If you know anyone in the Phoenix area who might be interested, have them apply. Please do not apply by putting something in the comments section.
Update: fixed the link
Dispatches from District 48
Posts tagged ‘Phoenix’
If you know anyone in the Phoenix area who might be interested, have them apply. Please do not apply by putting something in the comments section.
Update: fixed the link
Americans are leaving the costliest metro areas for more affordable parts of the country at a faster rate than they are being replaced, according to an analysis of census data, reflecting the impact of housing costs on domestic migration patterns.
Those mostly likely to move from expensive to inexpensive metro areas were at the lower end of the income scale, under the age of 40 and without a bachelor’s degree, the analysis by home-tracker Trulia found.
Looking at census migration patterns across the U.S. from 2010 to 2014, Trulia analyzed movement between the 10 most expensive metro areas—including all of coastal California, New York City and Miami—and the next 90 priciest metro areas, based on the percentage of income needed to pay a monthly mortgage on a typical home.
I can't tell you now many people I know here in Arizona that tell horror stories about California and how they had to get out, and then, almost in the same breath, complain that the only problem with Arizona is that it does not have all the laws in place that made California unlivable in the first place. The will say, for example, they left California for Arizona because homes here are so much more affordable, and then complain that Phoenix doesn't have tight enough zoning, or has no open space requirements, or has no affordability set-asides, or whatever. I am amazed by how many otherwise smart people cannot make connections between policy choices and outcomes, preferring instead to judge regulatory decisions solely on their stated intentions, rather than their actual effects.
Working in the world of privatization, one objection I get all the time to privately operating in a here-to-for public space is that government officials are somehow more "accountable" to the public than are private companies.
This strikes me as an utter disconnect with reality. If I screw up, I make less money or even go out of business. When government agencies or officials screw up, they generally remain unchanged and unpunished forever. There are no market competitive forces just waiting to shove a government agency aside -- they have a monopoly enforced at the point of government guns. As I wrote a week ago about a conversation between myself and a government official about my operating public parks:
I understand that my margins are so narrow, if even 5% of those visitors don't come back next year -- because they had a bad time or they saw a bad review online -- I will make no money. Those 2 million people vote with their feet every year on whether they think I am adequately serving the public, and their votes directly affect how much money I make.
Government agencies have nothing like this sort of accountability for public service.
One reason government agencies seldom change is that the typical response to even overt malfeasance is 1) to give the agency more money, as the agency will blame all incompetence on lack of budget (just think "public schools" and teachers unions) and 2) the agency will fire nobody.
Take the Phoenix VA. Congress eventually rewarded the VA with more money, almost no one was fired, and the one of the worst managers in the VA system, a serial failure in multiple VA offices who would have been fired from any private company I can think of, was put in charge of the struggling Phoenix VA.
Well, it turns out that firing nobody and giving the agency more money is really a poor way to fix things.
Patients in the Phoenix VA Health Care System are still unable to get timely specialist appointments after massive reform efforts, and delayed care may be to blame for at least one more veteran's death, according to a new Office of the Inspector General probe.
The VA watchdog's latest report, issued Tuesday, says more than two years after Phoenix became the hub of a nationwide VA scandal, inspectors identified 215 deceased patients who were awaiting specialist consultations on the date of death. That included one veteran who "never received an appointment for a cardiology exam that could have prompted further definitive testing and interventions that could have forestalled his death."
The report portrays Phoenix VA clerks, clinicians and administrators as confused and in conflict about scheduling policies despite more than two years of reform and retraining.
"Unexpectedly" as a famous blogger would say.
After the scandalous management practices in the Phoenix VA which were proved to sacrifice patient well-being, and even patient lives, in favor of artificially pumping up managers' metrics and bonuses, someone with experience in the private sector might have expected the agency to clean house. Hah!
The Department of Veterans Affairs has named a new director to its beleaguered Phoenix VA Medical Center, and the decision instantly came under fire because the appointee left a previous hospital leadership post after it got the lowest satisfaction rating of any facility in the VA system.
RimaAnn Nelson, who most recently headed a tiny VA clinic in the Philippines, is expected to take charge of a Phoenix VA Health Care System that was the epicenter of a national crisis over its treatment of veterans. She is the seventh director during the past three years to enter a revolving leadership door at Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center....
Nelson, who began her career as a nurse, was sent to the Philippines in 2013 after a series of incidents under her leadership at the VA St. Louis Health Care System. The Daily Caller, a non-profit, investigative news organization, said the incidents included two closures of the hospital due to medical safety issues, and potential exposure of HIV to hundreds of veterans.
How is this person even still employed, much less being rewarded with a larger, more responsible post?
Valley Metro, the agency that operates light rail and most bus service in the Phoenix area, has published its 2016 annual ridership numbers, and they are awful (the agency is on a july-june fiscal year). Over the past year, they have opened two extensions of the current light rail line, spending $o.5 Billion to extend the line 6.2 miles. So what did we get for this? Falling transit use.
