Chinese dystopia- Digital Dictatorship

Another California spending spree

Another California spending spree

Illustration on California’s criminally profligate ways by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times more >



By Victor Davis Hanson - - Wednesday, January 24, 2018


ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Nobody quite knows who built Stonehenge some 5,000 years ago in southern England. The mysterious ring of huge stone monoliths stands mute.

Californians may leave behind similarly enigmatic monuments for puzzled future generations. Along a 119-mile pathway in central California from Bakersfield to Madera, there are now huge, quarter-finished cement overpasses. These are the totems of the initial segment of a planned high-speed-rail corridor.

Californians thought high-speed rail was a great idea when they voted for it in 2008. The state is overwhelmingly progressive. Silicon Valley reflects California’s confidence in new-age technology. Californians are among the highest-taxed citizens in the nation. They apparently are not opposed to borrowing and spending for ambitious government projects — especially to alleviate crowded freeways.


Planners assured voters that the cost for the first 520 miles was going to be an “affordable” $33 billion. The rail line seemed a good way to connect the state’s economically depressed interior with the affluent coastal corridor.

The segment from Madera to Bakersfield was thought to be the easiest to build. Rural land was cheaper to acquire in the interior of California. The route was flat, without the need to bore tunnels. The valley is considered seismically stable. Economically depressed counties welcomed the state and federal investment dollars.

But projected coasts have soared even before one foot of track has been laid. The entire project’s estimated costs, according to various projections, may have nearly doubled. The current cost for the easiest first segment alone has spiraled from a promised $7.8 billion in 2016 to an estimated $10.6. There is no assurance that enough Central Valley riders will wish to use the line.


The real problem is that this environmentally friendly mass transportation project is being undertaken in a state known for high taxes, litigiousness, chronic budget crises, byzantine regulations, a dysfunctional one-party political system and challenging geography.

Will the federal government bail out California high-speed rail? So far, the Trump administration has shown no real affinity for blue-state California in general, or for the idea of subsidizing mass transit in particular.

Can California find its own money? Maybe not. The state has been on a spending spree driven by social welfare and health-care and pension costs. The state budget has ballooned 44 percent over the last seven years to an inconceivable $190 billion when all annual costs (including bond spending and special funds) are added up.

More worrisome, new federal tax codes allow only $10,000 in state and local tax deductions. Given California’s exorbitant taxes and property assessments, high-end earners will soon learn that what they owe the IRS has skyrocketed.

How will the state raise taxes even higher when only about 150,000 households out of 40 million state residents already pay almost half the state’s income tax? Given the proximity of several low- and no-tax states, thousands of affluent retirees might move once they see the effects of losing federal tax deductions.

California imposed new taxes on gasoline and licenses to raise $5.2 billion in order to fix decrepit roads — which in some sense were shorted by the decision to spend billions on high-speed rail. Some surveys rate the state’s once cutting-edge freeways among the worst in the country. There is not much of a fallback tax base. California has the nation’s highest percentage of impoverished residents when factoring in cost of living. One in three welfare recipients in the U.S. lives in the state. One in four California residents was not born in the United States.

Outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown just warned that in the foreseeable future it may be impossible to honor pension obligations to the state’s retirees. They may be already underfunded by nearly half a trillion dollars. California’s once-impressive annualized GDP is slowing. Despite the tech boom and the national economic renaissance, the state has recently slipped from fifth in the U.S. to 35th in annual economic growth.

How has California’s state government reacted to the challenges to the high-speed-rail project?

The state is still talking about a new $400 billion single-payer health plan. It just became a sanctuary state, vowing to resist enforcement of federal immigration law and to use state funds to sue on behalf of undocumented immigrants. In crazy (and likely illegal) fashion, the panicked legislature is dreaming of schemes to redefine state taxes as “charitable contributions” to dodge new IRS rules.

Central Valley drivers on the state’s main north-south artery, State Route 99 — often referred to as the “highway of death” — are frequently bottlenecked in ancient two-lane “freeways” that ironically run right next to unfinished high-speed-rail overpasses.

The answer to all these premodern problems of financial insolvency, illegal immigration and mass transportation is not postmodern dreaming. If the state does not wake up fast, future generations of Californians will wonder who built the mysterious Stonehenge-like monoliths — and why?

• Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author of “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won” (Basic Books, 2017).

The great transit rip-off

The great transit rip-off

AP Photo/Jae C. HongIn this Saturday, May 16, 2015 photo, A Metro Expo Line train travels as traffic builds up on the 110 freeway in Los Angeles.

