I actually think Capps piece does a poor job of explaining why the TOD program isn’t working, probably because he mostly talked to developers. The vast majority of the money seems to be contained within the RRIF program at DoT which was originally created to help finance railroad improvements, but you can check the FRA/BAB site, and there just haven’t been many RRIF loans taken out ever (around 1/3 of the total lifetime value ever loaned is for the new Acela trains, and the vast majority of the total value has flowed to either Amtrak or commuter railroads.) now the program is over 2 decades old (it was created in 97 if memory serves), and just hasn’t been very successful at getting people to want to take out its loans far before everything bagel liberalism was a thing. I think given this it should be extremely unsurprising that private developers find the same things that have kept private RRs from access RRIF to be major road blocks. This to me suggests you probably need to think about rewriting the guts of the RRIF program (which are probably approaching 30), and trying to bolt TOD onto it isn’t going to paper over the foundational problems that have existed with making it attractive to private firms for three decades . https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/rrif
Somewhere, Dr. F. A. Hayek is having a good laugh at the futility of central planners micromanaging a massive industrial and technological transformation combined with a Made-in-USA jobs program.
Granted, since nobody "owns" the atmosphere, we need government action to capture the externalities of carbon emissions. A carbon tax would prod consumers and businesses to find the optimal carbon reduction strategies without subsidies and mandates.
I'm interested in the choice of expert forecasts you look at here. No mention of CBO/JCT. There were many articles a year ago insisting their forecasts of growth in these industries were too slow.
I really liked this article. Usually, I just like MY's quick wit, good writing, and hot takes on current events. But, this took research and deep understanding. If losing the mailbag means more of this, great. (But, honestly, not sure MY can keep this up. I can't imagine this being a weekly feature in addition to everything else he does).
The importance of timing in recent major policy legislation is, I think, underrated.
Here in rural Minnesota, the 2024 highway construction season is still going to be funded by the inflationary American Rescue Plan. It seems unlikely that this is an extraordinary situation.
For purposes of inflation reduction, I suspect we will see a similar delay in Inflation Reduction Act impacts.
As if on cue, today’s piece lands as I stare, frustrated, at my California primary ballot, which includes Proposition 1,* a bond and tax-reallocation measure designed to dent the state’s public health crises vis a vis mental health/addiction and homelessness.
This used to be the kind of thing I’d almost reflexively vote for. But I’ve been mugged by the reality of what prior measures have wrought. Weed legalization, partly portrayed, perhaps in memory of Prohibition’s legacy, as a way to diminish criminality (or at least incarceration) has nevertheless allowed room for massive, brazenly open illegal farms and Valentine’s Day Massacre-style desert executions. I could name others.
So yeah, I’d like some good modeling here. The state voting guide’s legislative analysis, which recognizes this is not even a half-measure to the overall problem (as does the LA Times endorsement), provides some helpful details, but asks no questions like: Will this initiative, which provides for more built housing, work in sync with the state’s recent changes to zoning laws, which reduce local control over permitting? Or will still-potent barriers to development swallow any subsidies and incentives—kinda like how marijuana still being on the federal no-no list probably works against making legal regulated weed cheap enough to crowd-out the illegal stuff?
At the least, Governor Newsom’s ads portraying veteran tent cities leave the impression that a yes vote will make those go away. It won’t, (or will it?) and we should be honest about this.
Which gets me to the reason we’re on this site: the belief that in the absence of massive policy, moving forward, even inches, is how you get to new horizons. So it is with this measure I ponder. But that only works if there is earned credibility on how the thing will actually go.
I’m guessing no one has a forward-going version of Mr. Peabody’s Wayback machine, so models are gonna have to do. Let’s hope they get the attention they deserve. Meantime, fellow Californians…thoughts?
*Statewide ballot props are a real treat, but that’ll be for another mailbag…
Thanks Josh, that’s good perspective. To keep this on topic and not just a California issue clearinghouse, I guess the only way it could hurt is if it fails to offer enough incremental success to which we as citizens or our elected officials can point…whether it affirms or confuses as to if we’re on the right track. I think Matt’s point is that work needs to be done to both forecast and track the effects in tangible ways. I would also say that we now live in an information environment that can lead to obfuscation whether or not such tracking is done.
I was reading some WSJ article about plunging prices for lithium as a glut has developed. End of story.
But that has reduced battery prices which has reduced EV prices which is driving sales back up which will lead to rising lithium prices - it’s you know how markets work, price signals…. It almost seemed lost of the WSJ reporter.