To begin with, we must again look past Valley Metro's downright bizarre chartsmanship, where differences in bar length bear absolutely no relationship to the values graphed (just try to figure out the bar lengths for the last three years of light rail data).
We see that light rail ridership is up 9%. This appears low, given that the line and total investment were increased by about 33%, but the new extensions were not available for the whole year. My guess correcting for opening dates is that on a full year basis this represents about a 20% increase. For May, June, and July light rail ridership has been running 19%, 26%, and 20% above the same month last year (before either extension was opened). This is well below the increase in line length (31%) and line total investment (36%)
I have always argued that the first 20 miles of the light rail line cut through the densest part of the city, including the downtown area (such that it is), the two highest visitation sports stadiums, and ASU -- and as such any future expansions were going to have a much harder time justifying themselves (ie, as in this case, a 31% expansion in length would yield something less than 31% increase in ridership). Light rail supporters have argued in return that I had things exactly backwards, that network effects would mean that ridership increased faster than route length. My sense is that this argument will pretty clearly tip in my direction by the time we have 2017 data.
By the way, with total investment up to over $2 billion and average weekday round trip ridership at about 23,500 in fiscal 2016, then the total capital cost (not including annual operating subsidies) of the line sits at about $85,000 per round-trip rider. Whenever Valley Metro supporters defend the line against my attacks, they will often quote various riders saying how much they love it. Of course they do! They damn well should love it -- we taxpayers spent $85,000 for each one of them to open the line AND subsidize every single one of their rides.
But if you really want to see the cost of these subsidies, look at the bus and total transit ridership in the chart above. Total transit ridership in the area has fallen to the lowest point since before the light rail line was first opened, despite the fact the city it serves is still growing. This is because bus ridership has fallen off the map. Just last year, for every 1 rider gained to the light rail line expansions, 3.6 were lost on busses. To see how far bus ridership has fallen, you have to go back further than the chart above shows. Here is an older Valley Metro chart I annotated for a previous article:
You can see from this that bus ridership in Phoenix fell to a level we have not seen since 2003! This is despite the fact that the Phoenix MSA has added about a million people since that time.
As it does in every city, light rail costs are starving the rest of the transit system. By shifting transit dollars into a mode that requires 10x more money to move a single passenger, the numbers of passengers served has to fall. You can see from the chart that Phoenix transit ridership was rising steadily from 1997 to 2009. But once light rail was completed, transit ridership absolutely stopped growing, despite population increases and large increases to total transit budgets. Without light rail, we might very well have seen transit ridership as high as 90 million today, if past ridership growth trends held.
I reported before of clicking on the "today" one-click button at Amazon, meaning that I would pay a premium to get it here today (an option in the Phoenix area but not all locations) and having the item delivered one, two, or even three days later, rather than same day as promised. This is happening with my Amazon orders more often than not - they are showing up days after they were promised when the sale was made.
It has now happened two more times. On Tuesday evening I bought two small items I needed for an emergency computer rebuild, clicking in both cases on the button for delivery on Wednesday. Neither showed up on Wednesday. Neither showed up on Thursday. The tracking on the site now says Friday. (By the way, all the rest of the stuff ordered from Newegg on a one day delivery showed up exactly as promised).
I went back and looked and the order confirmations sure enough say delivery on Friday. I would never have ordered the item for Friday delivery, and in fact skimmed through multiple similar items until I found one that could be delivered on Wednesday. I am positive I clicked Wednesday delivery, but a day later I got confirmations for a Friday delivery, without so much as an apology or even acknowledgement that this was not what I was promised. I am sure Amazon will just call this user error on my part, but it now has happened on 8 or my last 10 rush shipments. I GUARANTEE I know how to use Amazon, and have the order history to prove it, LOL.
I am convinced Amazon is executing a bait and switch, luring me into the purchase with the promise of a quick delivery and then delivering it several days late when it is too late for me to do anything about it. Next time I do a rush order, I am going to take full screenshots of every step I take to prove what is going on. Anyone else having similar experiences? Amazon was dead-on reliable on these types of things until about 6 months ago, and then started to go off the tracks recently.
I have noticed for the last 6 months or so, at least here in Phoenix, that Amazon frequently does not deliver items when they promise. It is not just an issue with the shipper, in the last two cases the item did not even ship until 1-2 days after the date they promised for delivery.
This has reached a head in the last week, when I ordered a number of items to be delivered immediately -- I am leaving town and wanted some items to take to my son's apartment. They are useless to me even a few hours after I depart home. I ordered seven items on Monday with my prime membership, and all promised delivery that same day (one for free, two with a nominal upcharge). Of these, none arrived on Monday. One arrived on Tuesday and as of 4PM on Tuesday, the other six have not even shipped, and Amazon is showing them here on Wednesday at best.
