From the Courier News:
Group: Mass transit can ease N.J. woes
To explain something as complicated as the statewide property tax crisis, George Hawkins needs a whiteboard.
Hawkins is the executive director of New Jersey Future, a research and advocacy group that studies the state’s development problems and possible solutions. Recently, he made a presentation for an editorial board meeting at the Courier News, in which he explained the mission of his organization: to help individuals and municipalities cope with the burden of dense development, rising property taxes, growing school populations, traffic and other problems, by raising awareness about smart growth.
Somewhere in his doodle of New Jersey, cris-crossed with highways and strip malls, Hawkins made room for more mass transit-oriented development as a long-term solution to the hefty tax bills many residents now face. Tax reform and environmental health are part of a holistic process, and in a state as crowded as New Jersey, transit-oriented land use is a big part of that process, he said.
“I believe my generation’s view of this kind of development is changing,” he said, citing the many potential long-term benefits of transit villages: lower property taxes, more manageable development and land use, a balanced job market, more affordable housing and numerous other solutions to statewide problems resulting from overdevelopment and sprawl.
…
In his pitch, Hawkins explains the complex cycle of fiscal imbalance that leads to “the ratables chase” — residential development does not pay for itself — that is, the cost of local government, services and schooling generally exceeds the revenue generated in property taxes. Thus, municipalities have an incentive to court nonresidential development — shopping centers, office parks and hotels — and discourage residential development.These major commercial projects go to the lowest bidder, sometimes with little consideration of how the development will affect the surrounding area. This kind of development can suck people and resources out of town and city centers and divert them into a sprawling pattern, Hawkins said.
Because school funding can be the largest component of local spending, municipalities may be forced to encourage housing for seniors and singles, and zone for revenue-producing luxury houses on large, expensive lots, all to resist building housing for families.
The cumulative result of all this is a statewide housing shortage, with lots of development that may have unintended consequences from traffic to increased pollution, Hawkins said.
Bribe Trenton/Newark to rid you of the affordable rabble, cuddle the rich enclaves (taxes 25K+ a pop) w/ private schools = problem solved – soo easy .
Everything Hawkings said is so contrary to what we know from every study going back to the 1920s that it is unfair to stupid and ignorant and evil people everywhere to call him stupid, ignorant and evil. This kind of agitprop is the most insidious form of newspeak as promulgated by a fifth column of would be social engineers posing as urban planners. But enough of the truth. All Hawkings or anyone else for that matter needs do is point to an example where actual outcomes are as “planned” [promised] for any transit oriented development.
…would be social engineers posing as urban planners.
What, in your opinion, is the purpose of this ‘social engineering’ exercise?
Personally, I don’t see the downside to creating more mass transit facilities in proximity to existing housing, or creating more new housing in proximity to existing transit facilities.
If you do, I’d be interested in hearing all about it.
here is the main public transit problem in NJ as I see it: our system is designed to get people from NJ to NYC and back, while most of us are stuck in a suburb to suburb commute pattern. I live in downtown New Brunswick and I could take a bus to work, however it only runs every 50 minutes in rush hour and it is unreliable at best. Even if there was a light rail installed adjacent to Route 1, if I work in an office park in Plainsboro, how will I get from the theoretical rail stop to the office park? We had a better transit system in the 1920s when we had streetcars and decent rail service. There is no solution other than abandoning car-based living arrangements which is typical of sprawl and the ratables chase.
our system is designed to get people from NJ to NYC and back, while most of us are stuck in a suburb to suburb commute pattern.
jmacdaddio, very true. Check this out, it appears that you’re not the only person who realizes this.
http://www.njherald.com/317830406663253.php
Here is an excerpt:
TransOptions of Cedar Knolls noticed there is no public transportation to companies such as Novartis in East Hanover and campuses in Parsippany, said Don Watt, director of operations.
[…]
In conjunction with NJTransit, TransOptions secured a two-year, $578,000 grant for its “Last Mile Shuttle” pilot program.
The program will offer $1 rides on maroon State Shuttle buses to numerous locations after arriving by train, the company said.
[…]
These residents can park for free at the Netcong NJTransit station, Watt said, and after arrival at the Morris Plains station, they can take the shuttle down Route 202 to the campuses of Intel, Delta Dental Corp., Mack/Cali Campus and the GSK Corporation.
Wow, lots of questions and lots of the usual unquestioned transit assumptions. While tempted to just refer to a search of my blog, I’ll try to put a little tructure on the subject.
