Prophet of the American Way Wendell Cox hath spoken: And Public Transit in the Windy City hath been found SINFUL against the AMERICAN DREAM and FISCALLY DOOMED
http://www.planetizen.com/news/item.php?id=14562
What kind of car will you be buying? I see a Commercial Extreme Truck in your future!
Story requires registration to view..
It really wouldn't surprise me though, to find public transit being put back to bed in some places. Seems like every transit system I see has to be floated on massive subsidies, to the point that I become pretty unsure whether it's actually achieving enough 'public good' to justify it over other measures.. I almost get a feeling that giving major tax breaks to things like hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles to the point that the poor can get into one might be more cost efficient in an analyses, and better targetted. There is, unfortunately, a lot of people who believe that other people should ride transit; while I agree that cars create a lot of problems, i'm uncertain whether transit is actually the best solution, or whether there's some great idea that would make things work so much better that we're either not seeing, or somehow blinded to..
see this thread...Originally posted by JusticeZero
Well, there are far better sites that make the pro-transit argument, but I'll bring out a few points:
1. Your private car is heavily subsidized in a variety of ways.
2. Wendell Cox is notorious on this Board for exemplifying the old saw "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Every statistic he uses should be subject to very close scrutiny.
3. There are many public amenities that I never use that I don't have a problem paying for.
4. A city like Chicago would literally shut down if it relied only on private automobiles. Or, is the solution to bulldoze the denser city neighborhoods and replace them with even more sprawling suburbia than is already happening in Chicago? Quite a loss of investment.
<devils_advocate>I personally haven't seen this demonstrated to my satisfaction, particularly as most of those who argue this point merely compare the cost of a good taxed at close to 50% in one place with the cost of the same good taxed at 90+% elsewhere. I would hardly consider taxing a product less heavily a subsidy. Further, private cars, for all their ills, do have a heck of a lot of positive spillover effects, increased productivity and opportunity benefits that can reduce strains on public services; for just one example, they allow someone to search for employment over a larger area without increasing their transit time; this allows a larger pool of potential employer, and if, for example, the person working is forced to use day care, the day care costs are reduced on account of the reduced travel time. In addition, cars share the same facilities which are used for things such as shipping, alternative transportation modes, or emergency services (Ambulance, fire, police protection) and whn framed in that way, the infrastructure cost starts to look a lot more reaonable, if not a downright bargain.
#2 is an attack on a person, not an argument, thus outside the scope of said argument regardless of it's truth or falsehood. I am not using him as a source.Nonetheless, you are reasonably wealthy and have the financial security to be able to take such a view. Someone in poverty who has difficulty making ends meet likely has a different view on whether or not a subsidy to a service is an acceptable expense, and quite a few of those expenses are passed along to people in this situation indirectly due to the resulting price inflation.3. There are many public amenities that I never use that I don't have a problem paying for.Which is a false dichotomy argument. I didn't really suggest that places should be forced to rely on private automobiles, I said that I am unconvinced that transit is the magic bullet to solve such problems. There may well be some other option which we have not investigated, such as, say, cheap miniature cars, or increasing support to real obstacles to bicycles (such as showers on site and whatnot), or.. heck, I don't know. "If we knew how it worked we'd be using it now."4. A city like Chicago would literally shut down if it relied only on private automobiles. Or, is the solution to bulldoze the denser city neighborhoods and replace them with even more sprawling suburbia than is already happening in Chicago? Quite a loss of investment.
</devils_advocate>
This has been an issue for a while. The CTA started warning about the budget last summer. Previously, whenever the CTA had a budget crises, it made the cuts and jacked the fares without a lot of discussion. But recently, the climate in Springfield has changed such that the agency can think it can finally get the funding formula fixed.
The CTA was created in 1947 because the two private companies that ran Chicago Transit were bankrupt. The CTA bought their assets, "rationalized" service (which is to say, cut service that was no longer profitable) and then tried to sell back to the private sector, but nobody would buy it, so they continued on as the operating agency.