I would not have bought these from Amazon had they given me accurate delivery estimates. I am wondering if they are using fake, overly optimistic delivery estimates to try to woo business from bricks and mortar stores, whose one advantage is immediate fulfillment.
Alex Tabarrok discusses some academic work that shows a declining inter-regional mobility in the United States which is causing local economic declines to last much longer than they used to last.
In a new paper, also cited by Leubsdorf, Danny Yagan at Berkeley suggests that reduced migration is only part of the problem. What has made the aftermath to the 2008-2009 recession so bad is that migration is low at the same time that it has become more necessary than ever. The 2008-2009 recession was especially localized, it hit some places harder than others and in a way that appears to be permanent. But migration has been too slow to solve the problem.
The usual story is that in-and-out migration equalizes wage, unemployment and employment rates across the nation. Some places may be harder hit than others but movement quickly makes the US into one labor market. In the aftermath of this recession, however, that isn’t happening for employment rates. Using a clever research design that looks at workers with similar education and skills doing the same jobs at the same large firms but in different locations, Yagan finds that location continues to matter years after the recession has ended. Workers who worked in the places hardest hit in the 2007-2009 recession have employment rates today that are 1% lower than similar workers in regions that were less hard hit.
It is probably unfair for me to comment on this because I have been highly mobile in my life, having lived and worked in about 10 places as diverse as Houston, Dallas, Boston, Boulder, Seattle, Phoenix, St. Louis. However, I will take a shot at this. Some of my hypotheses:
The Arizona Republic reports that the Arizona Department of Water Resources has set six priorities for managing expected water shortages in the future. The six are listed in one of those annoying click-bait page-flipping things, so I will summarize them below:
What is missing here? Well I will give you a hint. This article was on the very same page (at least online) of the newspaper -- Phoenix has the cheapest water in the country!
If you live in Phoenix, you’re probably paying one of the cheapest annual water bills in the country, even with the rate increase that took effect this month, according to a recent national report on public water systems.
The February report by Food & Water Watch said the lead-tainted water supply in Flint, Michigan, was the most expensive in the country, with customers there paying $910.05 a year. It said Phoenix residents paid just $84.24 a year, then the lowest rate in the nation.
A city water department official said the rates could be a little misleading – rates jump for heavy users, one factor that has helped Phoenix keep water use down even as the number of water users has risen sharply.
But even after the 3 percent increase that took effect March 1, analysts say Phoenix rates are probably still among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the country for residential customers who don’t use large amounts of water in a month.
This is absurd. Why does the state agency need to go around spying on private water use and begging for funding when price is such an obvious lever to match supply and demand. Raise the freaking prices! Are we drawing from lakes and groundwater faster than they can replenish themselves? Raise the dang price until demand falls to a sustainable level. As an extra bonus, this would help solve the funding problem, and have it solved by water users themselves rather than taxpayers.
By the way, I ask these questions but I actually know the answers -- government officials don't want to take the heat when the prices rise. They want to pander to the public and hand them populist goodies like cheap water, and then manage the inevitable water crisis with authoritarian actions like rationing and surveillance that increase their personal power.
And congrats to our newspaper: It has article after article, day after day, listing all the dire water shortages that face the area, and then they write this article with nary a mention that having the country's lowest water rates might be related.
I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to the first person with an email in my inbox (coyote--at---coyoteblog dot com) with a North American retail source (no large lots) for something similar to this:
Does not need to be a scissor lift, could be cables but must be motorized. We have a very modern house which sometimes results in odd rooms. Our laundry room is tiny in footprint but has a 12 foot ceiling (!). So I was just in the process of designing a motor lifted frame with poles to hang clothes for drying** that could lift up and down from the ceiling when I saw this. They seem to have many in Asia but I can't find one here. This one has some sort of air drying system which we don't need so that is not a necessary part of the package. This is a (homemade I think) hand winched version which would also be OK if it were motorized.
Update: Thanks. I have a couple of winners I will announce.
**Phoenix has approx. 5% humidity so we don't need to bother hanging them outside, they will dry anywhere in hours.
In 2014, I published an article based on Valley Metro's (our transit operator in Phoenix) very own ridership chart. Here was the chart I showed:
My point was that the huge amount of money spent on light rail, which essentially constituted a single commuting route in this enormous and spread-out city, was cannibalizing bus service. The cost and investment to carry a light rail passenger is at least an order of magnitude greater than that needed to carry a bus passenger, and no public system can long endure this sort of cost increase to shift passengers from a relatively cheap transit mode to an expensive one. Inevitably, bus service (which mainly benefits the poor) is terminated to pay for the train (which benefits middle and upper class riders who would not be caught dead on a bus). I am pretty sure the train would have been harder sell if they had been honest and said that they were going to have to cut bus service for the low-income working folks so that ASU students and Arizona Diamondbacks and Phoenix Suns fans could have a better way to get to the ballgame.
