A rare post relating to my career

I use and enjoy open source, but come on, people. Claiming that failed startups built on open source “pay dividends” while ones built on closed source don’t? TO WHOM? Why should the venture capitalist care if the dividends don’t end up in THEIR pocket?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I officially coin the term

crackplog – short for “crackpot blog”, i.e., have you read M1EK’s crackplog?

The evil google machine indicates today that I am the first person in the universe to use this term. Feel free to use it from here on out, but credit me.

Still At It

The folks who basically wanted us to suck it up and enjoy what crumbs we got from the All Systems Go plan are still at it, even today. On the Austin Streetcars group (for people who are trying desperately to salvage some kind of rail, for central Austin, which is otherwise going to only be served by “high frequency circulators” in the form of shuttle buses and, of course, Not So Rapid Bus), Lyndon Henry just called the ASG starter line an “urban light railway”, to which I just had to respond with this old gem which now that I look back, is probably the best thing I wrote about this whole commuter rail debacle. Unfortunately, it was nine months after the election.
Update: Lyndon responded with:

They’ve ordered non-FRA-compliant light DEMUs for this line. It qualifies
as a “light railway” by all standards I know of within the transit
industry. However, since it’s non-electrified, it is NOT
LRT. Operationally, it will be somewhat similar to the Camden-Trenton
RiverLine light railway and the Sprinter light railway currently under
construction in Oceanside (north of San Diego – which they’re calling
“light rail”).

to which I answered:

Pop quiz:
1. What are the headways it will run at during peak times when it opens?
2. How will the passengers get to their final destination?
The answers to those two questions are:
1. 30 minutes, at best
2. Shuttle buses
Neither of those answers is compatible with the concept of “light rail”. As you know. It’s a pretty shoddy effort to claim that it’s light rail because it’s using a slightly less heavy, but still non-electrified, locomotive.
This project is commuter rail, and not a very good one at that (most commuter rail lines at least penetrate a major downtown area; this one does only by the most generous definition of the term, and doesn’t come remotely close to any of the 3 or 4 other activity centers of the region).
Your insistence on applying the adjective “light” to it as frequently as you can suggests to me that you might be uncomfortable with your role in selling Mike Krusee’s Austin-screwing transit-killer to the citizens and are trying to convince yourself that this pile of garbage really is a stack of roses.
Again, I refer you to this:

and then I inserted the original blast that this isn’t light rail by any reasonable definition of the term.
Lyndon is one of the “good guys” which is why I hate so much that he’s helped, as I mentioned, sell Austin down the river for Mike Krusee (whose constituents by and large aren’t even Capital Metro taxpayers).

On Misrepresentation (Willful, that is)

So The Triangle is almost open, and in a thread on the Hyde Park mailing list, I called a Hyde Park resident on the “students are going to drive to UT from there” canard which was so abhorrently misused by NUNA during the Villas on Guadalupe fight. It’s obvious to anybody with half a brain that students aren’t going to drive from 45th/Guadalupe to UT, considering the parking situation at UT — in fact, it is quite likely that their car, in the garage at the Triangle, is already as close as it could get to the campus without spending way too much time circling. (Many student drivers drive to the IM fields, and take a shuttle-bus the rest of the way in – the Triangle is already no further away than that, and there’s a BETTER bus right outside their door). Yeah, a couple of them might do it once in a while because they need to run an errand right after class, but they’ll just displace a student who’s currently parking down there at a pay lot, since the supply of near-UT parking is COMPLETELY taken up by the current demand for same.

Now the guy who I responded to is pissed, having sent me a curt response demanding an apology, and I replied with a fairly inflammatory note back asking if he’d prefer I assume he’s stupid and apologize, or assume he’s smart and not do so. Like most center-city neighborhood partisans, I think he’s willing to bend what he knows to be true about traffic in order to win points at City Council, i.e. “the ends justify the means”. But is my response to such the right way to handle things? Is it better to remain respectful, courteous, and get played for a sucker; or is it better to not take any crap and call it what it is?

I see too many people being played for fools by bad actors who make statements they know to be false – like certain posters on the new Shoal Creek Boulevard group. Is it better to pretend that these bad actors are genuine and risk giving them credibility they don’t deserve? Is it better to call them what they are? Is it better to do what I typically do and attempt both, and depending on who you ask, fail at both? I figure there’s enough people out there who pretend like bad actors are genuine; the world doesn’t need another one. Am I wrong here?

