Mismatched Governance in Metro America
Given both the landmass and population size of the United States, especially combined with the overall scale of our wealth, it’s clearly necessary to have some fairly robust intermediate levels of government between the federal government in Washington and individual lives. This is what we have states for. But just as relatively little of life proceeds on a truly “national” scale, almost nothing happens on a “California” scale or an “Illinois” scale, either. Instead, the American economy is organized around distinct metropolitan areas. Instead of things happening in Illinois, they happen in Chicagoland, which contains some but not all of Illinois and some areas that aren’t in Illinois. For most New Jerseyans it matters more how things go in Greater New York or in Greater Philadelphia (depending on where in the state they live) than on how things go in New Jersey in general. What’s more, as Bruce Katz, Mark Muro, and Jennifer Bradley observe in a new article for Democracy the 100 largest metro areas account for 75 percent of total economic output, so tending to the continued viability, vitality, and growth of our metro areas is crucial to our overall economic fortunes.
Unfortunately, even though we have a statistical definition of what constitutes a metro area, and thus can say a bunch of things to characterize metro America, our institutions of government don’t even remotely line up in the right way. In particular, decisions about transportation policy tend to get made either in state capitols or else in too-small municipalities. This winds up prioritizing the construction of new roads in undeveloped areas over maintaining and upgrading existing transportation infrastructure in more built-up areas. There’s also no way for the political process to reflect the fact that infrastructure investments in some areas have significant spillover effects, while investments in other places are of purely local interest.
Meanwhile, of course, we can’t just scrap the existing state boundaries and redraw the lines. Arguably, we should do that, but it’s not very realistic. They offer some more modest suggestions:
The federal government should lead by applying a sort of regionalism “steer” to essentially all of its activities, especially the scores of categorical, block, and other grant flows. Today, these flows often intensify local governance fragmentation. With the attachment of modest incentives for regionalization in the form of extra funding, these flows could promote more effective metropolitan governance systems and problem-solving at very low cost. Likewise, a small portion of a region’s entitlement to funds could be subtracted if it chose not to embrace regionalism.
But that’s the nudge from Washington. The nation should also incentivize localities to figure regionalization out for themselves by issuing a bold, large
challenge—call it a Governance Challenge—to localities to get their acts together and collaborate. The Governance Challenge would encourage and reward coordination across any wide swath of program areas, from social services or land- use planning to fiscal management, in exchange for modest financial rewards or (perhaps more attractive to localities) greater programmatic flexibility.
It gets hard to think about these kind of long-festering issues in a time of crisis, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people working in the executive branch and there’s ample time to move on multiple fronts. This is the kind of thing that the White House’s urban policy office can be helpful in coordinating. And we now have a House of Representatives where most of the key stakeholders represent portions of metro areas and should be open to this kind of rethinking.
96 Responses to “Mismatched Governance in Metro America”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
How true is this in general? I know Portland has a regional organization (TriMet) that deals with transportation and other issues and is quite important. It’s supra-city/county, but sub-state, just like you’re hoping for.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Meanwhile, of course, we can’t just scrap the existing state boundaries and redraw the lines. Arguably, we should do that, but it’s not very realistic.
But scrapping and redrawing local government structures is something that European governments do on a regular basis. The reason it’s not realistic here is because we have a federalist system that grants independent authority to state governments, and most state constitutions grant independent authority to local governments. The peculiar nature of American constitutional government, designed for a pre-industrial agrarian society, has put us in a bind that contributes to all sorts of social ills in our major cities.
And of course it probably is utterly unrealistic to expect such things to change. Hell, in Indiana they can’t even seem to get rid of their purely redundant township-level government. But it’s worth highlighting the downside of our cherished American federalism, all the same.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Would it be possible for MattY, CAP, and the authors to be just slightly less obvious about what their real goal is? I prefer a challenge.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Is the idea to form more intragovernmental authorities like the Port Authority of NY and NJ? Can the feds encourage creation of mini-port-authorities around major metro areas, and give its block grants to those authorities rather than to the component states/municipalities? Does the PA get federal funding, or does its funding flow from Albany & Trenton?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Lowering the bargaining cost by using the Fed to put people in the room doesn’t really mean that Coaeisan bargaining will occur.
People make the arraignments they do because they are incentivized to do so, not because they are ill-informed or unawares. In other words, corruption and certain illogical social penalties.
You will *have* to be autocratic, actually, in order to build regional councils with control of the budgets and answering to the Feds in order to get money sent towards productive areas.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
In FL, we have Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) which are comprised of elected officials within a given region…so regional planning does exist. The question here is 1. could the regions be bigger? and 2. would a bigger region necessarily promote more sustainable transportation solutions?
I think, perhaps wrongly, that the key is the interface between what the State DOT allows/requires vs. the will of the regional planning organization.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Metropolitan areas consist mostly of suburbs. Most people living in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, not in the central city. Therefore, policies decided at the MSA level will tend to favor the interests and wishes of suburbanites over the interests and wishes of central city residents. This includes policies affecting transportation.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
it’s clearly necessary to have some fairly robust intermediate levels of government between the federal government in Washington and individual lives. This is what we have states for.
