15 ms·

The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for public transit projects

143 points by petethomas 8y ago

21 8y ago
> Americans for Prosperity counters that public transit plans waste taxpayer money on unpopular, outdated technology like trains and buses just as the world is moving toward cleaner, driverless vehicles. > Most American cities do not have the population density to support mass transit, the group says. It also asserts that transit brings unwanted gentrification to some areas, while failing to reach others altogether. > Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties that Americans hold dear. “If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want,” Ms. Venable said, “they’re not going to choose public transit.” Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dexterdog 8y ago
  There is a point here. Public transportation is great, but under the incredibly inefficient management of the government it will almost always cost anywhere from 2x to 10x what it really should. That means it not only costs more, but takes longer to complete and is possibly irrelevant by the time it is actually usable. This wasn't the case in the past as much it is today and it's only getting worse.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    This almost reads like a mad lib of every surface level, trope-like critique of publicly funded initiatives without actually saying anything at all of substance. Government may be inefficient at times but so far they've been the most consistent purveyor of public mass transportation. It may not be great but I think in the larger picture the general public is probably well satisfied with transit that is consistent if you polled riders.
    - BadThink6655321 8y ago
      No mass transit system makes a profit, at least the last time I talked to someone who was heavily involved in the numbers. They require a subsidy of, what was it, 70%? That doesn’t make it wrong, but it has to be considered.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        No road system makes a profit either, but very few people seriously discuss getting government out of the road business.
      - M2Ys4U 8y ago
        The Metrolink in Manchester - the UK's largest light rail network - is entirely funded by fares and receives no operational subsidy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink
      - sseveran 8y ago
        MTR in Hong Kong was making $2B per year in profit. The model they use is largely the same one being tried in Florida where real estate projects are integrated with the rail system. http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-property/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-pr...
      - rostigerpudel 8y ago
        That is wrong. The Munich public transport system has been turning a profit for at least 15 years out of the last 17. For the two missing years, I did not find numbers or sources, but it's probably the same. Pretty sure there are others that run successfully. BTW only road systems where you pay for every mile you drive (see e.g. motorways in France, Spain, Italy) turn a profit. All others are, basically, just a waste of taxpayers money ;-) It's usually failed policies and nincompompous administration that make public transport systems fail. Sources: >https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mvg.de%2Fueber%2Fpresse-print%2Fpressemeldungen%2F2016%2F2016-04-29-aufsichtsrat-verabschiedet-jahresabschluss.html&edit-text= https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pre... >https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschaeftsbericht.pdf https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschae...
  - lvh 8y ago
    The cost of a blue line ticket in Chicago — a line running from downtown out to O’Hare and out west past city limits - is $2.50. If you take it every day, a monthly pass is... $120 or so? That’ll take you anywhere: buses & trains. Do you have an example of where this a) exists b) isn’t government-run, c) cheaper?
    - cozzyd 8y ago
      $105, and you can get it pre-tax with the right employers.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    I disagree that public transportation is great, it's shit, it's crowded and uncomfortable. I avoid it outside of Amtrak. I don't agree with the article but if the choice is CTA or Uber pool im taking Uber for roughly the same cost.
    - lvh 8y ago
      Where do you take Uber pool that is similarly priced to CTA?!
  - doitLP 8y ago
    Didn't even use a throwaway account to make your slightly dissenting opinion, brave. I see the same things in my area with the light rail that was years late, millions overbudget and still is largely underutilized. I am a proponent of mass transit but not every plan is worth endorsing.
- ckastner 8y ago
  > Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative. It's a clever word play. > If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want [...] then they’re not going to choose public transit. This argument is in itself probably not wrong. Now switch the antecedent (freedom) and consequent (not public transport), and you arrive the argument "public transport is against freedom". Anyone familiar with logic will know how wrong this is, but the other 95% won't notice.
  - 0xcafecafe 8y ago
    Isn't freedom about letting people make their choices? Not going for public transit because people are "probably not going to choose it" sounds specious.
    - TuringTest 8y ago
      As is commonly the case, raising taxes would hurt those who can buy and maintain a good car properly, but benefit those who depend on quality public transport.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Car owners in any place which has bad traffic should be in favor of improved public transport. The more cars you take off the roads, the nicer the driving experience will be for people who want to keep driving!
        cascom 8y ago
        The problem is that in many American cities it doesn’t work like that - e.g. a lane of traffic is removed for a dedicated bus lane, increasing general traffic congestion, but bus utilization does not fully replace that same number of drivers that would have used that bus lane
        mikeash 8y ago
- nine_k 8y ago
  Welcome to the world of political rhetoric. If something is likely to trigger the desired emotional answer by matching a number of keywords, it's an acceptable device; the literal meaning is secondary at best, and ignored in many cases.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    It's unbelievable, sometimes maddening, but a great number of people still falls for it.
    - tim333 8y ago
      It works the other way too - people see right wingers attack public transport and assume it's evil without looking into whether it might just be an poor use of tax money.
      - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
        There seems to be too much ideology on both sides of the argument, a bit more pragmatism would be better.
- TuringTest 8y ago
  That is a common meme among right-wing politicians who try to profit from private cars factories; but here in Europe it doesn't fly with the general public, who know better. Public transport is demonstrably the most cost-efficient method for the daily commute of hundred of thousands people in a city, provided the city itself and transport routes are designed accordingly (which arguably is the main problem in the US). For those sporadic free range transportation needs such as vacations and weekend escapades, car rental and taxi services should typically be enough for for all those who normally have enough travelling by public transport.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Even though I am strongly in favour of public transport it's hard to compare Europe to the US. For one thing our populations are much more dense than the US, more than ten times as high in the case of the Netherlands.
