The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[datonn]

Our economy is doomed because of suburban sprawl now?

Doomed? Hardly.

Severely market constrained and fiscally burdened? Absolutely. I'll try to get some of the links to the cost of sprawl, but it's a significant economic detractor when there is not the right balance between suburban areas with certain urban centers connected by modes of transit other than the auto. A lot of data on this subject.

Heck, just google cost of sprawl

Makes me sound like Chicken Little (Al Gore? LOL)...but I probably would go so far as to say 'doomed.' Our national debt right now stands at around $17.5 trillion, and it isn't decreasing. Meanwhile, we're literally surrounded by aging infrastructure. But instead of using what we have more effectively and repairing what is falling into disrepair, we're building more, new infrastructure to serve more, new developments. Deferring maintenance on existing infrastructure into next year, next budget cycle, the next administration. And I always want to ask the Conservatives who are practically militant about reducing the size of government how, specifically, this practice would be anything other than the polar opposite of what they say they support.

I left the city for small town living over a decade ago. But I'm one who successfully works across the planet without ever needing to leave my home. I get to travel the world for what I do, but that's only 4-5 trips/year. The rest of the year, I'd never need to even leave the house if I didn't need food, friends, or exercise. I have neighbors who have a TWO-HOUR (one way) commute to Minneapolis Saint Paul. :shocked: And I tell them, all the environmental damage aside, is it really worth the 20 hours of your life in a car every week? Have they given any thought to what else they might be able to do with that 1,000 hours/year, or how much money they spend on gas and auto maintenance to make that 25-30 percent higher salary. How they could be a "sandwich artist" at Subway during those 1,000 hours they're spending in the car and:

1. Net more money.

2. Still have more time to spend with their wife and kids.

I swear people can't see past the tip of their noses on this issue. Or "if it's good for me," how it might not be good for society. For the environment. But if Conservatives REALLY, TRULY care about the size of government? Let's talk about reducing the need for spending on infrastructure too. With environmental benefits being a positive side-effect as a direct result.

 

[mattdaddy]

As far as more direct ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels I would like to see more attention on algae biofuel, thorium nuclear, and solar paint.

 

[DiStefano]

As far as more direct ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels I would like to see more attention on algae biofuel, thorium nuclear, and solar paint.

Paint bikinis on hot models. That's a twofer.

 

[DrJ]

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.

Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

This will be foreign to you, but the primary reason I leave the neighborhood is to connect to other people that live elsewhere. WebEx, 3D printers, drones, etc. won't completely replace this.

That's inefficient and bad for the environment. You do care about the environment and global warming, right?

 

[DrJ]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

Actually, the dinosaurs are those who continue to push for an antiquated model of auto oriented development when it's proven itself economically unsustainable.

And sometimes you do need to look at the centrioles for context.

Predictions have been made since the mid-late 90s that telecommuting and the internet would render the workplace irrelevant.

It hasn't. Now, the workplace has changed , especially for the growing innovation / creative class economy (Which made up about 10% of the workforce as recently as the 80s, is about a third today and will likely rise to over 50% in another decade or so). More shared space. Less formal work areas and private offices. More communal working in and out of "the office environment" ( cafés, parks, bars, places ).

However there is a driving human social need along with significant efficiencies and economic benefits by going to a workplace, interacting, sharing ideas and community.

While there is less need for travel for many needs, there's still an absolute need to shake a hand, look someone in an eye, work through tough issues in the same room, network, break bread.

Humans are social creatures. Have been for millenia and that won't change.

There isn't a NEED for any of that crap, and the humans that rely on such interactions to conduct their business will be rendered obsolete over time. The only reason is hasn't happened more quickly is because dinosaurs have such a huge amount of control over things right now.

 

[Koya]

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.

Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

This will be foreign to you, but the primary reason I leave the neighborhood is to connect to other people that live elsewhere. WebEx, 3D printers, drones, etc. won't completely replace this.

That's inefficient and bad for the environment. You do care about the environment and global warming, right?

Comments like this are becoming rather tiresome.

First, you are trying. Strawman / red herring approach of avoiding constructive dialogue.

Second, you are espousing that providing land use and transportation that IS more efficient and IS more environmentally sensitive is not acceptable as you dispel the need for rail and other public transit in lieu of the auto.

Then, after you've constrained the conversation to auto only, you have the audacity ( or just short sightedness?) to complain that a simple human necessity and business need to visit other places is well, innefficient and environmentally damaging.

YOUR suggestion to stay with the auto will provide that ol' self fulfilling prophecy of make it not for the auto then talk how transit won't work and blame people for being inefficent because you've forced them into a very limited choice of mobility options.

 

[DrJ]

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.

Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

This will be foreign to you, but the primary reason I leave the neighborhood is to connect to other people that live elsewhere. WebEx, 3D printers, drones, etc. won't completely replace this.

That's inefficient and bad for the environment. You do care about the environment and global warming, right?

Comments like this are becoming rather tiresome.

First, you are trying. Strawman / red herring approach of avoiding constructive dialogue.

Second, you are espousing that providing land use and transportation that IS more efficient and IS more environmentally sensitive is not acceptable as you dispel the need for rail and other public transit in lieu of the auto.

Then, after you've constrained the conversation to auto only, you have the audacity ( or just short sightedness?) to complain that a simple human necessity and business need to visit other places is well, innefficient and environmentally damaging.

YOUR suggestion to stay with the auto will provide that ol' self fulfilling prophecy of make it not for the auto then talk how transit won't work and blame people for being inefficent because you've forced them into a very limited choice of mobility options.

No, you're the one constraining the conversation to humans having to be transported all over the nation to conduct their business. It's inefficient and increasingly unnecessary. It constrains our economy. There's no reason to heavily invest in this antiquated model of doing business with far superior options available.

 

[Koya]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

Actually, the dinosaurs are those who continue to push for an antiquated model of auto oriented development when it's proven itself economically unsustainable.And sometimes you do need to look at the centrioles for context.

Predictions have been made since the mid-late 90s that telecommuting and the internet would render the workplace irrelevant.

It hasn't. Now, the workplace has changed , especially for the growing innovation / creative class economy (Which made up about 10% of the workforce as recently as the 80s, is about a third today and will likely rise to over 50% in another decade or so). More shared space. Less formal work areas and private offices. More communal working in and out of "the office environment" ( cafés, parks, bars, places ).

However there is a driving human social need along with significant efficiencies and economic benefits by going to a workplace, interacting, sharing ideas and community.

While there is less need for travel for many needs, there's still an absolute need to shake a hand, look someone in an eye, work through tough issues in the same room, network, break bread.

Humans are social creatures. Have been for millenia and that won't change.

There isn't a NEED for any of that crap, and the humans that rely on such interactions to conduct their business will be rendered obsolete over time. The only reason is hasn't happened more quickly is because dinosaurs have such a huge amount of control over things right now.

Wow. Don't even know where to go.

Talk to economic development directors. HR Executives. The nations top corporate relocation consultants. Tech industry consultants. I could go on.

