Anthony, I don't know where you live, but around here we throw politicians out when they insist on imposing their will on us. Don't expect any of them to run on a platform of more public transit. Remember what Marnie wrote. To paraphrase, the biggest, newest transit system in the US is a pain in the ass as soon as you have to take a bus to get to the station. You're swimming up stream here!
And don't pick on the Federal Reserve analysts. Part of their mission is to illuminate public policy choices. And Bob W., I agree with Margret Thatcher. You've got to stop slumming... Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob, > > Don't overlook that the Fed paper is considering St Louis, not Chicago. St > Louis doesn't have heavy rail. If the light rail shut down, that means > 55,000 commuters will turn to the roads, whether in cars or buses. There's > nothing else without the MetroLink. While the paper gave the financial > offsets for the total number of commuters, it conveniently only counted > 7,700 extra vehicles, the 'Priuses for the poor', when considering the > physical impact of a MetroLink shutdown. The existing bus and car commuters > would be none too pleased if 55,000 extra commuters turned up on the roads > all at once. > > Plus, how politically acceptable would it be to Mr, Mrs, Ms & Miss Average > Taxpayer to see a bunch of losers (if you can't afford a car you must be a > loser, right?)presented with brand new, gassed up and maintained foreign > brand cars, bought by their own government with taxpayer dollars? It won't > happen. Ever. > > And who wrote this paper? The St Louis Federal Reserve. Aren't they a > little out of their jurisdiction here? Transport and highways have their > own state and federal administrations. Isn't the Fed meddling just a little > in someone else's business? > > This papers conclusion, if you care to read between the lines, is a 'straw > man argument'. My guess is that their political and private bank bosses > ordered this conclusion. The real case, if not the nominal case, was made > earlier when they wrote, > "To permanently alleviate the problems of traffic congestion and pollution, > policy-makers must address the root cause of both: the inefficient pricing > of roadway usage. Traffic congestion and pollution exist because the costs > of driving an automobile are artificially low. Consider the following > explanation: A driver's use of the roadway imposes upon him certain costs > (such as the costs of fuel, time and depreciation of his automobile); the > driver himself bears these costs. The driver also imposes costs on others > by contributing to pollution and congestion, but the driver does not incur > these costs he imposes on other drivers. (Economists term these costs > externalities.) Because each driver does not bear the full cost (driver's > own cost + externalities), the costs of driving are artificially low; so, > each driver overuses the roadway rather than use alternative means of > transportation like light rail." > > Finally, the argument that people have "voted" against mass transit by > preferring cars ignores the plain fact that most people are selfish sods. > It's the government's duty to grow some balls and govern the people in a way > that is best for the country, and not pander to the people's softness and > greed. After all, if you asked the people if they wanted to pay taxes, the > popular choice would be not to pay, but taxes aren't about to be abolished > by popular choice. Just because a majority of people want something doesn't > make it right. > > Regards, Anthony > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Bob Sullivan >> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2008 1:19 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: PESO: Union Station Grand Hall >> >> Anthony, >> >> I don't think the analysis is that faulty, but whatever. >> In Chicago, public transit works for 100,000-200,000 people >> who work in the city center (2 square miles) and travel in and out daily. >> Suburbanites fill heavy rail trains for a 20+ minute ride into the city. >> >> The rest of the system is sad & expensive. A last resort for those >> without autos. >> Short trips with stops every 1/2 mile trying to attract customers. >> Travel speeds are low and travel times long, and safety is a concern, >> especially when waiting at transfer points in off hours. >> >> It doesn't work for a reason. The folks from the Federal Reserve are >> just trying to point out the absurdity of it all. >> >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > Bob, >> > >> > That quoted argument is so faulty in its conclusion as to be laughable. > The >> > 7,700 "poor riders" (lack of a car being the factor defining the riders' >> > impoverishment)do not necessarily number the entire ridership of the > light >> > rail, yet 7,700 is the number of extra vehicles that the author suggests >> > would hit the road if the light rail service ceased. That is clearly > wrong. >> > And what of the car owners who choose not to commute by car, because of >> > either the running costs or a lack of desire to drive in peak traffic, > among >> > many reasons? Shouldn't they be subsidised for their extra costs, and > that >> > figure added to the equation? If not , why not? >> > >> > IOW the St Louis Federal Reserve is attempting to promote a point of > view by >> > the use of deception. It's rubbish. >> > >> > Regards, Anthony >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> >> Bob Sullivan >> >> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2008 6:04 AM >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> Subject: Re: PESO: Union Station Grand Hall >> >> >> >> Scott, >> >> Good article from the Federal Reserve of St.Louis. >> >> I especially like the part that says, >> >> "Based solely on dollar costs, the annual light- >> >> rail subsidies could instead be used to buy an >> >> environmentally friendly hybrid Toyota Prius >> >> every five years for each poor rider and even >> >> to pay annual maintenance costs of $6,000. >> >> Increases in polution would be minimal with the >> >> hybrid vehicle, and 7,700 new vehicles on the >> >> roadway would result in only 0.5 percent increase >> >> in traffic congestion. And there would still be funds >> >> left over - about $49 million per year. These funds >> >> could be given to all other MetroLink riders >> >> (amounting to roughly $1,045 per person per year) >> >> and be used for cab fare, bus fare, etc." >> >> >> >> PJ, it's the public's choice NOT to support mass transit. >> >> Always has been. Taxes never killed it, cars and suburbia did. >> >> >> >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> > On 12/4/08, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Oh well, I guess a couple of A's and a B+ ourtank my Masters Thesis > in >> >> >> urban transportation planning, and work experience in Cost and >> >> >> Economic Analysis for the railroad plus 24 years at Mickey D's > doing >> >> >> Real Estate Market planning. Oh well... Regards, Bob S. >> >> > >> >> > This is an interesting read. >> >> > >> > > <http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional/04/07/light_rail.pdf> >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Scott Loveless >> >> > New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA >> >> > http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> > PDML@pdml.net >> >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and >> > follow >> >> the directions. >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> PDML@pdml.net >> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> > follow >> >> the directions. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > PDML@pdml.net >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow >> the directions. >> > >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow >> the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
