Showing posts with label The New Immobility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The New Immobility. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
California's War on the Suburbs, Part 2
This past weekend, demographer Wendell Cox writes about California's continued war on the suburbs in the Saturday Wall Street Journal. Complete with a six minute video.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Transit Doesn't Save Energy
You read that correctly: mass transit does not save energy. [Pause to allow the heads to explode.]
From whom did I acquire this heretical knowledge? Surprisingly, it was Barack Obama's U.S. Department of Energy. Each year the department publishes its Transportation Energy Data Book, a must-have for every well-stocked personal library. The 30th Edition was published in June 2011 and Table 2-13 makes for interesting reading.
In 2009 (latest data available) the average amount of energy it took (in British Thermal Units (BTUs) to move a single passenger one mile in an automobile was 3,538. A city bus took an average of 4,242 to move a single passenger for one mile.
Although it may sound counter-intuitive, it really isn't. When driving alone, I use 25 percent of my (four-seat) automobile's passenger carrying capacity. Next time you are out-and-about around 9 p.m., look to see how crowded the city busses are: are they using 5%? 10% of the capacity. Bus transit fares so poorly because so many busses are driving around with empty seats. [Note: I prefer the old spelling of the plural.]
The comparison did not always appear so favorable to the car. As late as 1990, the advantage was with the bus. But as cars have gotten more fuel efficient (and the bus has not) automobiles are the more energy efficient transportation mode.
The Cato Institutes's Randal O'Toole (The Antiplanner), has run the numbers in more depth, and developed figures for individual cities. Randal concludes that our fair metropolis of Minneapolis-St. Paul actually runs its transit system (including rail) at a slight advantage to the automobile, with an average energy requirement of 3,333 BTU per passenger mile. Of course, this 6 percent advantage over the car is purchased with untold millions in operating subsidies from local, state, and federal taxpayers, and billions of dollars in duplicative infrastructure. With automobile efficiency growing each year, it's not clear how long the transit advantage will last in Minnesota.
As Randal points out, we would be better off, not with more transit, but getting more people into hybrids and other high efficiency automobiles (Prius, 1,700 BTU/passenger mile).
Since much of the recent rationalization for transit "investment" centers on its potential to solve every problem from dependence on foreign oil to global warming, it is past time for a rethink. Like so much else in that agenda, it falls apart in the face of mathematics.
From whom did I acquire this heretical knowledge? Surprisingly, it was Barack Obama's U.S. Department of Energy. Each year the department publishes its Transportation Energy Data Book, a must-have for every well-stocked personal library. The 30th Edition was published in June 2011 and Table 2-13 makes for interesting reading.
In 2009 (latest data available) the average amount of energy it took (in British Thermal Units (BTUs) to move a single passenger one mile in an automobile was 3,538. A city bus took an average of 4,242 to move a single passenger for one mile.
Although it may sound counter-intuitive, it really isn't. When driving alone, I use 25 percent of my (four-seat) automobile's passenger carrying capacity. Next time you are out-and-about around 9 p.m., look to see how crowded the city busses are: are they using 5%? 10% of the capacity. Bus transit fares so poorly because so many busses are driving around with empty seats. [Note: I prefer the old spelling of the plural.]
The comparison did not always appear so favorable to the car. As late as 1990, the advantage was with the bus. But as cars have gotten more fuel efficient (and the bus has not) automobiles are the more energy efficient transportation mode.
The Cato Institutes's Randal O'Toole (The Antiplanner), has run the numbers in more depth, and developed figures for individual cities. Randal concludes that our fair metropolis of Minneapolis-St. Paul actually runs its transit system (including rail) at a slight advantage to the automobile, with an average energy requirement of 3,333 BTU per passenger mile. Of course, this 6 percent advantage over the car is purchased with untold millions in operating subsidies from local, state, and federal taxpayers, and billions of dollars in duplicative infrastructure. With automobile efficiency growing each year, it's not clear how long the transit advantage will last in Minnesota.
As Randal points out, we would be better off, not with more transit, but getting more people into hybrids and other high efficiency automobiles (Prius, 1,700 BTU/passenger mile).
Since much of the recent rationalization for transit "investment" centers on its potential to solve every problem from dependence on foreign oil to global warming, it is past time for a rethink. Like so much else in that agenda, it falls apart in the face of mathematics.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The Creative Class Wants its Trains, Everywhere They Go
Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune carries an opinion piece from the epitome of the Creative Class. She represents the very type of person that city planners are trying to attract (or to retain) to our fair burg. This is how she describes herself,
Regardless, this young woman believes that Minneapolis should have a subway system, based on her struggles navigating our inadequate bus and light rail network.
Key passage,
"Basically, you can trust the government [in Munich] to get you where you want to be. It's not why I moved there, but it's why I stayed. I've seen Munich attract plenty of other young people."
"I wouldn't be nearly as successful in Munich if I had to make monthly car and insurance payments, if I had to navigate foreign streets as well as a foreign language."
And she would be grateful if we made such transit options available here, for her occasional visits.
