Out of Control

To satisfy the daily fix of those closely following the climate change issue, here are a few recent pieces of note.

First, Iain Murray calls for the resignation of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri in this Tech Central Station article:

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is supposed to act as the world's honest broker on global warming issues, is now hopelessly compromised. One prominent scientist resigned in protest at one of its lead authors associating himself with scientifically unsupported assertions. One of the world's most prominent economists judiciously terms the panel's handling of economic data as "at fault" and questions how representative of current economic thought the panel is. Most recently, IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri publicly endorsed a particular policy agenda that contradicts the IPCC's role as "policy relevant but not policy prescriptive." Dr. Pachauri shows no sign of even considering this institutional conflict of interest. The IPCC clearly needs a new leader who is willing to tackle these problems, or what credibility it retains will disappear into the ether."

Next, as a follow up to last week's post on new research that undermines the legendary "hockey stick" graph of climate change over the past 1,000 years, the Financial Post continues its detailed look at the controversial research:

"McIntyre and McKitrick draw far reaching conclusions from their research: 'When the IPCC decides to base their policy on such studies, triggering the spending of billions of dollars, there should be more thorough checks. At some point, some one should have done an elementary check on the principal component calculations. This never happened and there is no excuse for this.'

Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorlogical Institute has read the article that will appear in Geophysical Research Letters and is convinced it will seriously damage the image of the IPCC. 'For now, I will consider it an isolated incident, but it is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann has passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it. I think this issue will be on the agenda of the next IPCC meeting in Peking this May.'

This brings climate research back to square one. McIntyre: 'Our research does not say that the earth's atmosphere is not getting warmer. But the evidence from this famous study does not allow us to draw any conclusions about its extent, relative to the past 1000 years, which remains as much a mystery now as it was before Mann's article in 1998.'"

I really look forward to seeing how (or even if) the IPCC handles McIntyre and McKitrick's research. It presents them an opportunity to step back and prove to the world that they are indeed science-driven and policy neutral. Frankly, I'm not expecting much, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

And finally, Ross Clark offered a needed dose of perspective on global warming in Saturday's Daily Telegraph:

"The reality is that measures to cut carbon emissions, widely blamed for global warming, have an enormous cost in terms of global development. You can either make a priority of combating global warming or you can make a priority of international development, but not both. As the economist Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out in these pages before, the effect of enacting the Kyoto treaty – which demands that the world reduce its carbon emissions to 1990 levels and keep them there – would be to limit global economic growth to the tune of $150 billion a year: twice the sum that would be required to provide the developing world with the education, healthcare and clean water that they so desperately need. Yet restrictions on carbon emissions will have a disproportionate impact on the developing world, whose less sophisticated industries rely more heavily on burning fossil fuels – limiting their ability to provide themselves with education, healthcare and clean water."

Right on. Read the whole thing.

(Hat tip: JunkScience.com)

The Pacific Legal Foundation's Timothy Sandefur has a long piece on the history and implications of eminent domain in March's Liberty magazine. Here's a taste:

"With the eminent domain power thus unmoored, the result was predictable to public choice theorists: the power to redistribute property fell into the hands, not of the most deserving, but of the most politically adept. As government became capable of transferring unlimited amounts of land between private parties, the business community began investing an ever-increasing amount in lobbying to persuade it to give the land to them. These companies portray the redistribution of land as a benefit to the community, in the form of job creation and increased funding for public services, as well as an eradication of "economic blight," a vague term attached to any neighborhood that is less than affluent but not an actual slum. Meanwhile, government officials have come to see their roles, not as defenders of the public's safety and welfare, but as sculptors of neighborhoods, for whom citizens and land are raw materials to be formed into the ideal community.

. . . .

But this marriage of government and private industry doesn't just benefit bureaucrats eager to be seen as "creating jobs" and "cleaning up the community." It also yields enormous boons for companies that are adept at political persuasion. Recent articles in The Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones have detailed the enormous pressure that Home Depot, Bed Bath & Beyond, Wal-Mart, Target, and especially Costco, exert on governments to give them somebody else's real estate. These efforts can be extremely enticing to government officials pursuing "the vision thing," not to mention local residents desperate for new jobs. The plans are presented with a smooth and authoritative style — with sophisticated PowerPoint presentations including lovely artist's renditions of gleaming new streets and bustling pedestrian malls — that is hard for bureaucrats to resist. There's even a website, eminentdomainonline.com, which bills itself as "an internet based business to government (b2g) clearinghouse for professionals in the eminent domain, right of way, and infrastructure development fields." If the lobbying efforts should include donations to mayoral election campaigns, and promises to fund giant public works projects on the side, so much the better. As one city planner told Mother Jones, "The reality is that you need to rely on developer interest in order to facilitate projects. We're not paying for this party." (Conveniently enough, the Internal Revenue Code allows money expended by a company seeking to persuade a city official to exert eminent domain to be deducted from the company's gross income when determining income tax liability.)

. . . .

To city planners, your neighborhood is theirs to shape as they please. The fact that a business uses condemned land for its own profit is irrelevant to them because private businesses are public uses, in their minds. They are the tools by which society creates jobs and provides people with goods. President Eisenhower once warned the nation about the military-industrial complex, but today local governments are wrapped up in the Costco-WalMart-Home Depot complex. They believe in what they call "partnerships" between government and private industry in which government and corporations decide the shape and layout of whole neighborhoods, with no regard for the rights of the landowners who stand in their way."

Read the whole thing; it's a good primer on the eminent domain issue. In fairness, a lot of urban planners are wary of eminent domain, but I think there's a lot of validity to the point that planners generally (and unconsciously) tend to view most things, even private property and businesses, as being in the public sphere and thus malleable in pursuit of their aims.

For more, check out our Eminent Domain Resource Center.

You’ll appreciate this Hit & Run comment from “Jennifer,” who references Friday’s Stossel special which, among other things, criticized farm subsidies:

That farming bit reminded me of the old Bloom County cartoon where Opus decided to be a farmer. Milo gave him a farmers' aptitude test, where you had to be able to say the following two sentences without laughing:

"Keep them flat-footed goombahs in Washington outta my business. Hurry up with my federal bailout check."

Opus, to his credit, never made it past the word "up."

BTW, I cut out the very last Bloom County strip and got it singed by Berkeley Breathed. Jealous?

We shouldn't be surprised--the tenuous link between low density living and obesity is driving special interest calls for more public spending. In this case, Houston's Quality of LIfe Coalition is lobbying for more money for parks, bike trails, and walking trails to combat its recent ranking as one of the nation's fattest cities. A recent Houston Chronicle story notes that the coalition "was instrumental in persuading [the city of Houston] to invest an additional $58 million in the city's off-road bike-trail program in the next two years.

Interestingly, the article spends a lot of time talking about recent studies linking sprawl to obesity, but presents no evidence that more bike trails or parks will increase physical activity or reduce obesity. In fact, there is virtually no critique of the studies at all. (For that, Reason has a lot of material, including my essay on the topic.)

Felony arrests of little kids for typical kid stuff has gone off the scale in Florida lately.

Not only are such arrests so often completely out of proportion, but they don't help reduce school violence--though there are policies that do.

In a recent post, I mentioned a Wall Street Journal article that expressed concern that the Bush Administration might file an amicus brief in the upcoming Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court case that would support the anti-property rights position of the City of New London.

But, to his credit, the President has apparently decided to make a stand for the "Ownership Society" by refraining from filing a brief:

"The Wall Street Journal recently reported the U.S. Department of Justice was considering filing an amicus brief in support of New London's power to take Kelo's home. Such an action would have openly contradicted Bush's statements regarding the importance of private-property ownership.

This week the deadline for filing amicus briefs passed without intervention by the Bush administration. This case now goes to the Supreme Court, which will establish whether or not government has unlimited power to seize your property and transfer it to another private entity if the government can simply project greater tax revenue than you now pay.

The president shrewdly avoided a misstep this week in deciding not to undermine the constitutional rights that protect all American property owners and bolster our nation's economy."

Kudos to the President on this one. For more on this case, see here.

(Hat tip: Eminent Domain Watch)

Discussions about housing affordability tend to focus on housing supply, local market conditions, income, and the regulatory environment. But when you step back from the abstract and consider a typical family's economic bottom line, it's apparent that local property and school taxes play an important -- and underreported -- role.

Just as a rough, back-of-the-napkin illustration of their significance to the Average Joe's pocket book, a full 33% of my total 2004 mortgage payments went towards local property and school taxes -- a hefty chunk of change to be sure. Of course, you have to pay to play, so to speak, so one just has to factor taxes into their ability to cover their monthly note. And while homeowners certainly enjoy seeing the value of their property increase, this feeling is tempered when they realize how rising assessments result in increasing tax payments that cut noticeably into their monthly budget.

