"On a more philosophical level, these once-in-a lifetime transportation investments signal faith in a better future; that transforming the way people get around cities will pay dividends for generations to come. This faith is lacking in the U.S. — and so is the transit construction."
Such an important point! When a nation invests in military and endless wars at the expense of urban development and social services, how is there to be optimism about the future?
Urban development and social services are at odds. We would have plenty of money for public transit if our cities did not spend good money after bad on senseless social programs that are more like jobs programs for the politically connected. Chicago, for example, has dozens of agencies that do not really do anything. They sound good, but they were created to make jobs for activists, not solve any problems.
I am all for strong cities, but we need to get the activists out and get the adults back in. City budgets should focus on schools, roads and public transit, NOT housing, job training, prison re-entry, violence prevention, disability advocacy, elderly job placement services, and so many, and I mean like dozen more similar programs that never die, and never actually help anyone (I attempted to work with the disability services, and they were worse than useless).
I am not saying the US should not have social welfare, for I think that we should, but city government is not the place to do it, and it is especially egregious when it is so clearly a jobs-for-friends program, which all of them are, at least here in Chicago. No city government should employ as many people as NYC and Chicago do. Such corruption not only drains a city finances, but it also makes tax payers unwilling to back large programs.
While there is waste at every level of government, social services expenditures are not the limiting factor. The US spends less on social services than many countries with strong transit systems. In the US, transit capital projects are largely funded at the state and federal level, in large part because cities have limited tax authority. Cities also have limited power; they rarely have much influence at the state level and even less at the national level. Most other countries support their urban areas far more than we do. Conservatives have written off American cities for many decades, seeing them as crime-ridden wastelands, populated by constituencies that tend to vote Democratic.
The US also has an extremely underdeveloped planning structure, a problem confounded by the lack of regional governmental units, which are the natural developers of transit systems. State governments jealously guard their authority. NYC has to get authority from Albany to add school zone speed cameras. In Texas, the state continually withdraws the authority of cities to undertake policies that the state deems contrary to the dominant party’s political interests (such as barring Houston from adding voting drop boxes or polling places).
Frankly, I see zero chance of major new transit systems or additions for the foreseeable future. Not for lack of money but because of a lack of political will, which is primarily influenced by suburban, ex-urban and rural electorates with little experience (or interest in) good quality transit systems. To them, transit is for losers.
You are not wrong, but there is still a large amount of funding from the FTA, especially over the last few years. Republicans love to trash transit, until they are faced with its demise. Furthermore, Democrats are not much better. Here in Illinois, the state is stingy. NYC's situation makes me sick. I always hoped that we could bring two new states in, with one being NYC so they can break free from the tyranny of Albany. Their ruthless exploitation of NYC is repugnant, and the Democrats do it as well.
I am less concerned with building new transit and more concerned with maintaining what we have. I cannot stomach seeing schools and roads left to rot while ever new "programs" are invented to employ each new mayor's buddies. I would love to see arrests made for such corruption.
One of the elephants in the room is male insecurity.
Male insecurity is one HUGE reason why we do not invest in public transportation.
Imagine if you are trying to win the favor of a lady you are interested in, and you tell her you take public transportation? She will not call you back, and you will never get a second date with her.
Until women can accept that it is not a dating or marriage prerequisite that men must drive BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, Huge Trucks of any brand, huge SUVs of any brand (which women feel will help keep them safer in their eyes from the undesirables than public transportation would), we will never solve this issue.
Once the American male insecurity issue is solved, we will begin to take public transportation with no shame.
I have lived all over, so I have seen this insecurity issue everywhere I have lived. I lived in Miami car free for 3 years (which I enjoyed) before I bit the bullet and bought a car. The vast majority assumed I was poor, lol, because I took the bus, metromover and metro rail. It was hard, however, to get women to accept a date. I had to find a rich lady with her own Mercedes (which she let me drive) and spend most of our time at my apartment, to actually have a steady
girlfriend. Even then she pressured me to buy a car (for safety reasons and she liked wearing heels all the time).