Really? That’s what we have states for? I seem to remember a different story in my civics and history classes. Maybe we had outdated textbooks.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
So in some ways the original arguments for states are in fact now arguments for smaller units within (or in some cases overlapping) states.
==========================================================
Actually where I live we have these smaller units within the state that are called counties. They have elected officials and some argue that it’s a way for people to govern their local affairs.
The authors of the article take great pains not to mention (though I’m sure they know about them) and Yglesias seems blissfully unaware of such things as metropolitan planning organizations (here’s a link to their national organization)
http://www.ampo.org/
or of regional councils of government (here’s a link to the one where Matt lives)
http://www.mwcog.org/
There are scores of these all over the country working across city, county and state lines that are set up to do exactly the sorts of things that Matt and the authors say they want done.
But shah8 gets to the heart of all this – “You will *have* to be autocratic, actually”. Matt and his friends at Brookings show their total contempt for democratic process:
In particular, decisions about transportation policy tend to get made either in state capitols or else in too-small municipalities. This winds up prioritizing the construction of new roads in undeveloped areas over maintaining and upgrading existing transportation infrastructure in more built-up areas. There’s also no way for the political process to reflect the fact that infrastructure investments in some areas have significant spillover effects, while investments in other places are of purely local interest.
The STUPID peasants aren’t spending the money the way WE want them to spend the money – let’s rig up a new system so they won’t have any choice!
March 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Following up the first commenter.
Yes, we have Tri-Met, which deals with regional (not just Portland) transportaion. There is also a Metropolitan regional authority, which is organized to address the issues discussed in Matt’s post. It encompasses 3 counties and 25 cities, and is run by elected officials. metro-region.org
Of course, true regional government such as Matt discusses in his post are somewhat stymied by the fact that Vancouver, WA, is part of the greater Portland metropolitan region, but not within the authority of either Tri-Met or Metro.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
-g Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
In FL, we have Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) which are comprised of elected officials within a given region…so regional planning does exist. The question here is 1. could the regions be bigger? and 2. would a bigger region necessarily promote more sustainable transportation solutions?
I think, perhaps wrongly, that the key is the interface between what the State DOT allows/requires vs. the will of the regional planning organization.
=========================================================
Thanks! You were quicker on the draw than me
March 12th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“Metropolitan areas consist mostly of suburbs. Most people living in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, not in the central city. Therefore, policies decided at the MSA level will tend to favor the interests and wishes of suburbanites over the interests and wishes of central city residents. This includes policies affecting transportation.”
Yes, but the status quo is hardly superior to this arrangement. The interests and wishes of central city residents would have much more pull in an MSA government than in a state government. And a metro area with a single, distributed tax base would have a more appropriate distribution of public funds than a cash-strapped inner city that can barely pave its own roads surrounded by wealthy suburbs that lavish money on their own interests and sprawling exurbs that prefer to keep taxes low and let private developers dictate growth patterns.
Regional governments are also in a much better position to build region-wide transportation systems that benefit both commuters and local residents and provide dedicated funding to support those systems.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Actually where I live we have these smaller units within the state that are called counties. They have elected officials and some argue that it’s a way for people to govern their local affairs.
And this completely invalidates Matt’s argument in regard to any metro area that is exactly the same size and shape as the county borders which were likely drawn in the 18th or 19th Century. Well played, sir.
The authors of the article take great pains not to mention (though I’m sure they know about them) and Yglesias seems blissfully unaware of such things as metropolitan planning organizations
Campesino seems blissfully unaware that most metro planning organizations are not elected, do not have the power to tax, and are therefore not governments. They are wholly subsidiary to local governments. If you don’t understand why this distinction matters, I suggest you return to the kiddie pool for the remainder of adult swim.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
As others have mentioned, there are MPOs, and they are required by federal transportation law. In other words, we already have a mechanism built in to current law, and Matt is just ignorant of that. It’s true that lots of non-federal dollars are left out of that process, but that’s what we’d expect–purely local matters aren’t decided regionally. And it’s true that MPOs don’t control all federal funding, but they do influence precisely the bit that Matt identifies as his area of concern. Why doesn’t he know this?
March 12th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
else in too-small municipalities.
I find this odd in the context that you were complaining a couple of weeks ago that the people responsible for New York Avenue were ignoring the local community. You can’t have it both ways. A truly empowered and comprehensive metro regional transit authority would haved pave over DC with freeways in every direction decades ago.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The interests and wishes of central city residents would have much more pull in an MSA government than in a state government.