Anyway, Valley Metro has updated the chart for 2015 and it continues to look bad:
They were smart to cut off history on this one so you can't see how they killed the growth trend with the advent of light rail. But you see that total transit ridership fell, with a small fall in light rail ridership and a huge fall in bus ridership. Oops. As an aside, they still have not fixed their terrible chart plotting. You can see this years bar for light rail being longer than the one for 2013 despite the fact the number is lower.
The 2016 numbers will be interesting. Since 2015 they will have opened several light rail extensions and got themselves a huge new tax increase approved (over my stern opposition).
Update: In retrospect, the bus ridership fall was significant but "huge" probably is an exaggeration. I was fooled by looking at the bar lengths, which again seem to have nothing to do with the actual data. They are clearly drawing this manually -- no automatic charting program would get it this wrong.
Readers will know that this is one of my favorite topics on this blog, how huge investments in showy rail projects that amp up the prestige of government officials tend to cannibalize lower cost bus service and, at the end of the day, actually reduce total transit ridership. The LA Times almost sortof recognizes this, and Randal O'Toole is on the case:
“Billions spent, but fewer people are using public transportation,” declares the Los Angeles Times. The headline might have been more accurate if it read, “Billions spent, so thereforefewer are using public transit,” as the billions were spent on the wrong things.
The L.A. Times article focuses on Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), though the same story could be written for many other cities. In Los Angeles, ridership peaked in 1985, fell to 1995, then grew again, and now is falling again. Unmentioned in the story, 1985 is just before Los Angeles transit shifted emphasis from providing low-cost bus service to building expensive rail lines, while 1995 is just before an NAACP lawsuit led to a court order to restore bus service lost since 1985 for ten years.
Transit ridership is very sensitive to transit vehicle revenue miles. Metro’s predecessor, the Southern California Rapid Transit District, ran buses for 92.6 million revenue miles in 1985. By 1995, to help pay for rail cost overruns, this had fallen to 78.9 million. Thanks to the court order in the NAACP case, this climbed back up to 92.9 million in 2006. But after the court order lapsed, it declined to 75.7 million in 2014. The riders gained on the multi-billion-dollar rail lines don’t come close to making up for this loss in bus service.
Los Angeles ridership trends are not unusual: transit agencies building expensive rail infrastructure often can’t afford to keep running the buses that carry the bulk of their riders, so ridership declines.
- Ridership in Houston peaked at 102.5 million trips in 2006, falling to 85.9 million in 2014 thanks to cuts in bus service necessitated by the high cost of light rail;
- Despite huge job growth, Washington ridership peaked at 494.2 million in 2009 and has since fallen to 470.4 million due at least in part to Metro’s inability to maintain the rail lines;
- Atlanta ridership peaked at 170.0 million trips in 2000 and has since fallen nearly 20 percent to 137.5 million and per capita ridership has fallen by two thirds since 1985;
- San Francisco Bay Area ridership reached 490.9 million in 1982, but was only 457.0 million in 2014 as BART expansions forced cutbacks in bus service, a one-third decline in per capita ridership;
- Pittsburgh transit regularly carried more than 85 million riders per year in the 1980s but is now down to some 65 million;
- Austin transit carried 38 million riders in 2000, but after opening a rail line in 2010, ridership is now down to 34 million.
I will add that total transit ridership has been totally flat in Phoenix after construction of a major light rail project. The project's total cost is approaching $2 billion as they slowly add on short extensions, but this amount did nothing but cannibalize bus ridership. In fact, the situation is worse than this, since before light rail was built, Phoenix transit ridership was growing rapidly every single year, so in fact light rail actually likely reduced ridership by about 14 million. The whole story is here. (I will have an update in a moment but they have updated the chart from that article and ridership fell yet again in 2015).
I don't want to give too much credence to Cruz's "New York values" dig on Trump. First, it's silly -- New York is not at all monolithic. Second, it doesn't really even apply to Trump, who often thumbs his nose at New York elite.
But I think that if you asked a lot of people in flyover country, the statement would still have resonance. I think the reason is that while New York is not at all monolithic in its culture and values, its media exports do tend to be much more homogeneous and tend to reflect a Left-liberal coastal condescension.
I was thinking about this watching the Broadway show If/Then which was in Phoenix this weekend. I thought this was a pretty forgettable musical, essentially a sort of remake of the movie "Sliding Doors", that was elevated by Idina Menzel in the lead. We in flyover country seldom get stars of this caliber (at least after they are famous) in our roadshows and she (along with one other female lead who was quite good) made the show worth the ticket.
