"Randal O’Toole: Well, there’s a recent story that – unfortunately it
wasn’t in the Onion but it was an authentic story in the Los Angeles
Times that said despite the fact that we’re spending billions of dollars
on transit, transit ridership is declining and that’s true here in
Washington DC as well. Transit ridership seems to have peaked about just
before the financial crash and it’s not really recovering since the
financial crash.
Really transit has been on a downhill since 1960
or 1950, the end of World War Two. What we’re seeing is people plowing
more and more money into it and productivity is going down. The number
of transit riders carried per transit worker is steadily declining.
The
amount of money we spend to get one person out of their car has gone
from a dollar in 1960 to $25 or more today just to get one person out of
their car for one trip. We build transit lines that are so expensive
that it would have been cheaper to give every single daily round trip
rider on that transit line a new Toyota Prius every single year for the
rest of their lives than to keep running that …
Trevor Burrus: I’m laughing and crying at the same time.
Randal
O’Toole: And there are a lot of forces at work here. It started out in
the 1970s. Congress had given cities the incentive to take over private
transit. In 1965, almost all transit in America was private. By 1975, it
was almost all public. Congress had said to cities you take over
transit. We will pay for your new buses. We will pay for your capital
costs. You just have to pay the operating costs.
So cities took
them over and then in 1973, congress said, “Oh by the way, if you have
an interstate freeway that’s planned in your city and you decide to
cancel it, you can take the capital cost of that freeway and use it for
transit capital investments.” Well, cities thought that was great except
for buses are so cheap that they couldn’t afford to operate all the
buses that you could buy for the cost of an interstate freeway.
So
then the mayor of Portland came up with an idea. Let’s build a light
rail line. That’s really, really expensive. That will absorb all the
costs of the freeway even though it’s only going to carry about a tenth
of as many people as that freeway. It will absorb all that cost and it
won’t cost that much more to operate than a bus. So we will be able to
use that money and I won’t be accused of costing the region jobs because
we’re not building that freeway because we’re building the light rail
instead.
Well, what happened was that created – that transformed
the transportation and construction industry. Almost everybody in the
industry who was building roads could easily transform into building
light rail. So they didn’t care whether they were building roads or rail
or what. They just wanted to build something and if people wanted to
build rail, that was fine with them and they became a lobby for rail.
People have talked about the highway lobby. Today the rail construction
lobby in Washington DC is ten times richer than the highway lobby in
Washington.
Trevor Burrus: Do any of these light rails pay for themselves?
Randal
O’Toole: No. First of all, no transit – public transit pays for itself
simply because it doesn’t have to because they’re all drawing on
government money. There are a few transit systems in this country that
do pay for themselves because they’re entirely private. They don’t get
any subsidies. One is the Atlantic City Jitney. One is the New York
Waterway. It’s a ferry system in New York City between New Jersey and
Manhattan.
One is the publico, a jitney system in San Juan, Puerto
Rico. Actually carries more people than the public transit system that
was subsidized and encouraged more passenger miles. There are private
transit systems in some cities that don’t regulate private transit
operations that compete against public transit and do so very
effectively. Most cities however made it illegal to compete against the
public transit agency so they can just raise their costs with impunity
and charge at the taxpayers. Transit cost them – transit on average,
four times as much to move a person one mile as it does to drive a car
that mile. Rail transit is far, far more expensive than bus transit and …
Trevor
Burrus: I mean a bunch of politicians choosing a bunch of options that
are super expensive and bad at their job. I mean this wouldn’t be the
first time this has happened. But it’s so bad. You have to wonder like
why this is even – I mean light rail. When I’m home in Denver, I see the
light rail cruise by and let’s say there are about seven people on it
and I wonder how much it costs to just take these seven people, this
length of – why are they doing that? I mean it’s just crazy …." - Transportation, Land Use, and Freedom, libertarianism.org, 02/26/2016
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/transportation-land-use-freedom
Working from the fringes of Greensboro politics and development to build a brighter future for Greensboro into the 21st Century and beyond.
