Washington DC

D.C. Rail Fetishists Propose “Free” Trolleys

by Marc Scribner on May 6, 2010

in Economy, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Regulation

If you believe the “city of northern charm and southern efficiency” is geared solely toward imposing stupid, expensive directives on the rest of the country, think again–local D.C. government makes the feds look reasonable, measured, and intelligent in comparison. I mean, Marion Barry still serves on the city council.

Washington is also a town home to more glassy-eyed rail fanatics per capita than any other. The Washington Metro, the rail transit system that was presumably designed to serve wealthy suburban condo owners, is a notorious fiscal black hole. But the Metro system is controlled by the WMATA, a multi-jurisdictional regional transit authority, and not the city itself. Not wanting to be outdone by a bunch of Virginia and Maryland upstarts, D.C. decided to show WMATA a thing or two about absurdly wasteful transit spending–reintroducing streetcars in the District.

You remember streetcars, right? The antiquated 19th century transit technology that was supposedly murdered by the evil auto industry in the 1960s? Well, it’s been resurrected thanks to the persistent efforts of greens, railfans, and the bow-tie-wearing, criminal-employing Councilman Jim “The people of the District of Columbia want their trolleys back” Graham. To make things worse, officials are now seriously talking about forgoing fare collection on parts of the “$1.5 billion” (if only it would end up being this cheap when all is said and overrun) streetcar system:

“It is certainly possible that in certain areas of the city it would be free,” DDOT Director Gabe Klein tells WTOP.

“And we like that, because the point of this is to stimulate growth and move people between neighborhoods. So we are going to look at a structure where people feel comfortable hopping on and off, maybe many times in an hour.”

D.C. officials have closely studied the streetcar system in Portland, Ore. as a model for what to do in the nation’s capital. In Portland, riders who take trips in the “fareless square” do not have to pay for trips.

“In the downtown area, they make it free,” says Klein. “People literally hop on and hop off, sometimes at every stop. It’s great because it feels more like a people mover, than it does a bus or a streetcar.”

Keeping the cost low would encourage people to use the streetcars. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Klein is certainly on the right track when he suggests that people might take advantage of a service more if they aren’t charged for use, but he should look up the definition of the word “free.” Something is not costless just because you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. But Klein really goes off the rails when he proclaims Portland, Oregon’s “silent but deadly” MAX transit system as something the District should be watching and learning from.

Oregonian Randal O’Toole, economist and noted transit scholar, throws cold water on the notion that the Portland model is something to emulate:

Portland’s story of spending $90 million on a streetcar line to get $2.3 billion of development, or $57 million on an aerial tram to get $1 billion of development, sounds attractive to officials from other cities. It might not sound so attractive if Portland admitted that it really had to spend $665 million, in addition to the cost of the streetcar line and tram, not to mention 10-year tax waivers on at least $100 million of development, to get that $2.3 billion worth of development.

Streetcars might sound “fun” or “cool,” but there are two very important reasons why they were scrapped 50 years ago: streetcar lines are much more expensive to operate and maintain compared to buses, and they’re unpopular (not in the “do you like the idea of trolleys?” sense, but in terms of actual ridership). Not to mention the obvious traffic safety problems with nearly-unstoppable, 40-ton fixed-line vehicles sharing the roads with automobiles and cyclists.

One good thing to come out of this flurry of unrestrained public transportation spending is that the District Department of Transportation put online a database where you can see when and how the city is wasting taxpayer dollars on transit boondoggles.

Regulation of the Day 129: Droves of Animals on Streets

by Ryan Young on March 19, 2010

in Mobility, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Washington, DC city law states that “No loose herd or flock shall be driven or conducted in the District, except with a permit issued by the Chief of Police.” (See District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 9, Sec. 906.10.)

Many, many years ago, Washington was a pretty rural place. There were even farms in the Northwest and Southeast quadrants of the city. This was before the automobile, and well before the federal workforce climbed into the millions. But a lot of these old laws are still on the books. Nobody seems to have thought to get rid of them.

Other animal herding laws in DC include:

-No droves of mules or horses larger than six animals are allowed. (906.6)

-However, “Horned cattle may be led singly by a rope or halter through any of the streets in the District.” (906.8). That includes K Street, Constitution Avenue, and every other street in the District, great or small (Note to self: this might be worth trying someday).