Anyway, a couple of observations about the show in the context of Cruz's statement:
I got over getting too worked up about this sort of stuff years ago (or else I would spend all my time holed up in a cave listening to a few old Rush albums). Cruz was wrong to criticize New York values but I think there is a .... call it an attitude that emanates from New York media that the rest of the country sometimes finds irritating.
** in the show we saw, the lead character had just escaped from a bad marriage in Phoenix. My guess is that this was not the original location, but was switched for the show here (though I could be wrong, since such a switch would have meant adjusting a couple of songs too). Anyone see it on Broadway and know what location was used there?
5 minutes ago the title of this post would have been "F*cking Cardinals" for giving up that hail mary pass to Green Bay -- didn't anyone watch the tape on the Detriot game, with the receiver backing into the end zone to make the catch? This play was almost an exact duplicate. I will, though, give credit to the Cardinals for blitzing the QB on that play -- I think that was smart and would have worked against most teams. Only Aaron Rodgers could have gotten that throw off.
Anyway, Fitz was already beloved in Phoenix, not only as a great football player but as an awesome human being. Now just more so.
It is a tradition of Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin West architecture school (in Scottsdale, AZ) that students build their own small shelter in the desert. I am a fan of Dan Simmons' Hyperion series. If any of you read it, perhaps you remember the section where Aenea is at some strange out-of-time version of this school. Following the real-world tradition, she builds her own dwelling in the desert.
These are not necessarily cardboard box and plywood forts -- many are real engineered structures whose materials can be expensive (the students do most of the building with their own hands). I wish more architecture schools emphasized their students actually constructing some of their own work.
The students are looking for your help to support their projects, and have a Kickstarter campaign in progress.
The video below shows what they are doing:
As an aside, if you are in Phoenix, I would put Taliesin West as one of the top 2 places to tour in town, along with the Musical Instrument Museum. Phoenix of course is much more of an outdoor town. The very top thing to do in town, not just to tour, is probably to climb Camelback Mountain or Piestawa peak. Both are mountains dead in the middle of the city, something that is relatively unusual (in Denver, Portland, Seattle, etc the mountains are off to one side). The views are spectacular, and there is no funicular or cable car. The view only rewards effort.
The local food movement in Arizona needs just that – movement.
While some shoppers enjoy spending their Saturday mornings at local farmers markets, new research indicates Arizona lacks per-capita sales in the local food industry.
The 2015 Locavore Index found that of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., Arizona has the second lowest per-capita sales for local foods.
Here is a scoop for you: We live in the middle of the freaking Sonoran desert. It is a terrible place to grow most foods. In fact, it is an environmentally awful place to grow food. Local food folks somehow have gotten locked into transportation costs as the key driver of food sustainability that they want to focus on, but transportation costs are 10% or less of most food costs. A small savings on transportation is absolutely dwarfed, from a productivity and resource use standpoint, by the productivity of the soil and the fit of the climate with whatever is being grown.
Here is one way to think of it -- yes, locally grown food may not have to be transported very far, but every drop of water for food grown here in the Phoenix area has to be brought hundreds of miles from declining reservoirs to grow that food.
The movement seems to imply that locally grown food is more healthy. Why? Why is an Arizona tomato healthier than a California tomato?
Finally, the micro-trade-protectionism is pretty funny:
If local Arizonans start buying more local food, the economy may benefit as well.
When buying local grown food, “the money stays here in the local economy, as opposed to buying something in a national chain,” said R.J. Johnson, a sales representative for Blue Sky Organic Farms in Litchfield Park. “You buy something locally, 75 percent of that money stays here in town.”
This is so economically ignorant as to be beyond belief. If more people are growing food here locally (something that is likely a fairly unproductive task given our climate), what productive tasks are they giving up. And this is a national effort -- are they really with a straight face telling every single state that they should buy more locally so their money stays at home? Isn't that just one big zero sum game (actually a negative sum game because you lose benefits of specialization and comparative advantage).
When you hear that police pulled someone over for the totally BS charge of a "partially obscured license plate with only one light," can't you just assume the driver is probably black or Hispanic?
If I were a Mexican in Phoenix, I would do a full walk-around checking my vehicle before every trip. A visiting friend once asked me if the fact that Hispanics all seem to drive so slow was a cultural thing and I said that more likely, they know they will get busted for going even a hair over the speed limit.
When Kris Kobach says "In four different sections, the law [SB1070] reiterates that a law-enforcement official 'may not consider race, color, or national origin' in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status," he is ignoring reality. The law asks police to make a determination (e.g. probable cause that one is an illegal immigrant) that is impossible for actual human beings to make without such profiling. It's like passing a law that says "police must drive their cars 30 miles a day but can't drive their cars to do so." The reality on the ground here in Arizona is that, illegal or not, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been using racial profiling to make arrest sweeps for years, and his officers have become masters at finding some pretext to pull over a Mexican they want to check out (e.g. the broken tail light). Words in this law about racial profiling are not going to change anything.
