Revenue Drop

It seems the price-induced reductions in miles driven we're experiencing is significant enough that it's producing a shortfall in gas tax money going into the Highway Trust Fund. In response, I would note that John McCain's call for a gas tax "holiday" seems likely to exacerbate this problem significantly. On top of that, it seems to me that this would be an opportune moment to revisit some of our national priorities. With Trust Fund revenue falling, we ought to dedicate what remains to maintaining our existing road infrastructure but stop funding new highway projects.

Instead, general revenues can and should be used to pay for substantial increases in the quantity and quality of non-car transportation options. After all, the striking thing about the modest decline in driving that we've seen in 2008 is that it's happened even though essentially no effort has been put into providing anyone with reasonable alternatives. Insofar as state and local governments have responded at all, it's tended to be by cutting back on rail and bus service to save money at a time when the economic slowdown is hurting state budgets and the federal government is acting cluelessly.

New rail lines would, obviously, take time to build. But one could easily enough increase frequency and decrease fares on bus lines all across the country as a short-term measure. And there are a lot of commuter rail lines around the country that could have their non-rush hour frequency boosted in the short run. And of course we ought to be planning for the long run. Right now, only a smallish minority of Americans have access to decent quality alternatives to daily driving but it doesn't need to be that way and we shouldn't leave ourselves this exposed to future energy shocks.

Photo by Flickr user Rene S used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Twice this week, I tried to buy Amtrak tickets but there were no empty seats.

Posted by traveller | July 29, 2008 12:35 PM

Building rail lines may take awhile, but that means a lot of jobs for a long time...

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 29, 2008 12:41 PM

I'm fine with investing money to increase capacity on non-car alternatives, but why insist on lower fares? In fact, I think transit authorities should be trying to find ways to target fare increases to those people being driven to public transit by higher prices for car transit, and then turning around and using those funds to further increase capacity.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 12:44 PM

Alternatively, you could do what the Bush administration proposes and take even more funds from mass transit to make up for the deficit in the Highway Trust Fund:

http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/02/federal-funds

Just crazy.

Posted by Frank | July 29, 2008 12:49 PM

Does this mean that all drivers are Highway Trust Fund scumbags?

Posted by KCinDC | July 29, 2008 12:50 PM

Wouldn't it be better just to let all the highways and bridges degrade to the point that they're unusable? That way people wouldn't drive as much, and it would say millions of barrels of oil per diem. It seems to me that GOP neglect of our infrastructure has a silver lining to it.

Posted by Modest Proposal | July 29, 2008 12:53 PM

Just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't more people using rail further the problem of funding the Highway fund?

Posted by socctty | July 29, 2008 1:07 PM

But one could easily enough increase frequency and decrease fares on bus lines all across the country as a short-term measure. And there are a lot of commuter rail lines around the country that could have their non-rush hour frequency boosted in the short run.

Since no one has made any serious attempt to justify even the existing vastly disproportionate level of transit subsidies, and transit systems are already struggling to cope with the recent increase in peak demand, reducing transit fares would make no sense whatsoever.

And there are a lot of commuter rail lines around the country that could have their non-rush hour frequency boosted in the short run.

Since commuter rail lines are, as the name suggests, geared towards commuting, and probably already have lots of excess capacity outside rush hours, this proposal also makes no sense.

Right now, only a smallish minority of Americans have access to decent quality alternatives to daily driving but it doesn't need to be that way

If "decent quality alternatives" means something more than bus services, then it does have to be that way. Unless you're planning to tear down almost all the infrastructure and roads we've been building for the past 50 years and rebuild our cities from the ground up to look like European ones.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 1:08 PM

I'm calling shenanagins on this story. Miles driven had been increasing steadily for years, at about a 2% per year increase. So a drop back of 2% is hurting the highway fund? Bullsh*t.

This is another case of contractors sucking on the Highway Fund teet to promote increased Highway spending.

Posted by Steve | July 29, 2008 1:09 PM

Ted Stevens post please.

With extra snark if possible.

Posted by James | July 29, 2008 1:22 PM

Mixner was going pretty well there - his first two points are quite insightful.