Once women **as a collective** believe that it is OK for men to take public transportation, and that a man taking public transportation does not mean the man is a lesser male and not good relationship material, we will always have this issue in the US. Male politicians are not immune to this insecurity. And if Auto Insurance lobbies like Progressive, Geico, Liberty and State Farm make it easier for the politicians to continue to support private cars, then it makes it easier for the politicians to sweep their insecurities under the rug as well as the collective male.
I am a firm believer in public transit, even though as a disabled person I am not really able to use it. I can tell you what is keeping US cities behind:
1.) Local funding for ever-expanding pet projects that steals budget space from essentials such as roads and mass transit
2.) Poor law enforcement that makes public transit unsafe for the female half of the population
3.) The inability of the US to commit and involuntarily detain mentally ill patients who enjoy destroying public spaces, particularly transit
4.) The Republican onslaught of government hatred that solves nothing and prevents political leaders from promoting long-term projects to benefit the republic
5.) Poorly-administered large urban metro areas, and a general failure of urban governments, especially as it pertains to #1
6.) Regulatory capture-Our government sold transit line rail tracks for a song, only to lease them back at unfavorable terms. The mass rail companies have captured their regulators, as have automakers. I wish we let GM die years ago, because they do no good for the US economy, and they are the leaders of the Automotive beast that promotes SUV's and trucks at the expense of everything else.
Where do we see transformative high tech transit deployed in low density car oriented cities elsewhere in the world?
Comparing American cities to vastly denser peers is embarrassing, but path dependency is a real problem and there’s no easy way to retrofit suburbia to be serviceable by good quality transit at a reasonable cost.
I think we have to focus on walkability first, and remove barriers to infill such that our cities can grow incrementally denser, before we’re going to have many places where new transit lines will work well.
Improving walkability and increasing urban density are important steps that all cities should take. But there are several U.S. cities that already have the density and transit ridership to support new transit lines. New York, obviously, could use a bunch of new lines. San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Boston, Philly, even LA, all have corridors that merit investing in rail transit.
Not to mention that transit pairs really well with greenfield development. Back in the 1920s, NYC built huge chunks of midrise apartment development in places like Astoria and Jackson Heights at the same time as it was punching the subway into Queens. You can build dense development on what is effectively greenfield, if you're doing it at scale; this approach would do well in fast-growing areas of the Sunbelt.
NYC would be a far better place if developers were allowed to build, but only the connected can, with predictable effects on pricing. I fear Chicago is lunging towards this anti-development model, and it breaks my heart. Cities should not only be for the rich and the connected, but the people running cities are blind to the consequences of their regulations and policy choices. It is painful and unnecessary. That said, existing real estate owners are more than happy to back those who will impose costs upon potential competitors.
Yup. And even aside from pecuniary considerations, some people simply dislike change in their neighborhood on a visceral, instinctive level. The typical breakdown is that most people are indifferent; a small number are actively NIMBY; but almost none are actively in favor of development. So the status quo prevails almost everywhere.
Ok, I don't think we disagree. I think a lot of transit admirers overestimate how much of the US has the actual built environment conditions that can support quality transit, so I'm skeptical of saying "America" needs to build a lot more, but it's certainly true that our dense cities are behind in transit and could support more.
Fair enough. "America's biggest and most densely populated cities" would be a more precise descriptor. Still, I wouldn't want preclude the possibility of cities and neighborhoods growing into a more transit-oriented form. With the right policy nudges, suburbs and sunbelt cities could grow into new transit lines quite quickly.
More generally, I think much of the American left has soured on incrementalism in recent years and decades, as they discover that smaller gains are more invisible and easier to turn back, while the right has more success with more hardline stances.
"On a more philosophical level, these once-in-a lifetime transportation investments signal faith in a better future; that transforming the way people get around cities will pay dividends for generations to come. This faith is lacking in the U.S. — and so is the transit construction."
