(The Marlins) executive vice president of ballpark development recently said as much: "Everyone wants people to use public transit."

No, everybody wants other people to use public transit. They'll keep using their cars, thankyouverymuch.

I love taking public transit. The sky-high demand for transit-accessible housing suggests I'm not alone.

The growth in rightist opposition to public transit is in some sense understandable - building and maintaining public transit requires public funding. On the other hand, the rightist love for cars and driving is pure ressentiment - cars drive on roads built with public funds and maintained with public funds. Even if you don't "believe in" global warming, it doesn't follow that you would want to do things which produce more carbon emissions - there's no reason for anyone to think that carbon emissions are a good thing. This is pure ressentiment, the embrace of an idea or practice entirely because you expect it to piss off people you dislike.

On the other hand, the rightist love for cars and driving is pure ressentiment - cars drive on roads built with public funds and maintained with public funds.

Well, public funds which are mostly collected from the users of the roads, at a rate generally commensurate with how much they use the roads, via tolls, gasoline taxes, and registration fees.

"Rightist"? Most "leftist" advocates for public transit wouldn't be caught dead on a bus. (Kind of like people who advocate public education and send their own kids to private schools.)

I wish public transit were a more realistic option for me. I took the "T" (Boston's subway) to work for about 8 years and I loved it. Sit there, read a book, mind your business. Now that I'm in the 'burbs I wish I could take it to Red Sox games but it's virtually impossible. Getting to the game is fine but getting out it is such a mad scene trying to get to a subway that I have to add 45-60 minutes to the commute out. The difference between "get home at 11" and "get home at midnight" is a pretty big one if I want to function in the morning.

Most "leftist" advocates for public transit wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.

I assume you have data to back this up? For what it's worth, I take the bus all the time.

Well, public funds which are mostly collected from the users of the roads, at a rate generally commensurate with how much they use the roads, via tolls, gasoline taxes, and registration fees.

I say this as a Civil Engineer, if only this were true. There's a tremdous shortfall between the idea and the reality. And the actual need.

Well, public funds which are mostly collected from the users of the roads, at a rate generally commensurate with how much they use the roads, via tolls, gasoline taxes, and registration fees.

He said "built". The roads are constructed with "normal" public funds. You're correct about maintenance. Maybe someone more knowlegable about this than me can tell us the approximate cost of building a road versus maintaining it over the long term.

(Kind of like people who advocate public education and send their own kids to private schools.)

This is a throwaway line, but I honestly don't have any problem with this. I don't see any hypocracy in "Public schools ought to be better. But until they are, I choose to send my children to private school."

Lefty. Advocate Mass Transit. Took it to work today. And yesterday. And the day before. Like a unicorn I am.

Edit: And my boys go to public school. And yes I could afford private school for them.

Now that I'm in the 'burbs I wish I could take it to Red Sox games but it's virtually impossible. Getting to the game is fine but getting out it is such a mad scene trying to get to a subway that I have to add 45-60 minutes to the commute out. The difference between "get home at 11" and "get home at midnight" is a pretty big one if I want to function in the morning.

I've taken the train to Yankee Stadium in years past (I understand it's more direct now), but I found it to be really inconvenient for me. I generally go to games with other people, and as cars are (mostly) a shared cost, trains are not. So it's actually a lot less expensive for two or three people to take the drive and split the tolls, gas, parking, etc. rather than buying two or three train tickets.

The growth in rightist opposition to public transit is in some sense understandable - building and maintaining public transit requires public funding. On the other hand, the rightist love for cars and driving is pure ressentiment - cars drive on roads built with public funds and maintained with public funds. Even if you don't "believe in" global warming, it doesn't follow that you would want to do things which produce more carbon emissions - there's no reason for anyone to think that carbon emissions are a good thing. This is pure ressentiment, the embrace of an idea or practice entirely because you expect it to piss off people you dislike.

The issue is that most of the US has insufficient density for efficient public transportation. Cities in the sun-belt do not have a "hub-and-spoke" design like NY, where you have masses of people commuting from suburbs/outer boroughs to a central business district. If a city did not grow up around a subway system, it's almost impossible to retrofit.