But that bit about "tear up infrastructure" and "rebuild our cities to look like European cities" is nonsense.

In reality, we did "tear up infrastructure" and "rebuild cities" once this century - when the street car and other rail lines around which so many American cities grew up were ripped out in order to deny people options other than driving.

Obviously, there is a great deal of auto-oriented development that's occured in the suburbs since then, but there is also a good amount development that was built to take advantage of transit which simply lacks the transit.

Los Angeles, for example, originally grew up around its streetcar system. While, obviously, Orange County and other areas are in no sense transit-oriented, most of the older neighborhoods are, in Mixner's term, "like European cities."

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 1:23 PM

And of course we ought to be planning for the long run.

You mean like by opening up ANWR, the OCS and lots of other places for drilling?

Oh, I forgot, in that case, Democrats only care about the short run. Because opening up those places won't begin producing oil for 10 years - therefore, to Democrats, they are not worth doing.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 1:24 PM

I agree with Steve -- the story I saw on TV this morning was about all these bridges and how no repairs could be made because of the VERY recent drop in tax revenue. No word on why the bridges have been in a state of neglect for decades...

Posted by Catpain Haddock | July 29, 2008 1:24 PM

Just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't more people using rail further the problem of funding the Highway fund?

Sure, but fewer miles driven also means fewer problems with roads that need to be fixed, which means less money needed in the Trust Fund.

Posted by Seitz | July 29, 2008 1:26 PM

vastly disproportionate level of transit subsidies

Arguments that begin with unproved and, in fact, false assumptions are solid sh*t from there on in.

Posted by sunsin | July 29, 2008 1:26 PM

On top of falling highway tax revenues, a report out says that the country is in need of $140 billion to repair defective bridges. I wonder where that money is going to come from.

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 1:32 PM

I agree with Steve -- the story I saw on TV this morning was about all these bridges and how no repairs could be made because of the VERY recent drop in tax revenue. No word on why the bridges have been in a state of neglect for decades...

Posted by Catpain Haddock | July 29, 2008 1:36 PM

With regard to whether transit fares should be lowered, that depends on your overall objective.It seems to me that if your ultimate aim is to reduce car usage and increase transit usage then lower fares are necessary.However if the aim of public transit is as a revenue raising exercise than higher fares make more sense.My personal opinion is that transit should be as cheap as possible with the acceptance that the financial loss is offset by other tangible gains.

Posted by Russell | July 29, 2008 1:39 PM

I'm all for spending more on mass transit, and for putting a (qualified) end to new road construction. I'd also cut back pretty massively on maintenance of existing roads, much of which looks completely unnecessary. We would save many, many billions of dollars a year by adding a year to the repaving cycle of existing roads, and some bumpiness seems like a negligible price to pay. That would, I expect, give us a good revenue source to pay for bridge repair, which is the only part of road maintenance that is life-or-death...as we've come to know recently. Good bridges and minimally acceptable roads--that's my motto.

Posted by Rich | July 29, 2008 1:40 PM

"I would note that John McCain's call for a gas tax 'holiday' seems likely to exacerbate this problem significantly." It was hard not to note that the article's balance didn't just bury the cost to mass transit of borrowing from its funds but tactfully didn't criticize McCain on this at all. Do you think it will ever be legit to criticize McCain?

"We ought to dedicate what remains to maintaining our existing road infrastructure but stop funding new highway projects." True, and by the very same token, while I know it sounds more glamorous to extend rail lines every which way, both in space and in time (where you stress non-rush hours), actually the existing commuter rails, easily supplemented by bus in many cases, could really make a big difference if truly funded. I know I'm biased by New York residency, but we could really use subways and commuter lines that run reliably, keep up with overcrowdingg, and don't keep placing more and more of the cost on the passenger.

Mixner: "Wouldn't it be better just to let all the highways and bridges degrade to the point that they're unusable?" Well, er, no, unless one likes the thought of cars plunging into rivers.

Posted by JohnH | July 29, 2008 1:43 PM

"sunsin"

Arguments that begin with unproved and, in fact, false assumptions are solid sh*t from there on in.