- Parents live in the "desolate" suburbs of Minneapolis
- Graduated from college last year
- Moved to Munich, Germany
- Works at a "hip" marketing firm
- Has "international" friends
- Doesn't own a car
- Lives is a "teeny-tiny" Munich apartment
- Likes to ride Munich's subway
Regardless, this young woman believes that Minneapolis should have a subway system, based on her struggles navigating our inadequate bus and light rail network.
Key passage,
"Basically, you can trust the government [in Munich] to get you where you want to be. It's not why I moved there, but it's why I stayed. I've seen Munich attract plenty of other young people."
Good thing that, because Germany is among a handful of countries (mostly European) whose population is actually declining.
Nonetheless, she never makes clear whether installing a subway in Minneapolis would be enough to tempt her back to live again amongst us rubes in flyover country. I'm sure that she is grateful to the taxpayers of the Federal Republic of Germany and its Free State of Bavaria for subsidizing her carefree lifestyle. She writes,"I wouldn't be nearly as successful in Munich if I had to make monthly car and insurance payments, if I had to navigate foreign streets as well as a foreign language."
And she would be grateful if we made such transit options available here, for her occasional visits.
Perhaps I'm biased, as my German ancestors were wagon makers. But my advice to her? Next time you visit your parents, rent a car.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Bicyclists Are Better Than You Are
At least that is the subtext of this article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune ("A new attitude about biking in Minneapolis?"). The "new attitude"? Why the question mark? As it turns out, the new attitude is "smug satisfaction".
But we already new that, so why is this article in today's paper? It turns out that a local advocacy group ("Bike Walk Twin Cities," a program of Transit for Livable Communities) issued a press release, so the Star Tribune jumped into action to validate their biases. Actually, it turns out that while the group hadn't even bothered to issue the study yet, the newspaper was happy to provide the free, pre-publicity.
The article follows the standard form. It begins in the classic style with an unverifiable assertion, "...signaling that a decade-long cultural shift in transportation and urban design..." Next comes the first dubious statistic from the advocacy group. Followed by the quote from the expert from one of the coasts. In this instance it's from a Rutgers professor of "Urban Transportation." Us little folk in flyover country are not validated unless someone from the East or West Coast pronounces us good.
Once the preliminaries are out of the way, we get down to business: giving the hoi polloi their marching orders,
"The trend is also producing new attitudes toward commuting and--in case you hadn't noticed--a need to share the roads no matter what the weather."
So, 'in case you hadn't noticed,' your job while operating those primitive, gas guzzling autos is to get out of the way of the important people on two wheels.
Now we follow up with the soothing reassurances: that all of those millions spent on bike lanes are finally paying off, that soon everyone will be riding a bike (even you can do it), that all of this way made possible by the all-knowing Federal government.
Next comes the conversion story, how one brave Minnesotan (from Ohio) found biking and let go of the car.
Finally, more dubious statistics, a last, unfunny joke and we are done. You may now resume your unworthy lives.
But we already new that, so why is this article in today's paper? It turns out that a local advocacy group ("Bike Walk Twin Cities," a program of Transit for Livable Communities) issued a press release, so the Star Tribune jumped into action to validate their biases. Actually, it turns out that while the group hadn't even bothered to issue the study yet, the newspaper was happy to provide the free, pre-publicity.
The article follows the standard form. It begins in the classic style with an unverifiable assertion, "...signaling that a decade-long cultural shift in transportation and urban design..." Next comes the first dubious statistic from the advocacy group. Followed by the quote from the expert from one of the coasts. In this instance it's from a Rutgers professor of "Urban Transportation." Us little folk in flyover country are not validated unless someone from the East or West Coast pronounces us good.
Once the preliminaries are out of the way, we get down to business: giving the hoi polloi their marching orders,
"The trend is also producing new attitudes toward commuting and--in case you hadn't noticed--a need to share the roads no matter what the weather."
So, 'in case you hadn't noticed,' your job while operating those primitive, gas guzzling autos is to get out of the way of the important people on two wheels.
Now we follow up with the soothing reassurances: that all of those millions spent on bike lanes are finally paying off, that soon everyone will be riding a bike (even you can do it), that all of this way made possible by the all-knowing Federal government.
Next comes the conversion story, how one brave Minnesotan (from Ohio) found biking and let go of the car.
Finally, more dubious statistics, a last, unfunny joke and we are done. You may now resume your unworthy lives.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The 1880's Transit Solution or "A Streetcar Named Delusion"
Under the heading of "questions no one is asking" MinnPost asks this week, "Are streetcars the answer to our transit and environmental needs?" Streetcars are that cutting edge (circa 1880) technology that moves the masses about the urban landscape at speeds rarely exceeding a brisk walk. MinnPost writes,
"Cities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use."
How dense? MinnPost informs,
"The key...is to achieve sufficient density—10 to 40 residential units per acre"
How dense are we today? MinnPost notes,
"In the Twin Cities, the typical urban neighborhood might have a density of seven to 10 units per acre, while the density in developing suburbs is more in the range of two to four units per acre."
How dense is 10-40 units an acre? It turns out, this level of density equals San Francisco at the low end (10 units/acre) and roughly approaching the density of the city of Paris, France (50 units/acre) at the high end.