Where local taxes really come into play is at the margin. For example, low-to-moderate income families may have purchased homes years ago when prices were affordable, but rising assessments in hot markets then push their tax payments sky high and jeopardize their ability to make ends meet.

But even taking equity issues out of the equation, the increasing local tax bite in many parts of the country is an issue that impacts most homeowners. According to the Wall Street Journal, homeowners are starting to notice (link available only to subscribers), and they aren't too pleased:

"As home prices and property taxes in many areas of the U.S. continue to reach new heights, homeowners are aiming their sights at a common target: the local tax assessor.

Angry about higher tax bills, and not content with the formal appeals process, citizens are suing assessors or calling for their ouster. In other cases, mounting pressure is prompting city councils and community organizations to arrange grilling sessions where the spotlight is on the assessor to explain why assessed values and tax bills have gone through the roof.

. . . .

Such outcries are a common feature of heated housing markets, as longtime homeowners who bought at much lower prices get hit with huge tax increases. Similar fervor helped give rise to California's Proposition 13 in the 1970s, which limited municipalities' ability to raise taxes there and led to similar laws around the country.

But the increases in assessments in many parts of the country are particularly dramatic this time around. In some areas, people who bought just a few years ago are seeing increases in their property-tax bills ranging from 30% to 40%. Homeowners in Harris County, Texas, which includes the city of Houston, saw increases in property taxes of more than 106% in seven years, partly due to a "hyper-accelerated housing market" in the county, says Paul Bettencourt, Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector. The average property tax bill for a median-valued single-family home in the U.S. was $2,778 in 2004, up 9% from $2,549 in 2002, according to the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, a St. Paul, Minn., public-finance research group.

A reason why assessments have jumped stems partly from a cash crunch at the local level. Many localities have been strapped for money during the past few years due to state cutbacks and the economic downturn combining with rising costs for education, law enforcement and other services. So they turned to the housing market as a growing money pot."

Read the whole thing. The article goes on to discuss the varying methods that assessors use to value property and the difficulty of achieving uniform assessments. It's a bit reminiscent of watching sausage get made.

It's nice to see, though, that citizens are stepping up and making their complaints heard. They're really caught between a rock and a hard place, though, as the total tax bite is composed of two factors -- assessments and tax rates -- either or both of which can be tweaked by local policymakers when the well runs dry.

Is it turning America into one big strip mall, or could there be a lot to like about sprawl?

Check out The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City.

And for sprawl related posts, go here.

Check out the program tonight at 10pm on ABC or at least read his commentary.

One of the topics he addresses is outsourcing, and if you watch Lou Dobbs or listen to protectionist politicos you hear a lot of anecdotes like this:

We asked the AFL-CIO labor federation for some of their best examples of outsourcing and the first people they referred us to were Shirley and Ronnie Barnard. They both lost their jobs when a Levi's plant in Powell, Tenn., closed down two years ago and moved production to Mexico.

That's as far as most reporters or candidates go, but if you follow the process a bit longer there’s often a happy ending:

While it's true that they had to dig into savings and still worry about their long-term security, last year Shirley Barnard eventually found a new job as a secretary. The new position pays more than her old job at Levi's, and the Levi's work was harder — hot, noisy and physically difficult. She says that her new job is much easier.

Her husband and some other former co-workers are still looking for work, but she told us some of her former Levi's colleagues are now working in better jobs than they had before. "Some of them have got, really got excellent jobs that they would never have even left Levi's for if the plant hadn't closed," she said.

And what happened to that Levi's plant? It's now being converted to a college. There will be new jobs for faculty and administrative staff, and right now there are construction jobs for workers building the new campus. This won't be talked about on the evening news, but these jobs are a product of outsourcing too.

For more outsourcing posts, go here.

Good teachers try to instill in schoolchildren a healthy dose of respect for the profound beauty of the scientific method and the imperative for transparency in empirical research. These are the pillars of knowledge in the modern world, and scientific progress depends on a faithful adherence to these processes.

Gone are the days when a Galileo is imprisoned and threatened with torture for daring to advance controversial scientific theories. In the modern era, scientists publish the results of their research and then open the floor to others to come in and replicate their methods and compare outcomes. This typifies the slow but steady march of human progress.

So it is indeed profoundly distressing when this process breaks down -- when politics, religion, or other considerations trump good science and inhibit the advance of knowledge, particularly on matters of great import. And it is equally inspiring when good science succeeds despite overwhelming odds against it.

And so we come to today, a day that we can both lament a travesty in science and celebrate a triumph of scientific integrity over bad science.

The prestigious journal Geophysical Research Letters will publish a groundbreaking article by Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre that calls into question the credibility of UVA scientist Michael Mann's "hockey stick," a graph of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last 1,000 years showing a relatively flat line up to the 20th century which then trends sharply upward (hence the 'hockey stick'). Of course, the implication is that human activity and capitalism has set us on a course for global disaster.

To say that this graph has been influential would be a tremendous understatement; it is THE central pillar of the anti-global warming movement and a primary justification for the Kyoto Protocol. It is the proverbial face that launched a thousand ships.

But ladies and gentlemen, today is the day that we can begin to mourn (or celebrate, depending on your persuasion) the death of the venerable "hockey stick." From the Financial Post:

"The hockey-stick image has appeared in countless documents and hundreds of speeches. The opening graphic in the recently-published Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report reproduces the Mann chart as the main springboard to hundreds of pages on climate risks in the Arctic. It is also the core justification for the Kyoto Protocol, which comes into effect on Feb. 16.

Until now, criticisms of the hockey stick have been dismissed as fringe reports from marginal global warming skeptics. Today, however, the critical work of two Canadian researchers, Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at Guelph University, and Toronto consultant Stephen McIntyre, will be published by Geophysical Research Letters, the prestigious journal that published one of the early versions of Michael Mann's 1,000-year tracking of Northern Hemisphere temperatures,

Publication in Geophysical Research sets McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis and conclusions in direct opposition to the Mann research. Their criticism can no longer be dismissed as if it were untested research posted on obscure Web sites by crank outsiders. Their work is now a full challenge to the dominant theme of the entire climate and global warming movement."

From another Financial Post article:

"Climate skeptics are most prolific on the Internet, a platform for novices, the scatterbrained and the experienced alike. Not surprisingly, the climate researchers whom we consulted (predominantly Dutch) presumed the work of the two Canadians to be unconvincing. We at Natuurwetenschap & Techniek were initially skeptical about these skeptics as well. However, McIntyre and McKitrick have recently had an article accepted by Geophysical Research Letters -- the same journal that published Mann's 1999 article. This, together with the positive responses of the referees to that article, quickly brought us around.

Even Geophysical Research Letters, an eminent scientific journal, now acknowledges a serious problem with the prevailing climate reconstruction by Mann and his colleagues. This undercuts both Mann's supposed proof that human activity has been responsible for the warming of the earth's atmosphere in the 20th century and the ability to place confidence in the findings and recommendations of the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The political implication is a serious undermining of the Kyoto Protocol with its worldwide agreements on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

. . . .

McIntyre and McKitrick merely attempted to replicate this oft-quoted study. In doing so, they identified mistake after mistake. They also discovered that this fundamental reconstruction had never actually been replicated by the IPCC or any other scientist. In their replication, basically derived from the same data, temperatures in the 15th century were just as high as they are today -- an outcome that takes the edge off the alarmist scenario of anthropogenic global warming."

At this point, it is essential to read the entire Post article. Assuming that the article describes the situation accurately, two things become clear. First, McIntyre and McKitrick undertook research that should have been done a long time ago, before the "hockey stick" became elevated to dogma status. They approached the process with the skepticism that any serious scientist would have, but not to the degree that they let this bias their results. They set out with the goal of replicating the Mann research to see if indeed they could achieve consistent results. And they corresponded with the Mann researchers to get original data sets, to discuss methods, and to generally ensure that their new research was consistent with the original.

But when their findings diverged, they discovered inconsistencies in the original Mann research, both in terms of data and methods. And, in violation of the unwritten gentleman's code of science, Mann chose to stonewall them and their attempts for constructive dialogue. Rather than engage them, Mann opted to protect his scientific turf, as if his unverified research had somehow become bulletproof. Whether it was due to hubris or simply protecting the hockey stick's well-established territory on a major global policy issue, Mann apparently chose to place other considerations ahead of what should have been the eternal aim of sound science, regardless of where the chips may fall.

Writing for Tech Central Station, Dr. Roy Spencer considers the McIntyre and McKitrick article and hits the nail on the head:

"The new article, like so much published science, simply points out errors in previously published science, which is the way science should work. So why should there be so much fuss this time? Because the original Mann et al. article has had huge repercussions. The hockey stick, along with the "warmest in 1,000 years" argument, has become a central theme of debates over the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, in governments around the world. The question begging to be answered is: Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the Mann et al hockey stick analysis when it first appeared? I cannot help but conclude that it's because they wanted to believe it.