Showing posts with label rent-seeking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rent-seeking. Show all posts
Friday, April 1, 2016
Mass Transit: Once Again, With Politicos Involved, Not All Is As It Seems
Labels:
government as a delivery system,
government as a monopoly,
Mass Transit,
Randal O’Toole,
rent-seeking,
the seen and the unseen,
W.E. Heasley
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Redux: Who would be stupid enough to spend $22.5 million to get water and sewer to a Megasite, about 10 miles away from another that already has it?
George Hartzman has a most excellent post regarding the close proximity of the Chatham-Randolph mega site, a completed mega site, and the Greensboro-Randolph fledgling mega site. One should consider visiting the post as it includes plenty of useful data and links:
http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/02/who-would-be-stupid-enough-to-spend-225.html
Yes, no one would be that stupid, which is likely Mr. Hartzman’s point. Meaning, "stupidity" is not the cause for expending $22.5 million.
One can clearly state, with great certainty, that the deployment of $22.5 million to a fledgling mega site, roughly 10 miles from a completed mega site, has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism. That is, capitalism is much different than "rich-friendly legislation" -or- "politicos through the mechanism of government granting privilege".
Win, lose or draw someone will make money at the expense of taxpayers. The only "failure" possible, is for the taxpayer to fail.
Better yet, say there really is one elusive auto assembly plant out there. The more empty mega sites the better for the rent-seekers of the elusive auto assembly plant. Is it better to have 180 empty mega sites or 181 empty mega sites if you are the elusive auto assembly plant? 181 of course!
Putting the above observations into an action phase: Elusive auto assembly plant X finally strikes its colors and becomes a known-known looking for a location. Beyond the taxpayer funded resources already sunk into many of the 181 mega sites, X can now demand a premium price to locate as only one winner will emerge and 180 empties will remain.
Taxpayer money will be ramped up as the sweetener with the final winner really being the final loser regarding the taxpayer. The taxpayers associated with the remaining 180 empty sites being losers as well.
Regardless of the 181 taxpayer losers, select and particular winners will emerge, at taxpayer expense.
Sweet!
http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/02/who-would-be-stupid-enough-to-spend-225.html
Yes, no one would be that stupid, which is likely Mr. Hartzman’s point. Meaning, "stupidity" is not the cause for expending $22.5 million.
One can clearly state, with great certainty, that the deployment of $22.5 million to a fledgling mega site, roughly 10 miles from a completed mega site, has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism. That is, capitalism is much different than "rich-friendly legislation" -or- "politicos through the mechanism of government granting privilege".
Win, lose or draw someone will make money at the expense of taxpayers. The only "failure" possible, is for the taxpayer to fail.
Better yet, say there really is one elusive auto assembly plant out there. The more empty mega sites the better for the rent-seekers of the elusive auto assembly plant. Is it better to have 180 empty mega sites or 181 empty mega sites if you are the elusive auto assembly plant? 181 of course!
Putting the above observations into an action phase: Elusive auto assembly plant X finally strikes its colors and becomes a known-known looking for a location. Beyond the taxpayer funded resources already sunk into many of the 181 mega sites, X can now demand a premium price to locate as only one winner will emerge and 180 empties will remain.
Taxpayer money will be ramped up as the sweetener with the final winner really being the final loser regarding the taxpayer. The taxpayers associated with the remaining 180 empty sites being losers as well.
Regardless of the 181 taxpayer losers, select and particular winners will emerge, at taxpayer expense.
Sweet!
Labels:
180 empty mega sites,
Crony Capitalism,
Crony Socialism,
George Hartzman,
other people's money,
rent-seeking,
taxpayers as losers
Sunday, January 4, 2015
You Can't Give Money Away
Labels:
Duke University,
economic costs,
Joseph Schumpeter and economic rents,
Mike Munger,
rent-seeking,
rents,
the seen and the unseen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)