities aren't just benefitting from generic investment in transit in a way that any other city can match today -- these cities were physically built, structured along and upon those lines.

Like Los Angeles was, for example, right?

1. I was referring to the Cities of Washington, D. C. and Chicago. The City of Chicago has 5 times the population of Washington, D. C.

2. The combined statistical areas of Washington, include Baltimore, Winchester, parts of West Virginia, etc. These are hardly candidates for Washington Metro ridership.

The populations within the actual city limits are just about the least relevant measure of city population, especially when
(A) The limits of Washington are artificially constrained by the boundaries of the District of Columbia, and
(B) Substantial portions of the Washington Metro system are outside the city limits.

Furthermore, to dismiss the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Washington without mentioning that the Chicago MSA includes some rather far-flung areas as well seems pretty disingenuous.

If you've got a measurement for how many people live within a certain distance of the respective mass transit systems of the two cities, that would be best; otherwise using Metro areas is a much better rough gauge of a city's size than the actual city limits. Otherwise you end up arguing that Virginia Beach is bigger than Miami, or that Indianapolis and San Francisco are comparable.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 7, 2008 11:34 PM

Mixner, I click on these posts to watch you rail against trains (hey! a pun!).

You're absolutely right when you say that most American cities for the last 50 years have been 'built around the car,' (and you're probably right to say that a majority seems to prefer this.)

But THAT'S the point. Oil was plentiful and cheap, and we built what we wanted. Those days are now over. Instead of wishing and hoping for an outcome (what children do), it's necessary to zone/build something that uses less oil.

You seem to have a lot of faith that some pieces of technology will emerge (fuel cells or hydrogen or whatever) that will allow us to continue living exactly how we've built (what a coincidence that would be.) Sorry, you'll never find that pony. Technology is not a substitute for energy, no matter how frequently you say it is.

The car-centered culture is going to die (or weaken considerably), to me, there's little point arguing. We can argue about the best manner to deal with this problem (regulatory, market-based, some mix, etc...) but to kick back and wait for the magic tech to appear will just drive our society off a cliff.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 12:56 AM

mike,

See my many comments above. Parents will gladly pay the premium to live in safe neighborhoods with good schools. There will be no return to urban areas (and thus, no return to mass transit) until or unless the crime and school problems get sorted out.

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 1:42 AM

James,

Many 'parents' will simply no longer be able to afford this lifestyle. Where do you think they will end up? Also, building passenger rail between mid-sized cities (like say, within 500 miles of Minneapolis) is not necessarily a return tourban areas (which is sounding weirdly like 'black' to me, but whatever).

Also, there are about a zillion zoning decisions these leafy, safe areas can opt for that would make them less car dependent. Why do we have to act like current zoning is an iron law?

Finally, 'crime in urban areas' has absolutely plummeted, where are you referring to?

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 2:00 AM

"The schools still suck, the violent crime level is still astonishing, people are still fleeing for the suburbs "

eesh James, 2 of these 3 claims are false. (the schools do suck)

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 2:06 AM

I've read your posts now James... I kinda wish I hadn't. You're extrapolating DC's crime problems to the rest of the nation, which has universally had a dramatically opposite trend.

We replaced passenger rail with airplanes. Airlines are now choking (I mean, have you noticed?) Unless you're one of those dream guys who thinks we'll be running cars/planes on magic poofy dust, we clearly have to rebuild our inter-city passenger rail system. It's that, or only rich people travel.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 2:11 AM

(yikes, 4 in a row...)

Mixner and James, if you guys wanna argue about whether some magic tech will appear to allow everyone to live their lives exactly how they've been living, I'm not interested. I think such hopes are mostly fantastical, and such a discussion holds no interest for me.

However, if you guys want to discuss how alternative transportation modes can best emerge (gov't., markets, mixed), I'm all ears, I see TONS of room for interesting debate here.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 2:15 AM

mike,

But THAT'S the point. Oil was plentiful and cheap, and we built what we wanted. Those days are now over. Instead of wishing and hoping for an outcome (what children do), it's necessary to zone/build something that uses less oil.

Zoning laws won't be changed until people vote to change them, and home builders won't build smaller housing and "walkable communities" unless there's a market demand. There's no indication that most voters and homebuyers share your political and housing preferences. They're adjusting to more expensive oil in other ways: conservation through carpooling, telecommuting, etc., and switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Large SUV sales are way down. Small car and hybrid sales are way up.