They are needs. 100%, unless you don't see economic competitiveness as a need.

 

[DrJ]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

Actually, the dinosaurs are those who continue to push for an antiquated model of auto oriented development when it's proven itself economically unsustainable.And sometimes you do need to look at the centrioles for context.

Predictions have been made since the mid-late 90s that telecommuting and the internet would render the workplace irrelevant.

It hasn't. Now, the workplace has changed , especially for the growing innovation / creative class economy (Which made up about 10% of the workforce as recently as the 80s, is about a third today and will likely rise to over 50% in another decade or so). More shared space. Less formal work areas and private offices. More communal working in and out of "the office environment" ( cafés, parks, bars, places ).

However there is a driving human social need along with significant efficiencies and economic benefits by going to a workplace, interacting, sharing ideas and community.

While there is less need for travel for many needs, there's still an absolute need to shake a hand, look someone in an eye, work through tough issues in the same room, network, break bread.

Humans are social creatures. Have been for millenia and that won't change.

There isn't a NEED for any of that crap, and the humans that rely on such interactions to conduct their business will be rendered obsolete over time. The only reason is hasn't happened more quickly is because dinosaurs have such a huge amount of control over things right now.

Wow. Don't even know where to go.

Talk to economic development directors. HR Executives. The nations top corporate relocation consultants. Tech industry consultants. I could go on.

They are needs. 100%, unless you don't see economic competitiveness as a need.

You mean the dinosaurs?

 

[Koya]

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.

Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

This will be foreign to you, but the primary reason I leave the neighborhood is to connect to other people that live elsewhere. WebEx, 3D printers, drones, etc. won't completely replace this.

That's inefficient and bad for the environment. You do care about the environment and global warming, right?

Comments like this are becoming rather tiresome.First, you are trying. Strawman / red herring approach of avoiding constructive dialogue.

Second, you are espousing that providing land use and transportation that IS more efficient and IS more environmentally sensitive is not acceptable as you dispel the need for rail and other public transit in lieu of the auto.

Then, after you've constrained the conversation to auto only, you have the audacity ( or just short sightedness?) to complain that a simple human necessity and business need to visit other places is well, innefficient and environmentally damaging.

YOUR suggestion to stay with the auto will provide that ol' self fulfilling prophecy of make it not for the auto then talk how transit won't work and blame people for being inefficent because you've forced them into a very limited choice of mobility options.

No, you're the one constraining the conversation to humans having to be transported all over the nation to conduct their business. It's inefficient and increasingly unnecessary. It constrains our economy. There's no reason to heavily invest in this antiquated model of doing business with far superior options available.

As I noted above, people who's career it is to understand the needs of business are 100% in contradiction to your baseless and patently false comments.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The facts here are quote clear. The economy is moving more and more to an innovation economy. To work and thrive, the innovation economy needs places - live/ work/ learn/ shop and play environments. Co working environments. Places to gather, mingle. A mesh between career life and social life.

And ALL of these REALITIES are predicated on making dense places with a complex mix of uses to created an economic ecosystem that simply cannot exist and thrive without the very infrastructure you rail against .

To have a dinosaur throw out items that are simpy not true, who shows no understanding of how the emerging innovation economy even works, calling those who recognize these trends and the need to invest in our nation to better position ourselves within this economy would be laughable, if this miopic and misguided world view were not held by so many stuck in a system that worked 40 years ago but is, literally coming apart at the seems, today.

 

[Koya]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

 

[humpback]

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

Isn't this based on a bunch of subjective opinions?

Two comments:

1. My opinions have been formed primarily through my activity as a real estate developer - originally auto/suburban based before recognizing tremendous market demand for more urban living. As such it's about 10 years of studies from industry, flowing legislative efforts in DC and reading a lot of imperial data.

2. More importantly, the very comment you highlighted is a call to action not a demand for a specific action. I stated that we need to construct more infrastructure based upon business principles of controlled and managed growth, need to fund investment up front to accrue profits down the road and as such based upon a return on investment ( recognizing that this has a bit of art to the match as infrastructure by nature has benefits that are not always 100% correlateable as it's shared by so many). That said there are ways to measure ROI to determine what types of investment make more sense.

Yes, I know you have a dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean your predictions will (or won't) come to fruition.

My point was that ROI is going to be very different depending on who you talk to- there isn't a right or wrong answer, and you couldn't accurately calculate it even if there were.

 

[DrJ]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

 

[Koya]

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

Isn't this based on a bunch of subjective opinions?

Two comments:1. My opinions have been formed primarily through my activity as a real estate developer - originally auto/suburban based before recognizing tremendous market demand for more urban living. As such it's about 10 years of studies from industry, flowing legislative efforts in DC and reading a lot of imperial data.

2. More importantly, the very comment you highlighted is a call to action not a demand for a specific action. I stated that we need to construct more infrastructure based upon business principles of controlled and managed growth, need to fund investment up front to accrue profits down the road and as such based upon a return on investment ( recognizing that this has a bit of art to the match as infrastructure by nature has benefits that are not always 100% correlateable as it's shared by so many). That said there are ways to measure ROI to determine what types of investment make more sense.

Yes, I know you have a dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean your predictions will (or won't) come to fruition. My point was that ROI is going to be very different depending on who you talk to- there isn't a right or wrong answer, and you couldn't accurately calculate it even if there were.

I do have a dog in this fight because the market clearly shows a huge business opportunity. I grew up a suburban boy but when I see the clear trends that are out there my opinion of things shifted to meet and take advantage of that reality.

To your point about ROI, it can be difficult to measure. But not totally impossible. That is why the private sector has been willing to participate by giving a portion of tier future profits to pay for the upfront costs of the infrastructure needed to get there. There are mechanisms that demonstrate rail infrastructure when matched with proper land use decisions result in a 6:1 to a 9:1 ratio of private investment to public investment.

For one of our projects, $25 million in public infrastructure ( sewer in this case) will allow my company to directly spur $2 Billion in investment over the next 10-15 years while also allowing god knows how many other smaller projects to move forward.

I'd say that's a pretty nice ROI, especially considering our project alone, impossible without this investment, will create 12000 construction job years and 5000 permanent jobs as tens of millions on new tax revenues at full build out.

Not sure how you argue with that direct ROI. Add the ancillary development and the creation of a vibrant ace where there was once a near ghetto, the ability to retain our young workforce and attract the companies that employ them.

When you combine our project with the other half dozen or so mega projects or large projects, the various investments in infrastructure will help transform a region from purely suburban, uncompetitive and antiquated to a potentially far more vibrant, attractive and economically sustainable region.

Now THATS real ROI.

Oh and to swing back to topic at hand, while I am talking pure economics and ROI, the market happens to want a mode of building, placemaking and transportation options that are FAR more environmentally friendly than what we had seen over the last 70 years

 

[Koya]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

So, your answer to my question of please show me SOME backing for your opinions is to say nothing.