The numbers and sources have all been presented in previous posts. Sorry you missed them. Transit is subsidized by something like $400 per thousand passenger miles more than highways. If you think you can make a serious case for this vastly disproportionate transit subsidy, please do so.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 1:47 PM

joe from Lowell, from the Reason Hit & Run comments? I read there but hardly ever comment. Why? Good question. This site got me in with the basketball. I guess when there are NBA threads on Hit & Run I'll jump right in.

As a free-market guy, let me say, Mixner ain't too bright. At some point you'll tire of arguing with him.

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 1:56 PM

joe lowell,

In reality, we did "tear up infrastructure" and "rebuild cities" once this century - when the street car and other rail lines around which so many American cities grew up were ripped out in order to deny people options other than driving.

No, we didn't "rebuild cities" when we removed early-century downtown streetcar systems. We have now been designing our cities around cars for 50 years or more. Virtually all road layouts and housing developments and retail facilities we have built over this period have been designed for accessibility by car, not by transit. To provide what Matthew appears to mean by "decent quality alternatives" we would need to destroy essentially our entire stock of housing outside inner city areas, erase the road network, and rebuild it from the ground up at much higher density to make it conducive to transit. To call this a "fantasy" would be to overstate its feasibility.

Obviously, there is a great deal of auto-oriented development that's occured in the suburbs since then,

No, not merely "a great deal." Virtually all of it.

but there is also a good amount development that was built to take advantage of transit which simply lacks the transit. Los Angeles, for example, originally grew up around its streetcar system. While, obviously, Orange County and other areas are in no sense transit-oriented, most of the older neighborhoods are, in Mixner's term, "like European cities."

What older neighborhoods would those be? What additional transit systems and services are you proposing to build in Los Angeles, and where?

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Strawman. Obfuscation. Asymmetric demand for evidence. Projection of future in terms of past. Tedious repetition of lies.

Posted by Metamixner | July 29, 2008 2:11 PM

We should stop building new roads entirely? I take it that you have lived your entire life in largely stagnant old East Coast cities?

You really should move some place that is still growing and developing for awhile to give yourself a better understanding of how people approach political choices in dynamic economic and development environments. I don't mean somewhere you won't fit in - Austin would be fine - but speaking as someone who has lived in New York and Texas, you really would benefit from the perspective.

Keep beating the drum on rail. I want to go to Louisiana from Texas this weekend, and I have no rail option. This is true even though there is a perfectly sound existing rail line and stations, I am in no time crunch, and I am not at all cost sensitive. More trains Amtrak!

Posted by Vermando | July 29, 2008 2:15 PM

I've heard this story about the drop in mileage cutting gas tax revenues a couple times today and keep thinking, presumably the drive to more fuel efficient cars -- or to driving the cars we have more fuel-efficiently -- have to be affecting the revenues at least as much as the raw change in mileage.
The commenters are getting at the only reason, really, I object to increasing tools for mass transportation: I haven't seen much evidence that the US does much to maintain infrastructure well at all, I'd rather not give them a bunch of train tracks and bridges too.

Posted by Sanjay | July 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Mixner,

Changing out our infrastructure* is indeed a daunting task (though you exaggerate it greatly, as is your usual style) - but a necessary one, even if the government merely sits on it's hands and lets the market prevail on oil prices (as it should - as from stopping the many ways in which it subsidizes the oil industry). The current gas guzzling lifestyle will go the way of the dodo, for purely market reasons.

And if you were a REAL defender of the free market, as opposed to a movement conservative dolt grasping at catch phrases that you don't understand, you might take this opportunity to note the many, many ways in which poorly thought-out government interventions created the auto oriented development which you reference.

*One can certainly argue as to how big a role if any the government should play in this change. But the change is already occurring, albeit in the messy way that markets operate. Wittiness the already dying communities in some parts of the exurbs.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 2:44 PM

Insofar as state and local governments have responded at all, it's tended to be by cutting back on rail and bus service to save money at a time when the economic slowdown is hurting state budgets...