Ironically, my original post to the hydeparkaustin group got rejected by the moderator for being too inflammatory – the one which has got the original poster up in arms was the nicer version that got approved.

(For the record, I’m not this mad at my old neighborhood over Spring; it is conceivable that somebody could honestly believe it would make traffic worse — but for me to believe that somebody who lives and apparently works in central Austin would be unaware of the parking situation around UT requires an unsustainable suspension of disbelief).

Update: Got a bounce from him – apparently my response got sent to his spamtrap. So I guess we’ll see.

The Gas Tax Isn’t Regressive, Part Three

(at least, not regressive across the spectrum) – as I’ve argued here and here, the gas tax doesn’t hit the poor that hard; it mostly hits the exurban parts of the middle class and leaves the rich alone. From my original article on the subject:

The supposed regressive nature of the gas tax is a fallacy – in fact, poor people spend far less proportionally on gasoline than do the upper-middle-class.
The gas tax isn’t purely progressive; though; the very rich actually spend less proportionally than do the upper-middle-class, due to their tendency to be either in the few healthy downtowns, or less need to drive overall.

Here’s another link I found today which asserts the same:


“A subsidy to new vehicles would be regressive. A tax on
gasoline is not regressive across the lowest incomes but is regressive from middle to high
incomes.”

Note that the internet is replete with sites which say that the gas tax is regressive, but the only articles or studies which actually include any supporting arguments are the few that claim that it isn’t regressive. This leads me to believe that the gas tax ISN’T regressive, for the reasons previously discussed, and that the ‘conventional wisdom’ is wrong here.

This is timely because of a current thread on Environmental Economics on this very subject. Amazingly, I’ve now provided THREE links which are credible and contain supporting evidence for the claim that the gas tax isn’t regressive across-the-board; for the most part blind assertion is still the only support for the ‘regressive’ position. Moral: Conventional Wisdom is hard to fight, even when it’s wrong.

CAFE versus gas taxes – which works?

Kevin Drum likes CAFE. He believes that gas taxes are highly regressive. He’s wrong. But which one ‘works’ better? His argument rests on the last 5 years of generally rising fuel prices versus vehicle sales.

The problem is that the rise in fuel prices recently has been seen by most Americans as the result of gouging, or the result of storms, or hippie environmentalists or <insert other crazy reason>. Key here is that all of those things are temporary. Now, if you’re one of the few people who follows the real oil situation you know that we’re probably in for a period of ever-higher spikes and plateaus (with intervening drops due to recessions, perhaps), but most people don’t know this stuff.

If you think the last couple of years are an anomaly, it doesn’t make sense to invest in a fuel-efficient car. Therefore, using that period as an example of how higher fuel prices don’t affect vehicle choice as much as CAFE did is foolish. Better to look at Europe, where CAFE-like standards don’t really exist; but at the time of vehicle purchase, it is understood that gas taxes are very high and likely to stay that way.

Anyways, CAFE doesn’t work half as well as a high baseline for gas prices does. The real reason? Once you buy your car, if gas prices/taxes are low, there’s no real incentive to leave it in the driveway on any given day. With higher gas prices/taxes, however, there is an incentive to leave it at home and take the bus, or carpool, or whatever.
Addressed as a quickie since so many people around the interweb keep repeating this canard.

Blandburbs and ‘choice’

Continuing my recent theme of pointing to other works that explain my thinking, here’s a quite good explanation of why suburban sprawl isn’t natural; isn’t the result of consumer ‘choice’; and isn’t healthy. Highly recommended. The only thing I’d add is the role of irresponsible inner city neighborhoods in preventing cities from doing responsible things to promote infill.

The idea that suburban sprawl is just a natural ‘choice’ ignores the reality that without the massive subsidies and regulatory restrictions which prevent anything ELSE from being built, a large minority of current suburbanites would actually live in neighborhoods like mine. All you need to do is see how cities developed before WWII, i.e., before the advent of both zoning and automobile subsidies (when there were plenty of cars, just not massive subsidies for their use by suburbanites).

I promise I’ll get to my Pfluger Bridge stuff next week.1.


  1. 2017 Update: I never did 

Bicycling Is Very Safe

While doing a bit of preemptive research for the comments for the last entry, I stumbled across this article which does, by far, the best job of laying out comparative risk for cycling and other activities (like driving) that I’ve ever seen. Highly recommended.