- BadThink6655321 8y ago
  No, freedom is against public transport, not the other way around. It may be a silly argument (personally, I like BART and Metro in D.C.), but you don’t get to erect a straw man.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It pretty clearly says it both ways. "Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties that Americans hold dear."
- holgerfunter 8y ago
  >Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative If you manage to filter out actual information from the crass left-leaning garbage that makes up 90% of this completely biased article, you'll see that the core of the story is a actually a fight again raising taxes. You may or may not agree with the proposition to raise taxes to finance public transportation (which is pretty much impossible to pass judgment on without more local context on how public finances are managed in Nashville), but please, please try to see through the rank propaganda.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I'm not american, so this is cheap talk. I'll start with that. I don't have an outright objection to these positions. They're not crazy or nonsensical. They're matters of judgement, taste & perspective. Cars/roads have been very successful, as a transport technolgy. It's not wrong to be pro cars. What I do have a problem with is the Das Capital-esque, think-talk-esque, manifesto-esque statements. The position isn't presented as "I like cars better," it is presented as: "Cars are better. This is an absolute truth. I proved it.^" I can prove it using complicated philosophy with roots in America's founding or Bastiat. I can prove it with Adman Smith & Ricardo derived philosophy. Here is my horrendously complex econometric analysis, that only ever seem to convince their own authors.^ This type of argument is ironically bolshevic, and has all the characteristics that oponents of marxism took issue with, from fredriech hayek to Karl Popper. More importantly, it is fanatical and this makes it hard to engage others of different opinions/tastes. This is particularly frustrating here in this case, where the arguments so clearly involve matters of taste and subjective preference. Cars need public infrastrucure too, all the asphalt you see everywhere. The infrastructure is costlier in land use. Consumer choice.. I'd say you could make the consumer choice argument both ways. People certainly like (judging by house prices) to live in (and visit) less car-centric cities. This way of presenting politcal cases is not unique to the american right, it permeates all places & all parties. ^Al la: You are an ass. I can prove that mathematically.
- cmsd2 8y ago
  The gentrification argument is strange to me. Gentrification as an effect happens when an area becomes more desirable to live in. That means here that people place a positive value on public transport. To deny an area the benefit of public transport based on some weird altruistic and paternalistic motive doesn't really seem credible. It's really tail wagging the dog too. To say we should just keep areas shitty or undesirable to avoid gentrification seems totally backwards.
- ocschwar 8y ago
  This is America! Where you literally need a license from the government just to go outside your house to fetch milk.
FearOfReprisal 8y ago
Frankly, the GOP party line is: Fuck the poor. Screw the public. MOAR GUNZ!!!!
- protomyth 8y ago
  The Koch brothers are Libertarians
  - et2o 8y ago
    They are massive donors to the GOP
    - protomyth 8y ago
      They are massive specific donors for causes that match their Libertarian beliefs. They are Libertarians and fund quite a few causes that would tick off the average GOP voter.
whb07 8y ago
What’s the story here? Seems like Koch Bros are against raising taxes. They aren’t “killing” anything. Let’s assume the tax raise will only go to public transport. Let’s assume for now it’s a good plan and actually wanted by the public. The issue isn’t the previous assumptions but the fact that taxes will not be lowered afterwards. So even after completion of the project, the tax that was put in place to raise revenues to fund the project will still remain in the books. That’s the insidious nature of government. Once it has it it will not let go.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  Well > One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads. Also: stuff requires upkeep, consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway. You can’t just build it and expect it to stay in perfect condition forever.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    > consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway Everything I've read about the NYC Subway system indicates that it's funded more than adequately, but due to mismanagement, corruption, and cronyism, the funds walk out the door in the pockets of ghost workers. Assuming the system wasn't awash with grift, is there evidence to suggest that NYC doesn't actually fund it adequately? NYC residents pay well above the national rate in taxes, and presumably those taxes are intended to fund transit. If the money taxed isn't being used to actually maintain the infrastructure, I think it supports OP's argument that the taxes haven't abated but the services being offered for them have. Without getting into the ideological debate of whether publicly funded projects are good or bad, I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.
    - ejstronge 8y ago
dantheman 8y ago
I think there's an interesting take on this - we are on the verge of a huge technological shift with the advent of self-driving cars. Should we hold off on massive transit projects where they don't already exist that is the community doesn't already have a subway and wait to see how self-driving cars pan out? It's like investing in traditional cargo ships right as containerization started happening. Or investing in horse related infrastructure when the automotive was first being released. This seems relatively sensible to me. Address near term issues - small fixes. And not fund huge projects that may become obsolete before they're finished. I guess the question is -- how quickly will self driving cars be deployed, and how will they effect the areas. Will self driving cars completely replace buses?
- jlangenauer 8y ago
  No they won't, for the same reason that cities without public transport or minimal public transport have horrible traffic: the sheer density of people a bus, tram or light rail line can move far exceeds private vehicles with one or two people in them.
  - dantheman 8y ago
    My question is can there be public self-driving buses, cars, mini-buses -- that stop less are more direct and communicate to manage traffic?
    - lvh 8y ago
      Is there a metric where they’re not worse at what you’re suggesting than trains?
      - dantheman 8y ago
        Cost and flexibility. Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains. They are not as nice though. If for instance people in a given community want to start traveling to a different part of a city they either have to create new rail routes or people have to take long inconvenient trips.
dahdum 8y ago
That project would have kicked their sales tax to 10.25%, highest in the country, and like every major public project they’d go far over their 5.4b budget. The link to Koch brothers is a bit tenuous, it was the voters who killed this project, once they knew the costs.
