(<$BlogItemCommentCount$>) comments
The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal

Informed but opinionated commentary and analysis on urban transportation topics from the Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal. Names have been omitted to protect the guilty.

Our Mission: Monkeywrench the Anti-Transit Forces

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Tuesday, June 08, 2004

 
OTHER TRANSIT BLOGS – 3

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity: and I'm not so sure about the universe. Einstein


From the Cabalmaster:

Continuing our review of other transit-oriented blogs:

City Comforts Blog, citycomfortsblog.typepad.com, deals with urban issues other than transit. Webmaster is David Sucher, author of “City Comforts: How to Build and Urban Village.” The blog has a convenient, prominently-posted mini-manifesto titled “What is this blog about?”

“Cities, architecture, the 'new urbanism,' real estate, historic preservation, urban design, land use law, landscape, transport etc etc from a mildly libertarian stance. Our response to problems of human settlement is not "better planning" and a bigger budget for local government. But alas, conservative and libertarian (not the same, to be sure) response to shaping our cities is too often barren and in denial. Our goal is to take part in fostering a new perspective. But not too earnestly.”

The webmaster added the following “UPDATE:” My ‘mildly libertarian stance’ is, I regret most sincerely, getting milder by the day.”

Not too much in the way of transit items in recent posts – but we did find a zinger aimed squarely at one of our favorite “targets,” the inimitable Peter Gordon:

“Apr 12, 2004

"’Let the neighbors decide!’ Not.

“Peter Gordon has the idea that if you let neighborhoods decide, everything will be just fine:

“....San Francisco politicians now want to keep chain stores with eleven or more stores from setting up shop in any of selected SF neighborhoods. They argue that they are doing what they can to protect the cities prized neighborhoods.

“What is wrong with this picture? Why not let the neighborhoods decide? Let them secede and hammer out their own rules. Top-down one-size-fits-all has never quite worked. Besides big-city politics is less likely to cater for local tastes and more likely to be hijacked in the name of various agendas that have little bearing on neighborhood life.

“I won't examine the merits of the specific San Francisco proposal. It sounds a bit goofy at first; and if you actually read the flimsy article -- Neighborhood Pride Prompts Effort to Limit Chain Stores -- you will get only the vaguest picture of what the ordinance actually requires. But enough does seep through to suggest that the ordinance might indeed be reasonable -- merely a design-review system to make a chain drop enough of its "trade dress" to make every Main Street look different. At least I think that's the theory, as essentially harmless as it may be mis-guided.

“I am more fascinated by the idea that anyone still believes that it's fine for ‘neighbrohoods to decide.’ Why not simply say ‘let business decide.’?

“Neighborhood NIMBYs can be just as narrow-minded as their business opponents and with whom are joined at the hip by a singular though opposing devotion to respective factional interests. Neighborhoods are made of neighbors, not altruists; proximity produces interest, not wisdom.

“Moreover, we do let neighborhoods decide; it's called voting for city councils and mayors.

“Further, if you really did balkanize a city into neighborhoods with separate zoning powers, you would no longer have much growth anywhere at all. Now that may be fine, in fact, if you like the idea of freezing things as they.

“But it's pretty funny when hard-core pro-market academics who usually sneer at liberal do-good environmentalism and its urban no-growth progeny turn around and urge on us a neighborhood-based decision-making system which would give us yet more liberal do-good neighborhood protectionism.”



 
OTHER TRANSIT BLOGS – 3

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity: and I'm not so sure about the universe. Einstein


From the Cabalmaster:

Continuing our review of other transit-oriented blogs:

City Comforts Blog, citycomfortsblog.typepad.com, deals with urban issues other than transit. Webmaster is David Sucher, author of “City Comforts: How to Build and Urban Village.” The blog has a convenient, prominently-posted mini-manifesto titled “What is this blog about?”

“Cities, architecture, the 'new urbanism,' real estate, historic preservation, urban design, land use law, landscape, transport etc etc from a mildly libertarian stance. Our response to problems of human settlement is not "better planning" and a bigger budget for local government. But alas, conservative and libertarian (not the same, to be sure) response to shaping our cities is too often barren and in denial. Our goal is to take part in fostering a new perspective. But not too earnestly.”

The webmaster added the following “UPDATE:” My ‘mildly libertarian stance’ is, I regret most sincerely, getting milder by the day.”

