Mike "In their frequent promotion of mass transit projects, for example, liberals refuse to address the real reasons that individuals are reluctant to use mass transit — concerns about reliability, safety, and cleanliness top the list. But most mass transit proposals focus on building huge new projects, not improving the factors that would actually encourage people to use it." I am definitely not a liberal, but I confess that of all liberal ideas, I like mass transit the most. I can only speak for myself, but the reason I don't use mass transit is not because it is slow, unreliable, or unsafe. I don't use it because it doesn't come close enough to where I live, and doesn't drop me off close enough to where I work. So, at least to some extent, it's a chicken and egg problem. Conservatives love to point out the low ridership of public transit, but could that be at least partially because mass transit is not big enough? If there was some form of mass transit available to get me to work, I would gladly use it. There are many advantages. Our family could have 1 car instead of 2. And I'd be able to use the time on the bus or train to do work instead of focusing on driving. I actually wouldn't mind if it took a little longer to get to/from work, since some portion of my work can be done from anywhere. Since my schedule is pretty flexible, being late occasionally wouldn't be a big deal either. Again, this is just me. Every situation is different, but I don't think I'm that out of the ordinary. I think we need to head in this direction. Carefully and slowly and efficiently, yes. I'm not saying I would support any mass-transit project, but I do think we need to be working together to figure out what the future should look like for our transportation system, and conservatives should consider that it might not look like what it does now.

Jason, Managing Editor Yes, I do think that one of the reasons mass transit doesn't get used is because of the limitations of its service area and the limitations of its routing to match people's actual source and destination without multiple and time-consuming transfers. That is part of the "reliability" problem that I alluded to. And it is not easily fixed. Expanding extensively into the suburbs is so expensive that even most liberals don't advocate it as a serious option. Instead, they complain about "sprawl" and create new visions of society forced to give up its suburban lifestyle and move back to the city-center tenements. Also, let's not forget that many of the primary opponents of expanding the SIZE of public transit facilities are environmentalists. The idea that public transit could be used to get work done is implausible to me. The jostling crowds all screaming into their cell phones or to each other seems to me a poor work environment, even without the distraction of criminals and crazy people that seem to crop up repeatedly on public transit systems that I've tried. Sure, those have only been a few encounters, but it comes far more commonly than I should expect given the rarity of my exposure. I do think it is possible to address at least some of the problems with mass transit and create systems that are at least more workable than they are now. But mass transit advocates don't even seem to try, preferring to stick with a utopian vision backed up by the threat of mandates that will force a reluctant public to comply with their vision instead. P.S. I will likely be using mass transit much more in the next 3 years. If I turn out to be wrong about the environment, I will fess up to it.

Michael Merritt Lack of mass transit is a real problem. I don't own a car or a license. That's not any one else's fault, of course, but it is an issue for me. The problem is that commuter bus lines are awful in Connecticut. They have a tendency to go to the big cities, but completely bypass many towns completely. I've been in an okay situation for now, but what already exists could use major improvement. I'd be okay with having to change to a local bus, but even they don't have near the amount of coverage they should. Unfortunately, my work is kind of in the middle of nowhere, but not one bus goes near it. Which is kind of a shame, since it's right near a popular skating facility. The possibilities the town could have for increased bus fare revenue is enormous, but they don't capitalize on it. I'm not asking for a monorail or a high-speed train. Such forms of transport would be out of place, anyway. But if what exists already could be expanded, that seem like it'd be a project worth undertaking.