The IPCC leadership can always fall back on the claim that they were only using published research, which is true. The criterion for scientific results to be included in governmental reports has usually been publication in the scientific literature, or in some cases the work only needs to be accepted for publication. But it now appears this is not sufficient. Unusual claims in science should be met with unusual skepticism, and this did not happen with the Mann et al. study. An increasing number of researchers have anecdotal evidence that the science tabloids, Nature and Science, select reviewers of some manuscripts based upon whether they want those papers to be accepted or rejected. In other words, it seems like the conclusions of a paper are sometimes more important that the scientific basis for those conclusions. Since those periodicals have profit and popularity motives that normal scientific journals do not, maybe the time has come to downgrade the scientific weight of publications in those journals, at least for some purposes."

So, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the premier international body investigating climate change and exalted body of experts on the subject, took the Mann research and ran with it uncritically. To be fair, it is not their mandate to conduct research or to verify the research of others. This is the job of the scientific community-at-large, and, until McIntyre and McKitrick, they had largely failed.

But it's not too late for the IPCC to inject some serious debate into their work and prove to the world that they value sound science over cherrypicking research to reach a preordained conclusion. This issue is too important; the implications of policy decisions based on IPCC's work will affect the lives and livelihoods of billions of people worldwide.

So we get to the real question...what is the IPCC going to do now?

(Via JunkScience.com)

“Heavy-hitter” business leaders have had it with how San Francisco operates. They’ve suggested a bunch of reforms, including competitive contracting for government services:

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin said Thursday that there are some ideas he could support, such as revamping comp time and lifetime health benefits rules, but he shook his head at others. "Privatizing city services,'' he said, "that's not going to happen.''

So the politicos don't like privatization. What do they like?

-- Becoming the first city to slap a tax on grocery bags.

-- Passing the nation’s most stringent outdoor smoking ban.

So we have the for-your-own-good nanny statism that's embedded in any smoking ban, but in this case we get an extra strong dose of junk science, and the oh-so-common “for the children” reference:

"Secondhand smoke outdoors is just as dangerous (as indoors)," said Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who said she drafted the law out of concern for the environment and children.

Seems to run in the family:

She is following in the footsteps of her aunt, former Supervisor Angela Alioto, who in 1993 wrote the ordinance prohibiting smoking in workplaces, restaurants and public arenas in San Francisco.

Daniel Drezner points to this New York Times piece that looks at America’s experience with airline deregulation.

Some labor unions are actually pushing for reregulation (Or is it "un-de-regulation"? … No that sounds like something that should concern Victoria’s Secret. Rim shot?)

Anyhow, here’s what one union rep has to say:

"Are we willing to accept the results of a free marketplace, or do we think the role of commercial aviation is such a part of our economy that we have to have government influence?"

Of course, there’s all sorts of government influence in air travel. Talking about airline deregulation can be misleading because it gives the impression that air travel has been completely deregulated.

Yes, fares and routes have been deregulated, but air traffic control, security, and airports themselves are still dominated by government control--at least in the US:

In sharp contrast with the U.S. situation, around the world airport privatization keeps expanding. In 2003 Asia paved the way to privatize some of its largest airports, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, and several airports in India ... Privatization continues to spread across more of Europe. The Dutch cabinet approved the long-awaited privatization of Schiphol Group, which owns and operates Amsterdam Schipol Airport and two others in The Netherlands, as well as having part interests in several airports overseas … And the German government in April 2004 announced plans to sell shares in Frankfurt (already largely privatized), Cologne-Bonn, and Munich airports.

Back to the union rep who’s pushing rereg:

"It's a conversation I'd like to have before everyone wakes up and asks, 'What the hell happened?' "

Since federal restrictions on routes and fares were removed, consumers have been saving $20 billion a year on air fares, when adjusted for inflation, according to Brookings. Fares have dropped by more than 30 percent, on average, and as much as 70 percent when tickets are bought in advance, the group concluded.

At the same time, airlines have vastly expanded their networks, bringing air travel - a relatively infrequent experience [several decades ago] - to people all over the country. For example, American, the biggest airline, flew to just 50 cities in 1975; it now serves more than three times that number.

For more on this go here.

(Oh, and sorry about the bad joke.)

As a follow up to last week's post (see here) on the resignation of NOAA scientist Chris Landsea from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Competitive Enterprise Institute issued a statement today calling for IPCC chair Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri to step down due to a lack of objectivity:

"'Dr. Pachauri’s actions are those of a policy advocate, not an objective official,' said Iain Murray, Senior Fellow in International Policy. 'The world can no longer rely on him for accurate and unbiased analysis.'

Dr. Pachauri recently served as scientific adviser for a report written by a consortium of American, British, and Australian leftist advocacy groups. The report, entitled 'Meeting the Climate Challenge,' makes outlandish scientific claims that are not supported by the IPCC’s previous publications and recommends a number of ineffective and economically unsound policies.

'Political activism is entirely inappropriate for the chairman of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri has abused his official position, which carries great responsibilities, and thereby forfeited the public’s trust,' said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy.

Dr. Pachauri has a history of associating himself with left-wing advocacy. He provided a foreword to an alarmist report from the United Kingdom’s New Economics Foundation and told Reuters that he hoped the next IPCC report, due in 2007, would 'produce a much stronger message' for the world.

Last week, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricane scientist Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in protest at a senior IPCC scientist’s decision to 'utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming.' Dr. Pachauri did nothing to address Dr. Landsea’s concerns."

I won't be holding my breath for Dr. Pachauri's resignation letter, but kudos to Iain Murray and Myron Ebell for staying on top of this.

I also reported on yet another sky-is-falling report (see here and here) warning us that global warming has led us to the very brink of Armageddon. Be sure to check out the blogger Diplomad's scathing and humorous dissection of this junk report:

"According to the distinguished British "co-chair," after ten years IT'S ALL OVER!!! Yet the report has suggestions for actions to take by 2025 -- along with all the usual leftist bromides about more money for this or that, form a group to discuss, raise public awareness, blah, blah, blah."

Read the whole thing.

The Government Accountability Office has published a new report with some not so startling news:

"The available evidence indicates that highway and transit projects often do not meet projected outcomes such as cost and usage, while other projected outcomes such as economic development or land-use impacts are not regularly evaluated. Results from our case studies...show that completed highway and transit investments often result in higher than expected costs and usage that are different from what was projected...According to transportation officials we interviewed, these projected outcomes were important reasons that the projects were pursued. However, we found that evaluations of the outcomes of completed highway and transit projects are typically not conducted. Because these evaluations are not regularly conducted, officials only have limited or anecdotal evidence of whether the projects produced the intended results."

Of course, we all intuitively believe this, but it's nice to see it analyzed in a comprehensive manner. Some of the report's examples include:

• A study of over 250 transportation projects in Europe, North America, and elsewhere found that costs for all projects were 28 percent higher than projected costs at the alternatives analysis stage, on average. Rail projects showed the highest cost escalation, averaging at least 44.7 percent, while road projects averaged escalations of 20.4 percent. This study further found that cost underestimation has not improved over time, indicating systematic downward bias on costs.
• Initial results from an ongoing study of New Starts projects by FTA show that nearly half of the 19 projects, for which ridership was reviewed, will achieve less than two-thirds of forecast ridership by the forecast year. In addition, costs escalated on 16 of the 21 projects reviewed from the alternatives analysis stage, where decisions are made to go forward with a preferred alternative, to the completion of the project—with 4 of those projects experiencing increases of between 10 and 20 percent and 9 projects with increases over 20 percent.
• In a 1997 report, we collected and analyzed data for 30 highway projects costing $100 million or more. We found that cost growth occurred on 23 of 30 projects when comparing actual costs to costs estimated at the alternatives analysis stage, with about half of the projects experiencing increases of more than 25 percent.

Of course, if you follow the light rail issue closely, you already knew that projected ridership and cost figures are always wishful thinking. But highway projects have their own problems as well.

I think that a call for rigorous outcome evaluation in transportation planning is long overdue. The report rightly goes into great detail about the tremendous difficulty in placing a price tag on all projected direct and indirect costs and benefits. Sure, it's easy to compare a project's final costs with projections, but what about valuing more intangible costs and benefits, such as the value of land use changes or reduced emissions, for example? This is tricky work with no clear cut solutions.

Still, transportation planners need to do better, for all of our sakes:

"With growing concerns about the size of federal and state budget deficits, combined with the future mandatory commitments to Social Security and Medicare set to consume a greater share of the nation’s resources, the prospects of future fiscal imbalances are a certainty. Given the current and long-term fiscal challenges, careful decisions need to be made to ensure that transportation investments systematically consider the benefits of each federal dollar invested."

That’s the title of the latest John Stossel special. It airs Friday Jan. 28 at 10pm on ABC.