This brings up one of my pet peeves: the lack of countercyclical deficit spending by state governments. When times are bad, that's exactly when government spending cuts are least desirable, and when boosts in spending would be most useful. I realize the constitutions of nearly all states prohibit deficit spending, but state constitutions weren't written by God. Wouldn't it make sense for sub-national levels of government to borrow money to prop up services during recessions? I'm not arguing for sustained deficit spending during the entirety of the business cycle, mind you -- just during downturns. What gives?

Posted by Jasper | July 29, 2008 2:55 PM

Sure, but fewer miles driven also means fewer problems with roads that need to be fixed, which means less money needed in the Trust Fund.

Posted by Seitz | July 29, 2008 1:26 PM

There are two problems with this. First, there is an enormous backlog of highway repairs, especially bridges, that need fixing. Second, automobiles do almost no damage to the highways - it's the heavy trucks carrying freight that do almost all the wear and tear.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 3:06 PM

What additional transit systems and services are you proposing to build in Los Angeles, and where?

That's up to the local DOT to decide, just as the location and routes of the new and expanded highways you'd prefer the money be spent on would be.

I'm not going to ask you to map out the routes of proposed new and expanded highways, Mixner, because that would be a rather obvious dodge intended to derail the conversation by getting bogged down in irrelevant details.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 3:11 PM

voice of reason,

Changing out our infrastructure* is indeed a daunting task (though you exaggerate it greatly, as is your usual style) - but a necessary one

This is one of those "What color is the sky in your world?" moments.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 3:17 PM

But, since I'm feeling generous, here you go, Mixner.

http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/historic/redcars/redcar_map.jpeg

A map of the Red Car line that used to serve Los Angeles, with stops.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 3:17 PM

We should all copy joe's last comment and paste it in response to everything Mixner says about transit.

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 3:18 PM

...it's the heavy trucks carrying freight that do almost all the wear and tear.

To my mind that's a good argument in favor of building more rail infrastructure (especially double tracking). Shifting freight from trucks to express rail would reduce the stresses on our highways, and save diesel to boot.

Posted by Medium Dave | July 29, 2008 3:21 PM

I curious what sort of transit systems we would set up outside the major cities. It seems that it'd be awfully difficult to get a really good mass transit setup in the small and medium-sized cities. Or even in the more-distant suburbs of major cities.

Even in progressive places like Madison the bus system predominantly serves the center of the downtown around the Capitol. The service to other areas of Madison is considerably more sparse.

I often get the impression that Matt's ideas tend to depend upon people living nearby a megapolis.

Posted by Alan | July 29, 2008 3:23 PM

joe lowell,

That's up to the local DOT to decide

Great. You do realize that the "local DOT" in Los Angeles is not planning any large-scale expansion of transit in that city, don't you? There might be a small expansion of city's (very limited) Metrorail system and a small expansion of the bus system, but that's it.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 3:24 PM

joe lowell,

A map of the Red Car line that used to serve Los Angeles, with stops.

I have no idea how you think that map supports your claim. Don't you realize that the vast majority of what is now Los Angeles was not developed at all in 1910? It was vast tracts of orange groves and empty land. When the streetcar system was dismantled, Los Angeles wasn't "rebuilt" around the car. Most of that building came long after the streetcars were gone, as previously vacant land was turned into housing developments and shopping centers.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 3:38 PM

Mixner,

Count on you to miss the point.

I'm not arguing about publicly financed transit. (I would say parenthetically that the government probably shouldn't be in the business of financing ANY type of transportation infrastructure, though as long as it is, there are plenty of reasons why the balance should shift a bit towards mass transit.) But I would agree that that SURELY won't, by itself, have a huge impact on how (and where) that Americans choose to live their lives.

What will have a huge impact - and what is already having an impact - is that extremely powerful force which you profess to respect, but don't really understand at all - the market.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 3:48 PM

Taking a second look at the NYT article that Matt references, I'm surprised that there's no mention of the other side of the coin: Even as revenues for highway work are declining, the cost of materials (asphalt, concrete and steel) are rising, as is the cost of fueling all the machinery involved. Unless the federal govt. is prepared to go much farther into the red, it's doubtful that we can afford to keep up the current infrastructure, let alone build new highways.

Posted by Medium Dave | July 29, 2008 4:07 PM

You do realize that the "local DOT" in Los Angeles is not planning any large-scale expansion of transit in that city, don't you?

