Ponnuru and Lowry on Transit
Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru have replied to a criticism made by me and others of their attack on mass transit. Here’s their response:
Many, many blog posts have been written about two words in this passage: “The Left’s search for a foreign template to graft onto America grew more desperate. Why couldn’t we be more like them — like the French, like the Swedes, like the Danes? Like any people with a larger and busier government overawing the private sector and civil society? You can see it in Sicko, wherein Michael Moore extols the British national health-care system, the French way of life, and even the munificence of Cuba; you can hear it in all the admonitions from left-wing commentators that every other advanced society has government child care, or gun control, or mass transit, or whatever socialistic program or other infringement on our liberty we have had the wisdom to reject for decades.” The two words are “mass transit.”
Contrary to our least literate critics, nothing in that passage suggests that we consider subways an infringement on our liberty. Nor does it mean that we are skeptical of mass-transit subsidies because the policy strikes us as European. It means something closer to the opposite: that we suspect that much of the enthusiasm for these subsidies among liberals is based on mass transit’s association with Europe.
Unfortunately, Lowry and Ponnuru don’t say very much here to reassure their sincere critics. They tell us that they never meant to say that mass transit was an infringement on liberty, but don’t deny or even address the fact that they did suggest, whatever their intent, that transit is a socialistic program that we are wise to reject. That is clear enough to any reader of English. While their writing here is regrettably loose, it isn’t sloppy enough to totally obscure their point.
I wish they had acknowledged that what they said made no sense, or at least backed away from it quietly. Instead, they continue to dismiss liberals who argue for mass transit on the basis that these liberals might be looking to foreign templates. This is extremely unhelpful. Mass transit is not the love child of left-wing infatuation with Europe. It’s a policy with a long American history that should be debated on its merits.
Samuel Goldman makes the point well in an excellent post at Postmodern Conservative:
Well, I know a lot of progressives and mass transit enthusiasts. And I can’t think of a single one who appreciated the reliable trains, quiet buses and streetcars, and clear bike lanes found in many European cities BECAUSE they’re European. Actually, many Americans find it pleasant and convenient to travel this way. And they wonder, not unreasonably, if it wouldn’t be nice to enjoy similar infrastructure at home. It’s true that arguments for mass transit often fail to consider the real differences of the American landscape and lifestyle. But that’s a serious question worth debating in particular cases–what works in Berlin may also be good for New York, but probably not for Tucson –rather than the status envy of Upper West Siders.
Indeed.
42 comments
Writers for the National Review misrepresenting their critics’ arguments?
I am Gold Star’s complete lack of surprise.
Matthew Schmitz Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Echos Myron?
Gold Star for Robot Boy Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Kicker of (NR) Elves.
we suspect that much of the enthusiasm for these subsidies among liberals is based on mass transit’s association with Europe.
Is this a great country or what? Ramesh Ponnuru, who looks and sounds like he should be shaking his finger in Jerry Seinfield’s face and saying “You’re a very, very bad man” gets to climb on high horse and claim that he’s the real American around here. There are a lot of countries where families can live there for six or seven generations and never feel welcome enough to act like nativist bigots.
How do you debate with someone who readily admits that an idea is good, but denounces it because it’s support may not be ideologically pure enough on other, unrelated issues? Seriously, how do you do it?
And how does Lowry (yikes, I almost reflexively wrote Kristol) not realize that “We want it because it’s European” it, at worst, still better than “We don’t want it because it’s European”.
In fairness, mass transit does go hand in hand with Progressivist planning agendas: these days, you don’t get the kind of density that warrants mass transit without a firm grip on land use planning. To laser in on the real critique conservatives/libertarians are making (or, perhaps, should be making), land use planning, including the push for mass transit, would be just fine were it a response to what people really wanted. Now, maybe, in some places, it is. But my guess is that, outside the very old American cities whose densities owe to the booms in American industry during the 1800s, roads tend to serve transit needs as well or better, for less money, and nominal difference in environmental concerns. This leaves goosebumps as the primary motivator for mass transit initiatives.
An example. I live in Long Beach (south LA county) and commute to Irvine (Orange County). The commute is 25 miles, and I’ve found the right times of day to ensure I’m not on the road longer than 30-35 minutes. A friend of mine in LA who commutes 15 miles from Hollywood to Santa Monica each day, by contrast, averages an hour each way. Why? Because Angelinos have drunk the mass transit Kool-Aid and keep dumping bonds (serviced by higher sales taxes, which is the wife and I head south to do our shopping) into one rail boondoggle after another. Orange County, by contrast, spends its transit dollars on wide open freeways, and lots of ‘em.
