Comments on: Internalizing positive transit externalities

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 03:29:00 +0000

Thanks for the article. I presume when you used the expression “turn of the century,” you actually meant the turn of the 20th century–not the more recent one.

By: rationalitate

rationalitate — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:46:21 +0000

Do they really? I noticed a lot of WMATA-owned garages when I lived there, but I never saw/heard that they owned or developed land (then again, I never really ventured out into Maryland or Virginia). Do you have a link or a source or any more info? I believe you, but I’m just curious about specifics and I can’t seem to find anything on my own.

By: Gradplanner

Gradplanner — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:06:00 +0000

THe DC area metro has a vested interest in where new stations will be created. They usually own the land around/ on where the station will be created and then look for investment. Its very valuable land and easy to get developers on board since you know there will be a ton of foot traffic. Very interesting model.

By: Extracting value « Price Tags

Extracting value « Price Tags — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:07:29 +0000

[…] More here. […]

By: T. Caine

T. Caine — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:55:00 +0000

Great post, Stephen. Alon touched on what I was thinking, being that one of the barriers to more privatization of transit seems to be that it isn’t a viable business model. The future of New York’s system looks abysmal despite service cuts and fare increases and they are still predicting budget shortfalls in 2011 and 2013. It seems like a tough model to attract private money to and they are fresh out of money to be investing in development outside of the system. If I’m not mistaken, one of the things that drove systems like Boston and New York’s public transit to municipal control was that they were going bankrupt.

That being said, if there was a model that could work then I think it’s effect could be most acutely felt not in the big cities, but the struggling cities to which serious public transit investment seems even more unlikely than a privatized NYC MTA. Cities like Syracuse, Hartford, Providence or especially Detroit that could benefit from transit mobility in order to help promote economic expansion simply don’t have the money to even think about a comprehensive system. But if there was some kind of incentive for developers and public entities to construct property and transit side-by-side, maybe new transit systems have a brighter outlook.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:05:00 +0000

I’ve heard about that. I’m not sure about the specific rules, but I suspect that it would be illegal to charge and therefore let non-employees use the services.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:33:00 +0000

Here in the SF Bay Area, and I suspect elsewhere, there is already a form of privately-operated mass transit… but it’s not oriented around residential property but around commercial property. Namely many employers offer free shuttles to their work sites from many places. These are pretty limited, however, as they mostly operate during commute hours, and may not allow non-employees to use them.

By: rationalitate

rationalitate — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:50:39 +0000

Was Robert Moses not a planner? Did Teddy Roosevelt (a progressive) not support subsidized roads? Did The Nation (a progressive magazine) not lobby against transit and for zoning back in 1920?