sevensor 8y ago
The article paints their motivation as naked self-serving hypocrisy: > One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.
deepGem 8y ago
Where is the need to spend 5.2 billion on public transit ? A few electric buses with point to point connections will do. Start small and expand as needed. Just one high density suburb <-> Downtown connection is sufficient to start with. Electric buses are so good, they have instant torque - so there is none of the lag that plague traditional diesel buses, they are fast, quiet and since it's point to point, your range anxiety is practically eliminated. A dedicated bus lane or the HOV lane and a stop every 1/2 ecits should cut it. Sure it's not as fast as a dedicated subway or the Shinkansen but at a fraction of the cost, you are bringing in people to start using public transit.
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  The issue with starting small is that there is no network effect - somehow people have to get to the starting or end point. This can work if you have a city structure with a clear resedential area and some central leisure or work place and there's lot's of commute between, but for many areas the benefit only comes if many people can use a network effect of reaching many areas.
phobosdeimos 8y ago
Driverless cars are tested in Arizona. I am not impressed. The US is FINALLY being weened off their urban sprawl fetish, every city on the planet is heavily investing in public transport. When Trump was talking about how North Korea could one,day look like Singapore I smiled. Why does LA or New York not look like Singapore?
plcancel 8y ago
"The group’s Nashville victory followed a roller-coaster political campaign, including a sex-and-spending scandal that led to the mayor’s resignation." Oct 2017 - Unveils $5.2bil plan Mar 2018 - Pleads guilty to felony and resigns; interim mayor (vice mayor appointed) May 01 2018 - Vote on plan May 24 2018 - Vote for new mayor (vice mayor wins with 55% of vote) Yeah, sounds roller-coastery.
jessaustin 8y ago
OK that seems pretty vile. Still, one gets the sense that these campaigns succeeded mostly because there was no response to them. This "team" the reporter followed talked to 66 people in one day? The campaign in total raised $1.1M? These are not overwhelming numbers, if the entire Nashville business community and political apparatus had really been united as described in TFA. It seems possible that support was a mile wide and an inch deep. It's easy to give lip service to a popular politician. This charismatic mayor was not around for the long haul, even if her bodyguard had not been the type of cad to kiss and tell. If her scandal had been delayed a year, the measure had passed, the money raised, etc.: then what? What strong constituency existed to keep pushing this project in the right directions over the decade it would take? If those people exist, they should have gone door-to-door a week after these AfP yokels to complain about rich Kansans interfering in our politics to sell us asphalt.
M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
When Americans pronounce their name as "Coke", is that a mean-spirited jab at the troublesome byproduct of Fred C. Koch's petroleum cracking process, or is that how the family pronounces it themselves?
marcoperaza 8y ago
Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. Instead, they adopt anti-car policies to force people to behave like they want them to. See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? Could it be that people value the freedom and privacy of having a car and living in the suburbs? Of living in quiet suburbs free of street crime and roving gangs of ne’er-do-wells? Of being free from the inherent restrictions to freedom that come with being in closer proximity to others?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field The idea that they should do so badly misses the entire justification for a public service. > If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? The main reason to have a public service rather than a private one provided by the free market is to address an externality (either of benefit with the public service or of harm with the private service it displaces.) Competing with the private service on a level playing field is, in that case, contrary to the purpose of having a public service.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. You're right. We need to insist that drivers pay as much for their privilege to use public roads as we insist that public transit users pay to use public transit. > See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. Oh. You want the government to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle even more than it does so. SOV cars have very large demands on space, and in urban settings, space is at a premium. Free parking, or even mandatory parking minimums, are essentially taxing everyone for the benefit of drivers. The normal "user fees" for roads--gas taxes and car taxes--simply do not cover the actual costs even of maintenance for roads, let alone the capital costs of expanding them. This means that those funds come from general revenue, again causing everyone to subsidize drivers, whether or not they actually use them.
tompccs 8y ago
Some commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an age of self-driving electric vehicles have perhaps never lived in a city with good public transit. Road traffic in Victorian London was on average faster than it is now, but investing in underground tunnels for trains was still deemed necessary (even profitable). Likewise, buses massively reduce the road footprint per passenger, not to mention the increased energy efficiency, regardless of whether it renewable or not. And finally, end-to-end transport offered by personal vehicles or taxis has been disastrous for public health. The difference between walking to your driveway or curbside versus a five minute walk to a bus stop or ten minute walk to a train station everyday would be enormous aggregated across an entire population. It would be a great missed opportunity if the idea of being able to summon a driverless electric car (we still have no idea how this technology will really pan out, whereas buses and trains have been around for over a century) kills public transit as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles before it's even off the ground.
- orev 8y ago
  > commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an age of self-driving electric vehicles Such commenters would also not be living in reality. A few self-driving vehicles deployed as research projects in select areas hardly defines an “age”. We’re just at the start of the path, and until there are millions of these things roaming the streets, they will have no impact on society. People need to get to work today, not in some near future that is still defined in years.
oldgrumpygeek 8y ago
It seems like a bit of class warfare on the part of the Koch's. Without public transportation people in lower income areas can't get to better jobs, healthcare or schools. People in these areas also don't have access healthy food because grocery stores won't open in areas where the majority of customers use food stamps and government aid. Yes current modes of transportation are becoming out dated the newer modes like self driving cars are not ready for the mass public. What the Koch's fail to grasp is that the more people making a living wage we have means we have less people living off entitlements like food stamps. If we have more people paying taxes instead of living off the taxes of other we will see improvements for all and possibly lower taxes due to a surplus not a deficit. Sorry for the soapbox.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Class warfare has never been gone. It's just that it's only the rich and powerful that wage it, and of course they are winning.