I don’t see how. Political power flows from 1) those with the most money and 2) those with the most people (in that order). In nearly every metro area in the country, the first ring suburbs have the most of both.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I misread what you wrote. It is true that a ‘city-state’ format would empower central city residents somewhat more than the current situation (otoh, NYC and esp Chicago dominate their state’s politics LA doesn’t because it’s countbalanced by several other major metros)
But ‘central city residents’ interests will still be pretty much still be set aside when they directly conflict with the richer and more populous suburbs.
When gas goes up to 8-10 bucks a gallon, this trend might reverse (esp – only – if crime remains low). But not till then.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Kolohe, exactly what part of this is hard to understand? State governments not only serve suburban voters, but also contain rural voters. The political power of center-city residents would be less diluted in an MSA-level government than at the state level.
Cities already have their own governments to attend to strictly local matters, but these are generally underfunded relative to their population because much of their tax base dwells in surrounding jurisdictions.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Yes, but the status quo is hardly superior to this arrangement. The interests and wishes of central city residents would have much more pull in an MSA government than in a state government.
That seems unlikely. The big winners from a shift in political power from states to MSAs would be the suburbs. The big losers would be people who live outside an MSA, especially the rural poor.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Yes, but the status quo is hardly superior to this arrangement. The interests and wishes of central city residents would have much more pull in an MSA government than in a state government. And a metro area with a single, distributed tax base would have a more appropriate distribution of public funds than a cash-strapped inner city that can barely pave its own roads surrounded by wealthy suburbs that lavish money on their own interests and sprawling exurbs that prefer to keep taxes low and let private developers dictate growth patterns.
Regional governments are also in a much better position to build region-wide transportation systems that benefit both commuters and local residents and provide dedicated funding to support those systems.
=============================================================
Well guess what – we’re never going to have government organized by SMSA, so wish all you want, Mr. Waterwings.
I do find it fascinating that what the people at Brooks want is to structure payments from the Federal government to incentivize governments in a region to cooperate. The current structure for that as I mentioned are MPOs and COGs. How can you write an article like this and ignore those? If nothing else you’d think they would be brought up to complain about them.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Thomas Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
As others have mentioned, there are MPOs, and they are required by federal transportation law. In other words, we already have a mechanism built in to current law, and Matt is just ignorant of that. It’s true that lots of non-federal dollars are left out of that process, but that’s what we’d expect–purely local matters aren’t decided regionally. And it’s true that MPOs don’t control all federal funding, but they do influence precisely the bit that Matt identifies as his area of concern. Why doesn’t he know this?
========================================================
When your degree is in philosophy and you pretend to be an expert on regional planning that’s the sort of embarrassing thing that happens
March 12th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Some actual facts:
Some more relevant actual facts:
As of 2006, for the 50 MSAs with a total population of over 1 million people, the suburban population was more than twice the core city population. And between 2000 and 2006, over 90% of the population growth occurred in suburbs. Less than 10% occurred in core cities. Many major core cities actually lost population during this period, including Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, Memphis, Salt Lake City and New Orleans.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Kolohe, exactly what part of this is hard to understand? State governments not only serve suburban voters, but also contain rural voters.
I’ve lived in two states most of my life : Virginia and Hawaii. In both, rural voters have not mattered for some time in state politics. Richer suburbs of the major metro(s) (singular in the case of HI), however, have come to dominate both state’s politics.
Based on that, and a passing familarity with NY states politics, the plan would indeed completely disempower rural voters. But, at the municipal level, you would, I submit, not see much change in the relationship between ‘central city’ suburb – the interests that currently capture state governments would simply move to the MSA govt.
And even if you wound up unifying the tax base (like for instance, combining DC with Mont, PG, Arl, Alex, Fairfax and Falls Church) you would still see the money ‘flowing uphill’. Just witness the difference in city services currently west of Rock Creek Park vs east of it. You think that’s going to change? The entire city is Democratic (as would be the new hypothetical region), so it’s not like there’s political opposition.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
That should be ‘not much of change between the central city and the suburbs’
March 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Let me be clear – I really don’t care if we completely transform to a city-state MSA style of governance – actually from a federalism point of view, it has some attractive benefits.
I just think it’s laughable that anyone thinks it would actually change anything. And as other have said, there have been regional compacts on a variety of issues for decades, so it’s not like either MattY nor the linked article’s authors have exactly discovered the philosopher’s stone.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The big winners from a shift in political power from states to MSAs would be the suburbs. The big losers would be people who live outside an MSA, especially the rural poor.
This is pretty dense, even by Mixner standards. Both suburban and urban residents would see their political power increase in roughly the same proportion relative to the status quo. Rural regions would also get a level of government with no voters from major metro areas. The rural poor in downstate Illinois would be harmed only to the extent that the rural poor in Wyoming are harmed… being that well-heeled rural Republicans are even less willing than urban Democrats to look out for their interests.
But that’s democracy for you. Them’s the breaks.
As for Kolohe’s contention that “rural voters have not mattered for some time in (Virginia) politics,” this statement strikes me as so self-evidently insane as to not even be worth trying to rebut.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
The Los Angeles metro area could certainly use a major reorganization. One conurbation, dozens of cities? Half the county in the desert?