Keep in mind, streetcars won't work if the occasional acre includes 40 housing units, we need to maintain this high density level for mile after mile after mile to build the ridership needed. It would transform the nature of the community.
Nonetheless, "Minneapolis landed a $900,000 federal grant to explore the idea. The city has embarked on a study of a possible nine-mile line along Nicollet and Central Avenues"
Let me off at the next stop.
"Cities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use."
How dense? MinnPost informs,
"The key...is to achieve sufficient density—10 to 40 residential units per acre"
How dense are we today? MinnPost notes,
"In the Twin Cities, the typical urban neighborhood might have a density of seven to 10 units per acre, while the density in developing suburbs is more in the range of two to four units per acre."
How dense is 10-40 units an acre? It turns out, this level of density equals San Francisco at the low end (10 units/acre) and roughly approaching the density of the city of Paris, France (50 units/acre) at the high end.
Keep in mind, streetcars won't work if the occasional acre includes 40 housing units, we need to maintain this high density level for mile after mile after mile to build the ridership needed. It would transform the nature of the community.
Nonetheless, "Minneapolis landed a $900,000 federal grant to explore the idea. The city has embarked on a study of a possible nine-mile line along Nicollet and Central Avenues"
Let me off at the next stop.
The Suburbs are Not Dying, After All
In a happy convergence, the Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) interviews New Geography's Joel Kotkin at PJTV (registration required). They talk about the refusal of the suburbs to die off, the static viewpoint of Urban Planning, telecommuting, and the war on the middle class.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
A good idea from MNDOT
Here is my chance to say something nice about Minnesota's Department of Transportation. The St. Cloud Times reports that MNDOT is studying the movement of freight on Interstate 94 and considering the construction of a freeway connection between I-94 and U.S. Highway 10 to improve freight traffic flow on the busy corridor between Fargo and Minneapolis. This kind of long-range infrastructure planning is exactly what we need more of in Minnesota, and less emphasis on high speed rail and other such boondoggles.
Bravo, MNDOT!
Bravo, MNDOT!
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Minneapolis Hates Cars
Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Jon Tevlin dares to take on the "complete streets" mafia with this piece headlined "New bike lanes bring confusion and criticism." Feel the condescension emanating from the City of Minneapolis' "non-motorized transportation programmer," Shaun Murphy,
"I drive and I don't like to be stuck in traffic either," said Murphy. "It's part of the trade-offs. In some of these places, there have also been huge safety improvements for both cars and bikes. It's a balancing act, and we have to compromise."
He means you, the driver, have to compromise by not getting to where you want to go.
"I drive and I don't like to be stuck in traffic either," said Murphy. "It's part of the trade-offs. In some of these places, there have also been huge safety improvements for both cars and bikes. It's a balancing act, and we have to compromise."
He means you, the driver, have to compromise by not getting to where you want to go.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
St. Cloud and Complete Streets
Just like the European Union and local school districts, "Complete Streets" advocates insist that the voting continue until the correct result is reached. They won't take "no" for an answer, but once "yes" is reached, the question is closed.
Case in point, the City of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Back in September, the City Council voted down a "Complete Streets" policy, but that result was not allowed to stand. Yesterday, the City Council finally voted the right way and passed the policy on a 4-3 vote.
Warning to St. Cloud residents: now that "Yes" is official, good luck getting a bad project reversed.
Case in point, the City of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Back in September, the City Council voted down a "Complete Streets" policy, but that result was not allowed to stand. Yesterday, the City Council finally voted the right way and passed the policy on a 4-3 vote.
Warning to St. Cloud residents: now that "Yes" is official, good luck getting a bad project reversed.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
More "Complete Streets" in St. Paul: Goodbye Parking!
The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports on major street work planned for the City's Raymond Avenue in 2013. And yes, "complete streets" is on the job.
"About 50 of the existing 112 parking spots along the avenue would be eliminated to add bike lanes and other improvements." Comments at the hearing were split evenly, 7 to 7. In baseball, a tie goes to the baserunner. In Urban Planning, it seems, a tie goes to the bike rider.
"About 50 of the existing 112 parking spots along the avenue would be eliminated to add bike lanes and other improvements." Comments at the hearing were split evenly, 7 to 7. In baseball, a tie goes to the baserunner. In Urban Planning, it seems, a tie goes to the bike rider.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Updated: Follow the Money: Red Rock Commuter Rail
In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, we are told that a new commuter rail project for the southeastern Twin Cities Metro area is "gaining ground."
It has a name: "Red Rock Corridor." It would connect downtown St. Paul with the downriver town of Hastings, Minnesota, 30 miles away. The project has its own website.
But what would it cost? We are not told. The only dollar figure given is a $69,350 number for a planning grant from the regional government Metropolitan Council. The state's first commuter rail project, the Northstar line, cost $320 million to construct. [See below for more cost information.]
What problem would it solve? We are told that the project "is envisioned as the heart of Newport's redevelopment, with a blend of housing, retail and commercial building." Newport is a commuter city of 3,850 people.