Christopher Zurcher As a managing editor of anything, I would think Jason would be a little more aware of the effects of rhetorical language, and, more importantly from an editor’s standpoint, bias. He starts out with a sentence loaded with rhetoric and bias: “Liberals love to promote mass transit as a replacement for personal automobile transportation.” According to you, liberals, those who advocate for mass transit solutions to congestion, street safety, pollution, human health, among other things, have contempt for individual desires. They (liberals) might argue that you have a contempt for human health and advocate only for solutions that increase pollution and threaten human health. The fact that subways often have turnstiles where riders pay for mass transit doesn’t mean liberals and transportation planners, liberal or otherwise, like to treat individuals as chattel. You continue to use your, in my opinion, failing rhetoric, by saying on the one hand that their plans are well-intentioned, well-founded and well-thought (I’m assuming you mean well thought out), continuing with the whole idea of contempt, adding “self-appointed superiority” to the mix, and saying the planners, now, globally, “liberals,” refuse to address “reliability, safety and cleanliness.” Then you conclude with a seemingly ridiculous notion that “the efficiency and environmental superiority of mass transit aren’t very persuasive.” A comprehensive mass transit plan, whether it is designed by a “liberal” or a “conservative,” a Democrat or a Republican or a Communist, will address cleanliness, reliability, energy use, pollution, sprawl, and a host of other issues. Some of us, as members of a Republic, are going to have to change the way we live. I don’t drive the car two blocks of I need a gallon of milk. I walk. I don’t drive somewhere in my city if I can *safely* ride my bike. I know many others who live by these same principles. They’re not orders that have been levied against us by some liberal with self-appointed superiority. They’re decisions that we have made toward the betterment of our community and our world. In fact, I think it’s the “self-appointed superiority” of others who refuse to make these changes in their lifestyles because they think they’re being ordered to do so for reasons other than reasons that are defined as being for the public good. Yes, it’s a belief, and perhaps it’s even a “liberal” belief. But I also know for a fact that the less I use my car, the better off this planet is going to be. And the more I rely on mass transit, the better off the world is going to be too. Oh, I’m such a liberal!

Christopher Zurcher Yes, I am indeed morally superior to you and your right wing cohorts and I would force this whole world to do whatever I think is best if I had the chance because I am one of those like Yglesias who is always right, as in correct, even if you fail to see it because you have differing views that are wrong. I drive a Hummer. I buy the most expensive gas because I think it makes my Hummer run smoother, I buy those little plastic water bottles and throw them on the beach along with my cigarette butts (sometimes I fill the bottles with cigarette butts I find on the ground before I toss them in Long Island Sound, and I'm insulted that you would think otherwise or that I am in any way forcing others to do otherwise. All Yglesias' ideas are fat headed and wrong and to believe otherwise would certainly suggest an air of insulting moral superiority that fails to see anything but the a Madoff-like Fifth Avenue Penthouse view of society, and if he gets mugged at Huntington Station or breaks a leg on the platform in Stamford, then it serves him right for even thinking he might even have a clue as to what might even be the smallest beginning to a solution to urban sprawl and the health effects automobile pollution on human health might be.

Christopher Zurcher Oh, and I really do hate shouting matches and name calling and only responded initially because I was a bit taken aback by your air of superiority. But that was just a feeling I got and maybe I was off base. So, I'm glad you all are having a constructive conversation about this, whether Yglesias' ideas are right (correct) or not, it's good to discuss them in this open forum. I'd really rather not get personal about it, but you all can if you like. I was just trying to add my two cents without stoking any fires, but it seems I was unable to do so. So, carry on. Nice chatting.

Holly in Cincinnati I love mass transit when it is done well (I've had experience with Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore MD) and wish that more cities in the US Midwest had it.

George I am a fan of mass transit myself. Yes all the positives and negatives of public transit were to me addressed here. Why there are those who take it or not. I think it should all be up to the individual. Why I should be branded either way as far to the right or left because of my views or reasons for using it or not, I don't think is fair either. What works for one doesn't quite work for the other. We have seen that in public transit planning. Sadly maybe I'm not the authority here having not majored in the field. However as a frequent user and person who actually has studied public transit history, I think the real reasons behind public transit's problem with "Mass" transit is lack of money. Yes money which has or better put had been directed to public transit projects have either been scaled back or redirected to other more important projects. Or what those who have the power to direct budgets tend to do with public transit money. I read the other day along a transit fan group discussion site where movies which sadly glorify violence on public transit like "The Taking Of Pellum One, Two, Three", or "the Laughing Policeman" scares the general public away from public transit. Sadly may I say that as much as I use public transit, I do agree with the writer here that it doesn't take a large incident like that happening for many not to want to use public transit. Even small incidents like the drunk sleeping on the side seat of bus stretched out. Or a mentally disturbed babbling to himself walking through the transit terminal, sadly we have all seen that and simply try to ignore it all. All it takes is for one incident and that is enough to sour the taste of the person using the system. In the San Francisco Bay Area they advocate a large extensive ferryboat system like the one used along the San Francisco Bay back in the 30's to late 50's. Although I commute by ferry into the city and back, often I miss my ferry connection because of a very slow wannebe subway system called MUNI Metro. It also seems to work more so for those who don't have to make another long tedious transfer connection instead of working near the waterfront. I do this by my choice and know it works for me. I tolerate the slow Metro for not having the stress of driving into the city and the costs behind it. However I do understand there are those who would rather choose the alternate because of the arguments stated by Jason here. I think what it does come down here is that there isn't or shouldn't be a "One Size Fits All" theory behind how we plan public transit. I do believe public transit would be used more especially in this age if it was more convenient and secure. Sadly there isn't enough money sadly for that. Not enough cops around too and I understand they have more pressing needs then the drunk sleeping on the bus! In closing I live in Vallejo. Anyone who has visited or live here know the public transit system does not meet the needs of the few riders it serves. As one poster pointed out there are few transit connections and those transfer points are even less! There are some routes that if you want to connect to say even the ferryboat, you have to walk three blocks to get to it! LOL! A 30-60 minute wait for a bus sadly in a city the size of Vallejo is just not doable! With free parking available and traffic congestion only during the rush hours, it will not draw the majority out of their personal vehicles. I've tried it and no....not workable sadly!