Yes. I am also aware that this is a discussion of changing public policy to provide funding to such departments to implement public transit projects instead of highway projects. I am aware of all sorts of things, including the division of funding between rail and highways, as well as all internet traditions.

I have no idea how you think that map supports your claim. Yes, you do. You know exactly how showing you a map of the streetcar system that used to connect Los Angeles' neighborhoods supports my position that a streetcar system used to connect Los Angeles' older neighborhods.

Don't you realize that the vast majority of what is now Los Angeles was not developed at all in 1910? Hmm, that's a good question, let's look at what I wrote:

Obviously, there is a great deal of auto-oriented development that's occured in the suburbs since then...Los Angeles, for example, originally grew up around its streetcar system. While, obviously, Orange County and other areas are in no sense transit-oriented...

So, let's see: does my statement about a place called "Orange County," which I single out as an example of a suburban area that was recently built and not transit-oriented, demonstrate that I am aware that the suburban areas of Los Angeles were built after 1910, largely on farmland, and are not transit oriented?

I'm going to go with a tentative "Yes," but I reserve the right to change that to a hearty "Of course you bleeding eejut, what are you, kidding me?"

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 4:20 PM

joe from Lowell,

You are wasting your time arguing with this troll. These arguments usually follow the tactic described as "Strawman. Obfuscation. Asymmetric demand for evidence. Projection of future in terms of past. Tedious repetition of lies." This pattern follows not only transit discussion, but other conservative ideology discussions as well. Heck, he accused President Bush of being too "vague" in his Iraq strategy, though I'm sure he didn't intend to say that.

Posted by freddiemac | July 29, 2008 4:52 PM

Nothing this enjoyable could be a complete waste of time.

BTW, you know why his "$5 vs. $400 per passenger mile" argument is bullshit?

Because most highways have had their capital costs paid off for decades, while capital construction costs of new transit systems account for most transit spendinig. Add to this the fact that the transit systems, like the highways before them, are being "overbuilt" in regards to contemporary demand, because they are intended to both capture and shape future demand.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 4:59 PM

also jim, his bit about "Los Angeles is not planning any large-scale expansion of transit in that city" is totally false.

http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/default.htm

L.A. has been slowly building a subway network, among other things, for decades. Of course he will try to change the focus of the debate to "it's a boondoggle" and subsidies per rider, totally ignoring the point you make about how the upfront costs are paid now but reaped on down the line for decades (like Chicago and NYC). But his point would still be a lie, as L.A. is expanding. It is so predictable that I could post as him.

Posted by freddiemac | July 29, 2008 5:17 PM

You are wasting your time arguing with this troll.

Oh, come ON, it's not a waste of time, it's fun. Mixner is the archetype of the "I love free markets, but I don't really understand how they work" movement conservative. Yesterday he was defending the current health insurance system on free market grounds, and today he is defending the current distribution of transportation infrastructure funding on free market grounds. I mean, we are talking about two of the most highly regulated/subsidized areas of the economy ... and he (in essence) wants to defend the status quo subsidy and regulation levels on free trade grounds. I haven't seen such a clear case of up/downism since ... well, every day, from war supporters.

Those people don't get called on it as often as they should, largely because the average progressive doesn't really understand free markets very well.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 5:40 PM

freddiemac,

also jim, his bit about "Los Angeles is not planning any large-scale expansion of transit in that city" is totally false.

I also wrote: "There might be a small expansion of city's (very limited) Metrorail system and a small expansion of the bus system, but that's it." Did you miss that?

If you think the projects you cite can reasonably be described as "large-scale" transit expansions, then you have a very modest notion of what constitutes "large-scale."

The Gold Line Eastside Expansion, for example, will add a mere six miles of new rail. It took 12 years to plan and another 5 to build. The Expo line adds a mere 9 miles of rail, and will take almost 10 years from planning to completion. The entire Metrorail system is just a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of miles of roads and highways that crisscross the Los Angeles metro area and carry millions of automobiles every day. You don't seem to grasp just how small these transit systems are in the overall transportation infrastructure.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 5:40 PM

"The Gold Line Eastside Expansion, for example, will add a mere six miles of new rail. It took 12 years to plan and another 5 to build. The Expo line adds a mere 9 miles of rail, and will take almost 10 years from planning to completion."

