"As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s."

This breathless quote is from this article in the NYT.

Only they leave one little fact out: Wages and salaries rose faster than the rate of inflation in 2003, 2004 and 2005.  Since 2002, this statistic (wages and salaries) has risen 4.8%.  Of course, only the NYT could obscure the fact that when the pie grows really fast, everyone benefits...even the wage earners. 

(the background data)

Here in Marin, we evidently have absolutely zero concept of economics and economic incentives.

Marin IJ columnist and Sierra Club member, Dick Spotswood, wrote this article for the IJ: SMART-like system has succeeded elsewhere

The "let’s pull the wool over their eyes" pro-SMART forces want us to believe that the economics of the SMART system will work "if we only let them". The latest comparison to the Utah TRAX system is yet another red herring.

"It there ever was an auto-dependent politically conservative region with little tradition of public transit use, it is sprawling Salt Lake County, Utah. Compare that to Marin and Sonoma with 750,000 people centered along a rail line paralleled by a clogged "freeway" where travel is anything but free and easy. It's hard to believe that progressive North Bay commuters will shun rail transit when it has been embraced in Utah, of all places."

Salt Lake City has a population of over 180k and a population density of approximately 650 people per square kilometer. Just over 1 million people live in the Salt Lake Valley area (the TRAX area) at a population density of approximately 770 people per square kilometer. The TRAX system connects DOWNTOWN SLC with the outer urban areas and the suburbs. It has 24 stations over 17 miles of track: one station per 7/10ths of a mile. The Salt Lake Valley population has grown over 20% a decade since 1970 and per capita income is a little less than $21k.

By comparison; Marin has a population of about 250k and a density of 185 people per square kilometer. Sonoma has a population of 450k and a density of 112 people per sq km. Even if you argue that the population really lives on only 1/2 of the land, the average density only goes up to 260 people per sq km. The SMART system is supposed to cover 70 miles and have 14 stations: one station per 5 miles. Since 1970, Marin County’s population has grown by just 18.5%, or less than 6% per decade. Per capita income is $45k.

Clearly the “bet” with the SMART system is that if you build it, they will come. The initial projections suggest modest ridership and subsidies for something like 70% of operating costs. The only way to have this plan make sense is for population densities around the stations to go way up and for overall population growth in Marin to eventually make the economics work.

The reality is that Marin County has been locked into “no growth” mode for 35 years. The local residents appear to prefer their relatively suburban lifestyle as they have done just about everything they can to prevent new housing developments from crowding them. They have blocked transit expansion for fear that more highways will bring more residents and more traffic. Marin has consistently put up the “you are not welcome here” sign for just about any new for-profit enterprise.

And yet the social engineers want to make us believe that new riders will magically appear out of…where?

SMART is DUMB

Disproportionate response?

A friend of mine asked if Israel was justified in targeting Hezbollah rocket launching sites, even if it meant a probability of civilian casualties.   I think targeting Hezbollah without worry is the right answer. Sickening, no? War is that way.

Turn the tables for a moment and think about an attack with different actors. Let's say that the Cuban ex-pats in Miami have about 10,000 rockets and start a campaign launching missiles at the (in)Fidel. Not really targeting anything, just launching them into the air with nary a care. The ex-pats have a long grievance with Cuba because Castro stole their land, their money, their art and they have no rights to return to the island under any circumstances.

After repeated warnings, Castro uses his Soviet supplied tracking equipment to determine the source of the missiles and launches a counterattack that levels the dozen apartment towers where the parking lots had been used as launch pads and the parking garages as weapons storage depots. Among the missing (presumed dead) are the 2000 women and children that were believed to have lived in the complexes.

George Galloway pounds the airwaves shouting “Death to the Americans” as he points out that the Geneva conventions assign the guilt for the deaths of the civilians to those who used the civilians as a shield for their military activities. Various EU ministers accuse Bush of being a war criminal for aiding and abetting an illegal and immoral war against Cuba.

If Cuban ex-pats were allowed to make repeated attacks on Cuba from the United States and the various government actors and the local citizens did nothing to stop them, I think at a minimum Cuba would be justified in targeting the source of these attacks without regard for collateral damage. Given the actors, I have no doubt the world’s leftists would excuse Cuba if they leveled all of Miami as a result…and they (the leftists) would have a rational argument.