You seem to have a lot of faith that some pieces of technology will emerge (fuel cells or hydrogen or whatever) that will allow us to continue living exactly how we've built (what a coincidence that would be.)

No faith is required. Some of that technology is already here, and the rest is on its way. You can already buy a production model Toyota Prius that gets 50 mpg, and an after-market plug-in Prius that gets over 100 mpg. Ford, GM, Toyota and other carmakers all have production model plug-in hybrids in development that will be on the market within 5 years. The prototype plug-in hybrid Ford Escape SUV can go 30 miles on one dollar's worth of residential electricity.

The car-centered culture is going to die (or weaken considerably),

The evidence says otherwise. Our culture is growing more car-oriented, not less. And it's not just us. Car sales are booming in India and China, as people there get richer and cars become affordable to the average family.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 2:27 AM

"Zoning laws won't be changed until people vote to change them, and home builders won't build smaller housing and "walkable communities" unless there's a market demand."

I think we'll see this demand.

"Toyota Prius that gets 50 mpg, and an after-market plug-in Prius that gets over 100 mpg. Ford, GM, Toyota and other carmakers all have production model plug-in hybrids in development that will be on the market within 5 years."

It's great... and I'm glad, and every bit helps, but I don't think it's enough. Also, wrt 'plug-ins,' that electricity comes from somewhere. True, that source is a bit more diversified than oil (coal, maybe some solar and wind) but again, I don't think it's enough. Prices of coal/oil will continue to skyrocket.

"Car sales are booming in India and China"

Oil is heavily subsidized there, how long can that last? By the way, Tata is getting HAMMERED in the stock market, I don't know why.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 2:35 AM

mike,

Airlines are now choking (I mean, have you noticed?)

Air travel has boomed since it was deregulated. Fares have gone way down. Destinations and frequency have gone way up. Planes have become safer, quieter, more reliable and more comfortable. Computerization has made researching and buying tickets, selecting seats and checking-in easier. The domestic U.S. air travel market is hypercompetitive, and poorly-run airlines tend to go out of business. But the well-run ones, like Southwest and JetBlue, are thriving. Southwest, the largest airline in the world by passenger volume, recently announced its 35th consecutive year of profitability.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 2:37 AM

mike,

I think we'll see this demand.

Let us know when it appears. There's no sign of it.

It's great... and I'm glad, and every bit helps, but I don't think it's enough.

You don't think a quadrupling of fuel efficiency is enough? And that's just first-generation PHEVs.

You don't seem to have any actual arguments or evidence to support your pessimisstic predictions.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 2:43 AM

"Air travel has boomed since it was deregulated."

Absolutely, post 70s oil supply shock and post deregulation, airline travel has been a dream (I mean that in a good way), it's been everything you've described.

That sort of eludes my point though doesn't it? 1976-2006... great! Who would disagree? We're talking about 2008-???, if you think this is some kind of blip, you and I inhabit different realities.

Presently? They're dying... maybe a re-org away from hub and spoke will work out for them, but already we're seeing WAY less service, soon, we'll see higher prices.

"You don't think a quadrupling of fuel efficiency is enough?"

I'm not certain we'll see a 'quadruple,' but no, I think the collapse of the major oil fields in Saudi Arabia, the North Sea, Venezuela, and Mexico are so dramatic that, even with increased efficiency, the increase in Chinese/Indian demand will not allow a large portion of our population to sustain their current standards. The Canadian tar sands are interesting, but man it's an expensive (both physically and environmentally) transaction.

"You don't seem to have any actual arguments or evidence to support your pessimisstic predictions."

I know you like to say that to people... but you know, besides saying 'things are gonna be way more efficient,' it's not like you've shown me any math that convincingly illustrates these gains are sufficient to support our current arrangement. Saying 'but cars will quadruple in efficiency,' even if I wholly believed it, isn't a sufficient argument.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 3:03 AM

Mixner maybe you hate james howard kunstler, maybe you've never heard of james howard kunstler.... interestingly, he'd say we're both wrong.

You say we're gonna tech out way out of this, I say we need to organize our way out of it (obviously I believe there will be some helpful tech and maybe in your dark heart you can believe in a smidgen or re-org), he says we're both fools. There's too many people like you who are convinced the tech will save us (we put a man on the moon!) for re-org guys like me to prevail.