As usual, there will be lots of debunking and skewering of conventional wisdom. The show will cover a grab bag of issues including the sprawl brawl, the tragedy of the commons, and all the hubbub surrounding outsourcing.

And speaking of outsourcing, here’s a new measure from Arizona:

It prohibits the state from entering into contracts or taking other actions that results in state government jobs, contract positions or other work being shipped outside the United States.

Funny, that language sounds familiar. Maybe it’s because there are about 150 bills like it out there.

Politicians love to tell others how much they hate outsourcing, but if you’re worried about losing your job, you better keep your eye on all those job stealing machines. And don’t forget about those job stealing Americans.

The great Peter Gordon takes a look at the 2001 National Household Travel Survey and makes the following observation:

"In spite of years of 'Smart Growth', 2001 was the first year that there were more vehicles per household than licensed drivers per household (1.89 vs 1.77).

2001 was also the year that saw a reverse in previous increases in worktrip speeds. Yes, the average commute was getting faster between 1983 and 1995 (covering three previous surveys). No more.

Was Smart Growth to blame? All we can say for sure is that it didn't help.

We do know that the 1995-2001 period was a time of rapid income growth. Not only did people have greater access to private vehicles but as people become wealthier, they travel more -- just as they consume more of everything.

We are back to the old story. If policy makers want to 'do something' about auto travel, they have to price road access and parking correctly. Nothing else works. Most U.S. policy makers are, however, bent on trying anything but proper pricing. Not smart."

Not 'smart' at all.

But there is hope. Reason's Bob Poole has led the charge nationally for innovative road pricing strategies. Check out this piece from Tuesday's San Diego Union Tribune in which he discusses congestion relief through managed lanes (special lanes with variable pricing) and the need for more of them in San Diego. And just last week, he released a new study that demonstrates how large-scale highway projects, funded entirely or largely with toll revenues instead of taxpayer dollars, could be developed to add highway capacity in California that will otherwise never be built.

Last week he also had this Public Works Financing piece in which he discusses variable pricing in the context of the reauthorization of the federal transportation program.

Mere mortals can only dream of producing such a substantive body of work in a week's time, but Bob's a man -- no, a machine -- on a mission. Be sure to dig back through the archives of Reason's Surface Transportation Program for more on pricing and other innovative approaches to congestion relief.

Just yesterday I noted how some economists are following Madonna’s lead when it comes to how much importance should be placed on boosting GDP.

Now it’s more of the same, but in a different field—urban planning. We all know that planners are obsessed with downtown districts, but what’s the best way to get people to go downtown?

You need what consultants George E. Thomas and Susan Nigra Snyder call "the Madonna effect."

"It's how Madonna reinvents herself every few years," says Snyder, an architect and partner in the firm CivicVisions.

Snyder explains that you can't change what your town already is made of, particularly the brick and stone buildings.

"You have to transform the way people see it and use it, so it gets connected to the contemporary buzz," Snyder says.

And so we should rely on grand, top-down plans crafted by planners and city council members to get “connected to the contemporary buzz”?

Here’s Bob Poole suggesting that, when looking to the future, San Diego should learn from its past history as a transportation policy trailblazer.

And here I am suggesting that North Carolina’s Triangle region can also take away lessons from the San Diego experience.

In recent weeks there have been a number of articles exposing the "moral hazard" of defined-benefit pension plans. This editorial in the Washington Post (registration required), does as good a job as any in highlighting the nature of the problem. The parties that make decisions related to pension funding have no incentive to act responsibly.

As the article puts it:
"The politics of pension reform are pernicious, as last year's bad bill showed: Company managers don't want to pay more into their pension plans; labor unions don't want money that could be used for wages to go for pensions; both sides are content with large, unfunded pension promises, underwritten by taxpayers."

Now, of course, this article is talking about the quasi-governmental Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which covers private DB plans. The very same logic (or lack thereof) plagues public pension funds.

When a suicidal coward left his SUV in front of an oncoming Metrolink train and watched helplessly as the train derailed and smashed into another Amtrak train killing 10 and injuring 200 others, I'm struck by how vulnerable we are. The apparent lack of security must be addressed before we spend billions more on southern California rail projects. Is the OC listening? Thank goodness the SUV driver identified as Juan Manuel Alvarez was not a terrorist. I'm even more thankful that not more riders were injured or killed. What if the the train were full? Metrolink's unintended lack of success in attracting more riders saved some lives this morning. Thanks for doing such a bad job, Metrolink. As for me, I'm sticking with my car.

In Monday's Fresno Bee, former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson takes on high local housing costs and offers a dose of common sense:

"The cost of a new home in Fresno today is out of reach for more than 70% of the people living here. In the rest of California, fewer than 20% can afford a new home. A lifetime of paying rent lies ahead for the vast majority of Californians.

. . . .

Doing something about land scarcity would be a good start. Cities remain the gatekeeper to affordable homeownership.

Too many around here maintain a dangerously low supply of land zoned for new housing. Raw land prices are beginning to top $100,000 per acre.

Experts tell me cities need at least a 20-year supply of land set aside for new homes. Many cities have failed to do so and the results are obvious. Some landowners enjoy near monopoly status in a time of high demand. They can pretty much peg the price anywhere they want. A good dose of competition is needed. Quickly adding to the raw land supply could help moderate home prices significantly.

Government fees and bureaucratic regulations should be another target. Some estimates put the time and money costs of navigating state and local mandates at more than 30% of the price of a new home.

Politicians like to say, "Let the builders pay." The truth is you and I pay for the cost of runaway government. It is imbedded in the sticker price of a new home. Or have we forgotten the tenets of elementary economics?

. . . .

Future generations deserve better than not-in-my-backyard drivel, drawbridge selfishness and politicians who trade statesmanship and vision for fleeting favoritism."

Well put.

For a case study in how regulations and poor planning impact housing supply and affordability, check out Reason's 2001 study on growth management in Ventura County:

"This study suggests that there are significant deficiencies in the capacity of existing planning systems to accommodate rational planning goals. Despite passing a countywide growth-management initiative in 1998, most cities in Ventura County have not adjusted their plans or their development-approval processes to accommodate expected housing demand, creating conditions that are likely to lead to further housing-price escalation and increased political manipulation of the housing market.

The analysis of Ventura County shows that most of its cities will face significant housing shortages well before the end of the county’s 25-year planning horizon. In fact, most cities in Ventura County have no more than 10 years of housing capacity left under current policies and entitlement practices."

Not too long ago, Madonna broke from her “Material Girl” persona and revealed that there is more to life than money and fame. Apparently, we were supposed to marvel at this “new” insight and use it to create a better world.

Economists are also learning how to state the obvious and make it sound groundbreaking. For example, it turns out that there’s real economic evidence that shows money does not buy happiness.

A growing body of research on the “economics of happiness” proposes that material wealth is overrated …

“The problem we have found is that as (gross domestic product) has gone up, happiness doesn’t go up with it,” said David Blanchflower, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College.

Blanchflower and his colleague Andrew Oswald say that during recent decades our nation has “in aggregate, apparently become more miserable.”

A critical factor in personal happiness appears to be marriage — or at least a monogamous sexual relationship.

But the prescription is the scary part:

[Some economists] say policy-makers should pay more attention to what people say about their satisfaction with life as they consider how far to go in the pursuit of unbridled growth.

Good thing not all economists are on board with crafting happiness policy:

Other experts dismiss much of the research, noting that happiness and sexual activity are self-reported and impossible to verify.

As this year’s Nobel-winning economist Edward Prescott put it: “The mind reels at the thought of the ill-conceived policies that would be concocted if the stated goal were to increase gross national happiness.”

Oh, and here’s another groundbreaking discovery from Branchflower and Oswald:

“The more sex, the happier the person.”

“People who have no sexual activity are noticeably less happy than average,” they declared.

Thanks guys.

This weekend a fire struck the NYC subway:

Two of the city's subway lines - the A and the C - have been crippled and may not return to normal capacity for three to five years after a fire Sunday afternoon in a Lower Manhattan transit control room that was started by a homeless person trying to keep warm, officials said yesterday.

The blaze, at the Chambers Street station used by the A and C lines, was described as doing the worst damage to subway infrastructure since the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. It gutted a locked room that is no larger than a kitchen but that contains some 600 relays, switches and circuits that transmit vital information about train locations.

And now this in LA:

At least nine people died and hundreds were injured this morning when two commuter trains collided after one hit a car parked on the tracks in Glendale near Los Angeles, officials said.

The death toll was expected to rise in what officials were calling the worst rail disaster in recent memory …

At a joint news conference with Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Glendale Chief Randy G. Adams, Baca said the early investigation showed the vehicle was parked at a rail crossing and was hit by a south-bound commuter train.