Would it be better if LA and Houston and Atlanta had built subways in the 1900's and grown up around them? Sure. But, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Cars are the best of the bad options in those places.

PS. I'm a righty who takes the train to work every day

I've taken the train to Yankee Stadium in years past (I understand it's more direct now), but I found it to be really inconvenient for me. I generally go to games with other people, and as cars are (mostly) a shared cost, trains are not. So it's actually a lot less expensive for two or three people to take the drive and split the tolls, gas, parking, etc. rather than buying two or three train tickets.

Correct. Once you're up to 2+ people, it's cheaper to drive in NYC from the burbs and pay for parking than to buy 2+ round-trip train tickets, and pay for 2+ subway rides or a cab.

You can almost always find a garage for <$20, and one round trip ticket from where I live to GCT is ~$20 at peak times. For a couple to take Metro North into GCT on a Friday night, then the subway to their eventual destination is going to cost >$40. If you shop online you can usually get parking for approx. $15, tolls are about $2.50 each way, figure $8 for gas, and the car is cheaper and more convenient.

The train gets economical when you buy the monthly pass.

I used to love taking the DC Metro; it used to be truly great. Well, I don't know what the hell happened, but in the last couple of years or so it has gone almost completely down the shitter. The more expensive it has become to ride, the worse the service has gotten.

It has gotten to the point where I would rather pay ten bucks to park in a lot than four or five bucks to ride that awful system, and it's going to stay that way for me until they fix their issues.

"Public schools ought to be better. But until they are, I choose to send my children to private school."

"Let the gang bangers and crack whores kill each other. My precious snowflakes are going to a real school, dammit!" Naah, not hypocritical at all.

I don't have a problem with mass transit; it's really the best option in a lot of places. I just think it's funny how city planners think everybody else should take the bus, so that's there less traffic on the road for them to deal with.

I just think it's funny how city planners think everybody else should take the bus, so that's there less traffic on the road for them to deal with.

This claim of hypocrisy that you seem so very fond of making is based on no actual evidence of what actual city planners do. I'm sure the imaginary liberal that lives in your head is a big knob and I'd make fun of a him too.

I don't have a problem with mass transit; it's really the best option in a lot of places. I just think it's funny how city planners think everybody else should take the bus, so that's there less traffic on the road for them to deal with.

Is it any different than how the chattering classes bemoan the lack of good jobs with benefits for the working class, and then hire illegal aliens to be their nannies and gardeners so they don't have to pay SS tax and workers' comp insurance?

Most "leftist" advocates for public transit wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.

I assume you have data to back this up? For what it's worth, I take the bus all the time.

Ditto - I do drive to work, but that's because public transit isn't a viable option. Beyond that, I take the bus or the El without fail when I'm about town in the evenings or weekends... I've been an El devotee since coming to Chicago nearly 20 years ago, and especially since the CTA enabled GPS bus tracker, have increasingly grown to love the bus.

If the combination of CTA and metra options made it possible for me to get to the office at times except 8 AM or 10 AM and leave at times other than 4 PM or 6 PM - I wouldn't drive to work, either... it's mainly that the nature of my job means it's not feasible to meet such a rigid schedule - gave it shot, but was going broke on cabs to alternate train stations. If I had even so much as every 30 minute options from say, 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 7 PM - I'd probably get rid of my car and go icar or zipcar.

You can almost always find a garage for <$20, and one round trip ticket from where I live to GCT is ~$20 at peak times. For a couple to take Metro North into GCT on a Friday night, then the subway to their eventual destination is going to cost >$40. If you shop online you can usually get parking for approx. $15, tolls are about $2.50 each way, figure $8 for gas, and the car is cheaper and more convenient.

That's their cost. You didn't include the externalities they impose, starting but not ending with guzzling gas and spewing carbons.

That's their cost. You didn't include the externalities they impose, starting but not ending with guzzling gas and spewing carbons.

People make decisions based on their own costs. That's why there are externalities. If they faced the costs, it would be internalized, and no longer an externality.

If they faced the costs, it would be internalized, and no longer an externality.

Right ... their costs should be internalized. That's what proponents of mass transit are saying. (They're saying more than that, of course, but that is one of their primary arguments).

Right ... their costs should be internalized. That's what proponents of mass transit are saying. (They're saying more than that, of course, but that is one of their primary arguments).