Update: I forgot this story from 2008, which is a great example of what I am talking about here
Arrest records from crime sweeps conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office add substantial weight to claims that deputies usedracial profiling to pull Latino motorists over to search for illegal immigrants....
even when the patrols were held in mostly White areas such as Fountain Hills and Cave Creek, deputies arrested more Latinos than non-Latinos, the records show. In fact, deputies arrested among the highest percentage of Latinos when patrols were conducted in mostly White areas.
On the arrest records, deputies frequently cited minor traffic violations such as cracked windshields and non-working taillights as the reason to stop drivers.
"These are penny-ante offenses that (police) almost always ignore. This is telling you this is being used to get at something else, and I think that something else is immigration enforcement against Hispanic people," Harris said....
The AZ Republic has some of the first information I have ever seen on the nature of Phoenix light rail ridership. The first part confirms what I have always said, that light rail's primary appeal is to middle and upper class whites who don't want to ride on the bus with the plebes
Light rail has changed the demographics of overall transit users since the system opened in 2008, according to Valley Metro.
Passengers report higher incomes than bus riders, with more than a quarter living in households making more than $50,000 a year. Many riders have cars they could use.
The 20-mile system running through Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa recorded more than than 14 million boardings last year. Still, census data estimate less than one-third of 1 percent of Phoenix commuters — or about 2,000 people — use rail as their main transportation to work.
.0033% huh? If we built similar facilities to serve everyone, it would only cost us about $420 billion at the rate of $1.4 billion per third of a percent.
But I thought this next bit was the most startling. I always had a sneaking suspicion this was true but never have seen it in print before:
While the much larger bus system reaches most corners of the Valley, light rail connects specific destinations along a single line. Nearly half of light-rail riders are enrolled in college.
I must have missed this in the original sales pitch for the light rail line: "Let's pay $1.4 billion so ASU students can get to more distant bars." Note that by these numbers, students likely outnumber commuters 10:1. Doesn't bode well for light rail extensions that don't plow right through the middle of the most populous college campus in the country.
Postscript: They don't break out people riding to get to sporting events downtown, but sporting events make up most of the largest traffic days on the system. From my personal acquaintances, many people use light rail as a substitute for expensive downtown parking at sporting events, parking (often semi-illegally) near light rail stops and taking the train the rest of the way in. On the whole, its not very compelling as a taxpayer to be helping to subsidize someone else's parking. And from a municipal fiscal standpoint, it means that light rail fares may be cannibalizing (on a much greater ratio than 1:1 given the price differential) parking fees at municipal parking lots.
I was reading this article in the Arizona Republic (which is generally an unskeptical cheerleader for light rail investments) and looking at the claim that Valley Metro (the operator of Phoenix light rail) had a 45% fare recovery ratio in 2013. One would think that means that their fares cover 45% of their costs -- which would be awful for any real enterprise but is pretty good for government-run rail systems.
But in fact, Valley Metro (along with rail supporters in the Administration) stack the deck by defining most of the costs out of this metric so it looks far better than it really is. In fact, by my reading of their financial statements, the true fare recovery is at best 15.2% and likely much worse.
Here are the Valley Metro financials for 2013, from their annual report
Look at their costs of $75+ million and fares of about $12.8 million. How do they get to 45%? Simple -- they leave the majority of their costs out. They exclude administrative costs, financing costs, and depreciation (essentially their capital cost) from the equation. This means that their fare recover is 45% -- IF you ignore their large administrative costs and you ignore the $1.4+ billion the line cost to build. Further, because of the way the government does its finances, it is also missing any financing costs (interest and such on debt).
So the true cost recovery, stated in a way that a reasonable person would think about such a number, is 16.8% at best. If one takes into account the $8.28 million in "non-operating expenses" the number is 15.2%. And it is even lower if you were to include interest and other financing costs.
I am sure Valley Metro will argue that this is the way the Feds measure it. I don't care. It has an obligation to accurately report its financial position to the public who is paying for it, particularly when the public is considering further investments in the form of higher taxes. The 45% is a meaningless number that is crafted solely to make light rail look financial stronger than it really is.
This, by the way, is why total ridership of rail + buses has stalled since the construction of the light rail line. Light rail is so expensive per rider that it is starving cash from the rest of the system.
In advance of the Obama Administration trying to pursue cities and neighborhoods for not being sufficiently racially integrated, Cato has an interesting take on the question.
The real problem with housing affordability is not at the community level but at the regional level. In a region that has few land-use restrictions, a community that has attracted wealthy people is not going to have much of an effect on the affordability of the region as a whole because builders can always construct more affordable housing elsewhere. The problem is in regions with urban-growth boundaries and other restrictions that limit the construction of affordable housing over the entire region.