We are told that U.S. Highway 61 is "an increasingly congested north-south route." How about fixing bottlenecks on Hwy 61? No information is provided.
We are told that Hastings "has no transit links to downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis." How about adding bus service to Hastings?
We are told that park-and-ride bus lots along the proposed route "are already filled to capacity." How about expanding the parking capacity or add new bus lots?
Rest easy, this is a "both/and" solution. "To build ridership, rapid bus service to the southeast metro will be expanded next year, park-and-ride lots will be built, and by 2020, commuter rail should be running."
We are also told that these "plans come as Minnesota communities look for ways to recover from dwindling state aid and an ailing economy."
Who gets the final word? In the newspaper article, the improbably-named Sam Zimbabwe is quoted, saying,
"It is something that we've seen around the country taking hold as the real estate market demands a new type of development."
Ignoring the question of "what development?", the more interesting question is "Who is Sam Zimbabwe?" The paper lists him as the "director of the nonprofit Center for Transit-Oriented Development at Reconnecting America." Reconnecting America is a Washington, DC,-based group partnering with Smart Growth America to improve your life through expanding public transportation.
Where does Reconnecting America get its funding to apply its tender mercies in Minnesota? Ah, the Minneapolis-based McKnight Foundation, which has provided the group with $1.4 million since 2004 "to expand local knowledge, build capacity, and support leadership for equitable transit-oriented development in the Twin Cities region."
Update I: The story is accompanied by a timeline for the project, which I reproduce below,
Source: Red Rock Corridor Commission, October 2011
Notice what's missing? No determination of how much it will cost or who will pay for it. In 2012-13, we'll figure out how to divvy up the cost, whatever that may turn out to be.
Update II: I found this article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, from early last year, which cites a 2007 study estimating the commuter rail portion of the Red Rock project at $550 million. The article also contains some estimates on the bus service portions of the project.
It has a name: "Red Rock Corridor." It would connect downtown St. Paul with the downriver town of Hastings, Minnesota, 30 miles away. The project has its own website.
But what would it cost? We are not told. The only dollar figure given is a $69,350 number for a planning grant from the regional government Metropolitan Council. The state's first commuter rail project, the Northstar line, cost $320 million to construct. [See below for more cost information.]
What problem would it solve? We are told that the project "is envisioned as the heart of Newport's redevelopment, with a blend of housing, retail and commercial building." Newport is a commuter city of 3,850 people.
We are told that U.S. Highway 61 is "an increasingly congested north-south route." How about fixing bottlenecks on Hwy 61? No information is provided.
We are told that Hastings "has no transit links to downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis." How about adding bus service to Hastings?
We are told that park-and-ride bus lots along the proposed route "are already filled to capacity." How about expanding the parking capacity or add new bus lots?
Rest easy, this is a "both/and" solution. "To build ridership, rapid bus service to the southeast metro will be expanded next year, park-and-ride lots will be built, and by 2020, commuter rail should be running."
We are also told that these "plans come as Minnesota communities look for ways to recover from dwindling state aid and an ailing economy."
Who gets the final word? In the newspaper article, the improbably-named Sam Zimbabwe is quoted, saying,
"It is something that we've seen around the country taking hold as the real estate market demands a new type of development."
Ignoring the question of "what development?", the more interesting question is "Who is Sam Zimbabwe?" The paper lists him as the "director of the nonprofit Center for Transit-Oriented Development at Reconnecting America." Reconnecting America is a Washington, DC,-based group partnering with Smart Growth America to improve your life through expanding public transportation.
Where does Reconnecting America get its funding to apply its tender mercies in Minnesota? Ah, the Minneapolis-based McKnight Foundation, which has provided the group with $1.4 million since 2004 "to expand local knowledge, build capacity, and support leadership for equitable transit-oriented development in the Twin Cities region."
Update I: The story is accompanied by a timeline for the project, which I reproduce below,
2011: Station area and site study completed on building transit stations in St. Paul (Lower Afton Road), Newport, Cottage Grove and Hastings.
2012: Expanded express bus service to build ridership.
2012-13: Analysis of cost allocations and ridership projections.
2014-16: Final design and engineering for the commuter rail line.
2016-18: Commuter rail construction begins.
2019: Commuter service begins to St. Paul.
2022: Commuter service extends to Minneapolis.
Notice what's missing? No determination of how much it will cost or who will pay for it. In 2012-13, we'll figure out how to divvy up the cost, whatever that may turn out to be.
Update II: I found this article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, from early last year, which cites a 2007 study estimating the commuter rail portion of the Red Rock project at $550 million. The article also contains some estimates on the bus service portions of the project.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
An Update on St. Paul's Complete Streets Project
Minnesota Public Radio has an update on the Jefferson Ave. "complete streets" project in St. Paul. It seems that many local residents are still not happy and considering a lawsuit. MPR quotes a local resident,
"When we start talking about narrowing our roadways, putting up roadblocks, eliminating stop signs or lights, things that would make it unsafe for pedestrians or other cars just to accommodate this very small minority of bikers on essentially a roadway system that already exists from one end to the other, and to then put a million dollars into it and call it a bikeway, is insulting."