Well, that makes sense as soon as users of mass transit also face the full cost of their transportation.

In NYC, mass transit is heavily subsidized by bridge tolls and taxes, and NYC is one of the best environments for mass transit. I believe fares cover only ~50% of the cost of mass transit.

Now, part of that is ridiculous union contracts to the transit workers (e.g. retirement with full benefits at 55), but still, fares are heavily subsidized.

Would it be better if LA and Houston and Atlanta had built subways in the 1900's and grown up around them? Sure.

For sundry reasons, Los Angeles didn't have a subway in the early 1900s, but it had Pacific Electric (the "red cars") and Los Angeles Railway (the "yellow cars"), the next best thing. They carried riders all over Los Angeles and southern California, and the metro area is trying to replicate that today with Metrorail and the Metrolink commuter rail system.

Well, that makes sense as soon as users of mass transit also face the full cost of their transportation.

Society bears part of it. That's what civilizations do. It's a public good for a nation to have its territory reasonably accessible to all its citizens. It's also a public good for a nation's citizens not to be a bunch of atomized, asocial losers in constant need of stimulation -- which is what the suburban car culture generates. It's just ridiculous to see all the massive Jersey SUVs in the city on weekend nights, with the occupants constantly ######## about something.

Well, public funds which are mostly collected from the users of the roads, at a rate generally commensurate with how much they use the roads, via tolls, gasoline taxes, and registration fees.

Well, that's supposed to be the case, but it's not 1-to-1. For example, the gas tax is supposed to cover for the Interstate Highway System. For a long time that was true, except people started using less gas (while driving as much) because cars became more efficient. Since the gas tax has barely budged in the last 20 years, the revenue is drying up. In 2008, for the first time in the Interstate Highway System's history, they had to raid the General Fund to cover an $8 billion budget gap. In other words, I, who don't drive, am subsidizing roads. Furthermore, most of the damage to roads and bridges comes from trucks (there is a clear correlation with axel weight), but efforts to add taxes have been persistently fought by the trucking industry. This is a big reason the transportation infrastructure in the country is in such poor shape.

In NYC, mass transit is heavily subsidized by bridge tolls and taxes, and NYC is one of the best environments for mass transit. I believe fares cover only ~50% of the cost of mass transit.

It's about 40% (just the subway/buses; the commuter rail lines are lower), which is actually very good for the US (most US systems are lucky to get above 20% fairbox capture). European systems are generally higher (60% or so) and places like Japan have incredibly high rates because driving is not much of an alternative. But remember, public transit needs to be subsidized because the fixed costs of building and maintaining it are so high. And it should be subsidized, for the externality reasons already mentioned. And let's not forget the biggest externality of car use: traffic. If you don't subsidize mass transit, those roads are going to be clogged.

Society bears part of it. That's what civilizations do. It's a public good for a nation to have its territory reasonably accessible to all its citizens. It's also a public good for a nation's citizens not to be a bunch of atomized, asocial losers in constant need of stimulation -- which is what the suburban car culture generates. It's just ridiculous to see all the massive Jersey SUVs in the city on weekend nights, with the occupants constantly ######## about something.

It's also a public good to have a developed road network that can get you anywhere you'd like efficiently. Roads can reach the 95% of the country mass transit can never hope to reach efficiently.

Your argument boils down to "subsidize the thing I like, tax the thing I don't like".

Well, that's supposed to be the case, but it's not 1-to-1.

That's why I said mostly

In other words, I, who don't drive, am subsidizing roads.

As well you should. Even if you don't drive, you still derive a tremendous benefit from the existence of roads, unless you don't participate in the economy in any way.

As well you should. Even if you don't drive, you still derive a tremendous benefit from the existence of roads, unless you don't participate in the economy in any way.

I absolutely agree, I make that point because opponents of mass transit tend to argue that it shouldn't exist if it doesn't pay for itself; the truth is that, with transportation, nothing pays for itself.

On the other hand, the rightist love for cars and driving is pure ressentiment - cars drive on roads built with public funds and maintained with public funds. Even if you don't "believe in" global warming, it doesn't follow that you would want to do things which produce more carbon emissions - there's no reason for anyone to think that carbon emissions are a good thing. This is pure ressentiment, the embrace of an idea or practice entirely because you expect it to piss off people you dislike.