If HUD were to apply disparate-impact criteria to regions, it might look at the change in African-American populations between 2000 and 2010. Nationwide, the black population grew by 11 percent in that time period, which was about 1.3 percent faster than the population as a whole. Regions whose black populations grew less than 1.3 percent faster than their whole populations could be considered guilty of housing discrimination.
Based on this, the most racist major (more than a million people) urban area in America is San Francisco-Oakland. Though that region’s population grew by 285,000 people between 2000 and 2010, or 9.5 percent, the region’s black population actually shrank by nearly 49,000, or 14.2 percent, for a difference in growth rates of minus 23.7 percent.
That decline was entirely due to strict land-use policies that prevent development outside of the 17 percent of the region that has already been urbanized, making the Bay Area one of the least affordable housing markets in the nation. Moreover, a recent planto improve affordability by following HUD’s prescription of building more high-density housing was found to actually reduce affordability.
Other major urban areas that would be found racist include Austin (-21.5% difference between black and overall population growth), Riverside-San Bernardino (-17.5%), Honolulu (-15.4%), San Diego (-14.6%), Los Angeles (-14.5%), Bakersfield (-13.6%), and San Jose (-11.1%). All of these regions except Austin have some form of growth-management policy, while Austin has become the least affordable housing market in Texas due to local housing policies.
By comparison, the least racist major urban area is Salt Lake City, whose black population grew 57 percent faster than its total population. Other non-racist areas include Minneapolis-St. Paul (42%), Phoenix (34%), Providence (25%), Boston (19%), Las Vegas (17%), Columbus (14%), Orlando (14%), Atlanta (13%), Tampa (13%), and Miami (10%). Of these, only Providence and Boston are surprises since both have serious housing affordability problems.
The folks at Cato argue that the HUD's preferred approach of promoting high-density housing actually makes the problem worse. This should not be surprising, since Federal policy driven by New Deal Democrats is responsible for most of the worst segregation issues in major cities.
The hefty sales tax that funds Phoenix light rail deficits is about to expire, and as is usual, politicians not only don't want it to expire but they want to double it so they can build more over-priced rail lines.
One of the reasons that stuff like this is so hard to fight is a phenomenon called "concentrated benefits but dispersed costs." This means that, particularly for certain crony handouts, the benefits accrue to just a few actors who, due to the size of these giveaways, have a lot of financial incentive to promote and defend them. The costs, on the other hand, are dispersed such that the final bill might only be a few dollars per taxpayer, such that no individual has much incentive to really pay up to support the fight.
A great example of this is sugar tariffs. These raise the price of sugar (as well as reducing our choices and effectively promoting imperfect substitutes like HFCS) so we as consumers should all fight them. But the higher cost of sugar might only cost us, say, $20 each a year individually. Are you really going to donate $100 in a political cause to save $20? On the other side, these tariffs create millions and millions of dollars in profit for a few sugar producers, such that they have a lot of money and incentive to spend big on lobbying to keep the tariffs in place.
The new Phoenix light rail tax increase gives us a yet another sad example of the phenomenon:
Construction companies, engineering firms and transit service providers are the biggest early supporters of the Proposition 104 campaign to expand Phoenix transportation, while the group fighting the proposed tax increase still seeks major funding.
The MovePHX campaign, supporting the bus, light rail and street improvement plan going before city voters in August, raised $382,900 from March through the end of May, according to finance reports filed Monday.
Opposition group Taken for A Ride — No on Prop 104 received just under $417 from individuals over the same period. A second campaign committee opposed to the proposition formed after the contribution reporting period ended....
More than half of the contributions to the MovePHX campaign during the reporting period came from engineering, design and construction firms, including many that were hired for design and consultation on the Valley's first stretch of light rail.
The largest single donation came from We Build Arizona, a group of engineering, contracting and transit organizations that donated $125,000 to the campaign. TransDev and Alternate Concepts, Inc., which hold bus and light rail service contracts, contributed more than $35,000 combined.
A combined $30,000 came from police, firefighter and food and commercial worker union political action committees.
$382,900 to $417. That is why cronyism is so prevalent.
Patrick Everson has the first of a two-part series of editorials in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on light rail. In this first part, he is nice enough to refer to much of what I have written here about the problems with Phoenix Light Rail. You can find his editorial here.
As I have written before, Phoenix has seen its total transit ridership flat to down since it built its light rail line. This after years of 6-10% a year increases in ridership. Most cities, even the oft-worshipped Portland, have seen the same thing. Here is the chart for Phoenix (if you look closely, you can see how they fudged the bar scaling to make light rail ridership increases look better).
The reason is that per passenger, or per mile, or per route, or whatever way you want to look at it, rail systems are 1-2 orders of magnitude more expensive than buses. Since most cities are reluctant to increase their spending on transit 10-100x when they build trains (and to be fair, proponents of rail projects frequently make this worse by fibbing about future costs and revenue expectations), what happens is that bus routes are cut to fund rail lines. But since buses are so much cheaper, 10 units of bus capacity, or more, must be cut for each one unit of rail capacity.