-As with cars, the driving age for herds is 16. (906.12)

-A drove of sheep crossing a bridge must have at least six drovers. (906.4)

-It is illegal to “water, feed, or clean any horse, mule, cow, or other animal” within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The same rule apples to cars.(906.13)

(Hat tip: Marc Scribner)

This Is How Terrorists Win

by Ryan Young on February 2, 2010

in Nanny State, Precaution & Risk, Zeitgeist

Fear is a terrorist’s only effective weapon. There are so few of them, and their attacks are so rare, that fear is all they have. Yet they win victory after victory. People and governments have an irrational tendency to over-react to rare but conspicuous threats. Here’s our latest loss:

[Washington, DC] Metro Transit Police will hold a “major anti-terrorism show of force” Tuesday during rush hour at one of the agency’s “busiest Metrorail station,” according to a media advisory released by the agency…

Metro said about 50 officers from several Metro Transit Police units will participate in the exercise, including anti-terrorism and K-9 explosives detection teams, bomb technicians, mobile and foot patrols.

As a daily user of the DC Metro, here’s hoping this security theater production happened as far away from my commute as possible.

(Hat tip: Megan McLaughlin)

Regulation of the Day 94: Plastic Shopping Bags

by Ryan Young on January 4, 2010 · 3 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Features, Nanny State, Regulation, Regulation of the Day, Zeitgeist

Retailers have traditionally provided free shopping bags to their customers as a courtesy. Washington, DC’s city government – known for being less than courteous – is now requiring stores to charge customers five cents for each plastic bag they use at checkout.

The tax is environmentally motivated. Since the city is acting so urgently on shopping bags, that implies that they must be the most urgent environmental threat facing DC. If that’s the case, then DC must be a veritable ecological paradise, or else its priorities are misplaced. One or the other must be true.

There were 84 unsolved murders in DC in 2009, by the way.

In lieu of plastic bags, the city is urging people to buy reusable cloth bags. But those have an environmental footprint nearly 100 times larger than a plastic bag, according to Sierra Club data. They have to be used many, many times before they cause any savings. They are also a haven for bacteria if not regularly washed. And washing them adds to their footprint.

Washington, DC has a lot of problems. Expensive but inferior schools, crime, violence, high taxes and spending – the list is long. The epidemic of plastic bags littering the streets is right at the bottom of that list. It should be prioritized accordingly. The regressive plastic bag tax should be repealed.

Gypsy Cabs Coming soon to DC?

by Ivan Osorio on September 23, 2009 · 2 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Mobility, Regulation

If you’ve ever been to Brooklyn, you’ve almost certainly seen firsthand the shortage of taxis that has been created by New York City’s licensing restrictions, known as the “medallion” system. Under this system, only a limited number of licensed cabs are allowed to run in the city. You’ve probably also seen how the locals get around these restrictions: through the use of unlicensed taxis, known as “gypsy” cabs, and car services, which are technically limo services which you have to call for pickup.

I’ve used car services and have found them a good solution for getting around Brooklyn quickly, but having to call for a car and wait for it is nowhere near as fast or convenient as simply flagging down a passing taxi. Gypsy cabs face a competitive disadvantage in that they have to operate more discreetly than do licensed cabs, which can pick up passengers at high-traffic points like hotels, airports, and train stations. This all makes a New York taxicab medallion highly desirable, but acquiring use of one can be extremely expensive.

Taxicab medallion restrictions result in artificially high entry costs for new drivers and lower quality service for passengers. Yet, two District of Columbia city council members, Jim Graham and Muriel Bowser, are trying to impose a similar system in the nation’s capital. The idiocy of such a proposal almost defies belief. The only sensible explanation for it would be that cab drivers who face less competition would support medallion proponents. But yesterday, the cabbies said, “No, thanks.” The Washington Post reports:

About 1,000 taxi drivers went on strike Tuesday in response to a D.C. Council bill aimed at establishing a taxi medallion system or a taxi vehicle certificate system, organizers said. If passed, cabdrivers fear, the bill could substantially increase the cost of operating a taxi in the District.

And for what? The Washington Examiner reports:

“The problem we’re facing right now is the increasing number of people trying to enter this system,” said D.C. Councilman Jim Graham, D-Ward 1, who chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee.

I’ve long been accustomed to hear politicians utter economically illiterate statements, but to describe supply arising to meet demand for a service as a “problem” is astounding even by that sorry standard. As Reason‘s Ron Bailey comments:

Just exactly why would DC residents want to have fewer taxis? If more drivers are entering the market doesn’t that suggest strongly that supply has not yet equalled demand?

That’s a good question; I’d like to hear Graham’s and Bowser’s answers. The costs of their proposed scheme would be huge indeed. According to the Examiner:

Medallions in some major cities cost tens of thousands of dollars, and can be auctioned off for hundreds of thousands if there’s a limit on the number of cab drivers in the area. Because of the moratorium on the number of cabs in New York City, medallions there sell for more than half of a million dollars.

In fact, New York taxi medallion are so valuable, that, as CEI’s Eli Lehrer has pointed out, they are often used as collateral for loans. Leave it government to give value to something that should be completely unnecessary.