And? How many miles of new highway are they building in Los Angeles? No really, how many?

"The entire Metrorail system is just a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of miles of roads and highways that crisscross the Los Angeles metro area and carry millions of automobiles every day."

Ah yes, the typical Mixner red herring. Another intellectually dishonest tactic used to shift the debate from grounds Mixner was losing into new grounds. As usual, he was factually incorrect and has to shift the debate to try and gain ground.

See joe, this is why I think that Mixner isn't really a person, but several people who post under the handle. They are probably paid to post by some lobby group in DC.

Posted by freddiemac | July 29, 2008 5:50 PM

joe lowell,

Yes.

Good. Now see if you can persuade freddiemac, who thinks that building a few new miles of rail over a period of more than a decade constitutes a "large-scale" expansion of transit in LA.

You know exactly how showing you a map of the streetcar system that used to connect Los Angeles' neighborhoods supports my position that a streetcar system used to connect Los Angeles' older neighborhods.

Sorry, that wasn't the claim in dispute. Your claim was that

"we did 'tear up infrastructure' and 'rebuild cities' once this century - when the street car and other rail lines around which so many American cities grew up were ripped out."

And you cited Los Angeles as an example of these allegedly "rebuilt" cities. But most of what is now Los Angeles hadn't been developed at all in the streetcar era. We couldn't "rebuild" it, because it hadn't been built in the first place when the streetcars were dismantled. It was just farmland and vacant lots. So your idea that we could rebuild Los Angeles today because we did it before is just nonsense. Whatever "rebuilding" was done when the streetcars were removed was tiny. Today, Los Angeles is mile after mile of low-density, car-oriented housing developments and strip malls, and the idea that we could rebuild it as a transit-oriented city is a total fantasy.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 5:58 PM

freddiemac,

And?

I just told you: The entire Metrorail system is just a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of miles of roads and highways that crisscross the Los Angeles metro area and carry millions of automobiles every day. And the expansions you reference are just small additions to that drop in the bucket. Is the meaning of this not clear to you?

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 6:05 PM

I've been watching people make Mixner look stupid around here for a while, but never have I seen him "owned," as the kids say, like he's been in joe's hands.

See, joe, reading Reason makes liberals smarter.

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 6:16 PM

BTW, you know why his "$5 vs. $400 per passenger mile" argument is bullshit? Because most highways have had their capital costs paid off for decades, while capital construction costs of new transit systems account for most transit spendinig.

It's your claim that's bullshit. Both figures represent current spending, and include both maintenance of existing infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure. Again, if you think you can justify the vastly disproportionate subsidy provided to transit, then do so. A handwave isn't justification.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 6:26 PM

Also worth noting that Metro is putting a measure on the county ballot in November for a new sales tax to fund various infrastructure improvements, including the "Subway to the Sea"

http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/Metro_129.htm

Posted by Adam Villani | July 29, 2008 7:20 PM

Both figures represent current spending, and include both maintenance of existing infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure.

Yes, Mixner, and as I just explained, the "construction of new infrastructure" portion of transit spending is much higher than that of highway spending. A lot more the transit spending right now is up-front one-time costs of putting in the infrastructure. This hasn't been the case for highways in decades - almost all of the spending is maintenance.

It's like comparing the "Miles per dollars spent by month" for someone who just bought a car and someone who bought their car two years ago. Of course the guy with the older car has a better ratio - he already has a car, and didn't have to buy one.

Now see if you can persuade freddiemac, who thinks that building a few new miles of rail over a period of more than a decade constitutes a "large-scale" expansion of transit in LA. Now way, I'm with him. You can't compare the scope of a subway project to a highway system by linear miles. Consider a road that connects two convenience stores ten miles apart, vs 1 mile of a road that is lined with highrises; if you think the former is a more important road, you're nuts. The only thing that's "minor" about the LA subway project is the share of spending it gets. It is a project of incredible significance, just like the construction of the relatively-short subways in Boston and DC.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 29, 2008 9:49 PM

joe lowell,

Yes, Mixner, and as I just explained, the "construction of new infrastructure" portion of transit spending is much higher than that of highway spending. A lot more the transit spending right now is up-front one-time costs of putting in the infrastructure. This hasn't been the case for highways in decades - almost all of the spending is maintenance.