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    >There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won - Warren Buffett
    - RobertoG 8y ago
      This is a real quote but, without context, gives an unfair impression about Buffet: he said that while supporting bigger taxation. He also said something in the lines that "he was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary". That sounds crazy to me, but I'm not going to discuss about finances with Warren Buffet.
      - pseudalopex 8y ago
        Most of Buffet's income is long-term capital gains, and he probably pays his secretary well above median.
      - 8y ago
cascom 8y ago
There are very few cities in America where public transport is the most efficient option for MOST trips - e.g. think about cities where a family of four could honestly say that they wouldn’t need a car. If a large capital project is not going to change that equation, it seems unlikely that that is an efficient use of money. It’s sad to say that in all but the largest and densest American cities mass transit is used for the most part by people that can’t drive.
weliketocode 8y ago
I live in nyc now, but grew up in a small conservative-learning town. So many of my friends & colleagues who have spent their lives in liberal areas refuse to see the issue from the perspective of middle-class conservatives --> instead calling them 'deplorables' or 'morons'. If you went around at my town's local supermarket handing out $50 gift cards - telling people that this was how much their taxes were going up - that proposition was getting voted down.
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  I understand 50$ goes far in small towns than in NYC. That said, shouldn't voters consider a proposal based on its merits than solely from a tax increase viewpoint? Sure I'm paying $50 more in taxes, but if it means not having to use my car as much, then it is a win, isn't it? Handing out gift cards is a shitty move even if all their reasons against the project made sense (which it doesn't). These should be settled with educated, sensible debates rather than who has more money to spend.
  - weliketocode 8y ago
    You're right. Completely right. Citizens should understand and think about tax increases in terms of their longer terms use. Whether that's increased security, infrastructure, education, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
congruence 8y ago
European here, living happily without a driver's license. Could someone please explain the gentrification argument? How is public transport supposed to make it worse? Assuming gentrification occurs when one area is much more desirable to be in than others, then with good public transport it can be reached more easily. People can live outside the center (or the nice district) and still get a good experience, work or spend time there. The desirable area expands. It seems to me that if anything, this should work against gentrification. Also, living in cities means giving up some freedom. We share it, we have to make some kinds of compromise: keep the noise down, take up less space for our private use and use the public more (like parks instead of own gardens). In my opinion this also means limiting the use of cars, so that city centers don't have to accommodate wide roads and parking space and could become more walkable and generally pleasant. I appreciate that most major European cities seem to develop in that direction. Want freedom - go live away from people, no one will restrict you then.
- funkjunky 8y ago
  "The nice area expands" - basically what gentrification is. If public transit opens up travel options for poorer (usually minority) areas, young white people who can't afford to live in the city will start moving there, bringing their yoga studios and brunch cafes and actual grocery-stores-that-arent-just-an-isle-of-canned-food-in-liquor-stores.
epc_chswift 8y ago
Public transit is the way of the future in higher density urban areas. Not only is it more energy efficient per rider and of assistance to those that are financially less well off. It has a much lower impact on air quality. Check out the article on electric vehicles from The Guardian Aug 4, 2017. Always concerned when rich people with a vested interest discourage a service that helps the working poor.
smsm42 8y ago
Americans for Prosperity has 2.3 million members, according to Wikipedia. Current headline, "The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for public transit projects", is an improvement over original NYT insane "How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country" but still misleading. Kochs are financing a 2.3 million organization, which in part - by activities of their local activists, going door to door, which is impossible without wide support on the ground - opposes some public transportation projects. Which sometimes are a colossal waste of taxpayer money. For example: https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-incompetence-characterize-los https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-incompetence-c... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-transit-pays-100000-for-a https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-transit-pa... https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-central-planning-public-transit-systems-often-fail-without-massive-taxpayer-subsidies/ https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-ce... and many more. From the article itself: Early polling here had suggested that the $5.4 billion transit plan would easily pass. It was backed by the city’s popular mayor and a coalition of businesses. Its supporters had outspent the opposition So the evil Koch's money was actually less than the benevolent whoever-that-was-NYT-is-not-going-to-tell-us's money. So how did it happen? “This is why grass roots works,” said Tori Venable, Tennessee state director for Americans for Prosperity, which made almost 42,000 phone calls and knocked on more than 6,000 doors. So it's not nefarious Koch Brothers and their dark magic. It's people on the ground making phone calls and knocking doors and convincing people that they are right. This is how democracy is supposed to work. But of course for NYT it is anathema since their side lost this time, so they would present it as some kind of dark magic of evil Satan brothers. I would want to say I expect better from NYT, but the times when I did has long passed.
RichardRider 8y ago
Such public transit tax boondoggles always include buses and commuter rail in one measure. But the OVERWHELMING majority of such spending (ignoring the other trendy items such as hiking trails, beautification and congestive bike lanes) is for rail — NOT buses. Buses are FAR cheaper and relatively much more efficient than rail. But central planners LOVE choo-choos. Rail is NOT desired by most commuters. From 1985 to 2015 the Los Angeles region spent $9 billion on transit improvements — almost all on rail. At the end of these 30 years and with a bigger population, public transit in the region has fewer riders in 2015 than they had in 1985. Not just a lower PERCENTAGE of rail travelers — fewer ACTUAL riders. http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-fewer-people-are.html http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-fe...