They were a public authority, but they received no outside subsidy until 1974, when service reductions and fare hikes were no longer enough to balance their budget. At the same time though, the suburban bus companies were falling apart (many went under, some were propped up by a hodge-podge of local subsidies), and the suburban train lines were going under too. So a referendum was held in the nine-country Chicago Metro creating the RTA, which was an oversight and funding agency, and two new operating agencies, Metra for suburban rail and Pace for suburban buses.
Why didn't the CTA simply take over bus operations in the suburbs? Well, nearly everything political was racially motivated in Chicago back then (much more so than now). The suburbanites believed that if their bus operations were run by the CTA, then the routes would be linked to city routes, and then they could easily get out to their suburb.
Anyhow, The RTA had taxing authority, so it instituted a 1˘ gas tax to pay for service. That continued until 1979, when the (suburban) Republicans under Jim Thompson used their newfound control of Springfield to strip the RTA of its taxing authority and eliminate the gas tax. In its place, they instituted a 1% sales tax in Cook County and a 0.25% sales tax in the suburban counties to fund the RTA, and they forced through a funding distribution formula that mandated to which agency the money would go (based on if it was collected in the city, cook county suburbs, or exurbs).
The formula favored Metra above the other two agencies, and it simply got worse as time went on as people moved to the suburbs. Throughout the '80s and '90s, the CTA's only option was to raise fares and cut service, which drove people from the system. Adjusted for inflation, the subsidies they receive from the RTA have fallen by $122 million since 1980, and that's projected to continue declining. In addition, Para-transit (ADA) costs have skyrocketed, with no money from the Federal government to cover that mandated program.
Until recently, the only paper in Chicagoland against more transit money was the northwest suburban Daily Herold. But then the Tribune Company got into a pissing war with Mayor Daley over the Wrigley Field maintenance, and the edict went down to their media empire that the City of Chicago and anybody associated with it was on their ****-list. You can probably still dig up the articles from months ago when the Trib' was still on the CTA's side on their website. Now they're running articles every day that range from how horrible it is to take transit, to that the CTA is a horrible money waster, to now, apparently, Wendell. I don't read the Trib' with any regularity though because I don't like reading the company rag of a despotic corporation.
I still think the cuts will probably not happen, and even if they do, it'll only be for 2005 because when the political backlash happens in Springfield, they'll pay up. Most people, when you tell them about the cuts, just say "oh, they could never let that happen," so if they do let that happen, undoubtedly they'll hear from the "silent majority." If it happens, no car for me obviouslyI couldn't afford one even if I wanted one. I'll just have to rely more heavily on my bike.
JusticeZero: Nobody is arguing that transit is a "magic bullet." Nobody has ever believed that. Not too long ago, though, people believed that cars would be a "magic bullet" that would fix everything. Folks like Wendell still believe that because they're paid to do so. What ended up happening when we poured trillions into automobiles as our "one solution" to transportation is the mess we have now: Cars are the biggest users of energy (that's energy, not oil, fuel cells won't change that), the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses, and of many other pollutants like particulate matter. They're the number one cause of death of children in our cities. They cause gridlock on our streets, raising the cost of shipping and reducing effectiveness of emergency services. And dependence on automobiles been linked to our obesity and heart disease epidemics.
The solution is to abandon the "one magic bullet" strategy of transportation planning. We need multi-modal transportation systems. Yes, accommodate cars, but also accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Fund road improvements, but don't starve public transit. Give people plenty of options and they'll make healthier and more socially responsible choices.
Nailed it again, jordan.
.
He usually does.
Your private car is heavily subsidized in a variety of ways.So every road you drive on is a toll road, eh?I personally haven't seen this demonstrated to my satisfaction
Did you know it costs upward of $100 million PER MILE to build a highway? Where do you think that money comes from? Gas taxes don't cover any more than transit fares.
While we're on the subject of putting a stop to modes of transportation that require public subsidy, I hope you don't plan on flying anywhere anytime soon, because without public subsidy the air travel industry would survive about 5 minutes.