He's probably right, we'll probably just react 'emergently' (not a word, I know), that's fine with you, since you believe in the tech.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 3:12 AM

It comes down to this Mixner:

First, oil supplies are plummeting, FAST. (Check out the annual outputs of the major oil fields from Mexico and Venezuela, notice how the mighty Ghawar won't output more despite record prices, check out North Sea production rates, why is Iran, supposedly a big oil resource, importing oil?) while simultaneously, global demand is rising fast (China/India). No 'big jack' or 'anwr' findings will emerge to dig us out; we're peaking and demand is skyrocketing, a lethal mix.

Second, actually *think* for a second how our nation is organized. We rely on long haul trucking to transport goods (check out Burlington Northern's stock price over the last 3 months, Buffet sure likes it, I do too). We have a combination of large houses far from working centers and big box retailers. How do you suppose both will respond to a rapid rise in energy prices?

So, here we are, faced with a national infrastructure created entirely around cheap oil that's about to get way more expensive, and you and James want to sit around and talk to me about the feelings of suburban moms and the creation of boss cars, while fighting zoning/trains every step of the way.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 5:03 AM

Re: The car-centered culture is going to die

The cheap car culture, yes. Gasoline may fall from its current heights, but I very much doubt we will ever see teh prices we had in the 90s. And even if/when new technologies replace fossil fuels, those technologies will probably not be cheap. That said, individual transport is not going to go away. It is simply too necessary in too many ways and has always existed in some form (e.g., wagons and buggies pre-automobile). I'm a fan of mass transport (done right) and a fan of short commutes-- I'm moving into a neighborhood a couple miles from work and accepting some trade-offs. But I am under no illusion I will ever be able to function without a car of some sort.

Re: Many 'parents' will simply no longer be able to afford this lifestyle.

Lost in this debate is the fact that not all jobs are located in city centers. A great many are found in the suburbs themselves. My recall of my suburban childhood is that about half our immediate neighbors worked less than five miles from home, and most no more than ten. Short commutes like that are sustainable even at today's gas prices.

Re: Airlines are now choking

Airlines have been choking since day one. No one has ever gotten rich off the passenger air business.

Re: the increase in Chinese/Indian demand will not allow a large portion of our population to sustain their current standards.

Why do you assume that demand from India and China will increase? After all, if oil prices continue to go up, how will China and India be to afford oil? Demand is a function of price you know. High prices will choke back China and India's desire to drive just as it's done here.

Re: First, oil supplies are plummeting, FAST.

This is not true. Supplies are holding up, and as the price of oil increases new supplies become economical to tap. The current situation in the oil world is being driven in a large part by political realities, notably the bull-in-the-china-shop effect that America is having in the Middle East.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2008 7:39 AM

Just to add some personal thoughts...

I live in DC. I don't work downtown. I work from home or get on an airplane, which is the way most of you will be working in times to come. The DC metro works great for me. Our family driving is down about 80-90 percent since moving here from Allentown. I go to virtually all the places I need to go on foot or by metro. It is only on big shopping expeditions once or twice a month that I haul out my dusty car from the depths of the building garage. In fact, It was a great shock when I saw how much gas cost when I filled the tank for the first time this year in april.

On one point I agree with some of the commenter who bring up the crime issue. I have been thinking a lot about this lately in regard to DC. My spousal unit is more risk averse than I am and refuses to consider living in many areas of DC. I personally don't worry so much about the bad things that can happen, but I appreciate that others do.

It is interesting to imagine the flood of new city dwellers that we would get if we provided a safe environment in what are now "undesirable" areas. We already see this to some extent with gentrification of marginal areas and with the near abandonment of some of the far suburbs in the wake of the sub-prime collapse and the rising cost of gas. It could become a vast migration with a matching increase of transit if people could be sure that they would be safe.

Posted by RobbL | June 8, 2008 9:54 AM

As to those great metro systems in NY, and London, and Boston: I'll note with amusement that they were originally built as businesses, not as government projects.

A ridiculous statement. It's already been pointed out that the NYC subway was built by the government. The Boston system was built by private companies, all right--armed with special charters from the Legislature granting them local monopolies and eminent domain powers. The London system was built by prvate companies, too--and financed by government loans. Three cheers for private enterprise!

Posted by rea | June 8, 2008 9:55 AM

The current price of oil shows all the hallmarks of a speculative bubble - which means that anyone making future policy plans based on the "new, permanent" price of oil is smoking something. While I don't think we'll see $20/bbl again, I seriously doubt prices will stay north of $100 for very much longer, either.