Ever think that I am vested in this because it's a smart business move to vest yourself in.

Second, you conveniently ignore any facts that may run counter to your predisposed opinion that's based upon either no facts or falsehoods.

I never said you reconfigure the whole country. I suggest we evolve and adapt to new circumstances to better address economic competitiveness not to mention the environment. Areas like the north east have huge opportunities to better utilize existing infrastructure such as rail by building density where you now have parking lots. Areas like Charlotte are ripe for light rail, bus rapid or trolley rapid transit. Out west, LA is an early stage case study to see a region redefine its mobility options and you can utilize that strategy in other cities and then potentially connect them via HSR where there would be a sensible manner to do so.

So, I keep timing up facts, industry based anecdotes and pure examples. You've done nothing but called me a dinosaur when it's not my thinking that's decades behind today's economic realities

 

[StrikeS2k]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

So, your answer to my question of please show me SOME backing for your opinions is to say nothing.

Ever think that I am vested in this because it's a smart business move to vest yourself in.

Second, you conveniently ignore any facts that may run counter to your predisposed opinion that's based upon either no facts or falsehoods.

I never said you reconfigure the whole country. I suggest we evolve and adapt to new circumstances to better address economic competitiveness not to mention the environment. Areas like the north east have huge opportunities to better utilize existing infrastructure such as rail by building density where you now have parking lots. Areas like Charlotte are ripe for light rail, bus rapid or trolley rapid transit. Out west, LA is an early stage case study to see a region redefine its mobility options and you can utilize that strategy in other cities and then potentially connect them via HSR where there would be a sensible manner to do so.

So, I keep timing up facts, industry based anecdotes and pure examples. You've done nothing but called me a dinosaur when it's not my thinking that's decades behind today's economic realities

1) Where it makes sense we're already seeing the reconfiguration you're talking about. Here in Denver, you're seeing apartment/business pods being build around many of the light rail stations that have cropped up over the last 15 years. I'm sure the same thing is happening in other places.

2) What exactly are you referring to with regards to LA redefining it's mobility options?

3) With regards to HSR, that's a joke. Why? Because you can't go high speed in developed areas. So the studies I saw about the proposed HSR line from Los Angeles to San Francisco only had about 25% of the route actually moving at high speed. And CA is much less dense than east coast states where you're suggesting we deploy HSR. Heck, 60 minutes did an expose on a supposed HSR line that was built using a grant from the Obama administration specifically designated for HSR, and that line is moving on average 5 MPH faster than the one it replaced. So let's quit with the fantasies about HSR. Maybe on a line from LA to Vegas it might be useful but HSR is going to be the exception and not the rule.

 

[humpback]

Koya, we've had this discussion before so I don't want to hijack this thread much more, but all sorts of "huge business opportunities" have flopped in the past. There's simply no way of knowing the "right" answer now- if you build it, maybe they'll come, but maybe not. Maybe you will transform these areas (maybe not), but there will almost certainly be negative impacts to other areas to consider as well.

Also, we're talking about ROI in context of this global warming thread and all of the indirect, really unmeasurable factors that go into the equation. Some people will assign them a heavy weighting, others much lower, and the values assigned to them will be all over the map. Again, no right or wrong answer, and it will vary greatly depending on who you ask.

 

[DrJ]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

So, your answer to my question of please show me SOME backing for your opinions is to say nothing.

Ever think that I am vested in this because it's a smart business move to vest yourself in.

Second, you conveniently ignore any facts that may run counter to your predisposed opinion that's based upon either no facts or falsehoods.

I never said you reconfigure the whole country. I suggest we evolve and adapt to new circumstances to better address economic competitiveness not to mention the environment. Areas like the north east have huge opportunities to better utilize existing infrastructure such as rail by building density where you now have parking lots. Areas like Charlotte are ripe for light rail, bus rapid or trolley rapid transit. Out west, LA is an early stage case study to see a region redefine its mobility options and you can utilize that strategy in other cities and then potentially connect them via HSR where there would be a sensible manner to do so.

So, I keep timing up facts, industry based anecdotes and pure examples. You've done nothing but called me a dinosaur when it's not my thinking that's decades behind today's economic realities

Sorry I'm not as long winded as you are, but there's plenty of information out there regarding the efficiency increases of teleworkers and home offices. Not to mention, it just makes plain common sense.

 

[jon_mx]

If fighting Surburban sprawl is the key to economic competitiveness, Japan should be eating the rest of the world for breakfast. Instead they have been stagnant for decades. Auto's make up nearly the same amount of the total transportation as it does in the US. New York is the most compact city we have, and yet they have very long commute times. I am not buying the Eutopia from the anti-surban sprawl crowd.

 

[timschochet]

Koya, you do make some intriguing arguments. But again, I keep coming back to the fact that if the ROI is so promising, then a consortium of private investors should do it, not the public. If you need public set asides of land and even some eminent domain, that's one thing. But to ask for a large public investment at a time when there are so many urgent matters to deal with (for instance, the debt and the need for new energy sources) seems unreasonable to me.

 

[Koya]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

Actually, the dinosaurs are those who continue to push for an antiquated model of auto oriented development when it's proven itself economically unsustainable.And sometimes you do need to look at the centrioles for context.

Predictions have been made since the mid-late 90s that telecommuting and the internet would render the workplace irrelevant.

It hasn't. Now, the workplace has changed , especially for the growing innovation / creative class economy (Which made up about 10% of the workforce as recently as the 80s, is about a third today and will likely rise to over 50% in another decade or so). More shared space. Less formal work areas and private offices. More communal working in and out of "the office environment" ( cafés, parks, bars, places ).

However there is a driving human social need along with significant efficiencies and economic benefits by going to a workplace, interacting, sharing ideas and community.

While there is less need for travel for many needs, there's still an absolute need to shake a hand, look someone in an eye, work through tough issues in the same room, network, break bread.

Humans are social creatures. Have been for millenia and that won't change.

There isn't a NEED for any of that crap, and the humans that rely on such interactions to conduct their business will be rendered obsolete over time. The only reason is hasn't happened more quickly is because dinosaurs have such a huge amount of control over things right now.

Wow. Don't even know where to go.

Talk to economic development directors. HR Executives. The nations top corporate relocation consultants. Tech industry consultants. I could go on.

They are needs. 100%, unless you don't see economic competitiveness as a need.

You mean the dinosaurs?

Yes, leading tech companies and the leaders in corporate relocation who study the trends of market wants and needs and regional/local check lists that would attract investment are the dinosaurs.

Those who keep yelling "dinosaurs" with NO facts and NO backing are the progressive and forward thinking people. At this point it's not worth discussing this further with you as you continue to ignore very reasonable requests for, well... any supportive facts from you.

 

[DrJ]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

Actually, the dinosaurs are those who continue to push for an antiquated model of auto oriented development when it's proven itself economically unsustainable.And sometimes you do need to look at the centrioles for context.

Predictions have been made since the mid-late 90s that telecommuting and the internet would render the workplace irrelevant.