143 points by petethomas 8y ago

21 8y ago

> Americans for Prosperity counters that public transit plans waste taxpayer money on unpopular, outdated technology like trains and buses just as the world is moving toward cleaner, driverless vehicles. > Most American cities do not have the population density to support mass transit, the group says. It also asserts that transit brings unwanted gentrification to some areas, while failing to reach others altogether. > Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties that Americans hold dear. “If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want,” Ms. Venable said, “they’re not going to choose public transit.” Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dexterdog 8y ago
There is a point here. Public transportation is great, but under the incredibly inefficient management of the government it will almost always cost anywhere from 2x to 10x what it really should. That means it not only costs more, but takes longer to complete and is possibly irrelevant by the time it is actually usable. This wasn't the case in the past as much it is today and it's only getting worse.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  This almost reads like a mad lib of every surface level, trope-like critique of publicly funded initiatives without actually saying anything at all of substance. Government may be inefficient at times but so far they've been the most consistent purveyor of public mass transportation. It may not be great but I think in the larger picture the general public is probably well satisfied with transit that is consistent if you polled riders.
  - BadThink6655321 8y ago
    No mass transit system makes a profit, at least the last time I talked to someone who was heavily involved in the numbers. They require a subsidy of, what was it, 70%? That doesn’t make it wrong, but it has to be considered.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      No road system makes a profit either, but very few people seriously discuss getting government out of the road business.
    - M2Ys4U 8y ago
      The Metrolink in Manchester - the UK's largest light rail network - is entirely funded by fares and receives no operational subsidy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink
    - sseveran 8y ago
      MTR in Hong Kong was making $2B per year in profit. The model they use is largely the same one being tried in Florida where real estate projects are integrated with the rail system. http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-property/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-pr...
    - rostigerpudel 8y ago
      That is wrong. The Munich public transport system has been turning a profit for at least 15 years out of the last 17. For the two missing years, I did not find numbers or sources, but it's probably the same. Pretty sure there are others that run successfully. BTW only road systems where you pay for every mile you drive (see e.g. motorways in France, Spain, Italy) turn a profit. All others are, basically, just a waste of taxpayers money ;-) It's usually failed policies and nincompompous administration that make public transport systems fail. Sources: >https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mvg.de%2Fueber%2Fpresse-print%2Fpressemeldungen%2F2016%2F2016-04-29-aufsichtsrat-verabschiedet-jahresabschluss.html&edit-text= https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pre... >https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschaeftsbericht.pdf https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschae...
- lvh 8y ago
  The cost of a blue line ticket in Chicago — a line running from downtown out to O’Hare and out west past city limits - is $2.50. If you take it every day, a monthly pass is... $120 or so? That’ll take you anywhere: buses & trains. Do you have an example of where this a) exists b) isn’t government-run, c) cheaper?
  - cozzyd 8y ago
    $105, and you can get it pre-tax with the right employers.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  I disagree that public transportation is great, it's shit, it's crowded and uncomfortable. I avoid it outside of Amtrak. I don't agree with the article but if the choice is CTA or Uber pool im taking Uber for roughly the same cost.
  - lvh 8y ago
    Where do you take Uber pool that is similarly priced to CTA?!
- doitLP 8y ago
  Didn't even use a throwaway account to make your slightly dissenting opinion, brave. I see the same things in my area with the light rail that was years late, millions overbudget and still is largely underutilized. I am a proponent of mass transit but not every plan is worth endorsing.
ckastner 8y ago
> Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative. It's a clever word play. > If someone has the freedom to go where they want, do what they want [...] then they’re not going to choose public transit. This argument is in itself probably not wrong. Now switch the antecedent (freedom) and consequent (not public transport), and you arrive the argument "public transport is against freedom". Anyone familiar with logic will know how wrong this is, but the other 95% won't notice.
- 0xcafecafe 8y ago
  Isn't freedom about letting people make their choices? Not going for public transit because people are "probably not going to choose it" sounds specious.
  - TuringTest 8y ago
    As is commonly the case, raising taxes would hurt those who can buy and maintain a good car properly, but benefit those who depend on quality public transport.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Car owners in any place which has bad traffic should be in favor of improved public transport. The more cars you take off the roads, the nicer the driving experience will be for people who want to keep driving!
      - cascom 8y ago
        The problem is that in many American cities it doesn’t work like that - e.g. a lane of traffic is removed for a dedicated bus lane, increasing general traffic congestion, but bus utilization does not fully replace that same number of drivers that would have used that bus lane
        mikeash 8y ago
nine_k 8y ago
Welcome to the world of political rhetoric. If something is likely to trigger the desired emotional answer by matching a number of keywords, it's an acceptable device; the literal meaning is secondary at best, and ignored in many cases.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  It's unbelievable, sometimes maddening, but a great number of people still falls for it.
  - tim333 8y ago
    It works the other way too - people see right wingers attack public transport and assume it's evil without looking into whether it might just be an poor use of tax money.
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      There seems to be too much ideology on both sides of the argument, a bit more pragmatism would be better.
TuringTest 8y ago
That is a common meme among right-wing politicians who try to profit from private cars factories; but here in Europe it doesn't fly with the general public, who know better. Public transport is demonstrably the most cost-efficient method for the daily commute of hundred of thousands people in a city, provided the city itself and transport routes are designed accordingly (which arguably is the main problem in the US). For those sporadic free range transportation needs such as vacations and weekend escapades, car rental and taxi services should typically be enough for for all those who normally have enough travelling by public transport.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  Even though I am strongly in favour of public transport it's hard to compare Europe to the US. For one thing our populations are much more dense than the US, more than ten times as high in the case of the Netherlands.
BadThink6655321 8y ago
No, freedom is against public transport, not the other way around. It may be a silly argument (personally, I like BART and Metro in D.C.), but you don’t get to erect a straw man.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It pretty clearly says it both ways. "Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties that Americans hold dear."
holgerfunter 8y ago
>Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative If you manage to filter out actual information from the crass left-leaning garbage that makes up 90% of this completely biased article, you'll see that the core of the story is a actually a fight again raising taxes. You may or may not agree with the proposition to raise taxes to finance public transportation (which is pretty much impossible to pass judgment on without more local context on how public finances are managed in Nashville), but please, please try to see through the rank propaganda.
dalbasal 8y ago
I'm not american, so this is cheap talk. I'll start with that. I don't have an outright objection to these positions. They're not crazy or nonsensical. They're matters of judgement, taste & perspective. Cars/roads have been very successful, as a transport technolgy. It's not wrong to be pro cars. What I do have a problem with is the Das Capital-esque, think-talk-esque, manifesto-esque statements. The position isn't presented as "I like cars better," it is presented as: "Cars are better. This is an absolute truth. I proved it.^" I can prove it using complicated philosophy with roots in America's founding or Bastiat. I can prove it with Adman Smith & Ricardo derived philosophy. Here is my horrendously complex econometric analysis, that only ever seem to convince their own authors.^ This type of argument is ironically bolshevic, and has all the characteristics that oponents of marxism took issue with, from fredriech hayek to Karl Popper. More importantly, it is fanatical and this makes it hard to engage others of different opinions/tastes. This is particularly frustrating here in this case, where the arguments so clearly involve matters of taste and subjective preference. Cars need public infrastrucure too, all the asphalt you see everywhere. The infrastructure is costlier in land use. Consumer choice.. I'd say you could make the consumer choice argument both ways. People certainly like (judging by house prices) to live in (and visit) less car-centric cities. This way of presenting politcal cases is not unique to the american right, it permeates all places & all parties. ^Al la: You are an ass. I can prove that mathematically.
cmsd2 8y ago
The gentrification argument is strange to me. Gentrification as an effect happens when an area becomes more desirable to live in. That means here that people place a positive value on public transport. To deny an area the benefit of public transport based on some weird altruistic and paternalistic motive doesn't really seem credible. It's really tail wagging the dog too. To say we should just keep areas shitty or undesirable to avoid gentrification seems totally backwards.
ocschwar 8y ago
This is America! Where you literally need a license from the government just to go outside your house to fetch milk.