I love the guy above who claims that my points about urban crime are wrong. The reality is, the vast majority of violent crime in the US is from urban areas, and much of that is from a subset of the urban districts in the country. I pointed out (with a link) to the WaPo) that crime is not decreasing in DC, in order to refute Matt's silly "renaisannce" point. DC is a pit, as is Baltimore - and for those of us in Maryland and northern Virginia, those are the available metro areas. No sane parent would relocate into either one:

-- too much crime, especially violent crime
-- violent, horrible schools
-- no jobs

The commute out of DC or Baltimore to the surrounding suburbs (where the jobs are) would not be pleasant, and the tradeoff (see above) ludicrous

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 9:56 AM

Re James Robertson

1. The people moving to DC are mostly unmarried like Mr. Yglesias or young couples with no children. They are replacing families with children who are moving to P. G. County which is why the population is dropping. Thus, the fact that the schools suck is of no relevance to them.

2. Anybody who is unaware of the gentrification going on in D.C. is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but I don't want to consider that).

3. If Mr. Robertsons' claim that there are no jobs in D. C. is true, how come much of the new construction, which I have observed, consists of office buildings?

Posted by SLC | June 8, 2008 10:47 AM

Re: The commute out of DC or Baltimore to the surrounding suburbs (where the jobs are) would not be pleasant, and the tradeoff (see above) ludicrous

Iam puzzled by your assertion that there are no jobs in DC or Baltimore. DC is the seat of the federal government; I have to imagine the number of federal jobs located in the city is enormous. And while I haven't been in Baltimore long (just three weeks) downtown Baltimore seems a pretty vibrant place (I do agree there are quite a few neighborhoods beyond downtown where you could not pay me to live). My own employer, a major Wall Street bank, is expanding their operations here since the city is an affordable alternative to NYC without being hugely distant. And even though we have been laying off people, here in Baltimore we've been hiring new folks.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2008 11:35 AM

I'm 'that guy' James, and if you could stop talking about DC crime for one fucking second, maybe you could understand my point.

Tell me, what's the changing rate of violent crime in every urban area NOT DC from 1991-2007?

Jesus, learn to read.

A few other points from assorted people:

"half our immediate neighbors worked less than five miles from home, and most no more than ten. Short commutes like that are sustainable even at today's gas prices."

That's nice about your childhood JonF, fact is now tons of people commute 30+ miles each way, won't be sustainable for many of them. Suburban Atlanta? Denver? Phoenix? Las Vegas? Orange County? Vallejo and Antioch? These good people rely 100% on cheap oil.

"Airlines have been choking since day one. No one has ever gotten rich off the passenger air business."

What's happening to Delta, Northwest, American, and UAL is quite dramatic, sure margins have always been thin and there were always price wars, but these behemoths are really cratering now.

"Why do you assume that demand from India and China will increase?"

Because they each have hundreds of millions of peasants who live on 5 bucks/day and worship the great pumpkin. Because those places are becoming more and more truly productive, real wealth in each will continue to rise, those people will demand more oil.

I might agree that, at the moment, supplies are holding steady. Why aren't they rising? There's certainly enough economic incentive. Why does Exxon choose to spend it's windfalls on stock buybacks instead of increasing refining capacity?

"While I don't think we'll see $20/bbl again, I seriously doubt prices will stay north of $100 for very much longer, either."

It'll bounce up and down some, sure. I think we'll stay north of $100 for good, might test $80 briefly, but no, this doesn't show 'all the signs of a speculative bubble,' although I agree capital has been searching for a place to sit, and it seems to be sitting in commodities.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 12:17 PM

It's always impressive to see how far adrift from reality James Robertson, Mixner, and Jim Glass are. Not for them a facile acceptance of the proposition that transit enhances the economic vitality of NY, Chicago, and San Francisco! Fast trains in France, Maglev in Shanghai? Bah, they say- a passing fad.

Matt might have had a good point about politicians not being in office long enough to reap what they sow, except for two things-

First, this nation has produced many politicians with a long and provident framework of the intellect. The work on the BART began with planning, in 1949, and the estimated time for completion of the system was 100 years. They began that work because they were thinking of the economic health of their region a hundred years in the future.

Secondly, every city, town, county, state, and multiple agencies with specialized tasks, such as providing water, sewage disposal, power, schools, and transit- all of these have planners, who analyze what has happened and try to develop plans for what will happen.