It hasn't. Now, the workplace has changed , especially for the growing innovation / creative class economy (Which made up about 10% of the workforce as recently as the 80s, is about a third today and will likely rise to over 50% in another decade or so). More shared space. Less formal work areas and private offices. More communal working in and out of "the office environment" ( cafés, parks, bars, places ).

However there is a driving human social need along with significant efficiencies and economic benefits by going to a workplace, interacting, sharing ideas and community.

While there is less need for travel for many needs, there's still an absolute need to shake a hand, look someone in an eye, work through tough issues in the same room, network, break bread.

Humans are social creatures. Have been for millenia and that won't change.

There isn't a NEED for any of that crap, and the humans that rely on such interactions to conduct their business will be rendered obsolete over time. The only reason is hasn't happened more quickly is because dinosaurs have such a huge amount of control over things right now.

Wow. Don't even know where to go.

Talk to economic development directors. HR Executives. The nations top corporate relocation consultants. Tech industry consultants. I could go on.

They are needs. 100%, unless you don't see economic competitiveness as a need.

You mean the dinosaurs?

Yes, leading tech companies and the leaders in corporate relocation who study the trends of market wants and needs and regional/local check lists that would attract investment are the dinosaurs.

Those who keep yelling "dinosaurs" with NO facts and NO backing are the progressive and forward thinking people. At this point it's not worth discussing this further with you as you continue to ignore very reasonable requests for, well... any supportive facts from you.

What's the point when you've ignored or dismissed any facts that run contrary to this book you're writing here? And that you've written dozens of times in the past here...

 

[Koya]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

So, your answer to my question of please show me SOME backing for your opinions is to say nothing.

Ever think that I am vested in this because it's a smart business move to vest yourself in.

Second, you conveniently ignore any facts that may run counter to your predisposed opinion that's based upon either no facts or falsehoods.

I never said you reconfigure the whole country. I suggest we evolve and adapt to new circumstances to better address economic competitiveness not to mention the environment. Areas like the north east have huge opportunities to better utilize existing infrastructure such as rail by building density where you now have parking lots. Areas like Charlotte are ripe for light rail, bus rapid or trolley rapid transit. Out west, LA is an early stage case study to see a region redefine its mobility options and you can utilize that strategy in other cities and then potentially connect them via HSR where there would be a sensible manner to do so.

So, I keep timing up facts, industry based anecdotes and pure examples. You've done nothing but called me a dinosaur when it's not my thinking that's decades behind today's economic realities

1) Where it makes sense we're already seeing the reconfiguration you're talking about. Here in Denver, you're seeing apartment/business pods being build around many of the light rail stations that have cropped up over the last 15 years. I'm sure the same thing is happening in other places.

2) What exactly are you referring to with regards to LA redefining it's mobility options?

3) With regards to HSR, that's a joke. Why? Because you can't go high speed in developed areas. So the studies I saw about the proposed HSR line from Los Angeles to San Francisco only had about 25% of the route actually moving at high speed. And CA is much less dense than east coast states where you're suggesting we deploy HSR. Heck, 60 minutes did an expose on a supposed HSR line that was built using a grant from the Obama administration specifically designated for HSR, and that line is moving on average 5 MPH faster than the one it replaced. So let's quit with the fantasies about HSR. Maybe on a line from LA to Vegas it might be useful but HSR is going to be the exception and not the rule.

1. Denver's a great example. Shows the market demonstrate not only the demand, but the ROI of those infrastructure investments and land use policies

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

3. I agree that HSR has limited applications, but I am far from ready to throw the towel in, we have too much ingeniuty in this nation, if only we had the drive, focus and motivation. That said, I think there should be more investment in intra-regional transit connections rather than HSR in most cases.

 

[Koya]

Koya, we've had this discussion before so I don't want to hijack this thread much more, but all sorts of "huge business opportunities" have flopped in the past. There's simply no way of knowing the "right" answer now- if you build it, maybe they'll come, but maybe not. Maybe you will transform these areas (maybe not), but there will almost certainly be negative impacts to other areas to consider as well.

Also, we're talking about ROI in context of this global warming thread and all of the indirect, really unmeasurable factors that go into the equation. Some people will assign them a heavy weighting, others much lower, and the values assigned to them will be all over the map. Again, no right or wrong answer, and it will vary greatly depending on who you ask.

I hear you, but this is no longer theory - there are hard facts and studies, industry and market based, that show it's HAPPENING. This is not a business opportunity but rather a shift in lifestyle and consumer wants an needs, coupled with a need to re-calibrate our built environment which pushed so hard to separation of uses, the auto and suburbia that those who want an alternative other than the big City.

It's also not a build it and they will come. It's matching land use with transit (aka allowing mixed use and density near rail) to meet the need not of a speculative future market, but rather what the current market wants. That's demonstrated by the price premiums for product in these areas along with other metrics I've pointed to here and elsewhere.

I happen to agree that the ROI for environment is MUCH harder to determine. However, more and data is coming out in regard to how less auto driven areas have more health and wellness, lower cases of obesity and diabetes, etc. Which is why Im using the irrefutable economic facts rather than the admittedly debateable benefits for the environment. But if you want to have more smog and pollution rather than less, can't see how that helps anything.

 

[StrikeS2k]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Trust me I know LA. I grew up in the SFV and moved to Denver in 2006. I worked in downtown LA and took Metrolink/Red Line to work every day. So I'm familiar with it, as well as the transit options the city offers. When I left they had the subway which really doesn't go very far, a lightrail line to Pasadena, one to Long Beach, and maybe one other. Have they built more? What specifically is planned for the next "decades"? I know they've talked about continuing the Red Line a bit further and there are probably some additional light rail lines planned but I don't think they have the money to "redefine their mobility options."

I'd also love to hear more about your friends who don't have cars in LA. There are very limited number of places you could live and not need a car, and I bet you'd still be wishing you had one a decent amount of the time. So please give me some specifics on this.

 

[Koya]

Koya, you do make some intriguing arguments. But again, I keep coming back to the fact that if the ROI is so promising, then a consortium of private investors should do it, not the public. If you need public set asides of land and even some eminent domain, that's one thing. But to ask for a large public investment at a time when there are so many urgent matters to deal with (for instance, the debt and the need for new energy sources) seems unreasonable to me.

The U.S. is something like 28th in the world in infrastructure investment per capita.

Our roads and bridges are literally falling apart causing health and economic damage.

Our transit infrastructure is woefully inefficient and often non existent - huge issues economically in terms of competitiveness.

So, three things:

1. You don't think this is an URGENT national issue? Economic, national security (why do you think we built the Eisenhower HWY System?), health, environment.