Maybe then we could get a decent subway system. Right now it’s either you drive a car and sit in traffic, or ride a bus and sit in traffic longer. And then, maybe people living in Palmdale, Santa Clarita, and those other exurbs could take the Metrolink instead of choking the freeways at all hours.
One can only dream.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You’re not fooling anyon, ‘charles’.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
This is pretty dense, even by Mixner standards.
You’re really dumb, even by progressive standards.
Both suburban and urban residents would see their political power increase in roughly the same proportion relative to the status quo.
No, suburban residents would gain the most because there are so many more of them than there are urban residents. And also because suburban residents tend to be more politically active than urban residents, which would further increase the suburban advantage.
Rural regions would also get a level of government with no voters from major metro areas. The rural poor in downstate Illinois would be harmed only to the extent that the rural poor in Wyoming are harmed… being that well-heeled rural Republicans are even less willing than urban Democrats to look out for their interests.
People who live in rural areas are already poorer than people who live in urban areas. Median income is lower in rural areas. The poverty rate is higher in rural areas. Your proposal to shift political power away from rural areas would further impoverish the rural poor. But that’s “progressives” for you. A contradiction in terms.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
As for Kolohe’s contention that “rural voters have not mattered for some time in (Virginia) politics,”
The ending of the Virgil Goode era* is representative of the decline of the politcal fortunes of rural Virginia. For decades, Hampton Roads and NoVa have been steadily increasing their influence, to the point of Applachia getting completely screwed over except for some crumbs that benefit the I-81 universities – which of course also provide a direct and substantial benefit to those living in Virginia Beach and Annadale.
*fwiw, good riddance to bad rubbish.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Please join me and the smelly homeless people on my bus.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Interesting discussion, in the course of a case I’m working on, I discovered last week that the Census Bureau has a competitor. Rand-McNally publishes its own list of metro areas that it calls Ranally Metro Areas (RMA). It has a different definition so the areas are smaller because it requires higher population density than the Census list and it ignores county lines. To give one example, metro Atlanta has a Census estimate of over 5 million, and a Rand-McNally estimate of 3.9 million.
The advantage of the Census data is that its free. Curiously enough, one of the few institutions that I’ve found that use the private RMA list instead of the federal MSA list is… the United States Government. Here are regulations published by the Interior Dept.’s Bureau of Land Management:
“The schedule is based on nine population strata (the
population served), as depicted in the most recent version of the Ranally Metro Area Population Ranking, and the type of communication use or uses for which BLM normally grants com-
munication site rights-of-way.”
March 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
(yes, goode was a Congressman. And the Virginia Congressional delegation has found itself quite adept at getting money at the federal level whether tidewater, piedmont or appalachia. but the state assembly used to be filled by people like goode. Now, the center of power is clearly along the Potomac and James rivers.)
March 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What goes for transport in this case goes for school districts as well — the lack of metropolitan-level government has been the key factor keeping schools segregated for decades. That was the issue in Milliken v. Bradley. There’s great discussion of this whole issue in Thomas Sugrue’s recent Sweet Land of Liberty, about civil rights in the North.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Maybe then we could get a decent subway system.
Just how many more miles of subway that no one will use are you proposing to build, at $300 million per mile? How much are you going to cut from education, health care, and other public services to pay for it?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
No, suburban residents would gain the most because there are so many more of them than there are urban residents.
Do we really need to explain to you the basic mathematical principles of proportional change? If there are 20 people in the city, 30 people in the suburbs, and 50 people in the smaller cities and rural areas in the rest of the state, and then you remove the 50 people from outside the metro area, then the proportion of urban voters in the final set doubles and the proportion of suburban voters doubles. As anyone who didn’t flunk fifth grade can tell you.
Meanwhile, the 50 voters from outside the metro area get their own set, in which their relative proportion has doubled to 100%.
Now, the tax base has been split in a way that is probably not equal, and neither side has as much money to work with as they did before. But the two separate governments created will both be more responsive to the needs of the demographic slice they represent.
And of course, as we all agree, none of this will ever happen. But let’s not pretend it’s objectively better to have state borders that are an accident of history rather than borders based around common regional interests.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Well when I consider that all the other major subway systems in the U.S. that I can think of (BART, MARTA, NYC) are well utilized, and that L.A. residents have been willing to vote for tax measures to fund public transportation, I can only conclude that you’re trolling.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Matt – “In particular, decisions about transportation policy tend to get made either in state capitols or else in too-small municipalities. This winds up prioritizing the construction of new roads in undeveloped areas over maintaining and upgrading existing transportation infrastructure in more built-up areas. There’s also no way for the political process to reflect the fact that infrastructure investments in some areas have significant spillover effects, while investments in other places are of purely local interest.”
It’s clear that you have no fundamental knowledge of transportation planning, funding, and implementation at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels.
You just say things and pretend that they’re true.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Do we really need to explain to you the basic mathematical principles of proportional change?