As Galbraith anticipated in his New Industrial State, responding in a realistic way to the factual inputs of millions of tech workers overwhelms, eventually, the florid fantasies of psychotics like Bush and Cheney. Realistic politicians take advantage of our developed infrastructure, study and understand the facts, and support reasonable policies to meet our needs. Intentionally or no, the public generally returns enough of these realistic politicians to elected office that we somehow, to date, have escaped disaster.

As for James Robertson and Mixner, and their delusional assertions that NY and Washington DC are big failures- tell it to the Marines.

Posted by serial catowner | June 8, 2008 12:28 PM

SLC:

I was referring to the Cities of Washington, D. C. and Chicago. The City of Chicago has 5 times the population of Washington, D. C.

Right. And what I was asking is why would one want to compare apples and oranges. Municipal boundaries are entirely arbitrary animals for purposes of performing comparisons that bear on economic issues, demographics, etc. Far more sensible to compare those organic entities called urban areas. Also, see Adam's 11:54 pm comment.

The combined statistical areas of Washington, include Baltimore, Winchester, parts of West Virginia, etc. These are hardly candidates for Washington Metro ridership.

Just like not all of Chicagoland's far flung exurbs are candidates for its rapid transit system. (Still, that doesn't mean it's impossible to construct commuter rail systems that are tightly integrated with the central rapid transit lines, as in the case of Paris's RER/Metro).

Posted by Jasper | June 8, 2008 12:43 PM

Have a look at census data and you'll note that parents tend not to live in urban areas. Crime is one reason - it's much, much lower in the suburbs (where I live, violent crime is nearly non-existant - 35 miles south, in DC, it's a live danger, and 30 miles north in Baltimore, it's also horrible.

Those young, childless couples moving in? The ones who have kids eventually will nearly all leave - as soon as they realize that the local schools suck, and there's no real prospect of improvement.

I don't think that qualifies as a "renaissance". Not to mention the fact that only a handful of cities (Chicago being one) have seen an increase in population over the last decade - in most, it's been a steady decline for 50 years now.

You simply aren't going to see parents moving back to the cities, not unless the left (and I do mean left, because in most cities, that's who runs local government) gets serious about crime and gets serious about the schools. I see little sign of either of those things happening - instead, I see people like Matt pining for more transit. Transit is so, so not the problem. If you waved a wand and gave DC and Baltimore transit systems as nice as the NYC one tomorrow, it wouldn't stop the out-migration. On the other hand, if you actually got serious about crime and schools (instead of putting unions first), you might see some movement.

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 12:46 PM

re: I think we'll stay north of $100 for good, might test $80 briefly, but no, this doesn't show 'all the signs of a speculative bubble,' although I agree capital has been searching for a place to sit, and it seems to be sitting in commodities.

The more recent run-up in prices does show all the signs of a speculative bubble, fueled in part by the weakness of the dollar (energy prices have not increased any where near as much in non-dollar dependent economies). There are however deeper factors as well underlying the gradual rise in prices since the beginning of this decade, so this is not "just" a bubble and we won't see the 90s energy prices again. Most analyses I've seen though put the market prices of oil in the $80 range, and that even includes the political instability America has created in the Middle East. Take that away and we could get down to $60 again-- which price is still three times what oil was at its low point.

Re: The ones who have kids eventually will nearly all leave - as soon as they realize that the local schools suck, and there's no real prospect of improvement.

For people with sufficient income private schools are still an option. If you don't mind the religion part, the Catholic Church still operates an excellent and (somewhat) affordable system of parochial schools in many cities.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2008 1:18 PM

Hil-larious. So James Robertson is all like "The end is nigh- the families are leaving". James has turned into a regular Jimmy One-Note on this issue.

Here's a news flash for you, James- modern young people don't think raising families is the only reason they're on the earth. In fact, I've even heard that some of them want careers- you know, the kind of employment provided by companies in cities. Others want more independent careers- the kind that depend on patrons for artists and clients for lawyers and accountants, all generally more abundant in cities. There are even some who wish to become exceptionally learned and skilled, and to do this they generally turn to major universities and research firms, also usually located in cities.

To support his Ozzie-and-Harriet view of the world, James posits the coming fall in oil prices (good luck with that one) and totally ignores the real-world evidence of the housing market collapse, which has revealed the fairly obvious fact that any possible market for sprawl has been totally glutted by overbuilding.

James would have been making a fairly insightful observation in, say, 1958- a half century ago. Fortunately, things change.