tony Christopher Zucker, again you make dude's point. I don't own a car, I ride a bike everywhere I go, sometimes I even take public transit, and I used to vote democrat/liberal. Now I don't and I never will again, because you and them have the exact same thinking methodology as a born again Christian. You and your fellow liberals know whats best for me and we need to love you for it, because you have decided that you are better educated and have better values than me. Its sad to discover that the left is so much like the right on this front, the "we will jamb our values down your throat because we are better than you" is so tiresome. As the author states, we are not sheep, as you and the fringe right believe we are, us poor dumb not extremists resent for some strange reason the constant and studied outrage. Your prose is a perfect example of such, I would guess you consider yourself morally superior to people like Gary Baur, I would guess those in the middle would lump you two in together.

Jack May We know that mass transit is pushed by the bottom 16% of society who want to return to the distant past, not move to the future. The bottom 16% tend to be failures at in most aspects of life and seem at times to want drag the rest of society into their losers view of how society should be. The remaining 84% of society is future and success oriented. They want nothing to do with slow transit and its constant failures constantly wasting their valuable time. Transit in the San Francisco Bay area takes 2 to 4 times longer to get somewhere than driving. People value their travel time at half (in a vehicle) to their full hourly rate (waiting for a vehicle. This means that slow transit is far too expensive in the cost of their time to even be remotely affordable for travel. The car cuts the cost of their travel time to rational levels. That is why people drive and not do some economically stupid like use transit.

Jason Arvak

We know that mass transit is pushed by the bottom 16% of society who want to return to the distant past, not move to the future. The bottom 16% tend to be failures at in most aspects of life and seem at times to want drag the rest of society into their losers view of how society should be. The remaining 84% of society is future and success oriented. They want nothing to do with slow transit and its constant failures constantly wasting their valuable time.

I would certainly never go that far. Most of the grad students I knew used and promoted mass transit, and I don't think they could be properly classified either as non-ambitious or as the bottom 16%. But many of them could be fairly criticized for having a bit of a superiority complex when confronted by people who had practical concerns about mass transit as an option in their individual lives. A lot of them sounded just like Zucker above, in fact.

zig "Yes, I do think that one of the reasons mass transit doesn’t get used is because of the limitations of its service area and the limitations of its routing to match people’s actual source and destination without multiple and time-consuming transfers. That is part of the “reliability” problem that I alluded to." The "reliability" issue that you are alluding to is mostly related to land use. Since you've injected a liberal conservative dichotomy into this discussion this is often the result of conservative free market types who talk the talk until the discussion is about the zoning in their neighborhood/suburb. There is almost no "central planning" with regard to land use and transportation in the US at all, particularly in the Bay Area where I live. these "central planners" you mention have little power. Politics plans transit here and people wag the politician's tail. People want to pay for bad transit projects but they couldn't ride them often even if they wanted with the lifestyle they live. If I was planning it rationally cities would be denser with more transit and low density places would have little to no transit. What's the point?

Gerry Riding public transit definitely has its upside and downside. My two biggest issues with public transit have already been addressed...cleanliness and especially safety. I live in Oakland, and I can remember one night as the bus I was on was going through a tough part of town, somebody threw a bottle at the bus, shattering the glass in the door. Fortunately, nobody was hurt. And you constantly hear of muggings in the BART parking lots. In SF, there have been times when some homeless guy gets on a MUNI bus, and he smells like he peed himself 10 years ago, and never bathed. This is why people drive...they don't want to have to deal with this kind of thing. Can you blame them? Not to mention the fact that it takes 2-3 times as long to get anywhere in the Bay Area on transit than it does to drive, and in a lot of cases, it's actually CHEAPER to drive than to take transit. For me, the only advantage of taking transit in SF, is you don't have to worry about finding a parking space. The only reason I'm taking public transit is that my car broke down and it's too expensive to repair. But know this...as soon as I'm able to get another car, I'm ditching the bus pass.