Are you really as dumb as you seem?
Voter share under state government: Suburbs: 50%, City: 25%, Rural: 25%.
Suburban share of total: 50%
Voter share under MSA government: Suburbs: 66%, City: 33%, Rural: 0%.
Suburban share of total: 66%
And have you figured out yet how a change that would reduce the political power of the poorest group of voters is “progressive?”
March 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I find that picture really, really depressing.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
On a serious note, you know who does do this? The Department of Homeland Security with their Super Urban Area Security Initiatives.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Charles/Mixner… Dude, you just pwned yourself. I couldn’t possibly rebut you any more thoroughly than you just did to yourself.
I’d point out that any system that redraws state boundaries to match MSAs would also create governments for non-metro areas… but since you’re clearly in danger of forgetting to breathe, I won’t bother.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
DTM continues citing irrelevant statistics. What he’s calling a “central place,” as opposed to a “central city,” is in most cases what everyone else would recognize as a suburb or small town. Low density, auto-dependent, little or no mass transit.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I couldn’t possibly rebut you any more thoroughly than you just did to yourself.
That’s right, follette. As everyone knows, 50% is higher than 66%.
I’d point out that any system that redraws state boundaries to match MSAs would also create governments for non-metro areas…
And I’d point out that any such system would diminish the political power of voters in the non-metro areas, who are already the poorest, over the wealth produced by the metro areas. In other words, it would further impoverish the poorest group of people. Apparently, this is now a “progressive” position.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I’d point out that any system that redraws state boundaries to match MSAs would also create governments for non-metro areas…
While we going down this hypothetical rabit hole, that would either vastly increase the power of rural areas at the federal level (given the current structure of Senate representation) or completely eliminate it (with a concurrent ‘reform’ of making all federal representation a function of population)
Because you may create 25 or so new ’states’ that are urban-orientated. But you would then have 50 states (without consolidation) that are entirely rural oriented.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
A brief primer for the learning impaired:
33% = a 33% increase over 25%
66% = a 33% increase over 50%
Both sets have increased by the same proportion.
Kolohe, as long as we’re debating on this realm of pure fantasy I think we can throw in some consolidation on both sides to balance things out.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
33% = a 33% increase over 25%
66% = a 33% increase over 50%
Both sets have increased by the same proportion.
To be fair, in the realm of practical politics, having a 67% vs 50% is a heck of a lot more significant than having 33% vs 25%.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
All fun and fantasy aside, LaFollette and Kolohe – don’t you find it strange that the Brooks people would totally ignore COGs and MPOs in their article? I think poor Matt is probably just over his head on the subject (no sin) but the think tank guys get paid to do this full time. I’d think they would take some position: strenghthen them, replace them with a new type of organization, etc.
But to totally ignore their existence when they are the planning bodies currently doing (poorly) what the authors say is essential just seems bizarre to me
March 12th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
A brief primer for the learning impaired:
33% = a 33% increase over 25%
66% = a 33% increase over 50%
Both sets have increased by the same proportion.
A brief primer for the terminally stupid: A 33% increase over 50% is a larger share of the total than a 33% increase over 25%. Hence, suburban voters acquire a two-thirds majority of the votes.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
But these need not be the same units we are using for managing resources at subfederal levels.
Fair enough. But the resource allocations we are talking about (i.e. transit/transportation funding) are determined a great deal at the federal level. Part of the circle I thought MattY and others was trying to square is that since Wyoming does’t care about subways, they are never going to vote for federal funds going toward subways.
Now I suppose you could say that the money would be evenly distributed to the equal population neo-states with no strings attached (so people can use trains busses or roads as they see fit). But if the allocation scheme is decoupled from the final spending decision (at the MSA level) I think we are right back to where we are now.
Which was my esential point. Unless you going to dictate terms at a higher level, altering the lower level structure will actually not fundementally change the balance of power.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Right, and a small town/city is not the same as a conventional suburb. Accordingly, it can’t be assumed they would vote in a block with residents of conventional suburbs. Nor with the residents of central cities. Again, you need to account for them as a distinct group.
Small-town residents are even less likely to support the interests of central city residents than are suburban residents. They’re unlikely to vote for central city transit systems or other expensive civic projects that they will rarely if ever use.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
This ain’t rocket science- and it does point directly to why we need more federal involvement in domestic affairs than the Founders thought at the time.
For most problems and a lot of possible solutions, there are regional groups, and industry groups, and consumer groups studying solutions that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
Changing those jurisdictional boundaries to meet the problem du jour is not only unnecessary but wrong. Charters and incorporations are not to be torn up lightly. Even people who didn’t go to Dartmouth should know that.
What the federal government can do is use the carrot and stick to get institutions pulling together in the same direction. For example, in the Pacific NW we have our state DOT working with Amtrak to build a very fast rail corridor, and three counties working together to coordinate public transit from Everett to Seattle to Tacoma. If the feds make sure that qualified projects here get funding, other regions will follow suit. And believe it, if the experts and the funding sources are on the same page, municipal and county leadership will soon follow.