Climate change is all well and good but I read “pandas are coming back” and thought this means they finally found a way to make them reproduce properly and increase their population in the wild ! What a disappointment to discover this was actually about them coming back *to the us* via strings attached Chinese diplomacy! Sad.
I also want to call back to the Mayor-Council vs Council-Manager question, because I think it’s a good one — and I’m particularly interested in how the answer varies by city size.
Having done work for large and small cities, it seems like smaller cities often have a shallow bench for elected positions, making it challenging to fill city council / mayor / other elected positions with qualified, competent, and engaged people. The lack of good journalism (and polling) also seems to limit the amount of good information available to voters about candidates / electeds performance.
Great question and response — even if the models often aren’t correct, the act of modeling forces us to try to develop a deeper understanding of the issues at hand, complex interactions / possible unintended consequences, and reveal our thinking. Reminds me of the Eisenhower quote: “Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable”.
I like the experiment with the new mailbag — sometimes the regular mailbags would have a great question that only got a short response to leave room for the others. Maybe there’s a different voting scheme? Or maybe two questions for some variety? Or soliciting questions from different categories that the readers tend to go to (current event, historical counterfactual, procedural / theoretical)?
“ But Tesla is selling a lot of cars, and Hyundai and Kia are seeing strong EV sales growth in the American market. Globally speaking, Chinese companies, led by BYD, are doing great with electric cars. “
Who the hell knows what the Chinese government is doing with industrial support for BYD so I wouldn’t view that as any evidence that the electric car business is amazing. Hyundai and Kia are continuing to hedge with their highly profitable gas SUVs and Tesla is slowing down expansion. Think there are pretty clear headwinds here.
One of my mantras is planning is useless but planning is indispensable. Plans will inevitably run into the harsh wilderness of reality. Planning allows you to pivot to alternative paths and ideas, and challenge your assumptions in your decision making process.
Re: the Capps/federal office-to-residential program... it is *wild* that a building across from a light rail stop doesn't count as being near transit under the program guidelines, while being near Amtrak does.
I actually think Capps piece does a poor job of explaining why the TOD program isn’t working, probably because he mostly talked to developers. The vast majority of the money seems to be contained within the RRIF program at DoT which was originally created to help finance railroad improvements, but you can check the FRA/BAB site, and there just haven’t been many RRIF loans taken out ever (around 1/3 of the total lifetime value ever loaned is for the new Acela trains, and the vast majority of the total value has flowed to either Amtrak or commuter railroads.) now the program is over 2 decades old (it was created in 97 if memory serves), and just hasn’t been very successful at getting people to want to take out its loans far before everything bagel liberalism was a thing. I think given this it should be extremely unsurprising that private developers find the same things that have kept private RRs from access RRIF to be major road blocks. This to me suggests you probably need to think about rewriting the guts of the RRIF program (which are probably approaching 30), and trying to bolt TOD onto it isn’t going to paper over the foundational problems that have existed with making it attractive to private firms for three decades . https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/rrif
This is a fine idea but it should supplement, not replace the mailbag.
#BBTM
Bring Back The Mailbag
Somewhere, Dr. F. A. Hayek is having a good laugh at the futility of central planners micromanaging a massive industrial and technological transformation combined with a Made-in-USA jobs program.
Granted, since nobody "owns" the atmosphere, we need government action to capture the externalities of carbon emissions. A carbon tax would prod consumers and businesses to find the optimal carbon reduction strategies without subsidies and mandates.
I'm interested in the choice of expert forecasts you look at here. No mention of CBO/JCT. There were many articles a year ago insisting their forecasts of growth in these industries were too slow.
I really liked this article. Usually, I just like MY's quick wit, good writing, and hot takes on current events. But, this took research and deep understanding. If losing the mailbag means more of this, great. (But, honestly, not sure MY can keep this up. I can't imagine this being a weekly feature in addition to everything else he does).
The importance of timing in recent major policy legislation is, I think, underrated.
Here in rural Minnesota, the 2024 highway construction season is still going to be funded by the inflationary American Rescue Plan. It seems unlikely that this is an extraordinary situation.
For purposes of inflation reduction, I suspect we will see a similar delay in Inflation Reduction Act impacts.
Am I in trouble? I cannot like anything or comment?
Are you getting any message?
It appears to have resolved itself.
As if on cue, today’s piece lands as I stare, frustrated, at my California primary ballot, which includes Proposition 1,* a bond and tax-reallocation measure designed to dent the state’s public health crises vis a vis mental health/addiction and homelessness.
This used to be the kind of thing I’d almost reflexively vote for. But I’ve been mugged by the reality of what prior measures have wrought. Weed legalization, partly portrayed, perhaps in memory of Prohibition’s legacy, as a way to diminish criminality (or at least incarceration) has nevertheless allowed room for massive, brazenly open illegal farms and Valentine’s Day Massacre-style desert executions. I could name others.