By JOEL KOTKIN and WENDELL COX | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: August 27, 2017 at 12:06 am | UPDATED: August 27, 2017 at 8:42 am


Over the past decade, there has been a growing fixation among planners and developers alike for a return to the last century’s monocentric cities served by large-scale train systems. And, to be sure, in a handful of older urban regions, mass transit continues to play an important — and even vital — role in getting commuters to downtown jobs. Overall, a remarkable 40 percent of all transit commuting in the United States takes place in the New York metropolitan area — and just six municipalities make up 55 percent of all transit commuting destinations.

But here’s an overlooked fact: Transit now serves about the same number of riders as it did in 1907, when the urban population was barely 15 percent of what it is today. Most urban regions, such as Southern California, are nothing like New York — and they never will be. Downtown Los Angeles may be a better place in which to hang out and eat than in the past, but it sorely lacks the magnetic appeal of a place like Manhattan, or even downtown San Francisco. Manhattan, the world’s second-largest employment center, represents a little more than 20 percent of the New York metropolitan area’s employment. In Los Angeles, by contrast, the downtown area employs just 2 percent.

Transit is failing in Southern California

As we demonstrate in a new report for Chapman University, our urban form does not work well for conventional mass transit. Too many people go to too many locales to work, and, as housing prices have surged, many have moved farther way, which makes trains less practical, given the lack of a dominant job center. But in its desire to emulate places like New York, Los Angeles has spent some $15 billion trying to evolve into what some East Coast enthusiasts call the “next great transit city.”

The rail lines have earned Mayor Eric Garcetti almost endless plaudits from places like the New York Times. Yet, since 1990, transit’s work trip market share has dropped from 5.6 percent to 5.1 percent. MTA system ridership stands at least 15 percent below 1985 levels, when there was only bus service, and the population of Los Angeles County was about 20 percent lower. In some places, like Orange County, the fall has been even more precipitous, down 30 percent since 2008. It is no surprise, then, that, according to a recent USC study, the new lines have done little or nothing to lessen congestion.

This experience is not limited to L.A. Most of the 19 metropolitan areas with new mass transit rail systems — including big cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and even Portland, Ore. — have experienced a decline in transit market share since the systems began operations.

Transit as social engineering

To achieve their transit goals, boosters in Southern California and other wannabe metros need to “elect a new people,” to paraphrase German Communist playwright Bertolt Brecht. Desperate to force commuters onto trains, they feel compelled to foster a dense, “pack and stack” housing pattern that they feel might better fit the needs of expanding transit agencies.

Virtually all housing development proposals are required to be “transit-oriented,” which seems bizarre, given the sector’s declining market share. Meanwhile, poor people get degraded local bus service and ever-higher gas prices to accommodate a supposed surge of wealthier potential transit riders. This won’t help them find jobs, either. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, for a commute of 30 minutes or less, the average employee is within 60 times as many jobs by car as by transit.


Are there alternatives?

Rather than try to re-engineer the region, perhaps we should seek mobility solutions that can work. Building new rail lines — and, and even more absurdly, trolleys, which average a pathetic 8 miles per hour — will do nothing relieve traffic. More densification can be expected only to worsen congestion.

Arguably, the most promising step would be to encourage work at home. There are already more people working at home than transit riders in Southern California. Since 1990, home office use increased by eight times that of transit use, with virtually no public expenditure. Home-based workers, needless to say, do not receive subsidies.

Ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, cited as a factor in the recent ridership declines in Los Angeles — and even New York — can also provide cost-effective solutions. Already, one local transit operator in suburban San Francisco has established a one-year pilot program to extend local transit service through ride-hailing, and canceled a lightly patronized bus route, reducing costs while providing quicker door-to-door service.

Furthermore, rapidly evolving autonomous technologies could speed up traffic along freeways. They may take time to gain widespread acceptance, but are likely to be in place well before the much-ballyhooed “build-out” of the Los Angeles rail system, which, in any case, cannot make transit commuting remotely competitive with the car, except, perhaps, for very few. Under any circumstance, autonomous technology seems likely to further weaken conventional transit.

Southern Californians need to demand transportation policies that accommodate them, not those that merely acquiesce to the urbanist fantasies of planners, politicians and developers. Decision-makers need to both embrace our geography and economic form and look for 21st-century solutions to 21st-century problems.

Joel Kotkin is the R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (www.opportunityurbanism.org). Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, a St. Louis-based public policy firm, and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.

The Politician Behind California High Speed Rail Now Says It's 'Almost a Crime'

Quentin Kopp convinced voters to approve the bullet train. Now he's suing to kill it.

China's Underwater High-Speed Train to America