Hopefully, this will be an area where we’ll see some leadership from Obama and his appointees.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
At #32 Mixner objects to this comment:
Both suburban and urban residents would see their political power increase in roughly the same proportion relative to the status quo.
Just pointing out where the goalposts started.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
And taking this point even further, they are also unlikely to care about how big cities and their suburbs allocate payment and responsibility for things like utilities, policing, schools, and so on. Basically, there are lots of issues that are relevant within urbanized areas, but that don’t cross over to other urbanized areas. So that is why one can’t simply subtract the central city population from the total Metropolitan Area population to calculate the percentage of people who are aligned against the central city population.
I didn’t. I pointed out that suburban residents of the 50 largest MSAs outnumber core city residents by over two to one, that almost all the new population growth is occurring in the suburbs, not in the core cities, and that many core cities are actually losing population. I also mentioned that suburban residents tend to be more politically active than central city residents. This means that “MSA governments” would be likely to overwhelmingly favor the interests of suburbanites over the interests of central city residents.
With respect to transportation policy, which Matt specifically cites, small town residents tend to be even more auto-dependent than suburbanites, and are even less likely to use central city transit systems than suburbanites. So to the extent that small towns are relevant at all, they are likely to support policies favorable to cars and driving. They’re not likely to support expensive central city mass transit systems.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Shorter DMonteith: 16% = 8%.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Ah yes, Mixner. I’m innumerate because I noticed that you chose to respond to an argument in different terms than it was presented. This is incredibly persuasive! You’re surely convincing many a benighted liberal with your sweet song of reason. The positions that you advocate have been so well served by your contributions here. No one could possibly be tempted to dismiss every single thing you say out of hand because of your reliance on rhetorical chicanery.
Seriously, why do you bother?
March 12th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
No, Dawn, you’re innumerate because you think 16% is “the same proportion” of 100% as 8%.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Sigh. 16% is the same proportion of 50% as 8% is of 25%. Too complicated for you?
What does the tar baby strategy of argumentation get you, exactly?
March 12th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Sigh. 16% is the same proportion of 50% as 8% is of 25%.
Deep sigh. 16% is twice the proportion of 100% as 8% is of 100%. Too complicated for you?
March 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
how many more miles of subway that no one will use are you proposing to build
Mixner, if somebody builds a mile of subway in L.A. that no one uses, it will be the first such mile in the city. I ride the subway every day in L.A., and let me tell you, the number of people riding it are a hell of a lot more than “no one.”
Also, what part of “increase in roughly the same proportion relative to the status quo” do you not understand? Let me give you a big hint: the word PROPORTION is in there. If A and B are unequal, then if they increase in the same proportion, the absolute value of their increase will be different… because that increase will be PROPORTIONAL to their initial values.
If you can’t understand basic mathematical concepts, there is no point in listening to a damn thing you say, ever.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Mixner, if somebody builds a mile of subway in L.A. that no one uses, it will be the first such mile in the city. I ride the subway every day in L.A., and let me tell you, the number of people riding it are a hell of a lot more than “no one.”
Alice, so you think I literally meant “no one,” did you? No one at all. The subway runs every day, but not a single individual ever actually rides it. That’s what you think I meant, is it?
The LA subway line is a colossal waste of money. It cost around $4.7 billion to build, and costs around $78 million a year to operate, yet carries only around 150,000 passengers a day. The cost is out of all proportion to the benefit.
Also, what part of “increase in roughly the same proportion relative to the status quo” do you not understand? Let me give you a big hint: the word PROPORTION is in there.
What part of “16% is a higher proportion of 100% than 8% is of a 100%” do you not understand? You do realize that political power is determined by the proportion of total votes, not the proportion of a previous proportion of the total votes, don’t you? In fact, there’s a deeper problem in follette’s claim, which is his false premise that political power is proportional to a simple numerical vote share. He’s apparently unaware of the significance of achieving a voting majority in our political system. Kolohe alluded to this error in his post #53.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Mixner, I know that 16% is bigger than 8%. But the original point was not to compare them in absolute terms, it was to compare it in proportion to the status quo. Look, if Group A initially has 85% of the vote, and group B initially has 1% of the vote, and then their vote share both increases by 5% of the total vote, so that in the later state, Group A has 90% and group B has 6%, then PROPORTIONALLY, group B will have increased by a much greater factor even though in absolute terms their votes will have increased by the same amount.
Also, please answer this question, Charles: Are you, in fact, the same poster who used to use the name “Mixner?” If you say no, I will refrain from calling you Mixner anymore. But without such a refutation, I can only conclude that you are the same person, because your style of argumentation is the same.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
$78 million a year to operate, yet carries only around 150,000 passengers a day
That’s an average of less than $1.50 per passenger per trip.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
And yet while the premise is clearly true, we (and I very much include myself) can’t seem to stick to the conclusion.