Would it be cool to take a trolley or a shiny new train to work? Sure! It’s why I visit Disneyland sometimes. If I want to go about my life, the smart money’s on freeways.
Though it’s at the southern tip of LA county, Long Beach still shows symptoms of the mass transit disease. A few years ago, I was sitting in at a city council meeting, and listened as Suja Lowenthal—an urbanist proselyte just like her father-in-law Alan–carried on for something like 20 minutes on a soliloquy about some idyllic urban paradise of the future that sounded almost borrowed from a passage from a Robert Heinlein novel. There was no point to her speech that I could discern. She was just full of beans over the mass transit systems she had seen elsewhere and wanted us to know how eager she was to get to work spending our tax dollars to build her own life-size train set.
Now, downtown LB is kind of a hip, somewhat dense little pocket. But there’s simply no justification for some kind of grand retrofitting of this city, particularly just because freshman councilmember’s got the glad eye about trains and trolleys. Everyone here has cars. It’s a suburban community. Next item on the agenda, please, Ms. Lowenthal.
And that ought to go for every city council member throughout the country. Unless you were elected to build trains, keep it to yourself.
Alex Knapp Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:46 am
“In fairness, mass transit does go hand in hand with Progressivist planning agendas: these days, you don’t get the kind of density that warrants mass transit without a firm grip on land use planning.”
Umm, you know that suburbs and freeways are ALSO the result of land use planning, right?
“land use planning, including the push for mass transit, would be just fine were it a response to what people really wanted.”
Tell you what, there’s a good indication of what people really want. They’re called property values. To be perfectly fair, make it the cost per square foot. Now, note that the real estate value per squre foot of residential area is MUCH higher in dense, urban areas with access to mass transit than it is in sparse, suburban areas reliant on roads. Seems to me that the market indicates that people put a higher value on the former than the latter.
Tim Kowal Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Property values are not a good measuring stick in this regard.
Alex Knapp Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
The article doesn’t address the central point at all. State regulations would affect both urban and suburban residential areas. Property values are higher in urban areas because demand is high. There are 4 bedroom houses in Kansas that sell for $40,000 but stay on the market for months, but you can sell a one-bedroom apartment in New York City for $500,000.
Tim Kowal Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Of course scarcity affects values. However, regulations have a direct effect on just how scarce land will be. Regulations affecting lot sizes, set-backs, building height, etc. artificially adjust the real value of land. Thus, the density of NYC will only partially affect the price of an apartment there.
In other words, I don’t think we’re disagreeing on density and scarcity and its impact on price. I just disagree that it’s the only or even the principal force acting on housing prices.
Francis Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:54 am
well, there’s some of this that’s correct and some that’s way off.
1. Suja’s none too smart. Voters have a really terrible tendency to create electoral dynasties among certain families, and the outcome usually sucks. That, however, is our, the voters’, fault.
2. Land use planning is essential in an area as dense as LA/OC counties. It’s also as local a process as exists. Anyone can provide comments on General Plans (the name for the lead planning document for a county under California law), attend meetings, and urge their elected officials to support one kind of transit policy over another.
3. The simple truth about commuting is that people will live up to about 45 minutes away from their job (each way). Much longer and they’ll either move or change jobs. Also, employers like to bunch up in commercial zones. It’s practical, avoids disputes with residential neighbors and makes transit planning easier. As a result, Southern California experienced “ring city” growth, where employers created brand new commercial zones in previously agricultural areas for the purpose of easing traffic on existing commercial areas. Northern OC is one such area. (Note that there are virtually no oranges grown in Orange County today; things were very different in the early to mid 20th century.)
4. Mr. Kowal, therefore, is taking advantage of a land use planning process that started over 30 years ago and that was specifically designed to pull traffic away from the already overcrowded LA basin. His friend, however, lives in an area that challenges Manhattan for population density. That area is already completely built out — there’s no more room for new freeways. The only way to shorten his commute is to put people underground, or pack them more tightly together in buses or light rail.
5. LA’s heavy rail system (deep underground) is, so far, a disaster. But in another decade or so, employment and residential development patterns may shift to take advantage.