I obviously have used an extreme example to make a point. I am not as convinced if you change the actors to drug lords launching an attack from a ghetto in Mexico on San Diego. With the resources to more directly target the adversary I think comes a responsibility to use them. In this case, I think Israel had a responsibility to not level Beirut, but certainly had the right to take out military targets even if it meant civilians were likely to be killed in the process.

George Tuttle wrote this in the MarinIJ. 

Like the “terminator” in the movie, they never stop – it’s what they do!

Tuttle is another in a long line of political types who want to sandbag us with a big white elephant. Why would they want to do this when it is obvious that busses are cheaper than trains? Of course to anyone with more than 10 minutes of Econ 101, the cost difference is obvious. Trains are inflexible and have huge fixed costs. Busses are flexible and can be deployed in weeks not years.  But they love their big projects...

The social engineers want to tell you how to live and how to spend your money. 

Just say no.

Sausalito has done little to explain why they need $16 million for a new fire house and police station.   Vote no on S and make them do it again.

 

The City of Sausalito has a group of locals that is dedicated to raising $16 million in a local bond measure to fund a new Police and Fire house. 

This group, along with the City Council, has managed to get this item approved for a special "mail-in ballot" election in August. 

I don't think I am the only resident that suspects this method was chosen because it would be the most easily influenced and manipulated.  They can hand deliver ballots to all those known to support the project and nothing prevents them from hanging around until the voting papers are completed to the satisfaction of the proponents. 

This is not right in Union votes and it is not right here.  Sausalito residents deserve a better process. 

Mike Arnold has a good summary in the MarinIJ of the basics of the SMART system's shortfalls:  here

Busses are cheaper than trains!  (see one example at Bus vs. Train)

Of course to anyone with more than 10 minutes of Econ 101, this is obvious.  Trains are inflexible and have huge fixed costs.  Busses are flexible and can be deployed in weeks not years. 

So why do politicians and bureaucrats continue to push for rail "solutions" to transit issues?  I suggest that it is because rail systems fit the politicians and bureaucrats view of social planning:

• Rail systems support the development of urban concentration around fixed stations and dense urban development is the goal of most social planners. 
• Rail systems are huge public works projects and politicians like to get credit for "doing big things" - even if those big things are white elephants. 
• Rail systems have huge fixed costs that require raising big chunks of tax dollars with sales or use taxes...taxes that don't expire with the project, but typically live on to be reallocated to the next pet project. 
• Finally, rail systems are expensive and for the most case, built by union members who are reliable voters for the politicians that vote for rail systems. 

In Marin (and Sonoma) County, the urban "utopists" are at it again.  The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District, the "SMART" District, was created in 2002 to create passenger train service in the 75 mile corridor from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The SMART district's board members are supposed to "evaluate" the feasibility of this service before they commit to building it.

Having this group "evaluate" this project is somewhat akin to having your toddler "evaluate" his request for an additional toy... There is little objective analysis in the process and, unlike you, your toddler has unlimited time to figure out ways to beg for more toys. Just like your child, this group of SMARTies hopes that they will eventually wear down the opposition and get their shiny new toy – a white elephant of a rail system.

The Marin Independent Journal ran this front page story by Mark Prado on the SMART project yesterday.  The first thing that stands out is that the estimates of the project costs are ridiculously low. Current cost projections for light rail systems are at least $30 million and as much as $40 million per mile, suggesting that total project costs would be in the $3 billion, not $387 million range. Annual operating costs of $14.2 million? The 29.5 mile San Jose light rail system cost $54 million to operate in 2002, or $1.8 million per mile. If the SMART plan has similar results (and why wouldn't’t they?), then operating costs would be more like $137 million per year. 

(For real data geeks, take a look at the National Transit Database for more data on what the various forms of public transit really cost.)

The SMART rail system considers the 75 miles of right of way a free resource in this analysis.  Any intellectually honest assessment of the project would include the opportunity cost of committing over 900 acres of land (75 miles of 100 feet wide right of way) to this white elephant.  If this land was only worth $150,000 an acre, the land alone would be worth $135 million.  This land could be used for everything from low income housing to rural agricultural land and urban parks.  If used for commercial or residential purposes, it could add at least a $1 million and up to $10 million a year in property tax revenue. 

There is absolutely no way this project makes any economic sense and yet the Directors of the SMART district continue to try to figure out how to put lipstick on this pig and sell it to the voters.  It's our money and with our money SMART is DUMB.