These are the scribblings of a retard. Although I'm sure it's comforting to believe that the "rightists" living in your head are engaging in a conspiracy designed solely to piss you off, the simple truth of the matter is that cars are awesome. You don't have to look at, or smell, other people. Nobody is jostling you or stepping on your feet. The climate control is under YOUR control. You can listen to your music at earthshaking volume and sing along, badly and out of tune, without bothering anybody. Cars live by no schedule but yours, and go where you want them to, not where some ####### in city hall says they have to. You're a lot less likely to get arrested for having sex in your car compared to public transit, and if your car is cool enough, it may help you get sex. Even picking your nose isn't quite as socially offensive if you're doing it in a car. Probably because horrified onlookers know there's no risk of you flicking anything onto them... a feature public transportation does not share.

That said, there are times where public transportation makes sense. NYC couldn't function without public transport, and I'd consider the subway system to be a bargain at twice the price. But some people seem to think it's always the best option and love trying to mash square pegs into round holes. I could, if I wished, take public transport to get to work. It would take me approximately 1.5 hours and require the use of 2 trains and a bus. Or I could use my car, which takes about 35 minutes.

And it should be subsidized, for the externality reasons already mentioned. And let's not forget the biggest externality of car use: traffic. If you don't subsidize mass transit, those roads are going to be clogged.

Not disagreeing that mass transit should be subsidized to some extent, but as you note, the same argument applies for roads.

This claim of hypocrisy that you seem so very fond of making is based on no actual evidence of what actual city planners do.

No evidence at all, if you don't count the years I've spent on my village's Environmental Review Board and the multiple conversations I've had with...wait for it...actual city planners.

I'm sure the imaginary liberal that lives in your head is a big knob

I assure you (s)he's far from imaginary. No, of course not all city planners are hypocritical limousine liberal types, but plenty of them are, and they can be plenty irritating. They worship the idea of some mythical, multiculti community where everyone has Good Jobs At Good Wages and take Light Rail everyone, with no idea how to create it or how to pay for it. Sigh.

He said "built". The roads are constructed with "normal" public funds.

Generally, the way things are supposed to work, both construction and maintenance are paid for by the user taxes (gas and tolls). Construction is funded by bond issues for which the tax revenue, tolls, or other fees are collateral. Maintenance is usually funded by a rolling capital budget that receives direct tax revenue.

No, of course not all city planners all hypocritical limousine liberal types, but plenty of them are, and they can be plenty irritating.

I'm about to finish my Master's in urban planning. I go to school with many of these people, they do exist. My school does its best to teach them out if it, with varying success.

These are the scribblings of a retard.

This might be the funniest damn thing I've ever read on this website. Good Face, I oughta go to my local trophy shop, fashion a real-life Primey award, and mail it to your house.

Although I'm sure it's comforting to believe that the "rightists" living in your head are engaging in a conspiracy designed solely to piss you off, the simple truth of the matter is that cars are awesome.

I'm not a "rightist" (whatever the hell that is), but anybody who uses words like "ressentiment" on a baseball website probably deserves to have "a conspiracy designed solely to piss (them) off" against them. Watch out! We're everywhere!

It actually wasn't clear, but when I said "love of cars" I didn't mean actual enjoyment of the practice of driving, I meant on a policy level. The valuation of policies which encourage or subsidize driving is the inexplicable movement on the right.

And there is little funnier on this site than RMc's constant claims to be a centrist or not a right-winger. He's like the inverse of arkitekton, the old "I'm a conservative who happens to hold bog-standard left-wing values."

You don't have to look at, or smell, other people. Nobody is jostling you or stepping on your feet.

Looking at other people and having your foot stepped on.

Oh, the HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!

It's also a public good to have a developed road network that can get you anywhere you'd like efficiently. Roads can reach the 95% of the country mass transit can never hope to reach efficiently.

This is the story of just about everything in the bigger picture -- and why I fundamentally do not understand current conservative orthodoxy on taxation on infrastructure spending...