Garland "You and your fellow liberals know whats best for me and we need to love you for it, because you have decided that you are better educated and have better values than me." Way to condemn *all us* liberals for condemning *all of you* non-liberals, tony. What a constructive and fair depiction of the world. Mass transit can work in a town, or it cannot. People and politicians should look at their surroundings and reach an objective weighing of economical, social, ecological and additional circumstances, with no ideological input or decrees. Liberals are quick to ask for sacrifices, conservatives are quick to say none of that is necessary. I say the probabilistic, flexible outlook is the best one.

zig "We know that mass transit is pushed by the bottom 16% of society" If you believe in the idea of a median voter being in control (at least to some extent) how can this be so? People consistently want transit but they often don't ride it IMO.

Marc Salomon Whether or not you all find the suburban lifestyle desirable, odds are that the cost of sustaining that lifestyle is going to become increasingly difficult and that would make it unavailable to more and more people over time. That suburban sprawl lifestyle is currently subsidized by city dwellers. It is not unreasonable to assume that the cost of driving will rise over time as well, as will the energy cost of maintaining diffuse housing arrangements, and fewer people will be able to afford that lifestyle. And it is not unreasonable to assume that as city population grows, the political will behind subsidizing sprawl will disappear. I agree that transit needs to get with the 'eww' factor and, in the case of the SF Bay area, invest in a network of reliable rapid transit that connects major job and housing centers. In general, the job of government should not be to herd people into dirty trains, rather to change the gradient so that transit is a more appealing option over time and consequently make long haul commutes to sprawl less appealing. Once transit gets critical mass, like in NYC or in most major world cities, then it develops a constituency all its own. Most Americans live closer to cities now. There are growing equity problems when it comes to city dwellers subsidizing suburban sprawl with an unfair mode split (transit versus highways) while conditions in the cities deteriorate. In general, "losers" are defined in the American political lexicon as those dependent on government to provide for them. Given that definition, might we conclude that suburban sprawl dwellers are the real losers, tax takers, here and the city dwellers riding transit are paying more tax than we get back in spending?

zig Answer me this: Why is there a Costco next to a BART station in South San Francisco? Empty fields next to another in Milbrae? And why do 50-70K people per day ride buses on the Geary Blvd. corridor in San Francisco? What are the forces both market and political that could result in this odd outcome? There is nothing efficient or master planned about it.

Garland "In general, “losers” are defined in the American political lexicon as those dependent on government to provide for them." That sounds like a pretty horrible lexicon. Reagan shouldn't have made his careless allegory about welfare queens with fancy cars. Yes, "liberals" messed up after the 1964 victory but Reagan went too far in the other direction.

Marc Salomon Garland: not my definition of loser, rather the consensus definition accepted by "moderates" in forums like this.

Garland I was definitely not assuming you were using your own definitions. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Damn, written communication will always be inferior to talking.

Jason Arvak

Whether or not you all find the suburban lifestyle desirable, odds are that the cost of sustaining that lifestyle is going to become increasingly difficult and that would make it unavailable to more and more people over time. That suburban sprawl lifestyle is currently subsidized by city dwellers. It is not unreasonable to assume that the cost of driving will rise over time as well, as will the energy cost of maintaining diffuse housing arrangements, and fewer people will be able to afford that lifestyle. And it is not unreasonable to assume that as city population grows, the political will behind subsidizing sprawl will disappear.

This is again an example of what I am talking about -- high-and-mighty morally superior folks showing up to lecture us about what we should or should not be allowed to do by the state that they hope to control. These kinds of attitudes are precisely what make many people very concerned about the latent authoritarianism that forms the core attitudes of the people who want to tell us what is good for us.

I agree that transit needs to get with the ‘eww’ factor and, in the case of the SF Bay area, invest in a network of reliable rapid transit that connects major job and housing centers. In general, the job of government should not be to herd people into dirty trains, rather to change the gradient so that transit is a more appealing option over time and consequently make long haul commutes to sprawl less appealing.