Posted by serial catowner | June 8, 2008 1:45 PM

> Have a look at census data and you'll
> note that parents tend not to live in urban areas.

That's funny: 2.5 million people within the borders of the City of Chicago and none of them parents or children? They all moved to the suburbs leaving 2.5 million yuppies and crack dealers? Odd, because I walked through my old Chicago neighborhood last fall and saw just as many families and more kids than when I grew up there. They had skin colors that weren't the pasty white of my childhood though which is perhaps why Mixner, Sailer, etc, can't see them.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 8, 2008 3:48 PM

mike,

Again, your posts are a list of silly assertions and predictions (the airline industry is "dying," the car-centered culture is going to "die," the major oil fields are "collapsing," etc.) for which you offer no serious argument or evidence. Get back to me when you have something of substance to say.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 3:54 PM

JonF,

The cheap car culture, yes. Gasoline may fall from its current heights, but I very much doubt we will ever see teh prices we had in the 90s. And even if/when new technologies replace fossil fuels, those technologies will probably not be cheap.

New technologies available now are already cheap enough to yield big savings in the cost of driving, and they're going to get cheaper and better. We don't need gas prices to return to the levels of the 1990s if our cars go twice or four times as far on a gallon of gas (or its energy equivalent in residential electricity) as the equivalent models of the 1990s.

As this article points out, the cost premium of several hybrid vehicles already available is recovered in just a few years. The new technology in the Toyota Camry hybrid pays for itself in fuel savings in just 1.7 years. The Prius, in 2.6 years. The Altima hybrid, in 3.4 years. And that's at a gas price of $3.67/gallon. At higher gas prices, the payback times get even shorter. After that, hybrid models save money compared to their conventional gasoline-engine counterparts on every mile they're driven. And this is just for current hybrids at low sales volumes. As hybrids get more popular and the technology improves, economies of scale will lower the price differential even further.

And this is just for conventional hybrids. Within a few years, Ford, GM and Toyota, among others, will all be selling plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). The Prius PHEV, Saturn Vue PHEV, and Chevrolet Volt PHEV are all scheduled to be on the market in 2010. PHEVs will provide a quantum leap in fuel efficiency even compared to conventional hybrids. At 100 mpg, $4/gallon gasoline effectively becomes $1-2/gallon gasoline. This is cheaper than the average gasoline price of the past 30 years.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 4:24 PM

"Here's a news flash for you, James- modern young people don't think raising families is the only reason they're on the earth. In fact, I've even heard that some of them want careers- you know, the kind of employment provided by companies in cities."

A career is swell, until you realize that it leaves nothing behind. Bottom line - most childless people leave no impact on the world, and no one remembers them. In the grand scheme of things, my daughter is far more important than anything I have done (or will do) at work.

I feel truly sorry for people who think that the DINK lifestyle is the ticket to happiness. It's a ticket to oblivion.

As to the commenter who called into question cities and cildren - it's not that cities have no children - but they do have fewer. Heck, check the archives here for the post Matt put up a few months ago about the large (and mostly empty) school in DC near him. Meanwhile, the schools here (35 miles north) are overcrowded.

There's a reason for that: the schools outside DC don't suck, the ones there do.

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 4:43 PM

I live in DC. I don't work downtown. I work from home or get on an airplane, which is the way most of you will be working in times to come. The DC metro works great for me. Our family driving is down about 80-90 percent since moving here from Allentown. I go to virtually all the places I need to go on foot or by metro.

Your third sentence above explains why the DC Metro may not continue to work great for you in the future. Much of its ridership consists of people commuting between home and work. If physical commuting declines substantially, Metro ridership may also decline substantially and the system will become harder to justify economically. Train frequency may be scaled back. Lines or stations may be closed. Expansion plans may be cancelled.

Having said that, the DC Metro is probably not in much danger of significant cutbacks in the near-term future. The shift to telecommuting and working-from-home is still relatively slow, and there is lots of non-commuter demand from out-of-town tourists and locals travelling for shopping or recreation. But urban rail services that are more economically marginal are likely to follow the fate of Amtrak.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 4:46 PM

mike,

Most of your blatherings aren't worth bothering with, but I can't resist responding to this:

First, oil supplies are plummeting, FAST.

According to Wikipedia, "The IEA's March 2008 Oil Market report showed global supply to be 87.5 mb/d, compared to 84.3 mb/d in July 2007, a 3.8% increase on that interval."