Mass transit, particularly rail transit is a massive public finance burden. Always. Even its propoents won’t deny this although they will try to lowball the true price tag. What proponents do do is promise “positive externalities.” Most often traffic congestion relief. A close second is usually “controlling sprawl.” After that come all kinds of warm fuzzies “walkable neighborhoods,” “sustainable community,” “residential choice.”
This is all about an irrational dislike of the the modern roads oriented suburban development model by a small but zealous group of planning participants. SmartMODE exists because it represents revealed preference and cost benefits.
What proponents do do is promise “positive externalities.” Most often traffic congestion relief.
If more people took the train, is it your contention that there would not be fewer cars on the streets?
If more people took the train, is it your contention that there would not be fewer cars on the streets?
This is going to take a lot of explaining. Yes, providing more trains causes more congestion on the street for several reasons. Foremost the “investment” in both time and treasure and space to accomodate rail transit is at the expense of roads capacity. Then municipalities assume that rail transit both needs and addresses the transportation problems of higher density. Then there is the paradox of transit; Transit proponents claim economic stimulus but economic stmulus in excess of the capacity of transit. so, even if transit proponents are absolutely correct then the consequence of more transit is still more congestion.
Think about it from the reverese. The places that spend the most and provide the most transit experience the most congestion. And do not try to claim this is reverseing cause and effect. Why then has Portland that had little congestion and moderate growth experienced some of the greatest increases in congestion?
Transit proponents claim economic stimulus but economic stmulus in excess of the capacity of transit. so, even if transit proponents are absolutely correct then the consequence of more transit is still more congestion.
Without transit, would growth hit a plateau? Does introducing transit have the effect of increasing growth and thereby increasing congestion?
If one wishes to live in a sleepy, no-growth suburb, that might not be a good thing. But if one wanted to live in a growing community, introducing transit would achieve just that. Congestion would be a by-product of a desirable outcome.
Why is more congestion a desireable outcome for EXISTING residents? Think about it. Transit is part of a forcible change in the nature of a community that fundamentally changes the very attributes that these poor people invested their lives there in the first place. At least you have moved beyond the hype of transit to understanding that indeed transit cuses congestion. Perhaps you even now reasonably suspect that transit dvocates seek to deliberately increase congestion both for the reasons you mention and as justification for more transit and density.
Robert,
I get what you’re trying to say. If a sleepy suburban community wishes to stay that way, then yes – transit is a bad idea.
However, I live in what used to be a sleepy suburban community and is rapidly growing. They hardly build any SFH’s anymore – it’s all condos and townhomes now. My commute to work has become much easier than it used to be. When looking for other work, there are places that are now accessible to me that previously were not (or at least it would have been much more of a hardship to get there) and that increases my choice of employers/clients. The negative of it all? It’s much more crowded. Traffic is a real b1tch, quite frankly. Is it all good or all bad? No. There’s a bit of both and in the end every community will have to decide which they prefer.
Communities rarely get to decide. Planners produce 20 year plans and councils adopt radically higher densities and inadequate roads infrastructure and by the time the frog is boiling it is too late.
Wht if every general election included the following binding question:
Shall the taxpayers continue th practice of subsidizing transit to the extent of 300% of fares or shall fares be required to cover at least 2/3rd of total costs? Choose one.
Transit would die. It is not supported by its users and it is not endorsed by its benefactors.
Communities rarely get to decide. Planners produce 20 year plans and councils adopt radically higher densities and inadequate roads infrastructure and by the time the frog is boiling it is too late.
Wht if every general election included the following binding question:
Shall the taxpayers continue th practice of subsidizing transit to the extent of 300% of fares or shall fares be required to cover at least 2/3rd of total costs? Choose one.
Transit would die. It is not supported by its users and it is not endorsed by its benefactors.
Maybe if the question was framed that way, it would. But when the question is asked, do you want an NJ Transit bus or train stop with a direct connection to Midtown within walking distance of your home, I know of no one who would say no.
From their website “NJ TRANSIT provides nearly 223 million passenger trips each year.” So Robert Cote… I guess we should tell all these people that they have to take their car on these trips, buy one if they don’t have one, pay for all the gas and maintenance, buy parking if they don’t have it, and sit in 3-4 hours of traffic everyday, and drive their kids to and from school. It costs $4-5,000 a year to own, operate, and have insurance for a typical car, and that’s with the gov’t paying for the roads. How’s is someone making minimum wage suppose to have a car? Do you really think there is enough land in NJ for everyone to have a half-acre lot? What’s wrong with people walking to stores, parks, and mass transit? Or are you worried about people getting too much exercise, having air worth breathing, water worth drinking, not being stressed by road-rage, and having more time with their friends and family? I would much rather live in Portland then LA, Houston, or Orlando where there is less mass-transit.