Oh, and don't forget your home. Tax-deductible mortgage? Yeah, that’s a public subsidy. Costs the government massive, massive amounts of money. Probably in the Trillions.
That doesn't even count the moeny spent on asthma medication for smog-choked cities.
Or, for that matter, a good part of the military budget. At least some of that $132 billion (and counting) could be assessed to drivers, maybe? Gotta keep the Navigators' roamin'. (or, for that matter, and mea culpa: Subaru WRXs)
And on the other hand, that also doesn't count the hospital bills we DON'T see because ambulances/police/fire trucks are able to get to people on the roads, because people can get adequate nutrition because they can get the 'missing pieces' taken care of from trucked food, the loss in productivity for those in rural areas were they not able to fairly easily acquire goods and services in bulk and transport them 20-50+ miles, and so on. Nor does it take into account, as an examination of 'advances in technology', the vast reduction in pollution the automobile represents to the tune of.. what was it? Over 1,000,000 pounds of unsanitary manure that had to be hauled out of the public row daily in New York, and uncounted other animal wastes discharged into the river? Who knows what sort of health and respiratory hazards from continual exposure to that?
Really, noone is disputing that private cars are FAR from the "perfect" solution. But it is a popular, and foolish, view, to simply demonize the private auto out of hand, as it blinds one to a lot of realities of what people need, over-romanticizes other "solutions" which are, really, not being used for good reasons, and removes from one's mind the very considerations that a 'transportation solution" would need to address. You have to understand why people use private autos before you can try to solve the 'problem' of private autos, and sorry to break it to you, but people don't drive cars because of some mind-control conspiracy. Nor does the fact that there are a lot of subsidies justify any other subsidy in any way.
Are you arguing that we didn't have paved roads for emergency vehicles and deliveries before the automobile? In fact, the first systematic attempt to pave America's streets (with something other than wood planks) came as a result of the bicycle, not the automobile. If anything, the congestion caused by too many private automobiles hurts rather than helps the essential parts of our surface transportation system.
Many rural areas of America, including all of Downstate Illinois, had electric interurban railroads that linked most small communities to each other. The idea that people--even rural people--didn't have access to long-distance trade before automobiles is quite absurd.
Of course, horse drawn wagons were horrible in an urban environment, and the reciprocating engine made rural life much easier. Few would argue with that. Nobody is trying to demonize the automobile.
But you need to do a cost-benefit analysis of our current transportation policy. Understanding the hidden subsidies for automobiles is essential in that analysis, as is understanding their negative impacts on our society, and refraining from inflating their benefits. When an impartial analysis is done, it becomes clear that the the proper role of the automobile is as a single component of a much more balanced transportation policy than we have in this country.
You’re grossly mischaracterizing our position on cars. No one denies they’re useful. No one thinks they are inherently evil. It’s our over reliance on cars that’s the problem. It’s a case of too much of a good thing.
But more specifically, the point was the roads that are necessary for cars to be useful are built with public money and with a few exceptions are almost wholly subsidized. If you are against transit because it requires public subsidy then you must also be against highways, air travel and tax deductible mortgages, lest you prove yourself a hypocrite.
I'd add one more element to this discussion.
The CTA began losing ridership not long after its inception in 1947, and that steady decline over generations certainly plays a huge role in its current budget crisis. But I'd argue that the CTA's loss in ridership coincides quite closely with the breakage of the link between land use, zoning and public transportation.
Transit-oriented development in Chicago was the rule and not the exception until the 1920s. Streetcars and "L's" created neighborhoods; commuter trains created suburbs. However, with the expansion of the roadway network, the transit network became more and more obsolete. The CTA usually fought this by cutting costs and services, but maybe a better long-term strategy would have been to press the City of Chicago and surrounding suburbs for denser development near transit stations.
Steps should've been taken by the CTA years ago to re-build the market for its product, rather than passively wait for the market to come back. Then again, maybe hindsight is 20-20.