Do please produce your figures for maintenance spending vs. new construction spending for transit and highways.

And after you've done that, explain why you think it means that the question of why transit should receive a much higher passenger-mile subsidy than highways is somehow moot or irrelevant or "bullshit."

It's like comparing the "Miles per dollars spent by month" for someone who just bought a car and someone who bought their car two years ago.

No, if it's like anything concerning the subsidy of car purchases, it's like asking why the government should give a $400 subsidy to the guy who's buying a new car this year, but only a $5 subsidy to the guy who bought his new car a few years ago. What's your answer?

Now way, I'm with him.

Well, make up your mind. You just agreed with me that "the 'local DOT' in Los Angeles is not planning any large-scale expansion of transit in that city". Now you're saying you think a few miles of new rail qualifies as a "large-scale" expansion?

You can't compare the scope of a subway project to a highway system by linear miles.

I didn't. I said a few miles of new rail isn't a "large-scale" expansion of transit. If you think it is, you have a very strange notion of the meaning of "large-scale."

But if that's all you really seek in the way of transit expansion in the United States--a few more miles of urban rail in each city, or a few new bus routes in a city, or other increases of that kind of magnitude, over a period of a decade or so--then your ambitions are certainly much lower than, say, Matthew's. Even if we doubled the number of miles of urban rail in the entire country (not just LA), it would have only a tiny impact on overall transportation usage patterns, because rail is such a tiny share of the total.

The only thing that's "minor" about the LA subway project is the share of spending it gets. It is a project of incredible significance,

Huh? What "incredible significance" would that be? It only covers 17 miles, and only has about 150,000 daily boardings (maybe half that number of unique daily riders). And most of those people would probably be taking the bus instead if the subway were not there.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 11:27 PM

I've posted exactly as many numbers as you, and don't intend to do your homework for you. If you know a fraction of what you claim to know, Mixner, then you don't need me to demonstrate that there are major new rail projects being built in cities across the country - Phoenix, LA, Vegas, several cities in Texas, projects you've linked to yourself.

And after you've done that, explain why you think it means that the question of why transit should receive a much higher passenger-mile subsidy than highways is somehow moot or irrelevant or "bullshit."

I don't my point about up front construction costs is obscure enough to bother repeating. You can man up and address it, or not. Whatever.

it's like asking why the government should give a $400 subsidy to the guy who's buying a new car this year, but only a $5 subsidy to the guy who bought his new car a few years ago. What's your answer? That the government already gave that $400 subsidy to the guy who bought his car a few years ago at the time he bought it, and that the government will only give a $5 subsidy to the guy who just bought the car next month, because the $400 subsidy is something you get when yo buy the car. The government put out major outlays when they initially built all of these interstates, too, but now they're built.

Well, make up your mind. I did, and explained myself perfectly clearly.

It's obvious when you've been pwned, Mixner, because you play dumb.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 30, 2008 8:34 AM

joe lowell,

there are major new rail projects being built in cities across the country - Phoenix, LA, Vegas, several cities in Texas, projects you've linked to yourself.

It seems increasingly clear that by the phrase "major new rail projects" what you actually mean is "small rail projects covering just a few miles that provide just a minute fraction of the transportation needs of the cities they serve." The Phoenix light rail system, as we have discussed before, covers a mere 20 linear miles within a metropolitan area hundreds of square miles in size. Its daily ridership is optimistically projected at around one half of one percent of the population, and its passenger-mile share will be even lower. If this qualifies as a "major" new rail project, then rail is in even worse shape than I thought.

That the government already gave that $400 subsidy to the guy who bought his car a few years ago at the time he bought it,

Sorry, you haven't produced any evidence that the highway subsidy was larger than the transit subsidy in the past, let alone larger by a factor of $400 vs. $5.

Posted by Mixner | July 30, 2008 1:33 PM