This paragraph is much better, in my opinion. At least you're taking seriously the problems that people have with mass transit instead of just trying to force them on-board. Approaching mass transit from an attitude of persuasion and reform instead of dictation and mandate is the only way to avoid the authoritarian trap of post-modern American liberalism.

Once transit gets critical mass, like in NYC or in most major world cities, then it develops a constituency all its own.

And as the New York experience has shown, once people become dependent upon it, when the system becomes dirty, unreliable, or unsafe, it winds up dragging down the entire city. Maintenance of public support is a reason in addition to the establishment of public support that mass transit advocates need to take seriously the concerns that people express instead of just turning towards government mandates and central planning. Look at all the people on this little thread who share my concerns about safety, for example. Those people aren't going to be persuaded by condescension or dictates. They are only going to be persuaded by taking their concerns seriously and respectfully.

In general, “losers” are defined in the American political lexicon as those dependent on government to provide for them. Given that definition, might we conclude that suburban sprawl dwellers are the real losers, tax takers, here and the city dwellers riding transit are paying more tax than we get back in spending?

And now we see how respect remains in short supply from the left side of the ideological spectrum. Calling people "losers" just because they live in the suburbs or make different lifestyle choices than you do is a singularly unhelpful and unpersuasive way to pursue the discussion.

Garland "the latent authoritarianism that forms the core attitudes" Okay, so we use generalizing judgments about this group of people we don't know anything about because they are supposed to be this group of people who are judgmental about people they don't know anything about... This achieves what, exactly? "Calling people “losers” just because they live in the suburbs or make different lifestyle choices than you do is a singularly unhelpful and unpersuasive way to pursue the discussion." He did say "given that definition", and that conditional clause might be a way to throw those who would use the term "losers" carelessly of their track. Sometimes, turning a (hypothetical) person's weapon against them isn't necessarily escalation.

Jason Arvak I'm not generalizing in some sweeping abstract way. I am being provided by examples on this very thread of leftists condemning, mocking, and/or condescending anyone who lives in the suburbs or doesn't like traveling on dirty, unsafe, and unreliable mass transit. Pointing out that these comments are similar to those found elsewhere in the blogosphere and previously in life should not be out of line. I am quite certain you would not find such generalizations intolerable if they were directed towards conservatives, now would you? Maybe you should stop trying to police the details of every word people who disagree with you say and start actually responding to substance, Garland. Your appointing yourself arbiter of what everyone is allowed to say and how they are allowed to say it is getting really annoying.

Marc Salomon Jason, there's nothing high and mighty about positing that likely future economic trends indicate that a certain articulation of suburbia is not going to be economically sustainable. If you can afford the costs of sustaining your suburban proclivities, then feel free to pay it. Just be prepared to be very lonely in abandoned subdivisions as few others would be willing or able to join you. I cannot command this to happen, but it is a very likely scenario and you might be more vulnerable to crime in crumbling suburbs than in the City. Macro economic conditions led to the deterioration of NYC in the 1970s, not the demise of the subway. Different macroeconomic conditions led to its rehabilitation. Irrespective of condition of maintenance, the NYC subway is integral to the economic productivity of Manhattan and to large extent, the US for whatever that is worth these days. I don't define losers as "tax takers," as stated earlier. Many opposed to funding transit describe riders as losers as Mr. May did above. But it is unsustainable for those dwindling few who chose an expensive lifestyle to expect subsidy from the majority who have chosen to live more efficiently. I agree with you that professional "green" enviro advocates are generally condescending smug ex-suburbanite liberals who want to replicate the bucolic conditions of their childhoods in the city. But that does not mean that the value of public, rapid, mass transit is polluted by their presence of these people as advocates. Let's get past the cootie oriented straw person arguments and onto the merits of the case for increased investment in transit capital and operations.

Gerry For those who think the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable...I ask you, what's the alternative? Are we supposed to cram all of the people living in the 'burbs now into cities that are already overcrowded? Seems to me that having 10 million people living on top of each other is less sustainable than having them spread out.