Not too much in the way of transit items in recent posts – but we did find a zinger aimed squarely at one of our favorite “targets,” the inimitable Peter Gordon:

“Apr 12, 2004

"’Let the neighbors decide!’ Not.

“Peter Gordon has the idea that if you let neighborhoods decide, everything will be just fine:

“....San Francisco politicians now want to keep chain stores with eleven or more stores from setting up shop in any of selected SF neighborhoods. They argue that they are doing what they can to protect the cities prized neighborhoods.

“What is wrong with this picture? Why not let the neighborhoods decide? Let them secede and hammer out their own rules. Top-down one-size-fits-all has never quite worked. Besides big-city politics is less likely to cater for local tastes and more likely to be hijacked in the name of various agendas that have little bearing on neighborhood life.

“I won't examine the merits of the specific San Francisco proposal. It sounds a bit goofy at first; and if you actually read the flimsy article -- Neighborhood Pride Prompts Effort to Limit Chain Stores -- you will get only the vaguest picture of what the ordinance actually requires. But enough does seep through to suggest that the ordinance might indeed be reasonable -- merely a design-review system to make a chain drop enough of its "trade dress" to make every Main Street look different. At least I think that's the theory, as essentially harmless as it may be mis-guided.

“I am more fascinated by the idea that anyone still believes that it's fine for ‘neighbrohoods to decide.’ Why not simply say ‘let business decide.’?

“Neighborhood NIMBYs can be just as narrow-minded as their business opponents and with whom are joined at the hip by a singular though opposing devotion to respective factional interests. Neighborhoods are made of neighbors, not altruists; proximity produces interest, not wisdom.

“Moreover, we do let neighborhoods decide; it's called voting for city councils and mayors.

“Further, if you really did balkanize a city into neighborhoods with separate zoning powers, you would no longer have much growth anywhere at all. Now that may be fine, in fact, if you like the idea of freezing things as they.

“But it's pretty funny when hard-core pro-market academics who usually sneer at liberal do-good environmentalism and its urban no-growth progeny turn around and urge on us a neighborhood-based decision-making system which would give us yet more liberal do-good neighborhood protectionism.”


Monday, June 07, 2004

 
IS IT SOMETHING WE SAID?

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity: and I'm not so sure about the universe. Einstein


From the Cabalmaster:

www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_001.wav

We here at The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal have received a bit of “intelligence” (sic) from several FOCs regarding the rantings of favorite targets for ridicule and riposte!

Our “intelligence” reports have it that the Fearless Fudgemeister himself, Wendell Cox, is a regular reader of our blog. He never comments – according to reports – but certain of his “followers” love to trade barbs and insults about Your Favorite Transit Pundits.

www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_030.wav

Our “intelligence” reports have it that some of them got REALLY in a snit after our recent Oscar-winning post, “Wendell Cox Can’t Count . . . but Bugs Bunny Can!”

www.nonstick.com/sounds/bugs_bunny/ltbb_353.wav.

Our “intelligence” reports that the “Voluble Viscount of Verbosity,” the one, the only, Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM (think you could squeeze “KGB” or, more poetically, “NKVD” in there, Tom?) was also in a bit of a snit. In fact . . .

Rubin’s reported pique at our ridicule of a certain “Wendellpage” (“US Metro (Heavy Rail) Rankings 1996” www.publicpurpose.com/ut-us96hr.htm) was sufficient to suggest that Rubin did the number crunching!

And so, our “intelligence” reports tend to suggest that Rubin is one of Wendell’s “Denizens of Demographia”!!

For the benefit of Intrepid Websurfers who missed it the first time around, here is the “offending” post:

------------------------------

WENDELL COX CAN’T COUNT . . .
BUT BUGS BUNNY CAN!

Sometimes, when you least expect it, when you’re not looking, when your guard is down, etc and so forth . . .

Up pops yet another egregious example of Wendell’s mathematical and statistical sophistry. (Or incompetence . . . we’re not sure which.)

Among the “hits” from a recent Google search included a “Wendellpage” titled “US Metro (Heavy Rail) Rankings 1996” www.publicpurpose.com/ut-us96hr.htm.