Well, get to the thread late and my thoughts are stolen.
Yes, in order to truely balance the cost per use ratio of transit against the auto, all roads need to be toll roads.
Yes, taxes heavily subsidize tranist...and they heavily subsidize autos
Yes, transit has user fees every trip...no, autos normally don't.. unless on tollways/bridges.
In order to help balance these two "competing" methods of transportation, the field must be leveled. Transportation planning needs to be thought on a regional level, with development of different densities being better served by different methods.
pete and now, it's easy to see that new development now likes spring up near the on-ramps of freeways, expressways, and to a lesser extent tollways instead of along rail and streetcar lines.
Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.
Cars do have several user fees, you just don't see them. Gas tax goes for roads, transit, trails and other stuff. The problem is that 60% of it is wasted on Davis Bacon, environmental, and other federal mandates. When I pay $260 per year for my tags where do you suppose that goes? Those little stickers are not that expensive.
“As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
... and, like transit fares, gas taxes do not pay anywhere near all the costs associated with road building.
Though Jane Holtz Kay, James Howard Kunstler, and others with the initials JHK might "demonize the private auto out of hand," you'll find that virtually none of the new generation of urban and regional planners, those who hold the more sohpisticated view about planning for improved access through alternatives to driving, rather than simply planning for the automobile and leaving other modes simply as an afterthought, do not demonize the car at all. I certainly don't. Though it's nothing fancy, I love driving my car. I'm afraid I'd hate driving my car if I had to use it for virtually every trip made outside the home.
Well, of course most people need their cars since they have little alternative! That's why we're doing all this planning so that might not have to be the case for everyone in the future. That's certainly not unreasonable.as it blinds one to a lot of realities of what people need
Here, I must disagree with what seems like a resigned acceptance of the status quo in most of the U.S. We don't wish to improve alternatives to driving because we hate cars (and, almost all of us don't hate cars anyway.), over-romanticizes other "solutions" which are, really, not being used for good reasons,
again, I disagree. Improving access to destinations is very much on the minds of planners and others involved in these processes. Work, school, shopping, restaurants, entertainment, recreation. Of course some of these will always be most conveniently reached by car. But it is high time that we stopped designing our built environment so that _all_ of these are only reachable by car. Does that not cancel out the very benefits that owning a car are supposed to bring - freedom of mobility?and removes from one's mind the very considerations that a 'transportation solution" would need to address.
Well, at least I think I know why most people drive cars. Though a small subset of people like me have some serious skills behind the wheel and love to drive, and another small subset like to customize and make their cars look real pretty-like to show off, most people drive cars because it is, in most places, a requirement to fully participate in American life. Hence, the alternatives.You have to understand why people use private autos before you can try to solve the 'problem' of private autos
You will obey my every command! When I count to three you will...Just kidding!, and sorry to break it to you, but people don't drive cars because of some mind-control conspiracy.
I must take serious issue with this. I agree with what's been said by Cirrus.Nor does the fact that there are a lot of subsidies justify any other subsidy in any way.
Ok, i do agree there are fees.. but what are the individual user costs per mile?
If I drive my car 12,000 miles a year and avoid all toll roads:
30mpg at 12,000 miles = 400 gallons
I can't remember what the gas tax is, so I'll say 30 cents to the gallon. = $120
+ illinois tags $80
---------------------------------------
$200 in user fees per year over 12,000 miles.
my "user" cost of the road is: 1.6 cents per mile..
If transit was percieved to be that affordable and fees so transparent, transit may become more viable.
If I take the bus to work downtown, I can pay $30 for unlimited monthly rides. If I assume I'll only commute to work (4 mi round trip) and 10 extra miles a day for other reasons, my user cost per mile is 11 cents...nearly 10 times as high...and I sacrafice convenience.
Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.
I agree with JordanB's assessment. Cars aren't the spawn of Satan. But it's time to rein them in and create a truly balanced transportation system. Additional thoughts - I haven't yet seen any mention of the fact that an over-reliance on the automobile negatively impacts the poor, the elderly and the disabled. If you can't drive, and live in an area with poor transit, your access to employment, services, shopping, medical treatment, family/friends, etc. is drastically limited.