"When we start talking about narrowing our roadways, putting up roadblocks, eliminating stop signs or lights, things that would make it unsafe for pedestrians or other cars just to accommodate this very small minority of bikers on essentially a roadway system that already exists from one end to the other, and to then put a million dollars into it and call it a bikeway, is insulting."
Friday, October 21, 2011
Early Warning Alert: The Coming War Against Free Parking
The next phase is coming down the road, the end of free parking.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Chicago: Bike Friendly City for the Rich
This was always going to happen. As the progressive agenda advances one agenda, it must slam into another.
New Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to spend $150 million to make Chicago (yes, Chicago!) America's most bike-friendly city.
Criticism of this move comes not from the excess spending at a time of double-digit unemployment and a $640 million budget deficit, but where the investment is to be made.
You see, the Mayor wants to invest bike money in the Loop and the North Side, neglecting the City's poorer areas. Says one critic,
“My concern is that the lion’s share of the resources are going to go downtown and to the North Side – the South and West will only see a sprinkling.”
That's the concern?
New Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to spend $150 million to make Chicago (yes, Chicago!) America's most bike-friendly city.
Criticism of this move comes not from the excess spending at a time of double-digit unemployment and a $640 million budget deficit, but where the investment is to be made.
You see, the Mayor wants to invest bike money in the Loop and the North Side, neglecting the City's poorer areas. Says one critic,
“My concern is that the lion’s share of the resources are going to go downtown and to the North Side – the South and West will only see a sprinkling.”
That's the concern?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Minnesota Complete Streets Update
Since my first post on the subject, a number of developments have occurred in Minnesota's "Complete Streets" scene.
Most notably, the City Council of North St. Paul voted (4-1) to kill the controversial 15th Avenue complete streets project. Coverage from the St. Paul Pioneer Press before and after the vote. Look for another project to take its place as, "City officials have said they still believe in the Living Streets plan and will consider using it for future street projects."
Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune carries a commentary on another complete streets project: the Bryant Avenue bike boulevard ("Finding room for bike-car coexistence"). It describes a novel complete street project with the bike lane running down the center of the road. Of course, that will slow down cars trying to use the same lane, but no matter, as "people who want to move fast should be over on Lyndale Avenue, according to defenders of the new lanes."
That's the real problem, isn't it? The cars aren't going away, they are finding a different route. So what may be good for Bryant Ave. will be bad for Lyndale Ave., as traffic, like water, finds its own level. Supporters who want a quiet, bike-friendly street are just inflicting more traffic on the next road over.
Not new, but here (from Minnesota Public Radio) is a photo of my least favorite complete streets application:
It is First Avenue in Minneapolis, near the Target Center/Target Field sports stadia complex. What was curb side, metered parking is now a dedicated bike lane. Parking has now moved to what was a driving lane, so we have parked cars in the middle of the street. How does this promote safety?
Most notably, the City Council of North St. Paul voted (4-1) to kill the controversial 15th Avenue complete streets project. Coverage from the St. Paul Pioneer Press before and after the vote. Look for another project to take its place as, "City officials have said they still believe in the Living Streets plan and will consider using it for future street projects."
Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune carries a commentary on another complete streets project: the Bryant Avenue bike boulevard ("Finding room for bike-car coexistence"). It describes a novel complete street project with the bike lane running down the center of the road. Of course, that will slow down cars trying to use the same lane, but no matter, as "people who want to move fast should be over on Lyndale Avenue, according to defenders of the new lanes."
That's the real problem, isn't it? The cars aren't going away, they are finding a different route. So what may be good for Bryant Ave. will be bad for Lyndale Ave., as traffic, like water, finds its own level. Supporters who want a quiet, bike-friendly street are just inflicting more traffic on the next road over.
Not new, but here (from Minnesota Public Radio) is a photo of my least favorite complete streets application:
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Follow the Money: Complete Streets
Most of these "Follow the Money" posts have dealt with private foundation grants to non-profits (NGO's), but the flow of taxpayer funds to non-profits should not be ignored.
Case in point: Minnesota environmental non-profit Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is administering a 7-year, $28 million federal grant to fund biking and walking projects in the Twin Cities area. Not all of these projects have been well-received by the local community. One controversial project, on St. Paul's Jefferson Avenue, has attracted a good deal of attention. The City of St. Paul has pulled back from the Jefferson Ave. project, because of complaints from local residents that they were not involved in the planning process for a $1 million project that would have rerouted traffic and converted a road into a "bike boulevard."
In fact, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that local residents "have said that Transit for Livable Communities has come across heavy-handed. In discussions with the city, the nonprofit at times has threatened to block funding for a [second] proposed $400,000 bicycle boulevard".
Local radio host Joe Soucheray, also writing in the Pioneer Press, asks the common sense question, "They're our streets. It's our money. So why isn't it our decision?"
Soucheray adds,
"Let us understand our civics, shall we? The people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, watch, seemingly helplessly, as millions of dollars in federal funds - their money - is won by outfits like TLC to finance projects that the residents not only do not want but that also apparently circumvent the electoral process."