Jason Arvak Marc, Well, given the extremely high cost of condos in the downtown area when I looked into them, I would have to say that the suburbs are less economically unsustainable than living downtown would be. Mass transit isn't the only thing that requires reinvestment and renewal -- living in the city needs to be made more than just a choice between extreme high-end condos and extreme low-end roach motels. The real problem is how to move towards a different model for both transit and housing without causing crippling economic and practical disruptions along the way. And the beginning of any such process must be a recognition of the entire range of problems. Unfortunately, many if not most mass transit advocates skip all that in favor of unrealistic and counterproductive fantasies about central planning (run by them), government mandates (controlled by them), and moralistic judgments (made by them). The dominance of such rhetoric has a much more significant undermining effect on the public debate than you seem to recognize. The framing and tone of the debate has real-world effects whether or not that is convenient for you.

tony Ah... Garland, I don't get your point. If you are not a self appointed moral better liberal why would you have a problem with my post? If you don't try and make choices for the world that entail your moral and unchallengeble visionary views that what do you care what I say about the Christoper Zurchers of the world? Live your life, don't coerce the rest of us into your utopian world view. What separates him from the average born again Christian?

Jed People commute for hours in their cars, spend just as much money as mass transit (individual and collectively). I just see it as different values. Some people want less gridlock, less space devoted to parking structures and ever-widening roads, less pollution, resources redirected from autos and related industries, better access for the working poor. When parking and cheap gas are pinched, attitudes toward mass transit change. These are value choices. Efficiency is a red herring.

Garland "If you don’t try and make choices for the world that entail your moral and unchallengeble visionary views that what do you care what I say about the Christoper Zurchers of the world?" I was not defending Zurcher, I was saying that you condemned *all* "liberal"s because they condemn *all* "non-liberals", which is pretty ironic.

Marc Salomon Jason, planning is a good idea, and indicators are that the cost of living in the suburbs will get more and more expensive over time. We are failing at making the urban core more affordable, but it is generally moderates and conservatives who are fighting housing equity in the urban core although liberal and progressive incompetence cannot be ruled out. Those two forces will collide in time and I believe that affordability in the urban core will win. That said, we've got some significant environmental and economic challenges before us that are not best resolved when we try to pigeon hole people by perceived ideology and use straw person arguments to assign the most ludicrous properties of an extreme position to everything between it and the mainstream. I ride a bike, live next to a BART station and do a car share every 3 weeks, rent cars to do road trips and have made sacrifices to live this lifestyle just as folks have made as expensive sacrifices by the tankful to commute to suburbia. I grew up later in Texas, after New York, and understand from experience both the psychological role that mobility and autonomy play in the western American psyche as well as how transit can work well. Any successful transit approach is going to have to meet people where they are, not where advocates are, and offer them an incentive to do the "right" thing as I've described above, not hector them into compliance. But the public policy imperative away from the private auto towards more sustainable modes is non-negotiable at the end of the day because that is going to be the option that economics will make most viable for most people. Part of the problem you are getting at is how non-corporate advocacy works in politics, and that is a generalized problem that extends far beyond the transportation public policy domain.

Jason Arvak

Jason, planning is a good idea, and indicators are that the cost of living in the suburbs will get more and more expensive over time. We are failing at making the urban core more affordable, but it is generally moderates and conservatives who are fighting housing equity in the urban core although liberal and progressive incompetence cannot be ruled out. Those two forces will collide in time and I believe that affordability in the urban core will win.

Well, almost every major urban area I can think of is controlled by a Democratic Party mayor and city council, so it is highly unlikely that all problems can be laid on the backs of conservatives. Also, I think the high-tax models implemented by those Democratic Party officials might have something to do with making housing in urban areas unaffordable. It is true that conservatives need to reexamine their assumptions, but I think it is long past time that so-called progressives stop trying to find lame excuses to say that conservatives are always the main problem, the ONLY problem. They need to tend to their own partisan garden, especially since they hold almost all the political high ground now. It is time for them to stop playing like embittered outsiders and actually do the hard work of governing.

Any successful transit approach is going to have to meet people where they are, not where advocates are, and offer them an incentive to do the “right” thing as I’ve described above, not hector them into compliance.

Exactly -- we have a clear point of agreement here. Mass transit advocates and their anti-suburbia cousins need to stop pointing fingers and fantasizing about mandates and start dealing with the much harder work of actually addressing the legitimate concerns that exist about both urban living and mass transit.