“NJ TRANSIT provides nearly 223 million passenger trips each year.” So Robert Cote… I guess we should tell all these people that they have to take their car on these trips, buy one if they don’t have one, pay for all the gas and maintenance, buy parking if they don’t have it, and sit in 3-4 hours of traffic everyday, and drive their kids to and from school. It costs $4-5,000 a year to own, operate, and have insurance for a typical car, and that’s with the gov’t paying for the roads.
You have no concept of the economics of either transit or transportation. Your agressive personal attack has no place in this public policy discussion. The “gov’t” does not pay for the roads. Roads users pay for the roads. The “gov’t” does not pay for transit, everyone regardless of use pays for it. Besides your being impolite you are also gulible. NJT can say anything they want on their website but in truth they only delivered 244,084,365 unlinked trips in 2005. That’s far far less than their claim as you relate it of nearly 223 million passenger trips.
So, about those 244,084,365 unlinked trips. Cost total; 1,525,899,318 + 631,269,253 = $2.15 billion. And the lucky passengers? They coughed up a whopping $562,276,564. Got it? Quadruple fares and only then get back to us with your ignorant agitprop about subsidized roads.
“NJ TRANSIT provides nearly 223 million passenger trips each year.” So Robert Cote… I guess we should tell all these people that they have to take their car on these trips, buy one if they don’t have one, pay for all the gas and maintenance, buy parking if they don’t have it, and sit in 3-4 hours of traffic everyday, and drive their kids to and from school. It costs $4-5,000 a year to own, operate, and have insurance for a typical car, and that’s with the gov’t paying for the roads.
You have no concept of the economics of either transit or transportation. Your agressive personal attack has no place in this public policy discussion. The “gov’t” does not pay for the roads. Roads users pay for the roads. The “gov’t” does not pay for transit, everyone regardless of use pays for it. Besides your being impolite you are also gulible. NJT can say anything they want on their website but in truth they only delivered 244,084,365 unlinked trips in 2005. That’s far far less than their claim as you relate it of nearly 223 million passenger trips.
So, about those 244,084,365 unlinked trips. Cost total; 1,525,899,318 + 631,269,253 = $2.15 billion. And the lucky passengers? They coughed up a whopping $562,276,564. Got it? Quadruple fares and only then get back to us with your ignorant agitprop about subsidized roads.
NJT can say anything they want on their website but in truth they only delivered 244,084,365 unlinked trips in 2005. That’s far far less than their claim as you relate it of nearly 223 million passenger trips.
What is your source for this claim?
Robert, the fact remains that if someone like myself wanted to earn a significantly higher wage, a job in New York City is the way to go. The fact also is that the least inconvenient and least expensive way for me to commute to the City (I am in Middlesex County, New Jersey) is via NJ Transit. Many people are in the situation I am in. I understand the point you are trying to make but how do people like us figure into your calculus? I am not certain I see that yet.
The source is the National Transit Database. 244,084,365 unlinked trips for systems like NJT would be 150 million one way trips or 60 million passengers annually. So, on any weekday that’s about 220,000 people using NJT or about 4% of the service area population.
You can do your own analysis from:
http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2005/agency_profiles/2080.pdf
No doubt NYC offers higher wages for many professions. Also there’s no doubt that transit helps preserve that condition. Yes, the transit commute is the least expensive… FOR YOU. The problem is that it is a defensible public policy to subsidize you in this manner as it would to be giving out free automobiles and half price gas cards. If the latter makes you uncomfortable so should the former.
The value of a subsidy depends on its ROI. If you subsidize a person by giving him a cash allowance and all he does is use it to buy pot, that’s a failed subsidy. If you subsidize a population of professionals who then add value to the community by the work they do, that’s not.
I will not fall for the “all subsidies are equal” fallacy. They are not. Some subsidies create wealth. Others do not.
If you subsidize a population of professionals who then add value to the community by the work they do, that’s not.
That’s kind of funny way to describe the process but okay.
I will not fall for the “all subsidies are equal” fallacy. They are not. Some subsidies create wealth. Others do not.
No one is asking you to fall for anything. What you need to do is use your own metrics described above to honestly evaluate transit.
I was specific about comparing transportation subsidies on a level playing field. You are, of course, free to explain why or how transit subsidies are different. Keep in mind “it’s different” is one of the most reviled excuses in the subject.