2. There are instances where the private sector is taking the lead. That said, let's not be pollyanna about the realities. These are huge costs that often has a tremendous public component and public ROI (straight economics) that can't be directed associated with a particular private sector component. For fee based infrastructure (water, sewer, electric), you can have Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) where it's basically the private sector working off profit. More important, many times all the gov't needs to do is act as a financing vehicle - low cost loans paid off by taxing districts and through the value capture mechanisms of private sector future profits. But it's an oddly narrow and future-dangerous perspective to hear you say that infrastructure should not have any public investment when conducted right, in conjunction with the private sector, it results in MORE tax revenues that it does in cost.

3. You need the PUBLIC in the PPP to ensure proper oversight as Infrastructure is by and large for public use and needs to work as such.

 

[StrikeS2k]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Also, I assume you're aware that the Red Line was supposed to go all the way to the West SFV. That was squashed due to mismanagement and some fatalities during the buildout through Hollywood, so it ends at Universal Studios. When the people complained that they wanted it to go where it was originally supposed to, the city's answer was to add another bus line through the valley. That doesn't seem like a very good example of "redefining mobility options" to me. Does it to you?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Koya, you do make some intriguing arguments. But again, I keep coming back to the fact that if the ROI is so promising, then a consortium of private investors should do it, not the public. If you need public set asides of land and even some eminent domain, that's one thing. But to ask for a large public investment at a time when there are so many urgent matters to deal with (for instance, the debt and the need for new energy sources) seems unreasonable to me.

The difference here is that ROI is measured in very different terms when you are looking at Public vs. Private investment. Private ROI is obviously going to measured in the direct return on capital, while the Public ROI would include externalities, economic development (outside of what might be counted in the development of land exclusively held in the private example), quality of life, etc. Some of which can measured in direct monetary terms, but aren't typically going to be factored in when private investors are looking at investing in infrastructure projects. I'd argue in many cases the private investment in infrastructure significantly limits the public return.

ETA - what Koya said while I was writing this.

 

[timschochet]

I do believe in major investment to infrastructure. Just not sold on HSR as the solution. But you guys do provide some food for thought.

 

[Koya]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Trust me I know LA. I grew up in the SFV and moved to Denver in 2006. I worked in downtown LA and took Metrolink/Red Line to work every day. So I'm familiar with it, as well as the transit options the city offers. When I left they had the subway which really doesn't go very far, a lightrail line to Pasadena, one to Long Beach, and maybe one other. Have they built more? What specifically is planned for the next "decades"? I know they've talked about continuing the Red Line a bit further and there are probably some additional light rail lines planned but I don't think they have the money to "redefine their mobility options."

I'd also love to hear more about your friends who don't have cars in LA. There are very limited number of places you could live and not need a car, and I bet you'd still be wishing you had one a decent amount of the time. So please give me some specifics on this.

Yeah, it's pretty incredible. I dont know all the specifics, but the commuter rail (down south and to the east out to Pomona) is picking up steam, but my friend is up on the Red Line, somewhere Hollywoodish. I hear of people who work downtown and own a car, but dont need it for the commute. With a little research I could get a whole bunch more examples.

In the next decades, they have huge plans. Don't know all the specifics, but they've reached out to us to discuss how to build public support to provide land use densities that can support the new stations... and they have $30 Billion planned, much of it metro based. Heck, I never ONCE went to union station in my ten years living in LA and have been there a few times professionally and it's just amazing. People take a commuter rail to Union Station and then jump on the metro to get downtown. That was not possible when I lived and worked in LA, including downtown (well, no one lived downtown then other than skid row, but the downtown is just totally different and still rising - now, enter BILLIONS in Chinese investment soon to follow, wow).

 

[humpback]

Koya, we've had this discussion before so I don't want to hijack this thread much more, but all sorts of "huge business opportunities" have flopped in the past. There's simply no way of knowing the "right" answer now- if you build it, maybe they'll come, but maybe not. Maybe you will transform these areas (maybe not), but there will almost certainly be negative impacts to other areas to consider as well.

Also, we're talking about ROI in context of this global warming thread and all of the indirect, really unmeasurable factors that go into the equation. Some people will assign them a heavy weighting, others much lower, and the values assigned to them will be all over the map. Again, no right or wrong answer, and it will vary greatly depending on who you ask.

I hear you, but this is no longer theory - there are hard facts and studies, industry and market based, that show it's HAPPENING. This is not a business opportunity but rather a shift in lifestyle and consumer wants an needs, coupled with a need to re-calibrate our built environment which pushed so hard to separation of uses, the auto and suburbia that those who want an alternative other than the big City.

It's also not a build it and they will come. It's matching land use with transit (aka allowing mixed use and density near rail) to meet the need not of a speculative future market, but rather what the current market wants. That's demonstrated by the price premiums for product in these areas along with other metrics I've pointed to here and elsewhere.

I happen to agree that the ROI for environment is MUCH harder to determine. However, more and data is coming out in regard to how less auto driven areas have more health and wellness, lower cases of obesity and diabetes, etc. Which is why Im using the irrefutable economic facts rather than the admittedly debateable benefits for the environment. But if you want to have more smog and pollution rather than less, can't see how that helps anything.

Clearly you have your opinions and are very firm in them, so I'm not trying to sway you. However, even if it's true that there is huge demand for this (still a major "if"), why should we think this is going to be a permanent trend? What if we pour trillions into building these out, and people decide it isn't all it's cracked up to be? Why wouldn't we think demand will shift again, as it has throughout history?

Your last sentence is absurd, which is a shame- even though we may not agree here, I considered you to be a good poster (albeit clearly biased). Nonsense like that only hurts your cause.

 

[Koya]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Also, I assume you're aware that the Red Line was supposed to go all the way to the West SFV. That was squashed due to mismanagement and some fatalities during the buildout through Hollywood, so it ends at Universal Studios. When the people complained that they wanted it to go where it was originally supposed to, the city's answer was to add another bus line through the valley. That doesn't seem like a very good example of "redefining mobility options" to me. Does it to you?

I actually did not know that. Never said this would be 100% smooth sailing. I just know from big players in Real Estate who are making money around the stations on the red line and my admittedly limited knowledge of future expansion that it's really taking off. This transformations take some time - get the infrastructure and land use regulations, then build. Not instant. But the options are happening and accelerating.

Do you know who the head of LA Metro was when that happened? Their new CEO, Art Leahy, seems to really know his stuff.

 

[Koya]

Koya, we've had this discussion before so I don't want to hijack this thread much more, but all sorts of "huge business opportunities" have flopped in the past. There's simply no way of knowing the "right" answer now- if you build it, maybe they'll come, but maybe not. Maybe you will transform these areas (maybe not), but there will almost certainly be negative impacts to other areas to consider as well.

Also, we're talking about ROI in context of this global warming thread and all of the indirect, really unmeasurable factors that go into the equation. Some people will assign them a heavy weighting, others much lower, and the values assigned to them will be all over the map. Again, no right or wrong answer, and it will vary greatly depending on who you ask.

I hear you, but this is no longer theory - there are hard facts and studies, industry and market based, that show it's HAPPENING. This is not a business opportunity but rather a shift in lifestyle and consumer wants an needs, coupled with a need to re-calibrate our built environment which pushed so hard to separation of uses, the auto and suburbia that those who want an alternative other than the big City.