This includes three tables, ranking ten U.S. heavy rail systems on:

--“Cost per Vehicle Hour: 1996”

--“Passenger Miles per Vehicle Mile: 1996”

--“Cost per Passenger Mile: 1996”

But Wendell, as usual, can’t resist the urge to continue rather than quit while he’s ahead. So, in addition to crude (= “as-is”) statistics and rank order, he adds a column titled “Variance.” (Ha!)

The customary reference point for a “variance” is an average or some other measure of “central tendency” (e.g. median, mode).

But Wendell, as usual, does it . . . HIIIIIS WAY! (Apologies to the late, great Frank Sinatra.) The reference point for Wendell’s “variances” are . . . you guessed it . . . the top-ranked number, either smallest or largest. (Ha, ha!).

This has the effect of magnifying the difference (a typical Wendell-ian trick). It’s true that “$2.628” is “1321.4%” larger than “$0.185” . . . but “$0.185” is a mere 92.9604% smaller than “$2.628.”

(Hey, don’t take our word for it . . . give it a try on your trusty H-P or TI. And while you’re at it . . . you might consider avoiding spurious precision -- “1321.4%” – which is another Wendell-ian trick.)

What makes this even more laughable is that one table (“Cost per Passenger Mile: 1996”) DOES present an “Average”! (HA, HA!)

In the inimitable words of Bugs Bunny:
www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs51.wav.
www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs13.wav

Regardless of what Wendell might think (e.g. www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs69.wav), we can predict his response to anyone inquiring about the above: www.da-admiral.com/wavs/ahshutup.wav.

If pushed, he might resort (gulp!) to (gasp!) an “ad hominem” attack (aaauuurrgh!): www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_123.wav.

One of these days, we may even receive a communiqué from Wendell himself. Imagine his thoughts: www.nonstick.com/sounds/bugs_bunny/ltbb_371.wav.

And what Wendell would like you to believe about the impact of this missive (should we ever receive it . . .): www.nonstick.com/sounds/bugs_bunny/ltbb_367.wav.

And here’s what Wendell would no doubt LOVE to hear from Your Favorite Transit Pundits: www.nonstick.com/sounds/bugs_bunny/ltbb_103.wav.

Y’know, maybe WE should quit while we’re ahead. But . . . we can’t resist one last parting shot (which, after all, is you like this blog so much!): www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs153.wav.

------------------------------

To reiterate our point in the post above: A “variance” from the “largest” or “smallest” number in a set of data is nothing more than a propaganda tool. But that’s just what you'd expect from the likes of Wendell Cox, Thomas Rubin, Randal O’Toole, Jonathan Richmond, and so forth.

We’ll bet that at least some Intrepid Websufers share our delight in anticipating the theme of the “ad hominem” attacks at us by followers of . . . well, you know, Mr. Fudge.


Thursday, June 03, 2004

 
OTHER TRANSIT BLOGS – 2

Home of More Transit Links Than You can Possibly Check(tm), Unless you have no life other than websurfing

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity: and I'm not so sure about the universe. Einstein


From the Cabalmaster:

Continuing our review of the competit . . . er, other transit-oriented blogs:

Live, from the UK, is . . . “Transport Blog”! www.transportblog.com.

. . . subtitled “For a free market in transport . . .”

. . . oh, no! Coneheads!

(hmmm . . . let’s try that again . . .)

. . . oh, no! Libertarians!

Much of the writing on this site is by British Libertarian Patrick Crozier:

“I believe that the world would be a better place if we privatized schools, hospitals and even the police.”

(We assume “even the police” is not limited to Stewart Copeland, Andy Summers, Gordon Summer (aka “Sting”) and others in their profession.)

Crozier, who describes his gainful employment as “working in computers,” is also a bit of a grump:

“Travel is crap. Whoever said it is better to travel than to arrive needs a good kicking. It takes time, it is tiring, you are subjected to people you don’t know, you are often cramped, it is uncertain, it is dangerous. And that goes for all modern forms of transport be it rail, air or road. It is an essential, if unpleasant feature of modern life so people will always find reasons to complain.”

(Sounds like the manifesto of a reclusive couch potato, doesn’t it?”)

We find much to criticize (and lampoon) about many aspects of Libertarian philosophy. However, we admit that much of what appears on this blog has a certain intellectual honesty and rigor that we so often find lacking in the rantings of U.S. adherents.

(But who in their right mind would describe PETER GORDON’S BLOG as a “Transport-Friendly Blog” ???)