Comments on: The Nation’s mass transit hypocrisy

By: Sam Russell

Sam Russell — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:50:00 +0000

First, even if SF trolleys had kept a sole agent on board, many still would have probably gone under, as they did everywhere else. Regulations overly benefiting workers are not enough to destroy transit in itself. Secondly, implying that libertarians are in favor of smart growth and transit, which necessarily implies strong involvement from the government, while progressives favor sprawl, is obviously absurd – isolated examples from the 20′s notwithstanding. From the perspective of the 20′s, zoning was a major improvement over a total lack of regulation. There is nothing wrong with zoning in itself, with an effort to shape and control development. Transit-friendly urbanist zoning is the solution, and while it can harness the free market under the right conditions, the heavy hand of government is necessary to put it in place and to pay for its infrastructure. Outside of Japan, public transit will always rely on governement subsidies to some extent, and if the Nation took 90 years to come around, well better late than never.

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:50:21 +0000

The San Francisco story is actually quite interesting. The best analysis that I've seen of it, oddly enough, was in a completely unsourced Wikipedia article. Someone has since taken it all out due to the lack of citations, but you can still see an old version of the article here.

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:50:00 +0000

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:47:09 +0000

I might not have been so harsh if they had shown any realization that it was the Progressives' policies that got us into this mess in the first place, but they punted the blame to everyone but themselves. "Federal policy favoring roads and cars"?? Yeah right – local policies pushed by early 20th century progressives were much worse. And though I didn't mention it, the article's author is brazen enough to excuse the local planning boards for their restrictive anti-density regulations, saying:

Under current rules, funding for a mass-transit system is only provided to areas that already have the density to support it. But mass transit works best when it is built in advance of creeping development, as it was in New York City, so that the tallest buildings can be built closest to the transit nodes, where the premium for housing or office and retail space is highest.

To be honest, it's not entirely clear that the author understands at all why New York City could never be built today.

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:47:00 +0000

Under current rules, funding for a mass-transit system is only provided to areas that already have the density to support it. But mass transit works best when it is built in advance of creeping development, as it was in New York City, so that the tallest buildings can be built closest to the transit nodes, where the premium for housing or office and retail space is highest.

To be honest, it's not entirely clear that the author understands at all why New York City could never be built today.

By: Market Urbanism

Market Urbanism — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:01:29 +0000

Planning, zoning, sprawl, and roads were all part of the prevailing progressive agenda back in those days. That is just one example of many from that time. (Monday, I should be posting an article I’m fine-tuning about Hoover’s contributions to the progressive legacy in this matter)

I think it goes to show the deep flaws in the progressive philosophy that dreams big things, then rallies against the results of the implementation of their policies when the unintended consequences cause problems they despise. They then conveniently forget that their own ideology shares the blame.

By: MarketUrbanism

MarketUrbanism — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:01:00 +0000

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:11:39 +0000

I’ve seen old photos of 4 street cars from competing lines going up and down Market Street. I’ve often wondered why the street car companies in SF went out of business and let the city form a gov’t monopoly. Now I know why. Thanks.