It then sideswiped a north-bound Metrolink train causing both trains to derail. One apparently hit a freight train, pushing it off of the tracks.

Police said they were investigating the vehicle that was illegally stopped at the crossing.

Lest you think that it is universally self-evident that eminent domain is a fundamental violation of property rights and human decency, the usual suspects are lining up in support of New London's position in the upcoming Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court case (for more on this case, see here, here, here and here):

"A broad range of states, cities and economic development groups has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the New London Development Corp.'s use of eminent domain at Fort Trumbull as a proper use of the government's power to seize private land.

Among the groups coming to the defense of the city and the NLDC, in friend-of-the-court briefs filed last week, were the National League of Cities and International Municipal Lawyers' Association; attorneys general from 13 states and the District of Columbia; and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities."

Grab your Pepto folks, because this will make your stomach turn:

“'The assembly of urban lands for economic growth is a ‘public use,' as it eliminates the accretion of small parcels that has acted to hinder old cities like New London from competing in the market for economic development projects,' attorneys for CCM and 32 allied organizations wrote. '...As such, it plainly falls within the police powers of the State of Connecticut, which has determined that its municipalities need the power to assemble lands to create developable urban parcels that the market itself has been unable to supply.'

The briefs argue that eminent domain is an invaluable tool for cities and states trying to further redevelopment plans, or, as in New London's case, to boost a sagging tax base.

In other words, "please allow us to continue stomping on one of our country's founding principles, not to mention human dignity, because we are absolutely devoid of any other creative ideas on how to compete in a free-market economy. If we're unable to steal Citizen X's house, then we won't be able to build a parking garage for our great new [insert big-ticket dream project here...stadium, convention center and hotel complex, big box retail giant, etc...]."

And coming from a planning background, I am truly saddened and ashamed by the APA's stance on this (perhaps I'll put the checkbook away and continue to wait to renew my membership):

"Also filing a brief were the American Planning Association, the group's Connecticut chapter and the National Congress for Community Economic Development, who argued that the property owners would hurt efforts to develop urban plans by restricting eminent domain seizures to blighted properties.

'The planning association and the congress ... are not particularly eager to engage in eminent domain, nor do they think it should be the first option of local governments,' said Tom Merrill, a professor of law at Columbia University who wrote the brief for the groups. 'But they think it's an important power to have in the mix of things. Severely limiting it ... could distort the process of sound planning.'"

So let me get this argument straight...on the one hand, eminent domain is a pretty extreme tool, and we'd really rather avoid using it. But on the other hand, the very process of "sound planning" itself (whatever that is) would somehow be jeopardized by limiting the use of this extreme tool to extreme cases?

I thought the purpose of urban planning was to analyze cities holisitically and develop plans and strategies to address urban needs while being sensitive to (1) the varied needs of different members of the community, and (2) the principles that undergird our free-market economy. I guess that I missed the memo from APA HQ that planners need to elevate to higher priority the picking of winners and losers in a community's efforts to compete with others for jobs, residents, revenue, etc.

I understand that reasonable minds can, in good faith, disagree on whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Placing concrete boundaries around the hazy notion of "public use" is certainly a tricky undertaking. But there at least need to be some defined ground rules in the game, a firm line at which fundamental moral principles of fairness, respect, and justice kick in.

Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek put it vastly more eloquently (man, I wish I'd written this):

"The understanding that 'good fences make good neighbours,' that is, that men can use their own knowledge in the pursuit of their own ends without colliding with each other only if clear boundaries can be drawn between their respective domains of free action, is the basis on which all known civilization has grown. Property . . . is the only solution men have yet discovered to the problem of reconciling individual freedom with an absence of conflict . . . . There can be no law in the sense of universal rules of conduct which does not determine boundaries of the domains of freedom by laying down rules that enable each to ascertain where he is free to act."

To be fair, the APA doesn't represent the diversity of thought within the planning community, particularly many advocacy planners, who I'd bet are a little frightened by the idea of taking homes from poor families that can't defend themselves and giving the land to a business interest promising big tax revenue.

Expect a swift response to these briefs from the other side. No one is sitting idly on the sidelines in this game.

And look here for Reason's original amicus brief and here for Pacific Legal Foundation's brief. And as always, visit Reason's Eminent Domain Resource Center for more on this issue.

(Hat tip: Eminent Domain Watch)

Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey is exploring the possibility of leasing state toll roads, such as the New Jersey Turnpike, to private companies to help plug a $4 billion budget deficit.

Under such a deal, the state would get a one-time payment from a company, which would take over the operation and maintenance of the highway in exchange for keeping toll revenues.

Not much more to the story, but the rest of it is here (beware of a particularly annoying free registration process).

Yesterday, I had a post on the latest doom-and-gloom climate change report by a group called the International Climate Change Taskforce. The report basically states that we are already nearing the point of no return with respect to global warming. Armageddon is just around the corner, unless of course we radically transform our greedy and thoughtless world economy from the ground up.

Today, Tim Worstall has a TechCentralStation piece taking a deeper look into this report, and suffice to say, he's less than impressed:

"Another day, another report on global warming and climate change. (Sigh). This one is called "Meeting the Climate Challenge" from the self-appointed International Climate Change Taskforce and has been organized by The Institute for Public Policy Research (UK), The Center for American Progress (USA) and The Australia Institute (guess). Amongst the panel members we have from the US Senator Olympia Snowe; from the UK Stephen Byers MP (this is the man who when Transport Secretary deliberately bankrupted the private railroad system to replace it with a state-run system which costs three times as much and performs worse) and Jonathan Porritt (Founder of Friends of the Earth and here proudly described as Vice-President of the Socialist Environment Resources Association); and, as Scientific Adviser, Dr Rajendra K Pachauri who is, as we know, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

No, I'm sorry, there are no prizes for guessing what their view of the matter is. Everything is terrible, getting worse and we all die Tuesday week unless we abolish capitalism."

He summarizes their approach here:

"We have decided to take an arbitrary number, 2 oC, set the baseline at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, immediately after the Maunder Minimum, mix in every scare story we can think of to scare the fecal matter out of you rubes and if you don't listen carefully to us important people we'll hold our breaths until we turn blue. (We might also note that no one, no one at all, thinks that human influence on the climate started in 1750 AD. Try 8,000 BC with the invention of agriculture.)

This is then used to design a system whereby the US and Australia, while not part of the Kyoto mess, agree to voluntarily meet the targets (think Sen. McCain here) and so usher in the brave new world where luminaries are again allowed to ventilate.

. . . .

Allow me just to recapitulate this argument. A modest number of the international great and the good get together to bemoan the way the world is running to rack and ruin, identifying the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and not coincidentally, the beginning of capitalism) as when our forefathers began to cause our problems, come up with a series of recommendations on how to reduce carbon emissions, lots of international action, international aid, international spending, international regulation, in short, lots for the international great and good to do, and in the process they take no position on nuclear energy? None at all? Not even a "Tsk, tsk, that will allow capitalism to survive?"

Sheesh. Who cares what they think?"

Do yourself a favor and read it all. And see here, here and here for more recent climate change news.

And above all, relax and put away your umbrellas, because the sky still seems to be intact.

The Statistical Assessment Service has announced its 2004 awards for the worst scientific or mathematical media mistakes. There are some gems here.

9. Pumping up Prices
After oil prices topped $50 per barrel in November, prophets of petroleum gloom trumpeted "oil sets new record price" in headlines around the county. But these "record" prices were not adjusted for inflation. The record in "real" (i.e. inflation-adjusted) dollars was set back in 1981--$39 then, but equivalent of $66 in 2004.

5. The Risk is Also Silent
Phthalates (pronounced "thalates"--the "ph" is silent) are colorless oil-like chemicals used in everything from vinyl to nail polish to children’s toys. In May the Los Angeles Times reported that, based on animal studies, phthalates can cause birth defects and cancer. But the story failed to note that the unfortunate laboratory rats had to absorb the human equivalent of four and half bottles of nail polish every day for seventy years to become ill. Moreover, numerous international studies have shown phthalates to be safe in toys and cosmetics. [on this one, see here]

Most of the others are at least as good. Don't you love it when reporters fail to ask even the most common sense questions about data?

Hat tip to Fallacy Files for this news.

A great blog on this at Constrained Vision.

Others have made similar arguments.

Hope you get a chuckle out of this climate change juxtaposition like I did.

First, The Indepenent offers the banal observation that the sky is falling, and it's our fault:

" The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

. . . .

[The report] breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached."

Not so fast, according to new research:

"The findings from a team of American climate experts suggest that were it not for greenhouse gases produced by humans, the world would be well on the way to a frozen Armageddon.

Scientists have traditionally viewed the relative stability of the Earth's climate since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago as being due to natural causes, but there is evidence that changes in solar radiation and greenhouse gas concentrations should have driven the Earth towards glacial conditions over the last few thousand years.