6. Where Mr. Kowal goes astray is his discussion of the rest of the mass transit system. Both LA and OC have light rail and both, largely, are a success. The big, and hidden, success of both counties is their bus systems. The systems are hidden because they’re used almost entirely by the poor (who tend to be immigrant, English-as-Second-Language, and unlikely to be blog posters here). The cost comparison between buses and cars isn’t even close. Buses more more people farther, faster and cheaper than cars do. But people who can avoid them do so, then complain about the traffic. (cognitive dissonance, anyone?) Mr. Kowal needs to read up on Orange County’s Measure M.
So, to a certain extent Mr. Kowal is correct that OC’s transit system is a result of better local leadership. But that’s only a small fraction of the story. The rest is attributable to the relative size of the counties, their populations, the income distribution within the counties, their patterns of development, state and federal planning decisions, and luck.
Tim Kowal Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Thanks for the considered comments, Francis.
I’m not grasping how the explication of the differences between the “land use planning process” between LA and OC is relevant here. If LA wanted to build more freeways, it can. It’s not shy about using eminent domain. The freeway onramp I use every day is sited where my grandparents’ home used to stand before it was condemned to build the 405. So to be fair, there was not “room” for the 405, either. That’s just the nature of urban growth. The use of eminent domain for infrastructure purposes cannot be avoided, since even best laid plans will not set aside large strips of land for use as freeways in some distant future. The government uses eminent domain for rail and roads alike.
If you’d like to assign some Measure M homework, I’m game. As it stands, I’m not sure exactly what you’re driving at in that regard.
I don’t remember where I saw the numbers, but the lasting impression on me was that the OC rail project has not been a success, vis-a-vis the number of riders. Can you recommend where I could look to be enticed to your view?
Do you really mean that buses are faster than cars? I’m sure that statement is intended to be qualified in some way. A co-worker uses the bus, and it takes her over an hour for something like a 15 mile commute, I believe she told me. I used to take the bus when I was a kid to get to the beach. I quickly grew exasperated and quit the endeavor. I agree buses are generally more sound than rail, however.
Koz Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 7:52 am
“A friend of mine in LA who commutes 15 miles from Hollywood to Santa Monica each day, by contrast, averages an hour each way. Why? Because Angelinos have drunk the mass transit Kool-Aid and keep dumping bonds (serviced by higher sales taxes, which is the wife and I head south to do our shopping) into one rail boondoggle after another.”
Let’s also note that this is one of the few places where there ought to be a significant rail presence in LA, from Santa Monica to downtown, closely following I-10. But the primary reason that there isn’t is because Rep Henry Waxman refuses to allow the rail line through his Beverly Hills district.
As someone who’s an American that moved to Canada and lived for some time in France, my opinion has always been that the world is a bit like a salad bar and, if you see something good, put it on your plate. It has nothing to do with failing to appreciate the greatness of America. There’s something about this sort of argument that sounds like a jealous boyfriend: “Were you looking at Sweden?! Answer me!”
Everyone should remember to use the correct term of “public transportation” that means it is more of a jobs programs, a system to direct pork to special interest, and a method of social engineering.
In the real world, the masses drive their own cars to work and every few people actually take public transportation that is expensive, inefficient, and especially slow.
Rufus F. Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:56 am
I’m not sure how you mean “expensive” here. Expensive for the tax payer or the people who use public transit? Because, since I’ve put my car in storage and started taking the bus, I’ve saved about $400/month. So it’s less expensive for me to use public transit. But it’s certainly expensive to build new lines.
I don’t understand the supposed war between drivers and transit riders. I drive to work, because there’s no way to get there without an awkward and time-consuming transfer between two different transit systems. But while I’m on the freeway, I bless every soul who is on a train or bus and thus isn’t making my drive even slower.
lukas Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:15 am
The money that went to pay for the rail corridor could have built two more lanes for your freeway.
Mike Schilling Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Only by either demolishing a well-established commercial street or filling in the Bay. And it would also have had to add lanes to a couple of bridges, which is, to say the least, not cheap. And then the traffic and parking situation in San Francisco, already congested, would have to be addressed. Why would you assume that transit isn’t a more economically efficient alternative?
lukas Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:33 am
I’m not assuming that. Just pointing out that there is a trade-off here, and that drivers may well resent their gas tax money going to fund mass public transit boondoggles as they creep along a congested freeway.
Of course each situation is different. The density of San Francisco, New York City or Boston probably justifies public rail transit. But LA, Dallas and Houston? Not so much.