FearOfReprisal 8y ago

Frankly, the GOP party line is: Fuck the poor. Screw the public. MOAR GUNZ!!!!

protomyth 8y ago
The Koch brothers are Libertarians
- et2o 8y ago
  They are massive donors to the GOP
  - protomyth 8y ago
    They are massive specific donors for causes that match their Libertarian beliefs. They are Libertarians and fund quite a few causes that would tick off the average GOP voter.

whb07 8y ago

What’s the story here? Seems like Koch Bros are against raising taxes. They aren’t “killing” anything. Let’s assume the tax raise will only go to public transport. Let’s assume for now it’s a good plan and actually wanted by the public. The issue isn’t the previous assumptions but the fact that taxes will not be lowered afterwards. So even after completion of the project, the tax that was put in place to raise revenues to fund the project will still remain in the books. That’s the insidious nature of government. Once it has it it will not let go.

egypturnash 8y ago
Well > One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads. Also: stuff requires upkeep, consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway. You can’t just build it and expect it to stay in perfect condition forever.
- bmelton 8y ago
  > consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway Everything I've read about the NYC Subway system indicates that it's funded more than adequately, but due to mismanagement, corruption, and cronyism, the funds walk out the door in the pockets of ghost workers. Assuming the system wasn't awash with grift, is there evidence to suggest that NYC doesn't actually fund it adequately? NYC residents pay well above the national rate in taxes, and presumably those taxes are intended to fund transit. If the money taxed isn't being used to actually maintain the infrastructure, I think it supports OP's argument that the taxes haven't abated but the services being offered for them have. Without getting into the ideological debate of whether publicly funded projects are good or bad, I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.
  - ejstronge 8y ago

dantheman 8y ago

I think there's an interesting take on this - we are on the verge of a huge technological shift with the advent of self-driving cars. Should we hold off on massive transit projects where they don't already exist that is the community doesn't already have a subway and wait to see how self-driving cars pan out? It's like investing in traditional cargo ships right as containerization started happening. Or investing in horse related infrastructure when the automotive was first being released. This seems relatively sensible to me. Address near term issues - small fixes. And not fund huge projects that may become obsolete before they're finished. I guess the question is -- how quickly will self driving cars be deployed, and how will they effect the areas. Will self driving cars completely replace buses?

jlangenauer 8y ago
No they won't, for the same reason that cities without public transport or minimal public transport have horrible traffic: the sheer density of people a bus, tram or light rail line can move far exceeds private vehicles with one or two people in them.
- dantheman 8y ago
  My question is can there be public self-driving buses, cars, mini-buses -- that stop less are more direct and communicate to manage traffic?
  - lvh 8y ago
    Is there a metric where they’re not worse at what you’re suggesting than trains?
    - dantheman 8y ago
      Cost and flexibility. Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains. They are not as nice though. If for instance people in a given community want to start traveling to a different part of a city they either have to create new rail routes or people have to take long inconvenient trips.