In this instance, we have a non-profit corporation (TLC) spending taxpayer dollars in ways that, literally, transform neighborhoods. How I live my life, get to work, walk around, interact with my neighbors will be impacted by whatever this non-profit decides is best for me.
Here is my concern with this funding approach. If I don't like the way in which a city is administering federal funds, I can complain to the city council and the mayor (and I have). If it's a county, I can go to county commissioners. The state, it's my local representative or senator. The local office of a federal agency? I call my congressperson or Senator. The local school district? A school board member. Each of these persons will be held accountable to voters (like me) in the next election.
If I don't like the way a non-profit is administering funds, to whom do I complain? To whom is the non-profit accountable? Where on the November ballot does the non-profit appear?
Case in point: Minnesota environmental non-profit Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is administering a 7-year, $28 million federal grant to fund biking and walking projects in the Twin Cities area. Not all of these projects have been well-received by the local community. One controversial project, on St. Paul's Jefferson Avenue, has attracted a good deal of attention. The City of St. Paul has pulled back from the Jefferson Ave. project, because of complaints from local residents that they were not involved in the planning process for a $1 million project that would have rerouted traffic and converted a road into a "bike boulevard."
In fact, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that local residents "have said that Transit for Livable Communities has come across heavy-handed. In discussions with the city, the nonprofit at times has threatened to block funding for a [second] proposed $400,000 bicycle boulevard".
Local radio host Joe Soucheray, also writing in the Pioneer Press, asks the common sense question, "They're our streets. It's our money. So why isn't it our decision?"
Soucheray adds,
"Let us understand our civics, shall we? The people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, watch, seemingly helplessly, as millions of dollars in federal funds - their money - is won by outfits like TLC to finance projects that the residents not only do not want but that also apparently circumvent the electoral process."
In this instance, we have a non-profit corporation (TLC) spending taxpayer dollars in ways that, literally, transform neighborhoods. How I live my life, get to work, walk around, interact with my neighbors will be impacted by whatever this non-profit decides is best for me.
Here is my concern with this funding approach. If I don't like the way in which a city is administering federal funds, I can complain to the city council and the mayor (and I have). If it's a county, I can go to county commissioners. The state, it's my local representative or senator. The local office of a federal agency? I call my congressperson or Senator. The local school district? A school board member. Each of these persons will be held accountable to voters (like me) in the next election.
If I don't like the way a non-profit is administering funds, to whom do I complain? To whom is the non-profit accountable? Where on the November ballot does the non-profit appear?
Monday, October 3, 2011
The Public Health Risks of Densification
Among the smart growth/sustainability/livability crowd, the concept of "densification" is all the rage. (Think soviet-style apartment blocks for everyone.)
The concept runs as follows: by increasing the density (crowding) of urban areas, public transit makes more sense, people will walk/bike to work, and "sprawl" will be reduced.
As Wendell Cox documents over at New Geography, density has a downside, as well. It turns out that turn-of-the-last-century Lower East Side of Manhattan tenement-style crowding is bad for public health. Who knew?
The concept runs as follows: by increasing the density (crowding) of urban areas, public transit makes more sense, people will walk/bike to work, and "sprawl" will be reduced.
As Wendell Cox documents over at New Geography, density has a downside, as well. It turns out that turn-of-the-last-century Lower East Side of Manhattan tenement-style crowding is bad for public health. Who knew?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Planning for Disaster
Over at MinnPost, there is a longish piece bemoaning the demise nearly a decade ago of the Minnesota State Planning Agency. A rare example of a government agency going out of business, then Governor Tim Pawlenty dissolved the agency in 2003, distributing a few remaining bits to other agencies.
Now comes Steven Dornfeld to pine for the former agency, under the premise that "long-range, strategic planning would be an essential function of state government — especially in these troubled economic times."
Perhaps for the first time ever, I am in agreement with State Representative Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis), who is quoted saying,
"I don't think it ever produced anything of any intellectual depth. We were better off looking to the university, the departments and special commissions for planning and policy proposals."
But many of her colleagues believe otherwise. Over the past few years I have come across several proposals to revive the agency and give it broad powers to plan large swaths of our economy. Mostly, these calls come from those unhappy with the results produced by markets or just happenstance, preferring a "top down" approach.
Now I am familiar with a few examples where long-term, strategic planning is valuable. The electric transmission grid is the subject of a series of long-term plans running 10 years and decades further into the future. But the Grid itself is a great example of why planning as a concept is not helpful. Sitting today, who can imagine what technological breakthroughs will occur in materials, the "smart grid", shifts in demand, new supply technologies, etc. Just imagine grid planners thirty years ago trying to plan for the electrical requirements of plug-in hybrid cars or the iPhone, inventions that were years into the future, but both important future drivers of electrical demand.
Multiply that by 5 million times and you get a sense of the problems with state-level planning, even for a mid-sized state like Minnesota. Economists refer to the "Economic Calculation Problem". Simply stated, not even the smartest planners, armed with the largest, fastest computers, can collect and manipulate enough data to mimic the workings of a free market with millions of independent actors. There are just too many variables, and too many interactions between those variables, to get it right.