A 3.8% increase is "plummeting, FAST" is it?

You seem to think guessing and making things up are a substitute for actual facts and figures. They're not.

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 5:01 PM

FYI on the population of DC: the 2007 Census estimate is out, and DC's population has increased by 25,000 over the past four years. It may be more the Dutch Renaissance than the Italian Renaissance, but calling that a renaissance is not too implausible.

Posted by cminus | June 8, 2008 6:31 PM

Bottom line - most childless people leave no impact on the world, and no one remembers them. In the grand scheme of things, my daughter is far more important than anything I have done (or will do) at work.

I am upset -- hell, I am offended -- at the assumption that childless people are unmemorable and inconsequential. Yes, I'm single and childless. Yes, I will almost certainly remain single and childless. But I like to think that my goddaughter out in Montgomery County will remember me, and I like to think that the influence I've had on her life will go a long way towards influencing how she thinks about moral and ethical concerns.

Just because someone's not biologically your kid doesn't mean you can't matter to them. (Also, just because you're biologically a parent doesn't mean your kids will remember you fondly...)

Posted by cminus | June 8, 2008 6:42 PM

Be as offended as you like - it's reality, and welcome to it. You have one sure way of making an impact, and that's having offspring. If you don't, be prepared to fall down the memory hole just about immediately after you die.

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 6:47 PM

According to Wikipedia, "The IEA's March 2008 Oil Market report showed global supply to be 87.5 mb/d, compared to 84.3 mb/d in July 2007, a 3.8% increase on that interval."

That increase is almost entirely in the form of heavy crude or bitumen (the so-called oil sands). Bitumen is not even oil. These new finds need to be processed, at enormous cost in energy and water, and in the case of the oil sands, Alberta is using up water so quickly it may run out and force production to stop, while the cost, in oil, of extracting and refining these new finds wipes out any nominal gain. Essentially, these new fields allow us to tread water, but not much else.

Posted by Greg | June 8, 2008 8:27 PM

That increase is almost entirely in the form of heavy crude or bitumen (the so-called oil sands). Bitumen is not even oil.

Apparently, the IEA says it is. Or your claim is wrong. Do you have a link to support it?

Posted by Mixner | June 8, 2008 8:38 PM

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OilSands/793.asp

As you can see, the government of Alberta doesn't consider it crude oil. It has to be refined first.

Posted by Greg | June 8, 2008 8:59 PM

Be as offended as you like - it's reality, and welcome to it. You have one sure way of making an impact, and that's having offspring. If you don't, be prepared to fall down the memory hole just about immediately after you die.

I am unavoidably led to the conclusion that you're the sort of person who's going to be remembered as "Dad sure was a piece of crap, wasn't he?"

Posted by cminus | June 8, 2008 11:21 PM

I am upset -- hell, I am offended -- at the assumption that childless people are unmemorable and inconsequential

To be fair, I think he means DEAD childless people, so he wasn't talking about you.

Posted by beowulf | June 8, 2008 11:29 PM

Exactly. Once you pass on as a childless person, you're highly likely to be utterly forgotten.

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 11:47 PM

Mixner, you have yet to support your assertions that all these car efficiency improvements are sufficient to sustain the nation we've built.

I wait with bated breath.

You'll ignore this, as usual.

Here's some 'no evidence' of major oil fields collapsing, go ahead, ignore me:

http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2007/01/cantarell_colla.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502307.html
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/MX/
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2143

I like how you react when you lose Mixner, funny. You just keep repeating YOU HAVE NO FACTS YOU HAVE NO FACTS and then ignore the facts. Cute.

Posted by mike | June 9, 2008 1:15 AM

Oh, and here's an article for you guys who yell THERE'S NO DEMAND FOR TRAINS!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-01-mass-transit_N.htm

Posted by mike | June 9, 2008 1:20 AM

Another one to ignore Mixner:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2689#more

Posted by mike | June 9, 2008 1:32 AM

Finally Mixner, how will these people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html?hp

pay for these fancy cars you keep talking about? When will this substitution take place?

More to ignore, and now I'll leave you be to your fantasy world:
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/05/rigged_to_blow.html

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/04/blowing_green_s.html

Posted by mike | June 9, 2008 1:42 AM

Mixner, you have yet to support your assertions that all these car efficiency improvements are sufficient to sustain the nation we've built.