What stopped it has been the activity of humans, both ancient and modern, argue the scientists.

. . . .

Anthropologist Dr Benny Peiser, from Liverpool John Moores University, said: 'If the research findings are correct, a radical change in the perception of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will be required.'

'Instead of driving us to the brink of environmental disaster, human intervention and technology progress will be seen as vital activities that have unintentionally delayed the onset of a catastrophic ice age.'"

Both reports agree that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming (a matter of some debate, I might add), but that's where the similarity ends. With disagreements as vast as this in the science of climate change, the folly of Kyoto and other anti-warming public policy interventions seems blatantly obvious.

I'd imagine that someone could conceivably look at these two pieces and try to argue that there's some "Goldilocks" target range of global temperature that we should strive for...not hot enough to fry us and not cold enough to freeze us. But the Earth's climate has been and always will be a dynamic phenomenon, like plate tectonics. Just as we can't stop tectonic plates from shifting and the mountains from rising and falling, it's hubristic to think that we can control climate through policy and planning.

(Hat tip: JunkScience.com)

Today Reason joined other groups in filing an amicus brief "urging the Florida Supreme Court to uphold the state’s Opportunity Scholarships program" which our education policy research has found to be a good program.

At issues is the Florida Opportunity Scholarship program which, in a nutshell, lets kids in failing schools use a voucher to go to a better school.

Natch, the Insitute for Justice is leading the fight. The public education system and fellow travelers have argued that the opportunity scholarships amount to state support of religion because it is possible for families to use the vouchers at religious schools. They have succeeded so far with this argument in the courts.

For the sake of those poor kids stuck in schools so bad that they fail even by VERY low standards, lets hope the FL Supreme Court is more sensible.

No seriously. It is.

Using a young readers' novel called "The Misfits" as its centerpiece, middle schools nationwide will participate in a "No Name-Calling Week" initiative starting Monday. The program, now in its second year, has the backing of groups from the Girl Scouts to Amnesty International. . .

I just shake my head. How pitiful is it that public schools can't just enforce decent behavior and manners, and has to resort to this kind of crap. How much more sad that there are people out there who are deeply upset about teaching kids not be mean to gays.

I'm continually amazed how school districts blow millions of dollars in bond money--without building any actual buildings. Yet, voters continue to say yes to more school facilities bonds. This week San Francisco Unified is the case in point.

San Francisco's city controller has found major accounting mistakes in the school district's spending of construction bond money and is urging the district to stop additional projects until it fixes the problems.

In a report to be released next week, Controller Ed Harrington's office found a lack of communication between district departments, computational errors, contradictions in what phase of construction projects were in, no record of $30 million in bonds that had been sold, no record of $13 million that had been spent and $19 million noted simply as "miscellaneous spending."

Good to see that this is what happens after the school district "reforms" there school construction system.

Harrington's findings come after what Ackerman has called a major cleanup of the district's spending on facilities. Under her predecessor, Bill Rojas, the district misspent at least $100 million from four voter-approved bonds, and promised projects never materialized.

As a follow up to this post from last week, this Toronto Star article lends support to the idea of scrapping traditional traffic rules and controls to create "naked streets":

"The implementation in a number of European communities of what some have dubbed 'naked streets' has been hugely successful.

Urban planners in Holland, Germany and Denmark have experimented with this free-for-all approach to traffic management and have found it is safer than the traditional model, lowers trip times for drivers and is a boost for the businesses lining the roadway.

The idea is that by removing traffic lights, signage and sidewalks, drivers and pedestrians are forced to interact, make eye contact and adapt to the traffic instead of relying blindly on whether that little dot on the horizon is red or green.

Planners have found that without the conventional rules and regulations of the road in place, drivers tend to slow down, open their eyes to their environment and develop a "feel" for their surroundings.

In effect, every person using the street, be it an SUV owner or a kid with a wagon, becomes equal."

(Via Planetizen.com)

UPDATE: Saturday's New York Times ran a profile of Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, a pioneer of the "naked streets" concept:

"Like a naturalist conducting a tour of the jungle, he led the way to a busy intersection in the center of town, where several odd things immediately became clear. Not only was it virtually naked, stripped of all lights, signs and road markings, but there was no division between road and sidewalk. It was, basically, a bare brick square. But in spite of the apparently anarchical layout, the traffic, a steady stream of trucks, cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians, moved along fluidly and easily, as if directed by an invisible conductor. When Mr. Monderman, a traffic engineer and the intersection's proud designer, deliberately failed to check for oncoming traffic before crossing the street, the drivers slowed for him. No one honked or shouted rude words out of the window.

'Who has the right of way?' he asked rhetorically. 'I don't care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.'

. . . .

To make communities safer and more appealing, Mr. Monderman argues, you should first remove the traditional paraphernalia of their roads - the traffic lights and speed signs; the signs exhorting drivers to stop, slow down and merge; the center lines separating lanes from one another; even the speed bumps, speed-limit signs, bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. In his view, it is only when the road is made more dangerous, when drivers stop looking at signs and start looking at other people, that driving becomes safer.

"All those signs are saying to cars, 'This is your space, and we have organized your behavior so that as long as you behave this way, nothing can happen to you,' " Mr. Monderman said. "That is the wrong story."

. . . .

"It's a moving away from regulated, legislated traffic toward space which, by the way it's designed and configured, makes it clear what sort of behavior is anticipated," said Ben Hamilton-Baillie, a British specialist in urban design and movement and a proponent of many of the same concepts.
"

This is an idea whose time has come.

Competitions between federal employees and the private sector saved $1.4bn in 2004, quite a bit up from the year before as agencies are taking greater advantage of competition.

I'd like to see these savings explicitly embedded in the budgeting process so they flow back to appropriations and tax and spending cuts.

Instead of asking for a tax increase to address their financial problems, Wendell Cox urges Metro (D.C.'s transit agency) to consider "competitive tendering," allowing private companies to provide transit services with reduced subsidies. In today's Washington Post, he writes:

"Perhaps the most promising solution to Metro's cost overruns is "competitive tendering," a system by which private companies compete for the right to provide service at lower subsidies. Competitive tendering already is used for bus service in Montgomery, Fairfax, Prince George's and Prince William counties, although the counties continue to set fares and decide where and when buses will run.

Some of the world's largest transit systems have converted to competitive tendering. It started with London's famous red bus system. Since 1985 costs per mile on the London system have been halved while service has expanded. Copenhagen, Adelaide and Perth also have competitively tendered their bus systems, with savings of 20 percent or more. Stockholm has competitively tendered not only its bus system but its commuter rail system and subway, which carries 50 percent more riders than Metro does. Stockholm's savings have exceeded 50 percent.

Significant savings also have been achieved in the United States through competitive tendering in San Diego, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas."

(Via Planetizen.com)

Are the suburbs really the homogenous, sterile, and soulless landscapes as portrayed by some in the anti-sprawl community (James Kunstler's Geography of Nowhere being one prominent example)?

Apparently not, according to Brian A. Mikelbank's journal article in the latest Housing Policy Debate (hat tip: Peter Gordon):

"Suburbs are becoming increasingly diverse as they continue to comprise larger portions of the metropolitan population and employment. Former perceptions of suburban uniformity are being eroded by the variance in form and function that now characterizes them. This article analyzes data collected on 3,567 non-central-city, incorporated, metropolitan places in the United States along the dimensions of population, place, economy, and government. Specifically, a hierarchical clustering procedure, combined with discriminant analysis, identifies 10 distinct types of suburbs in the data.

Level, composition, and combinations of wealth, employment, and race drive the distinctions among suburban clusters, many of which do not fit our traditional characterizations of suburbia. In fact, only about half of all the suburbs considered are strongly characterized by these traditional traits, and these suburbs contain less than one out of every three residents considered in the analysis."

Of course, a good deal of the criticism of suburbs revolves around issues of land use and urban form (particularly in Kunstler's work), which is not the focus of this particular study. But the issues examined in the study are just as important to understanding "what are suburbs and what do they represent?" as form and land use. And what this study reinforces is that as you dig further into understanding suburbs, they take on a strikingly complex and vibrant character:

"These numbers are especially telling from a policy perspective. The perception of a uniform suburbia must make way for the current reality of suburban places. The central city versus the suburbs mentality is less relevant, since many suburbs are facing central city–like challenges and some central cities enjoy success...Treating the suburbs as the uniform benefactors of sprawl, for example, ignores the fact that many are actually its victims. Characterizing suburban challenges as merely economic or merely demographic is likewise off-target, since challenges (and opportunities) are more multidimensional. Clusters exhibiting similarities in one regard can be distinct in another, for example in the family structure and regional location of the Working Diversity clusters.

