American Dream

In an effort to close the barn door after the horse has escaped, the Oregon House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing people to build a house on their own land if they had a right to do so when they bought the land. Since Oregon land-use laws have progressively restricted such rights -- first with 40-acre minimum lot sizes, then 160-acre minimums, then a requirement that people actually farm land before they can live on it, and finally a requirement that the earn $40,000 to $80,000 a year farming it -- this would relax those restrictions for many people.

The problem is that this bill doesn't do much that measure 37, which voters approved last November, doesn't already do. At best, the house bill would slightly reduce the red tape involved in getting a permit to build.

Some people hope the bill will reduce criticism of Oregon's land-use planning process. "Had this bill passed in the last legislative session, we might not have had Measure 37 on the ballot, so it is a very key bill," says one representative. More accurately, it would have been a key bill if it had passed in the last legislature, but now it is just an afterthought.

To add insult to injury, observers expect that the state senate will pass the bill with a restriction that someone who owns land subdivided into several lots will be allowed to build only one house on those lots, not one house per lot. Since measure 37 would almost certainly allow someone to build one home per lot, such an amendment would render the bill even more meaningless than it already is.

If you are interested in following the local implementation of measure 37, Oregon Watchdog has daily reports from throughout the state.

Humorist P. J. O'Rourke takes aim at mass transit in the Wall Street Journal, saying it is a wonderful thing except for two problems: "nobody uses it and it costs like hell." He observes that it is very romantic and adds "No doubt some lovely songs will be written about the Wilsonville-to-Beaverton Oregon commuter rail line to be funded by the new transportation bill."

The bill includes $52 billion for mass transit, which is more than one out of every six federal transportation dollars. Yet, as P.J. observes, only 4 percent of commuters and 1.7 of all travel takes mass transit. P. J.'s solution is to attract more riders by turning rail transit lines into roller coasters and Space-Mountain-like rides.

TriMet bus stickers show trips saved, not cars idled

When Tri-Met states it has for example 20,000 riders you can assume
that number is at least half because the riders must usually return back on the same line.If that rider has to transfer to the Max or another bus to get to their destination that one person now becomes 4 riders or trips.

So 20,000 riders may only be 10,000 people or 5,000 people if they need to transfer once on both trips.

Comment by Randal O'Toole: The above-referenced article doesn't say so, but the Federal Transit Administration says that the typical Tri-Met bus carries an average of just 8.6 people at any given time (i.e., passenger miles divided by bus miles equals 8.6). At least half of those people can't drive, and a few of the others would probably carpool if they didn't take the bus.

So each bus you see represents an average of roughly four cars off the road at the moment you see it. Considering that buses are much bigger (not to mention much stinkier) than four cars, that isn't doing much to ease congestion.

The Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), which handles rail transit for most of the Philadelphia region, is badly mismanaged and expects to run up hundreds of millions of dollars of deficits in the next few years. If it were Enron, its directors might go to jail. Instead, it is rewarded with increased funding.

Pennsylvania's governor, Edward Rendell, proposes to give $412 million of the $666 million in highway funds that the state is expected to get under the new federal transportation bill to SEPTA over the next six years. As a first step, he twisted the arms of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission to transfer $42.5 million in highway funds to SEPTA to cover its deficits this year.

The planning commission was not happy about doing so, however. Diverting highway money to transit is "not a viable strategy," said the commission's transportation director because "SEPTA's deficits will only increase over time." As long as someone is willing to throw money at them, they sure will!

To get the governor to give it the money, SEPTA has been threatening service cutbacks and fare increases for months. Now, having gotten its first installment, it is keeping the pressure up. Unless a guarantee of more money is forthcoming, it says, it may still increase fares and cut service because it projects a $96 million deficit in 2006.

Why doesn't it convert some of those expensive trains to low-cost bus service? Why doesn't it contract out some of its bus operations to private operators, which could save it millions? Agencies that contract out spend only half as much per bus mile as agencies that operate the buses themselves. SEPTA spends nearly $400 million a year operating buses. If it contracted out half of those buses, it could save $96 million a year and eliminate its deficit. But why bother when you can just hold up the governor for more highway money.

The main opponents of contracting out are, of course, the transit unions. It is worth noting that Philadelphia transit unions chartered a train to the state capital to take "transit supporters" to lobby for more money to fund this deficit.

Urban planners are all for historic districts that limit the ability of private property owners to use their own land. But if a historic designation gets in the way of an urban redevelopment plan, fuggitaboutit.

That's the message from the Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Planning Commission, which has approved a plan to demolish ten historic buildings despite objections from business owners in the area. Six business owners have vowed to sue, but the planning commission says it will use eminent domain if it needs to in order to secure the land for other private developers.

Those developers are expected to build three "mixed-use parking garages," with apartments and retail shops, next to the local commuter train station. Hmmm, if it is next to a train station, it must be a transit-oriented parking garage, right?

Ever the innovator, my home town of Portland, Oregon has developed a new form of transportation cost overruns. Under pressure from Oregon Health Sciences University, a state teaching hospital, the city agreed to help pay for a $15 million, 3,300-foot aerial tramway connecting the hospital (which is on a hill) with a waterfront housing-and-office development (including hospital outpatient clinics and other medical facilities).

As reported in today's Oregonian, the cost of the tram has now risen to $34.5 million, more than double the original projections. The aerial tram is only a small part of the subsidies the city expects to provide to the waterfront development. It also plans to extend its 7-mile-per-hour streetcar to the development and add other subsidies. In total, it expects to spend $255 million in subsidies on this development alone.

The city shrugs off worries about cost overruns for the aerial tram and streetcar because it intends to pay for them by hiking downtown parking fees. The hospital will also pay for its share of the tram costs in part through such parking fees. Ironically, if Portlanders really did stop driving, as planners wish, the city wouldn't be able to fund all the projects that are designed to allow people to drive less.

The Colorado legislature is considering a bill that would allow Denver's transit district to pay as little as half the market value of land it needs to condemn for rights of way for new rail transit lines. The theory is that the transit lines will increase the value of the property owner's remaining land, so paying less than full market value allows the taxpayers to enjoy some of this so-called "windfall profit."

In the transit agency's defense, the state transportation department already has this power when condemning land for highways. But rail skeptics are suspicious that RTD, which both lied and cheated to convince voters to support new rail transit lines, will not use its power honestly or wisely. (It lied when it told voters, in a $400,000 "educational" pamphlet, that rail transit would reduce congestion and pollution when its own studies showed that it would not. It cheated when it incorporated statements from pro-rail groups in an opposition statement that went to all voters in what was supposed to be a fair-and-balanced pro-and-con voters' guide.)

From experience in other cities, rail transit doesn't have much influence on property values. An analysis of BART found that development was more intensive the further away you got from the rail stations. Portland found it could not inspire developers to build along its rail lines without hundreds of millions of dollars of additional subsidies. But landowners won't find out that rail transit hasn't increased the value of their land until years after the rights of way are condemned.

The always pro-rail Denver Post supports this bill, but one of the paper's columnists, David Harsanyi, writes in opposition.

Interesting story in the Sacremento Bee detailing a battle between the construction of a New Urbanist style development and the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers.

The developers want to relocate a streambed in order to have more land for the development's high density "Town Center". The developers make the "walkable....live & work.....improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion" defense for their project.

The Federal Agencies are refusing to issue the needed wetlands permit so far, stating that the existing location of the stream is critical to water quality and habitat.

This could be one to watch!

Debate swirls around creek
Regulators, Rancho Cordova at odds over developers' relocation plan.

By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, March 13, 2005