Presumably, everyone's well aware that in terms of per capita dollars into the federal kitty vs. per capita dollars out, it's actually the Californias, the Illinois, the New Yorks, et al that tend to get the most screwed while the Alaskas, Mississippis, Wyomings, et al that feed at the trough.

This same screwiness exists at the state level -- roughly 2/3 of Illinois state revenues comes from Chicagoland, but only 1/3 of Illinois state spending ends up back in the same area. I imagine the same is true in NY/NYC, LA-SF-SD-etc/CA, etc.

Heck - wanna solve the postal service's fiscal problems? You don't need to muck with the postal workers benefits and salary packages -- just let the USPS charge market rates to serve the 15 people in the middle of Nowhere, Wyoming or whatever... It's a heck of lot cheaper to maintain a mail pickup and delivery system within an enclosed few square miles of millions than thousands of square miles of a few hundred.

Here in Illinois - a downstate state senator recently proposed "exiling" NE Illinois (Chicago, et al) into a separate state. I've about reached the point of saying "Fine -- just gimme an address to the bill for your infrastructure that was subsidized by my state taxes."

Either we're a nation or we're not already and I'm tired of this pervasive, but at odds with the facts, thinking that it's the urban hellholes that are leaching the "self-sufficient" rural areas dry... when it's actually the opposite.

Cars live by no schedule but yours, and go where you want them to, not where some ####### in city hall says they have to.

How fortunate you are to never have to deal with traffic.


I take public transit to work every day, and mostly enjoy it. Not only is it far, far more convenient than driving, but nearly once a week, something interesting happens. If I had to drive every day, I would spend a LOT more money than my monthly bus pass, and lose a ton of time circling streets endlessly looking for parking.

That's why I said mostly

Once you factor in externalities, I would imagine that Public Transit gives better bang for the buck than cars do.

These are the scribblings of a retard.

True, but what can you expect from a guy who took a thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with partisan politics and felt the need to inject his personal political derangement into it.

Where will the attendees park ? In Philadelphia (for example), there are about 18,000 spots, for a park seating 45,000, with a heavily traveled subway line stopping a 5-10 minute walk away. Is it reasonable to think the Marlins will only need half as many spaces ?

Heck - wanna solve the postal service's fiscal problems? You don't need to muck with the postal workers benefits and salary packages -- just let the USPS charge market rates to serve the 15 people in the middle of Nowhere, Wyoming or whatever... It's a heck of lot cheaper to maintain a mail pickup and delivery system within an enclosed few square miles of millions than thousands of square miles of a few hundred.

No ####. Try flying to these 'nowhere' places, even with a fed. subsidy (which may be vanishing thankfully) it is very expensive, as it should be. My folks live in 'nowhere, WY', and you cannot get same day delivery of hard copy USA Today/WSJ and they are in one of the ten biggest cities in the state (still under 10k). (of course if you really want it you can get it online, which they do have high speed internet), and overnight delivery via UPS/Fed Ex is not going to happen, unless you're in Cheyenne or Casper, maybe Laramie.

Once you factor in externalities, I would imagine that Public Transit gives better bang for the buck than cars do.

I would bet so, too -- beyond maintenance of the infrastructure, we would also need to account for:

1) Police/traffic control and costs... We have transit cops, of course, but I'm betting the total cost of policing the transit system is lower than the cost of highway patrol, et al.

2) Add in other emergency response costs -- I'd be willing to bet that a lot more money for everything from ambulance response to the cost of medical treatment is higher for motor travel than public transit.

It's about 20 years dated -- but here's a study that purports to examine the total socialized costs of motor vehicle infrastructure...

Most "leftist" advocates for public transit wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.

I wouldn't call myself a leftist, but I am a big public transit advocate where it's appropriate. At the very least, cars should be substantially more expensive to use because of the externalities.

I'm a Manhattan resident, and I've taken the bus around three times in the past two years. I don't mind taking the bus so much as it's not really convenient to get anywhere I want to go, and waiting for it is usually less efficient than just walking (either to the closest subway or to my destination).

When I lived in Pittsburgh, I took the bus a lot and it was fine. In Boston, I took the T somewhat regularly.

I would bet so, too -- beyond maintenance of the infrastructure, we would also need to account for:

1) Police/traffic control and costs... We have transit cops, of course, but I'm betting the total cost of policing the transit system is lower than the cost of highway patrol, et al.