As a result, blanket policy prescriptions will not resolve the challenges faced by suburbs. It is not always an accessibility issue, a housing stock issue, or a developable land issue. As studies are starting to show consistently, the situation is more complex than previously thought. While past research has demonstrated this component by component, the present research demonstrates the interactions among components."

It's a dense, but fascinating read. Also, check out this recent piece by Joel Kotkin, which offers a lighter, but no less compelling look at suburban cultural evolution:

"Patricia Jones remembers when, as a 20-something aspiring actress, she first arrived in Southern California from Michigan. Her friends urged her to move to the bright lights of Hollywood or the hip, arty precincts of Santa Monica. But Ms. Jones, seeking 'peace and quiet' instead, chose Thousand Oaks, a bedroom suburb then a 30- to 40-minute drive northwest of Los Angeles.

Thousand Oaks indeed was quiet, but also, she recalls, 'a bit boring,' with little in the way of cultural amenities or night life. But things have changed. Twenty years later, Ms. Jones is astounded by the growth of a vital culture community smack in the middle of this land of shopping malls, high-tech office parks and ubiquitous SUVs. 'Now it's a place where people live, work and find their entertainment. It's a totally different environment.'

Ms. Jones should know. She's president of the Alliance for the Arts, a group that helps raise funds for Thousand Oaks' sprawling $63 million Civic Arts Plaza, which over the past year can boast of the likes of 'Aida,' Paul Anka and Wynton Marsalis among its 400 performances. And this performance center's development reflects a profound shift in the cultural geography of America. At a time when many cities are basing their long-term hope on exploiting their traditional dominance in arts-related industries, the suburbs are beginning to provide some serious competition for both patrons and donors.

. . . .

Patrons, meanwhile, are finding that the increasing time needed to commute to the city makes local venues all the more attractive. 'Getting into the city is getting harder and harder,' Mr. Pastreich explains. 'The parking, the traffic, the lines are not worth the tradeoff when you can get a basically downtown-quality performance close to home.'

'What's happening is that the power base is shifting to the suburbs -- they have the political and economic power to get what they want,' observes Neal Cuthbert, arts program manager for the Minneapolis-based McKnight Foundation. He points to a 'quiet arts revolution' taking place in the region's hinterlands, including major arts developments in Anoka, Hopkins and Minnetonka, as well as a new $7.2 million arts project in suburban Bloomington, home to the massive Mall of America."

Time to rethink your conception of the "suburb," folks. Suburbia does have a soul, and it's getting deeper by the day.

UPDATE: Don't miss this other Kotkin piece from The American Enterprise.

In a sign of a spreading movement, the passage of Oregon's Measure 37 (see here, here, and here) is inspiring activists in neighboring Washington to pursue their own property rights initiative.

The Puget Sound Business Journal writes:

"Emboldened by the success of property-rights initiative Measure 37 in Oregon, critics of Washington's current land-use policies are considering launching an initiative of their own.

Several prominent property-rights and land-use groups expect to meet Jan. 14 at the Olympia offices of the Building Industry Association of Washington to discuss the possibility.

Organizer Gary Tripp of Bainbridge Citizens United is bringing together some of the state's initiative veterans -- including the BIAW and Tim Eyman -- with Measure 37's sponsor, Oregonians in Action. OIA executive director David Hunnicutt will speak at the meeting.

Other groups sending representatives include the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Washington Farm Bureau, the Washington State Grange and the Washington Policy Center.

Tripp said he's lining up a spokesperson, a campaign manager and funding for the group, tentatively called Balanced Rights."

More power to 'em. But according to the Seattle Times

"Environmental activists say they'll be ready to fight it.

'We're definitely starting to work on the issue,' said Tim Trohimovich, planning director for the environmental group 1000 Friends of Washington."

The Business Journal adds:

"'What happened in Oregon is they got stuck with a misleading ballot title. That's not going to happen here,' said John Healy, communications director with land-use environmental group 1000 Friends of Washington. 'The conventional wisdom says that a good ballot title is worth a couple of million dollars in campaign contributions.'

Healy says he expects that once the effects of Measure 37 become clear, Oregon voters will want it modified. In the meantime, Healy expects a fight in Washington, with property rights groups on one side and the environmental community, labor, cities and counties on the other.

'This would be a big fight,' Healy said, 'and I suspect there would be national players involved.' "

Hmmm. The ballot title for Measure 37 was, "Governments Must Pay Owners, or Forgo Enforcement, When Certain Land Use Restrictions Reduce Property Value." Doesn't seem that misleading to me; in fact, it seems pretty straightforward and consistent with what the initiative calls for. I don't think that the title was the problem in Oregon. Voters displayed their dissatisfaction with the way statewide land use planning has played out there over the last thirty+ years.

It will be interesting to see how this battle plays out in Washington. Will enviros will be able learn from the Measure 37 experience to refine their message in a way more palatable to voters? Anti-Measure 37 groups suffered a major defeat in Oregon, with some 60% of voters passing the initiative and all but one county voting for it.

Stay tuned.

I think that this article presents an overly gloomy view of private conservation in the West, but the prescription is on the right track:

"By any yardstick -- watershed acres, animal species, ecological processes -- conservation success on private land [in the American West] has been small. While many environmentalists correctly note that half of the West is publicly owned and thus held in trust for the public good, they rarely mention the other part of that equation: Half of the West is in private hands.

This is significant because, as many researchers have written, private lands contain the most productive soils, are located at lower elevations and often include key riparian areas. Wildlife biologist Rick Knight, who teaches at Colorado State University, put it this way: "We will not be able to sustain native biodiversity in the Mountain West by relying merely on protected areas. Future conservation efforts to protect this region's natural heritage will require closer attention being paid to the role of private lands."

But how? The tactics of demonization, litigation, regulation and pressure politics may be effective on public lands -- though to a diminishing degree these days -- but they're essentially useless on private land.

They won't work because they're tools of coercion. They're useful to right a wrong or quick-fix a crisis, but ineffective for chronic afflictions, such as the slow decline of biological diversity. Our ecological crisis is really a social crisis, and you don't change human behavior with a hammer.

. . . .

Many land-buying organizations have recently turned to collaborative, community-based projects to widen the conservation impact across threatened landscapes. At the same time, other conservation organizations, such as Defenders of Wildlife and Environmental Defense, offer incentive programs and other tools to encourage better land use among private landowners.

But more than anything, environmentalists need to make peace with ranchers and other landowners. And everyone needs to begin a dialogue about the health of the land and economic opportunity, regardless of where the fences may go."

It's nice to hear from voices in the environmental community calling for collaboration, not coersion, with regard to private conservation and land management. The author is correct that familiar "hammer" approaches to environmental policy in the context of private lands would be divisive and counterproductive. In contrast, innovations like market-based incentive systems open the door for significant progress towards the goals of environmentally-responsible land stewardship and ecosystem improvement.

PERC's recent book, "Incentives and Conservation: The Next Generation of Environmentalists," explores these ideas in further detail. Also, be sure to check out Reason's Private Conservation Resource Center for more resources on private conservation.

(Hat Tip: Nature Noted)

A NY Times article looks at laws against using a cell phone without a headset while driving. . .

But with cellphone-related incidents making up only a small percentage of motor vehicle accidents, even government officials wonder why this particular behavior was chosen for a law, since studies have shown that hands-free and hand-held cellphones are equally distracting.

"We've evaluated and come to the conclusion that hands-free use is just as risky or perhaps riskier than hand-held phones because it's the cognitive distraction that can compromise driving," said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Well, hell, by "cognitive distraction" she means talking! So lets ban those passengers. Heck, encouraging carpooling is encouraging cognitive distraction and putting people at risk!

How about this, folks. Drivers are responsible for having their head on the road. If not and they cause an accident, they are responsible. Stop tying to find all the things in the world that can distract the easily distracted and ban them. Something else will just come along.

Hat tip to Fedlog for the lead on this article.

Here's an example of the kind of onerous situation that can arise under statewide growth management systems, like the ones in place in Florida and Oregon:

"Palm Beach County legislators served notice Wednesday that growth in western agricultural areas could be taken out of county control unless the commission approves a growth plan of its own.

In a joint meeting with commissioners, members of the county's legislative delegation said that if the county had approved its so-called 'sector plan,' it wouldn't be faced with another potential fight against an 'agricultural enclave bill.'

Last year, Gov. Jeb Bush vetoed the bill, saying the rules would encourage urban sprawl and take growth control from local governments. The bill would have allowed farmers to skirt local development restrictions — particularly on land surrounding the proposed Scripps Florida biotech park.

The controversial 'sector plan,' a detailed proposal to control and manage growth in the west-central part of the county, has been an off-and-on issue for several years. It is up for discussion again by the county commission on Tuesday."

. . . .

Farm owners across the state pushed for the legislation last year, arguing that the law would protect them and their property values from layers of government regulations.