dahdum 8y ago

That project would have kicked their sales tax to 10.25%, highest in the country, and like every major public project they’d go far over their 5.4b budget. The link to Koch brothers is a bit tenuous, it was the voters who killed this project, once they knew the costs.

sevensor 8y ago

The article paints their motivation as naked self-serving hypocrisy: > One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.

deepGem 8y ago

Where is the need to spend 5.2 billion on public transit ? A few electric buses with point to point connections will do. Start small and expand as needed. Just one high density suburb <-> Downtown connection is sufficient to start with. Electric buses are so good, they have instant torque - so there is none of the lag that plague traditional diesel buses, they are fast, quiet and since it's point to point, your range anxiety is practically eliminated. A dedicated bus lane or the HOV lane and a stop every 1/2 ecits should cut it. Sure it's not as fast as a dedicated subway or the Shinkansen but at a fraction of the cost, you are bringing in people to start using public transit.

johannes1234321 8y ago
The issue with starting small is that there is no network effect - somehow people have to get to the starting or end point. This can work if you have a city structure with a clear resedential area and some central leisure or work place and there's lot's of commute between, but for many areas the benefit only comes if many people can use a network effect of reaching many areas.

phobosdeimos 8y ago

Driverless cars are tested in Arizona. I am not impressed. The US is FINALLY being weened off their urban sprawl fetish, every city on the planet is heavily investing in public transport. When Trump was talking about how North Korea could one,day look like Singapore I smiled. Why does LA or New York not look like Singapore?

plcancel 8y ago

"The group’s Nashville victory followed a roller-coaster political campaign, including a sex-and-spending scandal that led to the mayor’s resignation." Oct 2017 - Unveils $5.2bil plan Mar 2018 - Pleads guilty to felony and resigns; interim mayor (vice mayor appointed) May 01 2018 - Vote on plan May 24 2018 - Vote for new mayor (vice mayor wins with 55% of vote) Yeah, sounds roller-coastery.

jessaustin 8y ago

OK that seems pretty vile. Still, one gets the sense that these campaigns succeeded mostly because there was no response to them. This "team" the reporter followed talked to 66 people in one day? The campaign in total raised $1.1M? These are not overwhelming numbers, if the entire Nashville business community and political apparatus had really been united as described in TFA. It seems possible that support was a mile wide and an inch deep. It's easy to give lip service to a popular politician. This charismatic mayor was not around for the long haul, even if her bodyguard had not been the type of cad to kiss and tell. If her scandal had been delayed a year, the measure had passed, the money raised, etc.: then what? What strong constituency existed to keep pushing this project in the right directions over the decade it would take? If those people exist, they should have gone door-to-door a week after these AfP yokels to complain about rich Kansans interfering in our politics to sell us asphalt.

M_Bakhtiari 8y ago

When Americans pronounce their name as "Coke", is that a mean-spirited jab at the troublesome byproduct of Fred C. Koch's petroleum cracking process, or is that how the family pronounces it themselves?

marcoperaza 8y ago

Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. Instead, they adopt anti-car policies to force people to behave like they want them to. See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? Could it be that people value the freedom and privacy of having a car and living in the suburbs? Of living in quiet suburbs free of street crime and roving gangs of ne’er-do-wells? Of being free from the inherent restrictions to freedom that come with being in closer proximity to others?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field The idea that they should do so badly misses the entire justification for a public service. > If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? The main reason to have a public service rather than a private one provided by the free market is to address an externality (either of benefit with the public service or of harm with the private service it displaces.) Competing with the private service on a level playing field is, in that case, contrary to the purpose of having a public service.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jcranmer 8y ago
> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. You're right. We need to insist that drivers pay as much for their privilege to use public roads as we insist that public transit users pay to use public transit. > See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth. Oh. You want the government to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle even more than it does so. SOV cars have very large demands on space, and in urban settings, space is at a premium. Free parking, or even mandatory parking minimums, are essentially taxing everyone for the benefit of drivers. The normal "user fees" for roads--gas taxes and car taxes--simply do not cover the actual costs even of maintenance for roads, let alone the capital costs of expanding them. This means that those funds come from general revenue, again causing everyone to subsidize drivers, whether or not they actually use them.

tompccs 8y ago

Some commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an age of self-driving electric vehicles have perhaps never lived in a city with good public transit. Road traffic in Victorian London was on average faster than it is now, but investing in underground tunnels for trains was still deemed necessary (even profitable). Likewise, buses massively reduce the road footprint per passenger, not to mention the increased energy efficiency, regardless of whether it renewable or not. And finally, end-to-end transport offered by personal vehicles or taxis has been disastrous for public health. The difference between walking to your driveway or curbside versus a five minute walk to a bus stop or ten minute walk to a train station everyday would be enormous aggregated across an entire population. It would be a great missed opportunity if the idea of being able to summon a driverless electric car (we still have no idea how this technology will really pan out, whereas buses and trains have been around for over a century) kills public transit as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles before it's even off the ground.

orev 8y ago
> commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an age of self-driving electric vehicles Such commenters would also not be living in reality. A few self-driving vehicles deployed as research projects in select areas hardly defines an “age”. We’re just at the start of the path, and until there are millions of these things roaming the streets, they will have no impact on society. People need to get to work today, not in some near future that is still defined in years.

