Thursday, December 16, 2004
Feds Rip Planning for Hiawatha Light Rail
Light rail always will slow the flow
A report by the Federal Highway Administration concludes poor planning is to blame for the congestion crisis along Highway 55 in Minneapolis caused by light rail signal preemption.
A report by the Federal Highway Administration concludes poor planning is to blame for the congestion crisis along Highway 55 in Minneapolis caused by light rail signal preemption.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Portland commuter rail hits roadblock
Portland's transit agency, Tri-Met, wants to run a commuter-rail line from suburban Wilsonville to suburban Beaverton. The "cool" thing about this line, says this Oregonian writer, "is it would be relatively cheap." Yes, relative to sending someone to the moon. The line is expected to cost more than $100 million to start and more than $4 million a year to operate. Buses would be about $3 million to start and less than $1 million a year to operate.
There is a small snag. Wilsonville dropped out of Tri-Met several years ago when it realized it could provide better transit service for less money. Now Tri-Met wants Wilsonville to cough up $400,000 a year to subsidize the rail line. Wilsonville says it doesn't want to. For one thing, hardly anyone in Wilsonville wants to go to Beaverton, yet this would cost the city 20 percent of its transit budget.
Unfortunately, this will probably not derail the project. Tri-Met will get its money, if not from Wilsonville then from some other unwary taxpayers.
There is a small snag. Wilsonville dropped out of Tri-Met several years ago when it realized it could provide better transit service for less money. Now Tri-Met wants Wilsonville to cough up $400,000 a year to subsidize the rail line. Wilsonville says it doesn't want to. For one thing, hardly anyone in Wilsonville wants to go to Beaverton, yet this would cost the city 20 percent of its transit budget.
Unfortunately, this will probably not derail the project. Tri-Met will get its money, if not from Wilsonville then from some other unwary taxpayers.
Oregon's vote could start a trend
Neil Pierce, a pro-smart-growth writer, worries that Oregon's passage of measure 37 could "blow a hole in the side of the nation's surging smart-growth movement." Measure 37, of course, requires state or local governments to compensate landowners whose property values have been reduced by land-use regulation.
Pierce has "visions of residential subdivisions starting to sweep across the rural Willamette Valley, of Cascade Mountain vistas spoiled by an eruption of Burger Kings and Wal-Marts, of pear orchards sprouting crops of McMansions." This is just the type of fear-mongering that land-use activists have always used. In fact:
* A study commissioned by a smart-growth group concluded that, without land-use planning, urbanization would cover only 1 percent of the Willamette Valley that wouldn't otherwise be developed.
* Almost all of the Cascade Mountains are owned by the federal government.
* Pear (and other fruit) orchards probably cover more land than all the cities and towns in Oregon, so are not in any danger of development.
Pierce repeats claims of land-use proponents that measure 37 was somehow deceptively written to make it appear innocuous. Says one, "The problem is that what it means is insidious." The only insidious part is that land-use planners can no longer push people around.
California has no statewide land-use planning. It is also the nation's most populated state. Yet 94 percent of its people live on just 5 percent of its land. California's rural population density of 13 people per square mile is not much more than Oregon's 8 per square mile. (Census data documenting these and similar numbers for every state are posted on the American Dream Coalition web site.) Colorado, which also lacks any statewide planning, has a rural population of just 7 per square mile even though its average density (including rural and urban areas) is much greater than Oregon's. So oppressive planning is not essential to protect farm lands, vistas, or fruit orchards.
Finally, Pierce brings up the old "givings" argument, i.e., that government actions enhance the value of some properties, implying that this makes it okay to take away the value of other people's property. His examples are "highway interchanges, colleges and laboratories and stadiums." Frankly, we can do without any more government-funded stadiums and probably without any more government-funded (i.e., non-tolled) highways. But this is beside the point.
The real point is, if someone does something on their land (such as build a nice house) that produces real benefits for them, and I also happen to benefit (because their house upgrades my neighborhood), they don't have a right to demand I pay them. But if someone puts in a polluting factory that reduces the value of my property, I do have a right to compensation or correction of such a nuisance. In the same way, if a transportation agency builds a highway because it will improve transportation, and it is paid for out of user fees, they don't need to make me pay. But if government planners tell me I can't use my land for some purpose in order to benefit the "public interest," they do have to compensate me.
At least, they do in Oregon.
Pierce has "visions of residential subdivisions starting to sweep across the rural Willamette Valley, of Cascade Mountain vistas spoiled by an eruption of Burger Kings and Wal-Marts, of pear orchards sprouting crops of McMansions." This is just the type of fear-mongering that land-use activists have always used. In fact:
* A study commissioned by a smart-growth group concluded that, without land-use planning, urbanization would cover only 1 percent of the Willamette Valley that wouldn't otherwise be developed.
* Almost all of the Cascade Mountains are owned by the federal government.
* Pear (and other fruit) orchards probably cover more land than all the cities and towns in Oregon, so are not in any danger of development.
Pierce repeats claims of land-use proponents that measure 37 was somehow deceptively written to make it appear innocuous. Says one, "The problem is that what it means is insidious." The only insidious part is that land-use planners can no longer push people around.
California has no statewide land-use planning. It is also the nation's most populated state. Yet 94 percent of its people live on just 5 percent of its land. California's rural population density of 13 people per square mile is not much more than Oregon's 8 per square mile. (Census data documenting these and similar numbers for every state are posted on the American Dream Coalition web site.) Colorado, which also lacks any statewide planning, has a rural population of just 7 per square mile even though its average density (including rural and urban areas) is much greater than Oregon's. So oppressive planning is not essential to protect farm lands, vistas, or fruit orchards.
Finally, Pierce brings up the old "givings" argument, i.e., that government actions enhance the value of some properties, implying that this makes it okay to take away the value of other people's property. His examples are "highway interchanges, colleges and laboratories and stadiums." Frankly, we can do without any more government-funded stadiums and probably without any more government-funded (i.e., non-tolled) highways. But this is beside the point.
The real point is, if someone does something on their land (such as build a nice house) that produces real benefits for them, and I also happen to benefit (because their house upgrades my neighborhood), they don't have a right to demand I pay them. But if someone puts in a polluting factory that reduces the value of my property, I do have a right to compensation or correction of such a nuisance. In the same way, if a transportation agency builds a highway because it will improve transportation, and it is paid for out of user fees, they don't need to make me pay. But if government planners tell me I can't use my land for some purpose in order to benefit the "public interest," they do have to compensate me.
At least, they do in Oregon.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
The cost of living downtown
Houston's new light-rail line (which has now been involved in 70 accidents after about a year of operation) has attracted some people to buy townhomes in the downtown Houston area. They've discovered that there are few drawbooks to New Urban living in Houston.
First, you have to chain any furniture on your front porch to your house. Second, don't bother putting up any Christmas decorations -- they will just get stolen. Third, you can look forward to entertaining drunks in your garage and having your cars broken into. "Some say this is just the price you pay for moving into a neighborhood in transition," says this article, "but residents here insist they had no idea theft would be a daily occurrence."
That's New Urban living!
First, you have to chain any furniture on your front porch to your house. Second, don't bother putting up any Christmas decorations -- they will just get stolen. Third, you can look forward to entertaining drunks in your garage and having your cars broken into. "Some say this is just the price you pay for moving into a neighborhood in transition," says this article, "but residents here insist they had no idea theft would be a daily occurrence."
That's New Urban living!