A draft of the legislation would allow development of any unincorporated, undeveloped property of less than 7,500 acres, surrounded on at least 75 percent of its property by developed industrial, commercial or residential land, to match the nearby development. That could be done without changing the local government's comprehensive plan."

Of course, I don't see any reason that farm owners whose properties are surrounded by more intensive land uses shouldn't be allowed to pursue development of their properties. Preserving farmland for farmland's sake doesn't make any sense, particularly when they effectively become infill opportunities vis-a-vis surrounding uses.

But what I object to is the principle, whatever the motivation, that the state government should step in when it disagrees with a local or county government's land use regulation or zoning decisions.

Here's what Sam Staley and Lynne Scarlett had to say about home rule in a 1997 Reason study:

"Local planning decisions should be protected from regional or state planning decisionmaking. The extent to which local developments have negative impacts on communities and neighbors can best be evaluated at the local level. Decentralized governance allows policy to match citizen tastes. Thus, diversity in local government accommodates diversity among and within communities.

. . . .

State and regional planning authorities are less likely to have the knowledge or forecasting ability to more accurately or reliably predict land use trends on the local level. They are also more displaced from community interests and desires. Therefore, intervention from regional or state planning agencies or authorities should occur only when a clear public interest or need is identified, or spillover effects are identified and not addressed in the proposed plan."

For more on the problems associated with statewide growth management, check out this 2001 study by Sam Staley and yours truly.

(Via Planetizen)

Houston’s light rail line turns one.

How time flies.

So much has happened, but the real question is: Has rail made Houston any gentler?

From Philly:

Gov. Rendell yesterday released the first $50 million in state funds needed to begin a long-awaited $632 million expansion of the Convention Center …

The expansion plan, which was unveiled more than six years ago, calls for adding almost 300,000 square feet of exhibit space to the 440,000 square feet in the building now…

Dozens of buildings, most of them occupied by offices and apartments, will have to be acquired and demolished to make way for construction.

And just how will those buildings be “acquired”?

The names change, but the same old story surfaces in city after city:

Philadelphia political leaders and hospitality officials are convinced that a larger building can attract dozens of groups that now cannot fit their conventions in the center. Although some studies [You mean like this one?] indicate an overabundance of convention centers nationwide, the Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau contends that a larger building will help the city draw more shows and meetings than it has now…

There are more promising developments in Detroit:

High-ranking Detroit officials are meeting with a Las Vegas casino and convention center operator to discuss taking over and expanding Cobo Center…

After they fall for the convention center boondoggle, cities can turn to private management to decrease the financial drag. In fact, private stadium management turns out to be quite satisfying.

Some background:

The council, at the insistence of Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), approved stadium financing legislation last month mandating that half the project be funded with private money. Major League Baseball officials said that District officials were free to pursue private money, but they convinced Cropp to remove a clause in the legislation that said the project would die if no private financing were found.

The situation looked bleak, but now eight groups have submitted offers for private financing :

The financing plan approved by the council allows District officials to issue nearly $550 million in bonds. If enough private money is found, the bonds could be paid off without a gross receipts tax on city businesses.

For more on this topic, see this recent post on Florida’s stadium drama.

OMB's latest scorecard on federal agency implementation of the President's Management Agenda was released this week. It evaluates agencies according to the five key initiatives from the President's Management Agenda: human capital, competitive sourcing, financial performance, e-government, and budget/performance integration.

The results were definitely mixed, with four agencies (Defense, Veteran's Affairs, the Office of Personnel Management and the Small Business Administation) experiencing declining scores in one of the five categories.

But there were some bright spots as well. Six agencies (Commerce, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, the National Science Foundation and the Social Security Administration) improved their scores in at least one category, with Commerce and State improving in two categories each. Both improved to green (the highest level) in financial performance, for example.

This GovExec.com piece by Kimberly Palmer examines the improvements and declines in greater detail and offers a balanced perspective on the overall report:

" 'The message from these status downgrades is that implementing the PMA is hard work, requiring significant, unequivocal attention by management; and we are serious about holding departments accountable,' said Clay Johnson, OMB's deputy director for management, in written remarks.

. . . .

'The progression is still to green. Four years ago, you saw a sea of red; today, you're seeing green cropping up. This is great news,' said Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, an Arlington, Va., think tank devoted to the study of government management.

The fact that four scores were lowered is 'a shot across the bow for those who may start to get lethargic on management reform,' said DeMaio.

The tougher scores may signal that in its second term, the Bush administration will be tougher on agencies, said [Professional Services Council president Stan] Soloway. 'Anybody who thought the score card was entirely a sham is wrong,' he said."

Let's hope that Mr. Soloway is correct. The tougher the Administation is on agencies, the more their performance will improve and the more accountable they will be to the American taxpayers.

Traffic congestion isn’t simply an issue of too much growth; it’s an issue of too much political control. Swerve away from the political process that dominates road building, and you can avoid a whole lot of gridlock.

Bob Poole explains how to do that in his new study, Building for the Future: Easing California’s Transportation Crisis with Tolls and Public-Private Partnerships.

Just one day old, and it’s already causing quite a stir. Here’s some coverage:

San Francisco Chronicle

San Jose Mercury News

Los Angeles Daily News

Los Angeles Business Journal

Oakland Tribune

As a follow-up to Ted Balaker's earlier post on malaria and DDT, I saw that Tech Central Station ran a piece today by CEI's Angela Logomasini in which she argues for the emergency use of DDT to prevent the tsunami death toll from rising even higher as a result of malaria:

"Imagine that every year the world suffered from six or more tsunamis producing the horrific death toll recently experienced. That's how many people die every year from malaria alone, and the tsunami may contribute to even higher rates this year. That disaster has created new habitat suitable for the proliferation of malaria and other disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Public health officials can take steps to reduce the impact, one of which involves using the controversial pesticide DDT. Since the 1960s green activists pushed bans of the substance around the world based largely on false claims about its health affects. The result was a public health disaster -- contributing to skyrocketing malaria rates.

. . . .

The tsunami disaster certainly warrants emergency use of DDT -- as some environmental activists admit. But equally clear is that the annual malaria disaster in Africa and other parts of the world warrants its use around the world today and as long as it is needed in the future."

And the Washington Times agrees:

"The butcher's bill from the tsunami that hit Southeast Asia and East Africa last month is broaching the 200,000 mark. That number, as tragic as it is, could be increased by some magnitudes if something isn't done immediately to halt the onset of malaria, which has already been detected in Indonesia. Yet, inexplicably, the most effective way to combat malaria — spraying the insecticide DDT — is not being used by the world's leading aid organizations. Instead, we're giving those most at risk bed nets. Why? Because of baseless Western fears that DDT is more dangerous to humans than malaria, which causes 2 to 3 million deaths every year."

However, not everyone agrees, though I personally find this argument less than persuasive. I suspect that JunkScience.com's Steven Milloy wouldn't find it persuasive either.

Sure it’s a scam when zillionaire pro sports owners get taxpayers to pay for new stadiums. It’s even worse when they turn up the heat by threatening to leave town.

But calling them terrorists might be a tad over-the-top.

For years the Florida Marlins have been trying to get the state to fork over some public funds for a new stadium. Last month team officials even traveled to Las Vegas to flirt with the mayor about a possible move.

Now the Marlins’ president sends a letter to state House speaker Allan Bense asking for $60 million:

Bense said Wednesday that he has not studied the Marlins' new request but plans to review it.

Senate president Tom Lee appeared less receptive.

"I thought that we already appropriated money to help them move to Vegas," he said. "I was very disappointed that they publicly announced the negotiations and discussions with Las Vegas, and I don't negotiate with terrorists."

Well, if we are going to broaden the definition of terrorist like that can we at least put the Patriot Act to good use and use it to stop some of these boondoggles?

Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub explains the real numbers on education spending in California in response to the newest advertisement by the California Teachers Association.

Love the teachers, hate the union

1998-99: $5,751 per student
2004-05: $7,012
2005-06: $7,374 (proposed)

There are more calls for more aid. A new UN report says rich nations like the US should more than double the amount of aid they give to poor nations:

"What we're proposing is a strategy of investment to help empower the lives of very poor people that lack the tools and sometimes even the basic means to stay alive, much less be productive members of a fast-paced world economy," said Professor Jeffrey Sachs, head of the U.N. anti-poverty effort and lead author of the report.

Since independence Africa has invested too heavily in seeking donor aid, which has compromised African productivity. Our aim is to find homegrown solutions to the major problems afflicting Africa … It is now up to Africans to use trade to dismantle barriers and create a huge market for themselves. Trade will bring with it cultural exchange, knowledge, competition, productivity, peace and prosperity.

The UN report also brings renewed attention to malaria, which kills 3 million people per year, most of whom are African children.

But what’s the best way to fight malaria? The UN report suggests bed nets, but James points me to this article that questions their effectiveness:

Although touted as the most affordable shield