Mike Schilling Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 9:49 am
drivers may well resent their gas tax money going to fund mass public transit boondoggles
Does a transit rider get to resent his taxes being used to build unnecessary highways?
lukas Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 11:59 am
His gas taxes? Sure he does.
greginak Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Just to play Captain Obvious, but Houston, LA and Dallas didn’t get that way naturally. They are products of public choices and spending on roads and sprawl at the expense of other things. They could be places more conducive to mass transit, or already may have needs that could be filled by mass transit if people were open to it.
FWIW here is Anchorage and Alaska mass transit is just not considered manly or the kind of thing “normal” people use. Real Alaskan’s drive, preferably trucks. While there are reasonable arguments for roads and vehicles, a lot of the mass transit hate is just cultural dislike and snobbery.
Jaybird Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
No, they *DID* get that way “naturally”. They got that way because no one was saying “you can’t do that”.
trizzlor Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Have we so quickly forgotten the great American streetcar scandal?
greginak Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Why yes the preferences of some people are “natural” and others just are less natural.
The funding for roads was “just the way things are supposed to be” while the lack of funding for mass transit was freedom from government oppression. Zoning for sprawl is (cue American flags waving) “natural” while other land use is ….
Jaybird Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Like regulation of gay marriage?
lukas Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
How they got that way does not matter much. Their density patterns just are not suitable for rail mass transit, and that isn’t about to change.
Buses are another matter, but it’s light rail that is all the rage these days, around the world. Thus Houston, Dallas and LA got light rail, courtesy of the Highway Trust Fund.
They tell us that they never meant to say that mass transit was an infringement on liberty, but don’t deny or even address the fact that they did suggest, whatever their intent, that transit is a socialistic program that we are wise to reject.
Which is a different thing than suggesting it is an infringement on liberty.
I think you would discover that underutilization renders mass transit uneconomic in most metropolitan areas. Properly incorporating the costs of automobile commuting through road tolls, registration fees, and gasoline excises would ease the problem of underutilization some. It might still be worthwhile to have it as it provides a means of commuting for impecunious people, expanding the range over which they can search for employment without going into debt to purchase a car (not to mention assuming the wretched expense of insuring one and the unpredictable charges for repairing one).
So gay marriage is like highway funding?? Very kinky. What people do with their personal exit ramps in the privacy of their own homes is their business.
Jaybird Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I tend to see the whole argument that “I have the right to use the force of the state to prevent you from doing that because, seriously, it’s my business. Plus, what about the children why won’t anyone please think of the children?” has a great deal of overlap in both cases, yeah.
greginak Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Well yeah if we let the government dictate speed limits and put up traffic lights, then we are on the road to dictatorship.
but slightly less seriously, your repsonse seems pretty generic, you must be tired.
Jaybird Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Are we talking about speed limits and traffic lights?
Or were we talking about density?
If we’re talking about traffic lights, a case can easily be made that this is the stuff that government *OUGHT* to be doing.
Telling people that they cannot build a house on a half-acre lot? This strikes me as *SIGNIFICANTLY* different from “speeding limits”.
greginak Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I don’t have problem with the concept of zoning. Communities should have the ability, to a degree, to design themselves. But then I’m sure that how Stalin got his start.
Jaybird Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
How do you feel about segregation?
Or were you just talking about reasonable districts being set up with reasonable restrictions and, of course, you weren’t talking about unreasonable ones?
greginak Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Well see that is the problem with traffic lights. If you let government control us when it is reasonable then who is decide what is reasonable. If you say there are things government should do, they you are opening up the slippery slope to dictatorship.
Jaybird Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Perhaps you’re right.
Perhaps “natural” is the best term for a central control agency making decisions on behalf of others and people being free to make their own decisions *IS* unnatural.
I retract my original comment.
Anything that contributes to a reduction in further road construction can’t be all bad. The only bad thing I see about it is the lack of interest from the private sector, which is an indication that there is no foreseeable profit margin in mass transit. Which is really too bad. Then again, the private sector usually doesn’t actually fund road construction, does it? I’m all for mass transit, provided it can be done in a way as to reduce energy consumption in addition to traffic problems. My big hangup is on air travel. Reduce it by a considerable margin, say by at least ten percent, and fund mass transit where appropriate and viable, and our energy dependence problems probably are not nearly so ominous as they now are. We might also keep half the country from being comprised of roads and parking lots.