Such an important point! When a nation invests in military and endless wars at the expense of urban development and social services, how is there to be optimism about the future?
Thanks for this informative article.
Urban development and social services are at odds. We would have plenty of money for public transit if our cities did not spend good money after bad on senseless social programs that are more like jobs programs for the politically connected. Chicago, for example, has dozens of agencies that do not really do anything. They sound good, but they were created to make jobs for activists, not solve any problems.
I am all for strong cities, but we need to get the activists out and get the adults back in. City budgets should focus on schools, roads and public transit, NOT housing, job training, prison re-entry, violence prevention, disability advocacy, elderly job placement services, and so many, and I mean like dozen more similar programs that never die, and never actually help anyone (I attempted to work with the disability services, and they were worse than useless).
I am not saying the US should not have social welfare, for I think that we should, but city government is not the place to do it, and it is especially egregious when it is so clearly a jobs-for-friends program, which all of them are, at least here in Chicago. No city government should employ as many people as NYC and Chicago do. Such corruption not only drains a city finances, but it also makes tax payers unwilling to back large programs.
While there is waste at every level of government, social services expenditures are not the limiting factor. The US spends less on social services than many countries with strong transit systems. In the US, transit capital projects are largely funded at the state and federal level, in large part because cities have limited tax authority. Cities also have limited power; they rarely have much influence at the state level and even less at the national level. Most other countries support their urban areas far more than we do. Conservatives have written off American cities for many decades, seeing them as crime-ridden wastelands, populated by constituencies that tend to vote Democratic.
The US also has an extremely underdeveloped planning structure, a problem confounded by the lack of regional governmental units, which are the natural developers of transit systems. State governments jealously guard their authority. NYC has to get authority from Albany to add school zone speed cameras. In Texas, the state continually withdraws the authority of cities to undertake policies that the state deems contrary to the dominant party’s political interests (such as barring Houston from adding voting drop boxes or polling places).
Frankly, I see zero chance of major new transit systems or additions for the foreseeable future. Not for lack of money but because of a lack of political will, which is primarily influenced by suburban, ex-urban and rural electorates with little experience (or interest in) good quality transit systems. To them, transit is for losers.
You are not wrong, but there is still a large amount of funding from the FTA, especially over the last few years. Republicans love to trash transit, until they are faced with its demise. Furthermore, Democrats are not much better. Here in Illinois, the state is stingy. NYC's situation makes me sick. I always hoped that we could bring two new states in, with one being NYC so they can break free from the tyranny of Albany. Their ruthless exploitation of NYC is repugnant, and the Democrats do it as well.
I am less concerned with building new transit and more concerned with maintaining what we have. I cannot stomach seeing schools and roads left to rot while ever new "programs" are invented to employ each new mayor's buddies. I would love to see arrests made for such corruption.
"This is one of the central questions underpinning this newsletter and my book."
Anyone know what book is being referred to here?
My *forthcoming* book! I should have specified. I will keep subscribers posted about when it's available.
One of the elephants in the room is male insecurity.
Male insecurity is one HUGE reason why we do not invest in public transportation.
Imagine if you are trying to win the favor of a lady you are interested in, and you tell her you take public transportation? She will not call you back, and you will never get a second date with her.
Until women can accept that it is not a dating or marriage prerequisite that men must drive BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, Huge Trucks of any brand, huge SUVs of any brand (which women feel will help keep them safer in their eyes from the undesirables than public transportation would), we will never solve this issue.
Once the American male insecurity issue is solved, we will begin to take public transportation with no shame.
I have lived all over, so I have seen this insecurity issue everywhere I have lived. I lived in Miami car free for 3 years (which I enjoyed) before I bit the bullet and bought a car. The vast majority assumed I was poor, lol, because I took the bus, metromover and metro rail. It was hard, however, to get women to accept a date. I had to find a rich lady with her own Mercedes (which she let me drive) and spend most of our time at my apartment, to actually have a steady
girlfriend. Even then she pressured me to buy a car (for safety reasons and she liked wearing heels all the time).