Marc Salomon Conservatives to my mind are those who believe that corporations are greater than or equal to sovereign Americans. In San Francisco, the Democrat Party is a cohabitation of social liberals and economic conservatives as it is the only game in town and development is going down, politics is awash in developer money. These pro-development conservatives have pushed development on San Francisco that will not pay its fair share of infrastructure costs and will be priced at luxury market rate. Hardly a good deal for anyone but developers and their political allies. Democrats may dominate localities but their dominance is not universal as it once was given that many of them are all but indistinguishable from Republicans economically. Tax rates were astronomical by current reckoning in the 1950s and most all of the significant infrastructure that was consumed during the speculative bubbles of the past 30 years was built then and sustained America's greatest years. As we will be forced to move towards a more European style capitalism next week or risk losing our dollar as reserve currency, let's also move towards a more European public transportation philosophy.

Jason Arvak

Conservatives to my mind are those who believe that corporations are greater than or equal to sovereign Americans.

I know many conservatives. I know exactly ZERO who would agree with this as a principle at all, let alone as an accurate expression of their core beliefs. This is one of the things that liberals seem to keep doing over and over and over and over when writing in the blogosphere or commenting on this site that is very, very offensive -- continually spewing forth grotesque stereotypes of conservatives as the basis for any conversation about conservatives or including conservatives. Seriously, can't you guys stop the hate for ONE thread????? I really wish you can/would, because I would like to see this site become something more than the routine screaming of hateful partisan talking points that dominates virtually every other site in the blogosphere.

Marc Salomon The end result of conservative rule means smaller government in a world of larger and more powerful corporations. In the absence of countervailing government power, corporations exert more power over people's lives. Whether you get there via the various Republican or conservatives tropes, the end result of a smaller public sector is a larger unrestrained private sector and most folks at the mercy of corporate power. I'm not inclined to prefer either, but would want to ensure that there was a balance between the two so that neither could grow too powerful. If conservatives would stop their tax whining for a moment, and liberals would conceive for a moment that they don't have all the answers cut from whole cloth, there is a tremendously ripe populist moment before us that could put government into the hands of the people for the first time where we could have these liberal/conservative discussions face to face rather than on "Crossfire."

Jason Arvak The end result of ALL purism is idiocy. Neither conservatives nor liberals have a monopoly on bad ideas nor on "whining". So let's dispense with trying to use those stereotypes to privilege one side, ok? That's why I try to be a moderate and a pragmatist -- because I see extremism and purism as the primary threats to effective debate and good policymaking. And populism isn't all flowers and sunshine either. The ignorance of the mob can be just as dangerous as the convictions of the ideologues. I've been particularly distressed at the degree to which populist rage during this economic downturn has caused movement towards deeply dangerous policies, including efforts at unconstitutional bills of attainder. And the populist ideal that we can simply take away everything from the rich to give free benefits to "the people" is a proven disaster for organizing economic policy. Even de Tocqueville saw that one coming, and with his experience during the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, he knew the dangers of out-of-control populism first-hand. I am surprised that an apparently well-educated person such as yourself would seem to be unaware of those dangers.

Mike It's been interesting to read the debate so far, and I think both sides make some good points (in between the arguing about who is superior to whom and such). One question I have: several comments on what I guess is the conservative side of the debate have argued that liberals are seeking to "force" them into particular lifestyles. I assume that they mean that certain city planning decisions to favor mass transit would alter the make-up of the city and make a suburban lifestyle more difficult. But I don't understand how this is forcing a particular lifestyle on you. City planning is nothing new. Couldn't you just as easily argue that those who oppose mass transit in favor of more roads are "forcing" a particular lifestyle on those who would prefer mass transit? Or are you referring to more sinister version of "forcing" that I'm not getting? Arguing that public policy will make your lifestyle more expensive is not sufficient, in my opinion. Every public policy changes the incentives that would exist if they were absent. And so every public policy encourages some behavior and discourages others.

Garland "But I don’t understand how this is forcing a particular lifestyle on you." I assume conservatives are not upset about mass transit-backing people winning democratic elections and then having the power to tilt city planning towards it. I think they are a bit miffed with the notion that mass transit is NEVER wrong and should ALWAYS be chosen no matter what. Whether liberals have actually had a record of forcing mass transit onto people and cities despite it not being the best idea to pursue, I do not know. "Every public policy changes the incentives that would exist if they were absent." I guess that some conservatives are dumb enough to disavow the idea of mass transit even when appropriate, and some liberals are dumb enough to try and create mass transit even where it is not the best solution.