Do please try harder, then. DTM, I implore you to simply skip over my posts. Don’t read them at all. Since you believe my criticisms of what you write have no merit, just ignore them.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
But the original point was not to compare them in absolute terms, it was to compare it in proportion to the status quo.
You’re not listening. Follette’s claim was: “Both suburban and urban residents would see their political power increase in roughly the same proportion relative to the status quo.” Political power is determined by the proportion of the total vote. Not the proportion of a previous proportion of the total vote. The suburban proportion of the total vote increased by 16%. The city’s proportion of the total vote increased by only 8%. The proportional increase in the political power of the suburbs was double the proportional increase in the political power of the cities. It’s really not hard to understand. And as I said, a deeper problem is that follette ignores the relevance of majorities.
Also, please answer this question, Charles: Are you, in fact, the same poster who used to use the name “Mixner?”
No.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I agree with Matt that redrawing the state boundaries is unrealistic. However, I strongly disagree with Matt that it would be a good idea… unless you’re just talking about DC becoming part of Maryland to take care of the representation issue.
With an increase in telecommuting likely in the future, even these Metropolitan States may not make any sense. At a previous job, we had one guy that telecommuted to our VA office from his house in FL.
Rather than trying to develop major cities at major expense, I think the idea of promoting telecommuting for office workers is a workable hi-tech idea.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
That’s an average of less than $1.50 per passenger per trip.
For operating costs. There’s also the teeny matter of the $4.7 billion it cost to build the thing.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
And yet while the premise is clearly true, we (and I very much include myself) can’t seem to stick to the conclusion.
For myself, it’s kinda like kicking an ant hill. There’s no good reason for it, but it’s still irresistible.
And I actually would like to know what Mixner thinks he’s accomplishing with this. He’s actively harming his cause with his antics here. My stance on transit has hardened as a result of his trolling and I can’t help but associate any other arguments in opposition to it with his shenanigans. Bad faith argumentation on this scale is like a perpetual own goal on a strategic level.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
There’s also the teeny matter of the $4.7 billion it cost to build the thing.
Typical car – $12K
Typical car lifetime – 10 years
- > $3.25 per day
- > avg capacity 1.5 people -> roughly 2 bucks a head capital costs
Subway system – 4.7 billion
subway lifetime – 30 years*
- > $430K per day
- > avg capacity 150,000 people – > roughly 3 buccks a head capital cost – > so somewhat more, but the same order of magnitude for back of the envelope.
*I don’t know what the real # should be, feel free to provide a source for how often a metro system needs to re-captialize. I picked 30 years because that’s what the Navy uses as the projected lifetime of its ships from launch to decom.
(and I don’t even think the transit #’s are this good, I think you lowballed the operating cost of the LA subway system)
March 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Kolohe,
Using a favorable interest rate (5%), $4.7 billion amortized over 30 years is roughly $300 million a year, or about $800,000 per day.
You’re right about me lowballing the operating costs. The most recent data provided by the National Transit Database reports operating costs for the Los Angeles subway of 45 cents per passenger-mile, and $2.14 per unlinked passenger trip (so average trip length is about 4.75 miles).
I also overestimated ridership. APTA’s latest ridership data reports the average daily unlinked trips as about 125,000. This only one-third of the ridership forecast in the EIS for the project in 1983.
So the capital (construction) cost per trip is about $6.40 (800,000/125,000). And the operating cost is another $2.14. So that’s a total average cost per trip of around $8.50. For a trip of less than 5 miles. For which riders pay on average less than $1.
It’s actually even worse than that, because the line will incur additional capital costs for repairs and “rehabilitation” as it ages.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Just because Mixner has no job, no life and spends his entire online existence translating his disgust at other human beings into trolling shouldn’t mean you shouldn’t give the Voice Of The Phoenix McMansionburbs benefit of the doubt.
Oh.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Arizona! McMansion! Phoenix! McSuburb! Smelly! What the hell am I going on about?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:07 am
And how have you spent the past ten hours, Mixner? I rest my case, laughing at you.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:11 am
You’re not fooling anyone, “DTM”.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:14 am
I’ve spent the past 10 hours cyberstalking Mixner. And I’ll spend the next 10 doing the same thing. And the 10 after that. It’s my life, you know.
Hi. My name is DMonteith, and I’m a psychopath.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:15 am
You’re not fooling anyone, “Mixnerspotter”.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:17 am
You’re not fooling anyone, “Kolohe”
March 13th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Smelly! McMansion! Arizona! Suburb! I’m mellllllting!
March 13th, 2009 at 2:39 am
so you think I literally meant “no one,” did you?
No, but you were using hyperbole based on a false premise— that ridership on the subway in L.A. is low. Check out this list comparing ridership on U.S. intracity heavy rail systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership
Take a look at the “ridership per mile” number; you can even sort the table by it. What you will see is that daily ridership per mile is 8,793. That figure is 6th in the country (or 5th is you count by metro areas rather than systems, as two NYC systems take the top two spots), a little below DC’s Metrorail and significantly higher than the next lowest, Chicago’s L. That’s a perfectly respectable number.