Anecdotially, as part of a marketing project I'm working on, I observed two focus groups last night, talking to randomly selected citizens about their attitudes towards various modes of travel. They all admitted they like the freedom and autonomy their cars provide, but they also wished they could drive less, and that transit could provide more of their travel needs. I for one, don't agree with the notion that EVERYONE wants to drive everywhere they go. I've spoken to too many people that feel otherwise. Build a good transit system and people will use it. Portland is a good example of this.
"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.
Apparently cars are free on the moon eh, boiker? If you factor in the car's cost plus the cost of required insurance and other fees, plus the cost of semi-regular maintenance, and convert them to a monthly total, then you have the user costs. And believe me (I've done the calculations) that number is signifigantly higher than an unlimited ride subway ticket or bus pass.
What's the opportunity cost from the significantly longer trip times on transit?
but, krebstar, the point I was making is that the per trip user cost is not comparable. Everyone who drives a vehicle accepts insurance, maintenance, etc. as a necessary cost to own a vehicle. The point I'm making is that from the time I commence a trip to the time I end the trip, what is my percieved trip cost.
No one (probably someone though) budgets insurance, maintenance, and other costs into a week long driving vacation. They budget gas costs, tolls and depending on the length of the trip...oil costs.
Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.
Maybe Cox was onto something:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...slocalwest-hed
CTA faces skepticism over cuts in service
By Virginia Groark
Tribune staff reporter
October 8, 2004
Tired of the Chicago Transit Authority's clamoring about funding shortages, a regional transportation official said Tuesday the agency needs to explore "creative" alternatives like leasing bus lines and transit stations before it talks about service cuts.
Such proposals may not raise the $82 million the CTA says it needs to maintain service next year, but "they certainly would make a dent on it," said Donald Totten, a Republican representing suburban Cook County on the Regional Transportation Authority board.
"And you would find much more support for what the CTA would do if they would start thinking about some of these things rather than coming back with the same `Raise fares, raise taxes, cut services' cry," he said.
Totten's remarks, which came during and after an RTA board meeting, underscore a skepticism among some suburban officials about the CTA's budget woes. CTA officials have threatened massive service cuts next year unless state funding is increased.
On Tuesday, heads of the five collar counties issued a position paper that refuted several claims the CTA has made while trying to build support to send it more state transportation dollars and change the region's transit funding formula.
The CTA is reviewing its advertising contract and hiring a consultant to analyze staffing levels, but labor contracts prevent the agency from heeding some of Totten's other recommendations, said CTA Chairwoman Carole Brown, who is a RTA board member.
"It's a lot easier to come up with suggestions in a vacuum," she said. "The reality is that we've got collective bargaining agreements that make it difficult to do something like privatize our bus lines."
Totten's comments were prompted by Brown's introduction of a resolution that calls for the RTA to seek legislative support to change the RTA Act, among other things. That law outlines the funding formula that distributes transit dollars to CTA, Pace and Metra.
The CTA board approved a similar resolution last month. Brown, supported by the four Chicago RTA board members, hopes the resolution, or a version of it, will be voted on at the November board meeting, which falls days before the legislature's veto session.
"I appreciate my colleague's discussion about creative funding, about us being more prudent financially," Brown said. "But the reality is that the subsidies to the CTA have eroded over time, and we think it's reasonable after 20 years to ask the General Assembly to take a look at it."
Totten, however, said he would not support the resolution as is, saying its "thrust" is to change the funding formula.
"A redirection of the formula is not up for discussion," he said.
Thursday's discussion comes about a week before a new special House committee on mass transit holds the first of at least two hearings on the RTA, changes in governance of Pace, Metra, CTA and RTA and the funding formula.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
In that case, the people who use mass transit similarly accept the monthly pass. So for them the perceived per-trip cost is 0.
Quote