Once women **as a collective** believe that it is OK for men to take public transportation, and that a man taking public transportation does not mean the man is a lesser male and not good relationship material, we will always have this issue in the US. Male politicians are not immune to this insecurity. And if Auto Insurance lobbies like Progressive, Geico, Liberty and State Farm make it easier for the politicians to continue to support private cars, then it makes it easier for the politicians to sweep their insecurities under the rug as well as the collective male.
I am a firm believer in public transit, even though as a disabled person I am not really able to use it. I can tell you what is keeping US cities behind:
1.) Local funding for ever-expanding pet projects that steals budget space from essentials such as roads and mass transit
2.) Poor law enforcement that makes public transit unsafe for the female half of the population
3.) The inability of the US to commit and involuntarily detain mentally ill patients who enjoy destroying public spaces, particularly transit
4.) The Republican onslaught of government hatred that solves nothing and prevents political leaders from promoting long-term projects to benefit the republic
5.) Poorly-administered large urban metro areas, and a general failure of urban governments, especially as it pertains to #1
6.) Regulatory capture-Our government sold transit line rail tracks for a song, only to lease them back at unfavorable terms. The mass rail companies have captured their regulators, as have automakers. I wish we let GM die years ago, because they do no good for the US economy, and they are the leaders of the Automotive beast that promotes SUV's and trucks at the expense of everything else.
Where do we see transformative high tech transit deployed in low density car oriented cities elsewhere in the world?
Comparing American cities to vastly denser peers is embarrassing, but path dependency is a real problem and there’s no easy way to retrofit suburbia to be serviceable by good quality transit at a reasonable cost.
I think we have to focus on walkability first, and remove barriers to infill such that our cities can grow incrementally denser, before we’re going to have many places where new transit lines will work well.
Improving walkability and increasing urban density are important steps that all cities should take. But there are several U.S. cities that already have the density and transit ridership to support new transit lines. New York, obviously, could use a bunch of new lines. San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Boston, Philly, even LA, all have corridors that merit investing in rail transit.
Not to mention that transit pairs really well with greenfield development. Back in the 1920s, NYC built huge chunks of midrise apartment development in places like Astoria and Jackson Heights at the same time as it was punching the subway into Queens. You can build dense development on what is effectively greenfield, if you're doing it at scale; this approach would do well in fast-growing areas of the Sunbelt.
NYC would be a far better place if developers were allowed to build, but only the connected can, with predictable effects on pricing. I fear Chicago is lunging towards this anti-development model, and it breaks my heart. Cities should not only be for the rich and the connected, but the people running cities are blind to the consequences of their regulations and policy choices. It is painful and unnecessary. That said, existing real estate owners are more than happy to back those who will impose costs upon potential competitors.
Yup. And even aside from pecuniary considerations, some people simply dislike change in their neighborhood on a visceral, instinctive level. The typical breakdown is that most people are indifferent; a small number are actively NIMBY; but almost none are actively in favor of development. So the status quo prevails almost everywhere.
Ok, I don't think we disagree. I think a lot of transit admirers overestimate how much of the US has the actual built environment conditions that can support quality transit, so I'm skeptical of saying "America" needs to build a lot more, but it's certainly true that our dense cities are behind in transit and could support more.
Fair enough. "America's biggest and most densely populated cities" would be a more precise descriptor. Still, I wouldn't want preclude the possibility of cities and neighborhoods growing into a more transit-oriented form. With the right policy nudges, suburbs and sunbelt cities could grow into new transit lines quite quickly.
Sometimes I think framing transit investment in terms of geostrategic competition could be a useful way to spur politicians into action.
More generally, I think much of the American left has soured on incrementalism in recent years and decades, as they discover that smaller gains are more invisible and easier to turn back, while the right has more success with more hardline stances.
Not only because of the cardon emissions problem but also the car deaths problem