2) Add in other emergency response costs -- I'd be willing to bet that a lot more money for everything from ambulance response to the cost of medical treatment is higher for motor travel than public transit.

And deaths/injuries from auto accidents.

Well, that's supposed to be the case, but it's not 1-to-1. For example, the gas tax is supposed to cover for the Interstate Highway System. For a long time that was true, except people started using less gas (while driving as much) because cars became more efficient. Since the gas tax has barely budged in the last 20 years, the revenue is drying up. In 2008, for the first time in the Interstate Highway System's history, they had to raid the General Fund to cover an $8 billion budget gap. In other words, I, who don't drive, am subsidizing roads. Furthermore, most of the damage to roads and bridges comes from trucks (there is a clear correlation with axel weight), but efforts to add taxes have been persistently fought by the trucking industry. This is a big reason the transportation infrastructure in the country is in such poor shape.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that Congress has been diverting funds from the highway trust fund for subsidizing mass transit for years.

I don't have a problem with mass transit; it's really the best option in a lot of places. I just think it's funny how city planners think everybody else should take the bus, so that's there less traffic on the road for them to deal with.

Is it any different than how the chattering classes bemoan the lack of good jobs with benefits for the working class, and then hire illegal aliens to be their nannies and gardeners so they don't have to pay SS tax and workers' comp insurance?

I know this is your particular hobby horse, but it's a nonsensical comparison. The alternative to hiring illegal aliens typically is not being able to afford a nanny or gardener at all. Illegal aliens are creating jobs by being willing to work cheaply; they're not taking jobs from the working class.

This seems like a goofy argument.

In denser, hub-and-spoke-ish areas, mass transit makes sense and gets used. In spread-out suburban areas, it doesn't make as much sense and isn't used as much. In rural areas, it makes no sense and isn't used.

I live in the Chicago (far) north suburbs. When I worked in the Loop, I usually took the Metra train. It made sense: I could avoid traffic, read a book, and even save money. When I got a new job in the suburbs, I drove, because taking a bus would've made the commute take 3+ hours. NFW.

So I guess I don't understand the controversy.

I know this is your particular hobby horse, but it's a nonsensical comparison. The alternative to hiring illegal aliens typically is not being able to afford a nanny or gardener at all. Illegal aliens are creating jobs by being willing to work cheaply; they're not taking jobs from the working class.

No, my big hobby horse is our ludicrous trade policy. Illegal immigration is at most a distant 2nd.

So, a couple who makes a combined family income north of $150,000 is going to give up one of their $75,000+ jobs, and derail a career b/c they have to pay $35,000 for a nanny rather than $20,000?

They're going to mow their own grass because it costs $200/month instead of $140?

Yeah, right.

All illegal immigration does is further the transfer of wealth in our society to the affluent who can buy personal services cheaply. The kinds of services illegal immigrants supply are disproportionately consumed by the wealthy.

This seems like a goofy argument.

In denser, hub-and-spoke-ish areas, mass transit makes sense and gets used. In spread-out suburban areas, it doesn't make as much sense and isn't used as much. In rural areas, it makes no sense and isn't used.

I live in the Chicago (far) north suburbs. When I worked in the Loop, I usually took the Metra train. It made sense: I could avoid traffic, read a book, and even save money. When I got a new job in the suburbs, I drove, because taking a bus would've made the commute take 3+ hours. NFW.

So I guess I don't understand the controversy.

Well said. It's a ideological point for some true believers (on both sides), that bears little relation to reality.

I know this is your particular hobby horse, but it's a nonsensical comparison. The alternative to hiring illegal aliens typically is not being able to afford a nanny or gardener at all. Illegal aliens are creating jobs by being willing to work cheaply; they're not taking jobs from the working class.

Heh - yeah - look no further than Georgia and its new immigration law...Even Newsmax, which is hardly a pro-immigration/amnesty/whatever source - paints the same picture.

I don't have a problem with mass transit; it's really the best option in a lot of places. I just think it's funny how city planners think everybody else should take the bus, so that's there less traffic on the road for them to deal with.

I personally think that DC should ban cars from huge sections of the city and only allow buses and bikes in those sections.