So yeah, I’d like some good modeling here. The state voting guide’s legislative analysis, which recognizes this is not even a half-measure to the overall problem (as does the LA Times endorsement), provides some helpful details, but asks no questions like: Will this initiative, which provides for more built housing, work in sync with the state’s recent changes to zoning laws, which reduce local control over permitting? Or will still-potent barriers to development swallow any subsidies and incentives—kinda like how marijuana still being on the federal no-no list probably works against making legal regulated weed cheap enough to crowd-out the illegal stuff?
At the least, Governor Newsom’s ads portraying veteran tent cities leave the impression that a yes vote will make those go away. It won’t, (or will it?) and we should be honest about this.
Which gets me to the reason we’re on this site: the belief that in the absence of massive policy, moving forward, even inches, is how you get to new horizons. So it is with this measure I ponder. But that only works if there is earned credibility on how the thing will actually go.
I’m guessing no one has a forward-going version of Mr. Peabody’s Wayback machine, so models are gonna have to do. Let’s hope they get the attention they deserve. Meantime, fellow Californians…thoughts?
*Statewide ballot props are a real treat, but that’ll be for another mailbag…
Speaking of renewable energy stuff…
https://www.pressenterprise.com/2024/02/29/southern-california-bus-factory-shuts-latest-victim-of-green-vehicle-slump/
Massacre…
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/29/us/california-mojave-desert-six-dead-arrests/index.html
I'm voting for Prop 1. I don't think it will do much, but it's hard for me to imagine it will make things worse.
It got bipartisan legislative support. Bipartisan legislative bills aren't always correct but it's still a point in favor, to me.
Thanks Josh, that’s good perspective. To keep this on topic and not just a California issue clearinghouse, I guess the only way it could hurt is if it fails to offer enough incremental success to which we as citizens or our elected officials can point…whether it affirms or confuses as to if we’re on the right track. I think Matt’s point is that work needs to be done to both forecast and track the effects in tangible ways. I would also say that we now live in an information environment that can lead to obfuscation whether or not such tracking is done.
Either way, appreciate the reply.
I was reading some WSJ article about plunging prices for lithium as a glut has developed. End of story.
But that has reduced battery prices which has reduced EV prices which is driving sales back up which will lead to rising lithium prices - it’s you know how markets work, price signals…. It almost seemed lost of the WSJ reporter.
Climate change is all well and good but I read “pandas are coming back” and thought this means they finally found a way to make them reproduce properly and increase their population in the wild ! What a disappointment to discover this was actually about them coming back *to the us* via strings attached Chinese diplomacy! Sad.
Also, bbmb (bring back mailbag).
I also want to call back to the Mayor-Council vs Council-Manager question, because I think it’s a good one — and I’m particularly interested in how the answer varies by city size.
Having done work for large and small cities, it seems like smaller cities often have a shallow bench for elected positions, making it challenging to fill city council / mayor / other elected positions with qualified, competent, and engaged people. The lack of good journalism (and polling) also seems to limit the amount of good information available to voters about candidates / electeds performance.
Great question and response — even if the models often aren’t correct, the act of modeling forces us to try to develop a deeper understanding of the issues at hand, complex interactions / possible unintended consequences, and reveal our thinking. Reminds me of the Eisenhower quote: “Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable”.
I like the experiment with the new mailbag — sometimes the regular mailbags would have a great question that only got a short response to leave room for the others. Maybe there’s a different voting scheme? Or maybe two questions for some variety? Or soliciting questions from different categories that the readers tend to go to (current event, historical counterfactual, procedural / theoretical)?
Loved the links to the articles (so many good ones) at the beginning of this Friday post!
“ But Tesla is selling a lot of cars, and Hyundai and Kia are seeing strong EV sales growth in the American market. Globally speaking, Chinese companies, led by BYD, are doing great with electric cars. “
Who the hell knows what the Chinese government is doing with industrial support for BYD so I wouldn’t view that as any evidence that the electric car business is amazing. Hyundai and Kia are continuing to hedge with their highly profitable gas SUVs and Tesla is slowing down expansion. Think there are pretty clear headwinds here.
One of my mantras is planning is useless but planning is indispensable. Plans will inevitably run into the harsh wilderness of reality. Planning allows you to pivot to alternative paths and ideas, and challenge your assumptions in your decision making process.
Re: the Capps/federal office-to-residential program... it is *wild* that a building across from a light rail stop doesn't count as being near transit under the program guidelines, while being near Amtrak does.