oldgrumpygeek 8y ago

It seems like a bit of class warfare on the part of the Koch's. Without public transportation people in lower income areas can't get to better jobs, healthcare or schools. People in these areas also don't have access healthy food because grocery stores won't open in areas where the majority of customers use food stamps and government aid. Yes current modes of transportation are becoming out dated the newer modes like self driving cars are not ready for the mass public. What the Koch's fail to grasp is that the more people making a living wage we have means we have less people living off entitlements like food stamps. If we have more people paying taxes instead of living off the taxes of other we will see improvements for all and possibly lower taxes due to a surplus not a deficit. Sorry for the soapbox.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Class warfare has never been gone. It's just that it's only the rich and powerful that wage it, and of course they are winning.
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  >There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won - Warren Buffett
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    This is a real quote but, without context, gives an unfair impression about Buffet: he said that while supporting bigger taxation. He also said something in the lines that "he was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary". That sounds crazy to me, but I'm not going to discuss about finances with Warren Buffet.
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      Most of Buffet's income is long-term capital gains, and he probably pays his secretary well above median.
    - 8y ago

cascom 8y ago

There are very few cities in America where public transport is the most efficient option for MOST trips - e.g. think about cities where a family of four could honestly say that they wouldn’t need a car. If a large capital project is not going to change that equation, it seems unlikely that that is an efficient use of money. It’s sad to say that in all but the largest and densest American cities mass transit is used for the most part by people that can’t drive.

weliketocode 8y ago

I live in nyc now, but grew up in a small conservative-learning town. So many of my friends & colleagues who have spent their lives in liberal areas refuse to see the issue from the perspective of middle-class conservatives --> instead calling them 'deplorables' or 'morons'. If you went around at my town's local supermarket handing out $50 gift cards - telling people that this was how much their taxes were going up - that proposition was getting voted down.

justaguyhere 8y ago
I understand 50$ goes far in small towns than in NYC. That said, shouldn't voters consider a proposal based on its merits than solely from a tax increase viewpoint? Sure I'm paying $50 more in taxes, but if it means not having to use my car as much, then it is a win, isn't it? Handing out gift cards is a shitty move even if all their reasons against the project made sense (which it doesn't). These should be settled with educated, sensible debates rather than who has more money to spend.
- weliketocode 8y ago
  You're right. Completely right. Citizens should understand and think about tax increases in terms of their longer terms use. Whether that's increased security, infrastructure, education, etc.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

congruence 8y ago

European here, living happily without a driver's license. Could someone please explain the gentrification argument? How is public transport supposed to make it worse? Assuming gentrification occurs when one area is much more desirable to be in than others, then with good public transport it can be reached more easily. People can live outside the center (or the nice district) and still get a good experience, work or spend time there. The desirable area expands. It seems to me that if anything, this should work against gentrification. Also, living in cities means giving up some freedom. We share it, we have to make some kinds of compromise: keep the noise down, take up less space for our private use and use the public more (like parks instead of own gardens). In my opinion this also means limiting the use of cars, so that city centers don't have to accommodate wide roads and parking space and could become more walkable and generally pleasant. I appreciate that most major European cities seem to develop in that direction. Want freedom - go live away from people, no one will restrict you then.

funkjunky 8y ago
"The nice area expands" - basically what gentrification is. If public transit opens up travel options for poorer (usually minority) areas, young white people who can't afford to live in the city will start moving there, bringing their yoga studios and brunch cafes and actual grocery-stores-that-arent-just-an-isle-of-canned-food-in-liquor-stores.

epc_chswift 8y ago

Public transit is the way of the future in higher density urban areas. Not only is it more energy efficient per rider and of assistance to those that are financially less well off. It has a much lower impact on air quality. Check out the article on electric vehicles from The Guardian Aug 4, 2017. Always concerned when rich people with a vested interest discourage a service that helps the working poor.

smsm42 8y ago

Americans for Prosperity has 2.3 million members, according to Wikipedia. Current headline, "The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for public transit projects", is an improvement over original NYT insane "How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country" but still misleading. Kochs are financing a 2.3 million organization, which in part - by activities of their local activists, going door to door, which is impossible without wide support on the ground - opposes some public transportation projects. Which sometimes are a colossal waste of taxpayer money. For example: https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-incompetence-characterize-los https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-incompetence-c... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-transit-pays-100000-for-a https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-transit-pa... https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-central-planning-public-transit-systems-often-fail-without-massive-taxpayer-subsidies/ https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-ce... and many more. From the article itself: Early polling here had suggested that the $5.4 billion transit plan would easily pass. It was backed by the city’s popular mayor and a coalition of businesses. Its supporters had outspent the opposition So the evil Koch's money was actually less than the benevolent whoever-that-was-NYT-is-not-going-to-tell-us's money. So how did it happen? “This is why grass roots works,” said Tori Venable, Tennessee state director for Americans for Prosperity, which made almost 42,000 phone calls and knocked on more than 6,000 doors. So it's not nefarious Koch Brothers and their dark magic. It's people on the ground making phone calls and knocking doors and convincing people that they are right. This is how democracy is supposed to work. But of course for NYT it is anathema since their side lost this time, so they would present it as some kind of dark magic of evil Satan brothers. I would want to say I expect better from NYT, but the times when I did has long passed.

RichardRider 8y ago

Such public transit tax boondoggles always include buses and commuter rail in one measure. But the OVERWHELMING majority of such spending (ignoring the other trendy items such as hiking trails, beautification and congestive bike lanes) is for rail — NOT buses. Buses are FAR cheaper and relatively much more efficient than rail. But central planners LOVE choo-choos. Rail is NOT desired by most commuters. From 1985 to 2015 the Los Angeles region spent $9 billion on transit improvements — almost all on rail. At the end of these 30 years and with a bigger population, public transit in the region has fewer riders in 2015 than they had in 1985. Not just a lower PERCENTAGE of rail travelers — fewer ACTUAL riders. http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-fewer-people-are.html http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-fe...