Instead, in any large-scale planning exercise, you are usually left with the warmed-over conventional wisdom of the present, projected into the future, with any real controversy left out. Imagine a group of state bureaucrats coming up with something like the Moynihan Report today. It simply would not happen.
But Planners keep trying.
Our own Minnesota Department of Transportation is accepting comments for the next few weeks on its 50-Year Transportation Plan. All I know is that by 2061 I'd better have my Jetson's flying car.
Now comes Steven Dornfeld to pine for the former agency, under the premise that "long-range, strategic planning would be an essential function of state government — especially in these troubled economic times."
Perhaps for the first time ever, I am in agreement with State Representative Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis), who is quoted saying,
"I don't think it ever produced anything of any intellectual depth. We were better off looking to the university, the departments and special commissions for planning and policy proposals."
But many of her colleagues believe otherwise. Over the past few years I have come across several proposals to revive the agency and give it broad powers to plan large swaths of our economy. Mostly, these calls come from those unhappy with the results produced by markets or just happenstance, preferring a "top down" approach.
Now I am familiar with a few examples where long-term, strategic planning is valuable. The electric transmission grid is the subject of a series of long-term plans running 10 years and decades further into the future. But the Grid itself is a great example of why planning as a concept is not helpful. Sitting today, who can imagine what technological breakthroughs will occur in materials, the "smart grid", shifts in demand, new supply technologies, etc. Just imagine grid planners thirty years ago trying to plan for the electrical requirements of plug-in hybrid cars or the iPhone, inventions that were years into the future, but both important future drivers of electrical demand.
Multiply that by 5 million times and you get a sense of the problems with state-level planning, even for a mid-sized state like Minnesota. Economists refer to the "Economic Calculation Problem". Simply stated, not even the smartest planners, armed with the largest, fastest computers, can collect and manipulate enough data to mimic the workings of a free market with millions of independent actors. There are just too many variables, and too many interactions between those variables, to get it right.
Instead, in any large-scale planning exercise, you are usually left with the warmed-over conventional wisdom of the present, projected into the future, with any real controversy left out. Imagine a group of state bureaucrats coming up with something like the Moynihan Report today. It simply would not happen.
But Planners keep trying.
Our own Minnesota Department of Transportation is accepting comments for the next few weeks on its 50-Year Transportation Plan. All I know is that by 2061 I'd better have my Jetson's flying car.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Priorities: $4 million to walk to school...and no one's walking
The St. Paul Pioneer Press has the story of another waste of taxpayer money: $4 million spent in Minnesota to make it easier for children to walk to school. And guess what, $4 million later no kids are walking to school.
Our Federal overseers think that kids are not walking to school "because of the lack of sidewalks and safe street crossings." As the Pioneer Press explains later in the article, elementary school kids don't walk to school--not because they are lazy or obese--because in our Federally-mandated bike-helmet, child seat, and electric outlet-plugged world, the idea of an elementary school kid walking to school is insane.
As one parent helpfully explains,
"It's nerve-wracking, in this day and age. I worry about predators preying on kids," said Andy Parker of Woodbury, who drives his daughter four blocks to Bailey School every day. "I may be overprotective, but I have a pretty big fear of that." Such fears are a reality of modern life, said Gary Dechaine, transportation director for South Washington County Schools, and he wondered if any federal program could change that.
"No parent today would ever have their kid walk six blocks," Dechaine said.
Exactly. Why the Federal government should think that $4 million will change the very behaviours that they have instilled in parents beggars belief.
Nonetheless, more important priorities are at work here for the Feds. Former Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar provides his reasoning for creating the program back in 2000, "Oberstar was appalled at the steep increases in childhood obesity and diabetes."
Of course you, Dear Reader, were not fooled by the obesity feint. You knew all along that the Safe Routes to Schools program was all about combating climate change through school curricula. That and providing jobs for bureaucrats and conferences for other bureaucrats to attend.
Our own Minnesota Department of Transportation hosted the most recent national conference, held last month in Minneapolis. There, more than 500 attendees heard important presentations on Safe Routes' ties to the "Green" movement and "complete streets."
Every year, the Pew Research Center conducts a nationwide poll on ranking domestic policy issues. In 2011, Pew found that, not surprisingly, the economy and jobs ranked first and second, respectively. Ranking dead last (22nd out of 22) was obesity. Ranking next to last (21st) was global warming. Guess which two issues are most important to the Federal government and which two issues receive Federal funding.
Our Federal overseers think that kids are not walking to school "because of the lack of sidewalks and safe street crossings." As the Pioneer Press explains later in the article, elementary school kids don't walk to school--not because they are lazy or obese--because in our Federally-mandated bike-helmet, child seat, and electric outlet-plugged world, the idea of an elementary school kid walking to school is insane.
As one parent helpfully explains,
"It's nerve-wracking, in this day and age. I worry about predators preying on kids," said Andy Parker of Woodbury, who drives his daughter four blocks to Bailey School every day. "I may be overprotective, but I have a pretty big fear of that." Such fears are a reality of modern life, said Gary Dechaine, transportation director for South Washington County Schools, and he wondered if any federal program could change that.