It's also not a build it and they will come. It's matching land use with transit (aka allowing mixed use and density near rail) to meet the need not of a speculative future market, but rather what the current market wants. That's demonstrated by the price premiums for product in these areas along with other metrics I've pointed to here and elsewhere.

I happen to agree that the ROI for environment is MUCH harder to determine. However, more and data is coming out in regard to how less auto driven areas have more health and wellness, lower cases of obesity and diabetes, etc. Which is why Im using the irrefutable economic facts rather than the admittedly debateable benefits for the environment. But if you want to have more smog and pollution rather than less, can't see how that helps anything.

Clearly you have your opinions and are very firm in them, so I'm not trying to sway you. However, even if it's true that there is huge demand for this (still a major "if"), why should we think this is going to be a permanent trend? What if we pour trillions into building these out, and people decide it isn't all it's cracked up to be? Why wouldn't we think demand will shift again, as it has throughout history?

Your last sentence is absurd, which is a shame- even though we may not agree here, I considered you to be a good poster (albeit clearly biased). Nonsense like that only hurts your cause.

Not sure how a comment about a nice side effect of less smog is so off base, please explain.

And I don't mind being swayed, I try to retain an openmind. I've evolved in this thinking over many years.

This trend won't last forever, but it's hear for a while. I've seen enough supportive hard facts and case studies to have put my career and future economic comfort on the line by going all in. Right now though, we are so unbalanced in some areas, that even to meet the demand of a portion of what I feel is out there would require trillions nationally in private and public sector dollars to catch up (Im guesstimating on the trillions, but if we are doing one project that is 2.5 billion, and working on a half dozen others at or greater than $1 Billion, i see that as pretty feasible number). Thats to meet TODAY'S demand.

 

[Thunderlips]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term.

I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."

HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

The main reason why post War was an extreme lack of housing. Now...I'm no so sure.

To me, I see tons of prime real estate that would be along mass transit lines in places like East St. Louis, IL, Wilmington, DE...Chester, PA and Camden, PA. Never understood why this real estate is left to rot.

 

[StrikeS2k]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Trust me I know LA. I grew up in the SFV and moved to Denver in 2006. I worked in downtown LA and took Metrolink/Red Line to work every day. So I'm familiar with it, as well as the transit options the city offers. When I left they had the subway which really doesn't go very far, a lightrail line to Pasadena, one to Long Beach, and maybe one other. Have they built more? What specifically is planned for the next "decades"? I know they've talked about continuing the Red Line a bit further and there are probably some additional light rail lines planned but I don't think they have the money to "redefine their mobility options."

I'd also love to hear more about your friends who don't have cars in LA. There are very limited number of places you could live and not need a car, and I bet you'd still be wishing you had one a decent amount of the time. So please give me some specifics on this.

Yeah, it's pretty incredible. I dont know all the specifics, but the commuter rail (down south and to the east out to Pomona) is picking up steam, but my friend is up on the Red Line, somewhere Hollywoodish. I hear of people who work downtown and own a car, but dont need it for the commute. With a little research I could get a whole bunch more examples.

In the next decades, they have huge plans. Don't know all the specifics, but they've reached out to us to discuss how to build public support to provide land use densities that can support the new stations... and they have $30 Billion planned, much of it metro based. Heck, I never ONCE went to union station in my ten years living in LA and have been there a few times professionally and it's just amazing. People take a commuter rail to Union Station and then jump on the metro to get downtown. That was not possible when I lived and worked in LA, including downtown (well, no one lived downtown then other than skid row, but the downtown is just totally different and still rising - now, enter BILLIONS in Chinese investment soon to follow, wow).

I was one of the people who took rail and then the Red Line to work. Yes, it's awesome. But also very limited and it will take a lot more than 30 billion over decades to "redefine" the mobility options in LA.

As far as your friend goes, are you saying you only know one person in LA who doesn't have a car? Your first post on that suggests significantly more. But assuming it's just the one. Hollywood/North Hollywood are two of the very few places it would realistically be possible to live without a car. But what about when he wants to do something outside of that small area. Because the area from Hollywood to downtown is a very small area and encompasses but a small subset of what LA has to offer. And what happens when he outgrows his 20's and wants to start a family? You think he's going to stay there? Do you think he could have a family in LA without a car?

 

[StrikeS2k]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Also, I assume you're aware that the Red Line was supposed to go all the way to the West SFV. That was squashed due to mismanagement and some fatalities during the buildout through Hollywood, so it ends at Universal Studios. When the people complained that they wanted it to go where it was originally supposed to, the city's answer was to add another bus line through the valley. That doesn't seem like a very good example of "redefining mobility options" to me. Does it to you?

I actually did not know that. Never said this would be 100% smooth sailing. I just know from big players in Real Estate who are making money around the stations on the red line and my admittedly limited knowledge of future expansion that it's really taking off. This transformations take some time - get the infrastructure and land use regulations, then build. Not instant. But the options are happening and accelerating.

Do you know who the head of LA Metro was when that happened? Their new CEO, Art Leahy, seems to really know his stuff.

Dunno who the head was. Here is a Wiki article about this bus line. Not entirely accurate but pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_%28Los_Angeles_Metro%29

If you read that article it indicates that in total they've spend over 500 million just on that bus line to go about 20 miles across the valley. What's 30 billion gonna do for rail if it costs 20 million to build one bus line?

 

[Koya]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Trust me I know LA. I grew up in the SFV and moved to Denver in 2006. I worked in downtown LA and took Metrolink/Red Line to work every day. So I'm familiar with it, as well as the transit options the city offers. When I left they had the subway which really doesn't go very far, a lightrail line to Pasadena, one to Long Beach, and maybe one other. Have they built more? What specifically is planned for the next "decades"? I know they've talked about continuing the Red Line a bit further and there are probably some additional light rail lines planned but I don't think they have the money to "redefine their mobility options."

I'd also love to hear more about your friends who don't have cars in LA. There are very limited number of places you could live and not need a car, and I bet you'd still be wishing you had one a decent amount of the time. So please give me some specifics on this.

Yeah, it's pretty incredible. I dont know all the specifics, but the commuter rail (down south and to the east out to Pomona) is picking up steam, but my friend is up on the Red Line, somewhere Hollywoodish. I hear of people who work downtown and own a car, but dont need it for the commute. With a little research I could get a whole bunch more examples.

In the next decades, they have huge plans. Don't know all the specifics, but they've reached out to us to discuss how to build public support to provide land use densities that can support the new stations... and they have $30 Billion planned, much of it metro based. Heck, I never ONCE went to union station in my ten years living in LA and have been there a few times professionally and it's just amazing. People take a commuter rail to Union Station and then jump on the metro to get downtown. That was not possible when I lived and worked in LA, including downtown (well, no one lived downtown then other than skid row, but the downtown is just totally different and still rising - now, enter BILLIONS in Chinese investment soon to follow, wow).