Jason Arvak Mike, what I was concerned about goes back to the original Yglesias article that I cited where he proposed (implicitly) not just a tilt towards mass transit, but a requirement that would completely reorganize how neighborhoods were laid out so that they would better reflect what he and people like him agreed were the "socially correct" living arrangements. His proposed mandates would be much more invasive than merely providing opportunities or passing on externalities. It was the unexamined, unchallenged arrogance of such I-am-the-central-planner thinking that I found to be an implicit "ideology" that deserves at least some criticism. My concern was validated by the condescending and self-righteous tone of some of the commenters who came along. The reality is that mass transit is sometimes avoided because it is dirty, unreliable, and/or unsafe. Instead of dealing with those concerns, people like Yglesias start thinking in terms of social engineering and mandates. I don't think it is unreasonable to characterize the direction of their thinking as "forcing" even if it hasn't yet arrived at that point.

Garland Not building more communities that are based on the presumption that everyone can drive everywhere all the time isn't central-planning "social engineering" (that scary thing I always hear so much about). But sure, we all have to meet halfway and make it so that mass transit is a good standard that isn't enforced but rather offered as a prevailing alternative that *deserves* dominance over cars.

Jason Arvak That depends on who is directing how the communities get built and who is allowed to live where. If the approach is, "let's build mass transit more broadly and make sure it is clean, safe, and reliable so that people will want to use it and build communities around it", that is a positive approach that respects individual choice. If the approach is, "let's ban the construction of any community that fails to contort itself around our existing dirty, unsafe, and unreliable mass transit system", then I will maintain that is an arrogant and disrespectful way to approach the issue. From my perspective, Yglesias and some of the commenters on this threat appear to be leaning more toward the latter approach than the former. Note, for example, that on his map the mass transit line does not vary between his "bad neighborhood" and his "good neighborhood", the organization of the community's roads and houses does. Hence, my criticism of their underlying authoritarian ideology. (And that is true regardless of whether you want to snark about "scary" words in your continuing effort to muddy the topics of threads.)

Garland You can use any descriptions you want, but I still won't respond positively to anyone who claims to know the inner workings of people. "latent authoritarianism that forms the core attitudes of the people who want to tell us what is good for us" I am still not OK with this broad judgment. Some people are capable of rationally feeling that some people can't have some choices, without having some latent kernel that lies within them.

Jason Arvak It is an amazing combination of beliefs to say that people should have the choices to use drugs that inhibit their ability to function and interact safely in modern society but should not be allowed to make choices that defy collective planning ideals concocted by self-appointed designers of neighborhoods. You recognize the authoritarianism in the first but object with apparent rage to ANY criticism of the second. And you continue trying to police what others are allowed to say and how they are allowed to say it even at the same time you claim very broad expressive rights for yourself. Very presumptuous of you. And hypocritical too. Anyway, I have explained the reasons for my criticism of Yglesias' post and the tradition from which it arises. The fact that you find such criticism intolerable while you find even the most extreme and off-topic criticisms of the other side of the ideological spectrum permissible is a problem on your end, not mine.

Mike Jason, Regarding the forcing issue, I understand we're talking about more than just mass transit here, we're talking about city planning. But I still don't agree that there's anything wrong with that. This discussion is about more than just mass transit or city planning to me. Here's the heart of my disagreement: I reserve the right to promote any public policy that I believe would improve society, even if it is unpopular. If 20% of the population is able to push through public policy that 80% don't agree with, I blame the 80% for being apathetic, not the 20% for supposedly being arrogant. So I fundamentally disagree that Ygelias drawing a map of how he thinks and ideal community should be laid out is arrogant. In fact, I wish more of us took the time to think about the problems our society faces and come up with possible solutions. City planning already exists. I cannot go out and start building roads and houses wherever I want. I assume city planning people already take into consideration what is best for the community when deciding what to build were. So what Yglesias is arguing for is not some new authoritarian forcing committee, but just that we modify what we consider to be best for society in order to take into consideration current and future challenges that our communities face.

Tom Morrow I live in the city and had always been afraid to ride the bus when wearing "fancy clothes" to evening social events. But recently I got on muni all dressed up on a Saturday night, and realized that the particular bus I was on was fine, that there were plenty of people (including single women) all dressed up on the bus and I did not stick out. This is a good example of what the author is talking about... I'm not sure how to convey it, but what I needed to know was which bus routes were sketchy and which ones felt less sketchy. The only way to gain that knowledge currently is to risk taking the sketchy route/times, but now that I think about it I've seen bus routes on Yelp. Perhaps I'll start looking there.