"No parent today would ever have their kid walk six blocks," Dechaine said.
Exactly. Why the Federal government should think that $4 million will change the very behaviours that they have instilled in parents beggars belief.
Nonetheless, more important priorities are at work here for the Feds. Former Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar provides his reasoning for creating the program back in 2000, "Oberstar was appalled at the steep increases in childhood obesity and diabetes."
Of course you, Dear Reader, were not fooled by the obesity feint. You knew all along that the Safe Routes to Schools program was all about combating climate change through school curricula. That and providing jobs for bureaucrats and conferences for other bureaucrats to attend.
Our own Minnesota Department of Transportation hosted the most recent national conference, held last month in Minneapolis. There, more than 500 attendees heard important presentations on Safe Routes' ties to the "Green" movement and "complete streets."
Every year, the Pew Research Center conducts a nationwide poll on ranking domestic policy issues. In 2011, Pew found that, not surprisingly, the economy and jobs ranked first and second, respectively. Ranking dead last (22nd out of 22) was obesity. Ranking next to last (21st) was global warming. Guess which two issues are most important to the Federal government and which two issues receive Federal funding.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Our Foolish Federal Transportation Policy
The Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, has famously declared "the end of favoring motorized transportation" in federal policy. Don't I know it.
Today (Friday) I foolishly attempted to make a quick run to the bank at 4 p.m. I needed to be back by 5 p.m. The trip is less than 12 miles and my computer indicates it should take 15 minutes. Round trip, plus 10 minutes for my transaction, should still leave 20 minutes to spare for my 5 p.m. appointment.
At 4:30 p.m., I abandoned the attempt, having gotten only 8 miles downrange and scrambled to get back home by 5. On the outbound leg, I averaged well under 20 miles per hour, travelling exclusively on "freeways." The radio reports on the metro-area traffic made no mention of any accidents or other notable impediments on my route. The weather was partly cloudy and 60 degrees. The idea that a 23-mile round trip is not possible in the 4 o'clock hour bodes ill for our future. Sixteen miles per hour, even in rush hour, is not acceptable in a modern economy.
Seconds Count
In today's Wall Street Journal, an article on UPS caught my eye. The delivery company is getting rid of keys for its iconic brown vans, replacing the keys with electronic fobs. This "keyless" system is expected to save $70 million a year, by saving 1.75 seconds with drivers pushing a button instead of turning a metal key in a lock. Those seconds adds up to 6.5 minutes a day, per driver.
I'm not UPS. I could abandon my trip and save the errand for Monday. UPS can't. The parcels have to be delivered. And those 6.5 minutes will be swallowed up if it takes an hour and a half to go 23 miles. In our modern economy, seconds count, but our transportation policy assumes otherwise.
Instead, the feds follow fashionable policies to promote bikes and trains--nineteenth century technologies--as 21st century transportation solutions. Instead, we should focus on removing transportation bottlenecks and reducing overall travel times for the dominant forms of transportation. Bicycles and intra-city rail are niche applications, not capable of moving significant numbers of people or cargo, at the speeds we need, to have a competitive economy.
Favoring motorized transportation has produced the world's strongest economy, why stop now?
Today (Friday) I foolishly attempted to make a quick run to the bank at 4 p.m. I needed to be back by 5 p.m. The trip is less than 12 miles and my computer indicates it should take 15 minutes. Round trip, plus 10 minutes for my transaction, should still leave 20 minutes to spare for my 5 p.m. appointment.
At 4:30 p.m., I abandoned the attempt, having gotten only 8 miles downrange and scrambled to get back home by 5. On the outbound leg, I averaged well under 20 miles per hour, travelling exclusively on "freeways." The radio reports on the metro-area traffic made no mention of any accidents or other notable impediments on my route. The weather was partly cloudy and 60 degrees. The idea that a 23-mile round trip is not possible in the 4 o'clock hour bodes ill for our future. Sixteen miles per hour, even in rush hour, is not acceptable in a modern economy.
Seconds Count
In today's Wall Street Journal, an article on UPS caught my eye. The delivery company is getting rid of keys for its iconic brown vans, replacing the keys with electronic fobs. This "keyless" system is expected to save $70 million a year, by saving 1.75 seconds with drivers pushing a button instead of turning a metal key in a lock. Those seconds adds up to 6.5 minutes a day, per driver.
I'm not UPS. I could abandon my trip and save the errand for Monday. UPS can't. The parcels have to be delivered. And those 6.5 minutes will be swallowed up if it takes an hour and a half to go 23 miles. In our modern economy, seconds count, but our transportation policy assumes otherwise.
Instead, the feds follow fashionable policies to promote bikes and trains--nineteenth century technologies--as 21st century transportation solutions. Instead, we should focus on removing transportation bottlenecks and reducing overall travel times for the dominant forms of transportation. Bicycles and intra-city rail are niche applications, not capable of moving significant numbers of people or cargo, at the speeds we need, to have a competitive economy.
Favoring motorized transportation has produced the world's strongest economy, why stop now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)