The total ridership is low because the system is small and it doesn’t cover much of the city. But it’s going to get bigger, and the people of Los Angeles County supported Measure R increasing sales taxes for comprehensive transportation improvements in the county with more than two thirds of the vote. People see the benefits it brings and want to see the system expanded.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Adam Villani,
The fact that other subway lines also have very low ridership does not improve the ridership of the LA subway. There’s only one subway system in the United States that is remotely efficient, and that’s the New York subway. The New York subway carries more passengers than all of the other subway lines in the entire country, plus all of the light-rail systems in the country combined.
See my post #80 above on the appalling economics of the LA subway. On average, it costs over $8 per ride. For a ride of less than 5 miles. For which riders pay less than $1. You say you ride it yourself every day. I assume that’s a roundtrip (two unlinked trips). So taxpayers are probably subsidizing you around $14 per day to ride the subway. That’s almost $100 a week. $400 a month. Can I have a $400 per month subsidy to run my car, please? It would be cheaper for the government to buy a fleet of taxis and use those to transport the subway riders. Peter Gordon, professor of Urban and Regional Planning at USC, says the LA subway “would flunk any cost-benefit analysis that we could imagine” and describes it as “a pork-barrel jobs project and a political project.” It carries only one-third the number of riders its proponents claimed it would carry, and its costs are far higher than the estimates. But then, most rail projects are promoted on the basis of vastly exaggerated ridership estimates and vastly underestimated costs. It’s a giant scam.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am
For which riders pay less than $1.
Actually, single trips cost $1.25. I use a $62 monthly pass.
I’m well aware of Peter Gordon; my wife took a class from him once in grad school.
Can I have a $400 per month subsidy to run my car, please?
Sure. It’s called “free parking.” Also the cost of the roads. It’s also called the U.S. military, trying to maintain stability in oil-producing regions.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Actually, single trips cost $1.25. I use a $62 monthly pass.
No, cash fares for single trips are either $1.25 or 55 cents. There are also a variety of passes which reduce the cost per trip. The average amount paid by riders per trip is less than $1.
Sure. It’s called “free parking.”
No one gives me $400 worth of parking.
Also the cost of the roads.
Roads are funded primarily through gas and vehicle taxes and other user fees. The federal government receives more in usage fees from road users than it pays for road construction and maintenance.
There’s simply no way you can make a serious economic argument for the LA subway. It’s a colossal waste of money.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
(Oh. Goodness. What possesses me to do this…)
No one gives me $400 worth of parking.
Adam didn’t say $400 in parking, he implied the total hidden subsidies for car driving could easily approach or exceed $400. Which they certainly could. (Donald Shoup says it was as much as $386 billion in 2002 for off-street parking alone. Divided by 12 months and 250 million vehicles (2006), that’s about $125-$130/mo right there.)
Roads are funded primarily through gas and vehicle taxes and other user fees. The federal government receives more in usage fees from road users than it pays for road construction and maintenance.
We’ve been over this before, and it’s been demonstrated time and again to you that roads are likely far from fully funded by user fees.
Your argumentative tactics are precisely those of global warming deniers and creationists: no matter how many times you’re been corrected, keep rotating through the same small set of tired lies and faulty interpretations.
That seems to be an effective strategy when dealing with the mainstream press and their insect-like memories, but I don’t know why you think it’ll work here.
The people here are largely the same people who have been here the whole time. We’ve seen you get smacked down over and over. We remember the arguments. It won’t fly. Come up with something new or go away.
There’s simply no way you can make a serious economic argument for the LA subway. It’s a colossal waste of money.
There’s an outside chance you’re right, although if so that’s probably largely a matter of 50 years or so of path dependency, and could be set right if we’re willing to invest for the long term – which voters in L.A. evidently are.
In any case, IF you’re right, it’s dumb luck, because you certainly haven’t made anything resembling a “serious economic argument” that it IS a colossal waste of money here. You’ve just blown some wind with your usual facile recitation of ridership numbers and net subsidies.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
We’ve been over this before, and it’s been demonstrated time and again to you that roads are likely far from fully funded by user fees.
I should also add that from a cognitive economics point of view there’s an important distinction between something like a gas tax and something like a toll or a bus ticket.
I think Matt’s pointed this out before, but maybe not: Car culture has benefited from the fact that although gas, insurance and maintenance costs are theoretically fully internalized costs, and should be all perfectly accounted for by homo economicus, for real people the fact that these costs are not really paid at the time of use is important. They’re indirect enough that for real people, as long the gas tank is mostly full, the cost of hopping in the car and taking a marginal trip is “free”.
This is one of the things that transit subsidies ameliorate.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a little bit to find your site…but I book marked it. Would you mind if I but a link back to my site?