I was one of the people who took rail and then the Red Line to work. Yes, it's awesome. But also very limited and it will take a lot more than 30 billion over decades to "redefine" the mobility options in LA.

As far as your friend goes, are you saying you only know one person in LA who doesn't have a car? Your first post on that suggests significantly more. But assuming it's just the one. Hollywood/North Hollywood are two of the very few places it would realistically be possible to live without a car. But what about when he wants to do something outside of that small area. Because the area from Hollywood to downtown is a very small area and encompasses but a small subset of what LA has to offer. And what happens when he outgrows his 20's and wants to start a family? You think he's going to stay there? Do you think he could have a family in LA without a car?

All good questions. Most of my LA friends have moved away, but a few remain. This is one guy that moved from NY and raves about how he lives in the same area I used to live (well, roughly) and I couldnt imagine not having a car. And a bunch of his friends are the same.

Great question about growing up. Many say that the Millennial generation is more urban at heart. Others suggest they will give it up as they get families. I believe its somewhere in the middle. We will likely see more people stay in the core cities as amenities such as the highline grow and schools get better as they are in NY in some neighborhoods, but many who move to the burbs will want to have access to local, vibrant, walkable downtowns that are if not a walk, a short drive from their home... and their parents will downsize and many won't move to FLA, but rather to the very downtowns that their children lived in before their children get their own families.

 

[Koya]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Also, I assume you're aware that the Red Line was supposed to go all the way to the West SFV. That was squashed due to mismanagement and some fatalities during the buildout through Hollywood, so it ends at Universal Studios. When the people complained that they wanted it to go where it was originally supposed to, the city's answer was to add another bus line through the valley. That doesn't seem like a very good example of "redefining mobility options" to me. Does it to you?

I actually did not know that. Never said this would be 100% smooth sailing. I just know from big players in Real Estate who are making money around the stations on the red line and my admittedly limited knowledge of future expansion that it's really taking off. This transformations take some time - get the infrastructure and land use regulations, then build. Not instant. But the options are happening and accelerating.

Do you know who the head of LA Metro was when that happened? Their new CEO, Art Leahy, seems to really know his stuff.

Dunno who the head was. Here is a Wiki article about this bus line. Not entirely accurate but pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_%28Los_Angeles_Metro%29

Thanks. Art seems to have come on board (pun intended) about 5 years ago and Orange line opened almost 10 years ago.

 

[StrikeS2k]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Also, I assume you're aware that the Red Line was supposed to go all the way to the West SFV. That was squashed due to mismanagement and some fatalities during the buildout through Hollywood, so it ends at Universal Studios. When the people complained that they wanted it to go where it was originally supposed to, the city's answer was to add another bus line through the valley. That doesn't seem like a very good example of "redefining mobility options" to me. Does it to you?

I actually did not know that. Never said this would be 100% smooth sailing. I just know from big players in Real Estate who are making money around the stations on the red line and my admittedly limited knowledge of future expansion that it's really taking off. This transformations take some time - get the infrastructure and land use regulations, then build. Not instant. But the options are happening and accelerating.

Do you know who the head of LA Metro was when that happened? Their new CEO, Art Leahy, seems to really know his stuff.

Dunno who the head was. Here is a Wiki article about this bus line. Not entirely accurate but pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_%28Los_Angeles_Metro%29

Thanks. Art seems to have come on board (pun intended) about 5 years ago and Orange line opened almost 10 years ago.

If you read the article you'll see that they opened an extension in 2012 and are talking about other bus lines/extensions through the valley. So, he seems on board with that type of expansion and, again, this doesn't seem very revolutionary to me.

 

[Koya]

2. LA has dedicated $30 Billion over the coming decades for improved transit. When I left LA in the late '90s, there was almost nothing other than the auto or bus (and bus was a disaster). Since then, significant progress has been made with their metro system and a ton of investment that is happening at and around many of the new transit stations. This has helped LA attract a young demo that ignores areas like LI, or like LA USED to be, which require an auto for everything. Heck, I know people in their 20's living in LA who dont even freakin own a car anymore and love it. There are some other efforts that I can't get into, but basically its the idea that you may not need to own 4 cars for a family, but shared services, and car manufacturers switching from a sales only model to more of a usage / service oriented model and this is being done in SoCal. It comes down to a car company realizing they are not in the car business, but in the mobility business, and that business model is changing.

Also, I assume you're aware that the Red Line was supposed to go all the way to the West SFV. That was squashed due to mismanagement and some fatalities during the buildout through Hollywood, so it ends at Universal Studios. When the people complained that they wanted it to go where it was originally supposed to, the city's answer was to add another bus line through the valley. That doesn't seem like a very good example of "redefining mobility options" to me. Does it to you?

I actually did not know that. Never said this would be 100% smooth sailing. I just know from big players in Real Estate who are making money around the stations on the red line and my admittedly limited knowledge of future expansion that it's really taking off. This transformations take some time - get the infrastructure and land use regulations, then build. Not instant. But the options are happening and accelerating.

Do you know who the head of LA Metro was when that happened? Their new CEO, Art Leahy, seems to really know his stuff.

Dunno who the head was. Here is a Wiki article about this bus line. Not entirely accurate but pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_%28Los_Angeles_Metro%29

Thanks. Art seems to have come on board (pun intended) about 5 years ago and Orange line opened almost 10 years ago.

If you read the article you'll see that they opened an extension in 2012 and are talking about other bus lines/extensions through the valley. So, he seems on board with that type of expansion and, again, this doesn't seem very revolutionary to me.

It shouldn't be revolutionary. All I know if that there are huge investments in transit, especially rail, in a City that had been as auto-dominated as any in the nation... and it's showing dividends in terms of real estate growth and some shifts in life style and mobility choices that didnt exist before. That said, considering some of the comments by others in this thread, maybe it is "revolutionary" although its actually more a return to our historic routes before going all in on the auto

 

[humpback]

Koya, we've had this discussion before so I don't want to hijack this thread much more, but all sorts of "huge business opportunities" have flopped in the past. There's simply no way of knowing the "right" answer now- if you build it, maybe they'll come, but maybe not. Maybe you will transform these areas (maybe not), but there will almost certainly be negative impacts to other areas to consider as well.

Also, we're talking about ROI in context of this global warming thread and all of the indirect, really unmeasurable factors that go into the equation. Some people will assign them a heavy weighting, others much lower, and the values assigned to them will be all over the map. Again, no right or wrong answer, and it will vary greatly depending on who you ask.

I hear you, but this is no longer theory - there are hard facts and studies, industry and market based, that show it's HAPPENING. This is not a business opportunity but rather a shift in lifestyle and consumer wants an needs, coupled with a need to re-calibrate our built environment which pushed so hard to separation of uses, the auto and suburbia that those who want an alternative other than the big City.