The Anti-planner shows us an example in Honolulu. No, the line is not finished so this effect has not happened yet, but you can see it from a mile away:
The city and state officials who promoted construction of Honolulu’s rail transit line now admitthat they don’t know how they are going to pay for the cost of operating that line. Between 2019, when the first part of the line is expected to open for business, and 2031, those costs are expected to be $1.7 billion, or about $140 million per year. In 2011, the annual operating cost was estimated to be $126 million a year.
Honolulu has about a hundred bus routes, which cost about $183 million to operate in 2013, or less than $2 million per route. The rail line will therefore cost about 70 times as much to operate as the average bus route.
So they have budgeted no money for operations, and are probably underestimating net operating costs as their revenue projections, as discussed later in the article, are transparently over-optimistic (this is always a good bet, since 99% of rail projects under-estimate their costs and over-estimate their ridership). The rail line will cost as much to operate as 2/3 of their city's entire bus system, which is extensive and well-used. So how many bus routes will be cut to fund this one route? 10? 30? 70?
By the way, beyond the obvious harm to taxpayers, the other people hurt by this are the poor who are disporportionately bus users. Rail systems almost always go from middle/upper class suburbs to business districts and seldom mirror the transit patterns of the poor. Middle class folks who wouldn't be caught dead on a bus love the trains, but these same folks already have transportation alternatives. The bus lines that get cut to fund the trains almost always serve much lower income folks with fewer alternatives.
For reasons I will not get into yet again, cheer-leading local sports subsidies is essentially built into the DNA of most big city newspapers.
'15 Super Bowl visitors boosted tax revenue by double digits
Combined sales tax revenue for January and February totaled $14 million in roughly similar categories for restaurants, bars, hotels and retail in downtown Phoenix, Westgate and Scottsdale. That was up 19.5 percent over the same time a year ago.
That sounds awesome. Take that, all you public subsidy skeptics. Giving the Superbowl the benefit of the doubt and ignoring things like growth and the really good weather this winter, that is $2.28 million increase in taxes which we will generously ascribe all to the Superbowl. And probably mostly taken from non-Arizonans, so its like free money.
It is only later in the article that the paper sheepishly inserts this:
Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale and tourism bureaus from Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe and Mesa combined to spend more than $5.6 million on Super Bowl events and public safety.
So we spent $5.6 million (probably under-estimated) to make $2.28 million (probably not all Superbowl related). The headline was thus a total crock of Sh*t but typical of how, in small ways and large, the media helps push for bigger and bigger government. I am sure the hotels and restaurants did well -- if so, then they are free to form a consortium to pay for the Superbowl's cost next time. Or better yet, have some other sucker city host it and I will happily watch on TV.
Update: I missed this part:
The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority and Glendale provided a $6.2 million rebate to the NFL on Super Bowl ticket sales, said Kevin Daniels, authority chief financial officer.
I can't tell from the article if that $6.2 million is or is not in the numbers above. I presume it is netted out before hand so that the gain in sales tax would be $6.2 million higher than reported above if this provision did not exist. But this does mean that another valid headline would be:
Nearly 75% of Superbowl Sales Tax Gains Given to the NFL
My little town that in the Phoenix area is apparently setting up surveillance cameras all over town, hidden in fake cacti. This never once was discussed in any public meeting, and residents only found out about it when the cameras starting going up.
Residents were alarmed to see the cactus cameras popping up throughout the town over the last few days with no indication of what they were being used for as city officials refused to explain their purpose until all the cameras were installed.
Town leaders initially declined to even talk to local station Fox 10 about the cameras, with Paradise Valley Police saying they were “not prepared to make a statement at this time.” The network was similarly rebuffed when they attempted to get answers on license plate scanners that were being installed in traffic lights back in February.
Fox 10’s Jill Monier was eventually able to speak to Town Manager Kevin Burke, who admitted that the cameras were being used to “run license plates of cars against a hotlist database.”
When asked why officials had been secretive about the cameras, which are being placed on the perimeter of the town, Burke asserted that there was “nothing to hide” and that the cameras wouldn’t be activated until privacy concerns had been addressed.
“Shouldn’t that have been vetted before they even went up?” asked Monier, to which Burke responded, “It probably is fair.”
This appears to be part of the on-again-pretend-to-be-off-again DHS program to set up nationwide tracking of license plates. Ugh. Really gives a creepy Owrellian vibe to our town name of "Paradise Valley". More good news:
The American Civil Liberties Union subsequently revealed that the cameras were also using facial recognition technology to record who was traveling in the vehicle “as part of an official exercise to build a database on people’s lives,” reported the Guardian.