Given the vagueness of the proposition ("sufficient to sustain the nation we've built") I'm not sure how I would be able to support it. What evidence would persuade you that it is true? Of course, I haven't actually said that "car efficiency improvements are sufficient to sustain the nation we've built," anyway, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. Lots things are needed to "sustain the nation we've built."

Here's some 'no evidence' of major oil fields collapsing, go ahead, ignore me

Your first three links refer to just a single oil field, the Cantarell Field in Mexico, which contains just a tiny fraction of total world reserves. You claimed that "the major oil fields in Saudi Arabia, the North Sea, Venezuela, and Mexico" are in a state of "drastic collapse."

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? And I do mean that claim. Not the much weaker claim that a single oil field in Mexico is collapsing. I don't know if you're new here, but if you try to pull this kind of bait-and-switch, saying one thing and then pretending you said another, you're going to get called on it.

It's funny you should mention Venezuela, by the way. According to Wikipedia, the Venezuelan Orinoco Tar Sands are estimated to contain petroleum reserves equal to the world's entire reserves of conventional oil, with about 267 billion barrels producible at 2006 prices and technology.

Posted by Mixner | June 9, 2008 2:00 AM

Finally Mixner, how will these people: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html?hp pay for these fancy cars you keep talking about?

Same way as most other people do, probably: by taking out a loan and then paying it back over time. Given that a Toyota Prius now recovers its additional cost after only about 2 years, and then saves money compared to a conventional car on every mile driven after that, I imagine it's become even more attractive to those cash-strapped rural folk.

I saw this interesting tidbit in the Times piece:

Americans on average now spend about 4 percent of their after-tax income on transportation fuels, according to Brian A. Bethune, an economist at Global Insight, a forecasting firm. That compares with 4.5 percent in early 1981, the highest point since World War II. At its lowest point, in 1998, that share dropped to 1.9 percent.

That's right: transportation fuels now consume a whopping 2 percent more of the average American's income than they did when fuel was at its cheapest, and half a percent less than they did in 1981. I somehow doubt that 2 percent is going to cause any kind of large-scale switching from cars to buses and trains.

The thing is, it's not that oil prices and production aren't a real concern. They are. But your ridiculous commentary exaggerates the problem out of all proportion. Get a grip.

Posted by Mixner | June 9, 2008 2:22 AM

Re: The shift to telecommuting and working-from-home is still relatively slow

And I suspect it's going to remain slow. There are all sorts of reasons that a presence in the office is desirable, and as one of my managers once explained it, one does not want to give senior management the impression that jobs cannot be done remotely, lest they decide to make them really, really remote-- in Bangalore. I do think we will see an increase in the number of people who telecommute occasionally-- one day a week seems to be the up and coming employee perk now. But also, there are a great many jobs that can't be done remotely too. So there's a place for mass transit in the mix. I'm not an anti-car fanatic, but I did use the Florida Tri-Rail train several days a week. There are some inconveniences there (but heck, there are to driving I-95 at rush hour too), but it does work, and my commuting costs were almost cut in half. I support expanding transit options in areas where they make sense.

Posted by JonF | June 9, 2008 6:59 AM

Still waiting for some backup to the assertion that there are "no parents" among the City of Chicago's 2.5 million.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 9, 2008 8:25 AM

"Bottom line - most childless people leave no impact on the world, and no one remembers them"

Tell that to George Washington!

Posted by freddiemac | June 9, 2008 11:12 AM

JonF,

And I suspect it's going to remain slow.

Between 1980 and 2000, the only commute modes to gain market share were driving alone and telecommuting. Commuting by mass transit lost market share. Between 1990 and 2000, according to the Census Bureau, the number of people who usually work at home grew by 23%, more than twice the rate of growth of the total labor market.

As communication technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and inexpensive, and as the nature of work shifts increasingly to knowledge-based labor, telecommuting and remote working are likely to grow substantially. The long-term shift towards telecommuting and commuting by car, and away from commuting by mass transit, is a reason to oppose large-scale investments in mass transit.

Posted by Mixner | June 9, 2008 1:19 PM

Arggh, my links on Ghawar's falling oil production (speculative, since Saudi Arabia considers it a state secret) and North Sea (not speculative) were eaten.

I guess you'll just have to trust me Mixner, I know I know, you don't.

Personally, I think we're headed for some rapid price changes (something a market economy deals poorly with, unlike slow price changes, which market economies deal great with) and I'd like to reorganize and prepare for this.

Posted by mike | June 9, 2008 10:43 PM