It's also not a build it and they will come. It's matching land use with transit (aka allowing mixed use and density near rail) to meet the need not of a speculative future market, but rather what the current market wants. That's demonstrated by the price premiums for product in these areas along with other metrics I've pointed to here and elsewhere.

I happen to agree that the ROI for environment is MUCH harder to determine. However, more and data is coming out in regard to how less auto driven areas have more health and wellness, lower cases of obesity and diabetes, etc. Which is why Im using the irrefutable economic facts rather than the admittedly debateable benefits for the environment. But if you want to have more smog and pollution rather than less, can't see how that helps anything.

Clearly you have your opinions and are very firm in them, so I'm not trying to sway you. However, even if it's true that there is huge demand for this (still a major "if"), why should we think this is going to be a permanent trend? What if we pour trillions into building these out, and people decide it isn't all it's cracked up to be? Why wouldn't we think demand will shift again, as it has throughout history?

Your last sentence is absurd, which is a shame- even though we may not agree here, I considered you to be a good poster (albeit clearly biased). Nonsense like that only hurts your cause.

Not sure how a comment about a nice side effect of less smog is so off base, please explain.

And I don't mind being swayed, I try to retain an openmind. I've evolved in this thinking over many years.

This trend won't last forever, but it's hear for a while. I've seen enough supportive hard facts and case studies to have put my career and future economic comfort on the line by going all in. Right now though, we are so unbalanced in some areas, that even to meet the demand of a portion of what I feel is out there would require trillions nationally in private and public sector dollars to catch up (Im guesstimating on the trillions, but if we are doing one project that is 2.5 billion, and working on a half dozen others at or greater than $1 Billion, i see that as pretty feasible number). Thats to meet TODAY'S demand.

You didn't say "less smog would be a nice side effect", you said "if you want to have more smog and pollution rather than less, can't see how that helps anything". How does that help anything?

We've gone back and forth for a while- not that you should be, but you won't be swayed. As you said, you're "all in". I don't know how you can possibly "know" how large a trend will be or how long it will last, but you seem to think you do- kudos for putting your money where your mouth is, but these are all just opinions. If there was all this massive pent up demand, why haven't more firms like yours jumped all over this years ago? Plenty of money out there looking for can't miss opportunities like this.

 

[tommyboy]

Can we get back to freaking out about global warming?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Can we get back to freaking out about global warming?

Sure. Here's a great article about increased heat forecast in WV for two days this week with a warning about pop up showers and a good outlook for Mother's Day. Comments have a few great freakouts.

 

[RCon]

Koya, you do make some intriguing arguments. But again, I keep coming back to the fact that if the ROI is so promising, then a consortium of private investors should do it, not the public. If you need public set asides of land and even some eminent domain, that's one thing. But to ask for a large public investment at a time when there are so many urgent matters to deal with (for instance, the debt and the need for new energy sources) seems unreasonable to me.

The U.S. is something like 28th in the world in infrastructure investment per capita.

Our roads and bridges are literally falling apart causing health and economic damage.

Our transit infrastructure is woefully inefficient and often non existent - huge issues economically in terms of competitiveness.

So, three things:

1. You don't think this is an URGENT national issue? Economic, national security (why do you think we built the Eisenhower HWY System?), health, environment.

2. There are instances where the private sector is taking the lead. That said, let's not be pollyanna about the realities. These are huge costs that often has a tremendous public component and public ROI (straight economics) that can't be directed associated with a particular private sector component. For fee based infrastructure (water, sewer, electric), you can have Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) where it's basically the private sector working off profit. More important, many times all the gov't needs to do is act as a financing vehicle - low cost loans paid off by taxing districts and through the value capture mechanisms of private sector future profits. But it's an oddly narrow and future-dangerous perspective to hear you say that infrastructure should not have any public investment when conducted right, in conjunction with the private sector, it results in MORE tax revenues that it does in cost.

3. You need the PUBLIC in the PPP to ensure proper oversight as Infrastructure is by and large for public use and needs to work as such.

The bolded isn't fair to timschochet. He's argued lots of times that infrastructure investment is a dire need. He's arguing here that high speed rail isn't a need. Those are two very different things.

 

[Koya]

Koya, you do make some intriguing arguments. But again, I keep coming back to the fact that if the ROI is so promising, then a consortium of private investors should do it, not the public. If you need public set asides of land and even some eminent domain, that's one thing. But to ask for a large public investment at a time when there are so many urgent matters to deal with (for instance, the debt and the need for new energy sources) seems unreasonable to me.

The U.S. is something like 28th in the world in infrastructure investment per capita.

Our roads and bridges are literally falling apart causing health and economic damage.

Our transit infrastructure is woefully inefficient and often non existent - huge issues economically in terms of competitiveness.

So, three things:

1. You don't think this is an URGENT national issue? Economic, national security (why do you think we built the Eisenhower HWY System?), health, environment.

2. There are instances where the private sector is taking the lead. That said, let's not be pollyanna about the realities. These are huge costs that often has a tremendous public component and public ROI (straight economics) that can't be directed associated with a particular private sector component. For fee based infrastructure (water, sewer, electric), you can have Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) where it's basically the private sector working off profit. More important, many times all the gov't needs to do is act as a financing vehicle - low cost loans paid off by taxing districts and through the value capture mechanisms of private sector future profits. But it's an oddly narrow and future-dangerous perspective to hear you say that infrastructure should not have any public investment when conducted right, in conjunction with the private sector, it results in MORE tax revenues that it does in cost.

3. You need the PUBLIC in the PPP to ensure proper oversight as Infrastructure is by and large for public use and needs to work as such.

The bolded isn't fair to timschochet. He's argued lots of times that infrastructure investment is a dire need. He's arguing here that high speed rail isn't a need. Those are two very different things.

I tend to agree on HSR if that's the case but Tims post didn't mention this was limited to HSR.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I may have to gouge my eyes out after reading this thread....what was i thinking

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

Voya-Code doesn't yet exist so to visit love ones that live elsewhere I (or they) still need to dirty the environment.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can we get back to freaking out about global warming?

After you...

 

[DrJ]

Dr J - I've brought in many facts and anecdotal evidence gathered from my ten years actually studying this and building a business to address the very trends you seem to ignore.

Please, show me why we are the dinosaur when it seems that moniker is far more appropriate for your line of thought - which seems backed by nothing more than an opinion based upon purely false assumptions and facts that are straight up wrong.

From my point of view you've brought a bunch of bias on how we need to invest heavily in reconfiguring the entire friggin country so that we can more efficiently waste resources in a highly inefficient and dated economic model. But hey, believe what you like because you're obviously very highly vested in this viewpoint.

Voya-Code doesn't yet exist so to visit love ones that live elsewhere I (or they) still need to dirty the environment.

Alright, we can probably grant one exception a year for this, but that's about all. This is the environment we're talking about, man, and the situation is dire from what I'm told. Your personal desires just aren't nearly as important as the greater good.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...This is the environment we're talking about, man, and the situation is dire from what I'm told. Your personal desires just aren't nearly as important as the greater good.