Posted on 05/09/2003 2:39:43 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Some simplifying force in human nature loves to set up false dichotomies. You know what we're talking about. As in: You're a cat person, I'm a dog person. You're a wine person, I'm a beer person. You're a bus person, I'm a car person.
Some of the criticism of two new light-rail extensions, planned for Clackamas County, stems from this kind of black-and-white thinking, carried over into the realm of public policy. Exaggerate the "transit vs. car" quarrel via a talk show or two, and before you know it, a thick layer of rhetorical asphalt has paved over all the complexities of our transportation system.
If you champion light rail, you're falsely painted as anti-highway. But our light-rail system -- in addition to helping the 36,500 or so people who use it every day -- is a huge help to everyone who loves to drive.
Some people in Clackamas County have discovered this for themselves over the past few years, as they studied the best transportation alternatives to connect them to downtown Portland. They didn't necessarily start out hospitable to light rail. Indeed, in 1997, Milwaukie voters ousted their mayor and two city council members in part over a planned light-rail route.
But after exhaustive public meetings and an in-depth look at other options -- including river transport -- light-rail re-emerged victorious. Part of the credit goes to Metro Councilor Brian Newman, a planner by training, who helped forge a new consensus during three years of meetings, first as a private citizen, later as a member of the Milwaukie City Council and finally as a Metro Councilor.
Recently, the Metro Council approved plans for two light-rail extensions, one along Interstate 205 from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center, which would open in 2009. A second extension is planned from downtown Portland to Milwaukie, which could open by 2014. These would cost $1 billion, and they aren't done deals (the second route would likely require a public vote). Something may change along the way, of course, but based on what we know now, it appears prudent to keep moving forward with these plans.
Just consider what a difference light rail makes at rush hour on Interstate 84 and U.S. 26. Figures collected by Metro's transportation planners indicate that, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., roughly 10,000 people are headed eastbound from downtown Portland. Another 9,000 are headed westbound. In both directions, at rush hour, about 26 percent of the total number of people traveling are on light rail.
Freeway travel is bad enough, but just imagine the congestion if all those light-rail travelers, eastbound and westbound, were added to the road.
Although it's true, and nice perhaps, that Portland has become synonymous with the success of its light-rail system, that's not why Portland should keep pursuing light rail. The reason has nothing whatsoever to do with Portland's image. It has everything to do with keeping up a smoothly running transportation system.
Although the voters keep voting not to expand the system, the wisdom of the city fathers of Portland shows why we are a republic and not a democracy. Shut that system down, and you'll see gridlock.
NONE of these systems run unsubsidized by the taxpayers, and the rates of subsidization are nothing short of ridiculous. When the taxpayers have to fork over $15 per passenger mile, it becomes relatively obvious that we can save money by sending them in chauffeured limos, or by simply buying them new Cadillacs.
As long as your gonna fabricate phoney numbers, why not call it $1500 per passenger mile (or $15,000) to really show your bias against mass transit? Heck, anybody can afford $15. You gotta think BIG!!!
There are some transit systems whose subsidization approaches or perhaps exceeds $15/passenger mile. Most, however, are nowhere near that bad.
Interestingly, the London Underground is a consolidation of transit systems that were built by for-profit companies. Yerkes' company digging the deep tunnel lines (central parts of Picadilly, Bakerloo, and IIRC part of Northern) went broke, and was intended to be subsidized by the surface rail (which makes sense, since an underground connection increases the value of the surface-rail line) but nonetheless was privately financed by people who wanted to make money.
Compare that to the public-money boondoggles of today.
The worst is the private chauffeur services that the liberals have enacted for the elderly and disabled. I have no problems with designing public transit systems so that they are accessible by people who need special consideration. But it should still remain economical mass-transit for large numbers of passengers. Not personalized door-to-door service for a few.
We, the people, voted NO.
So, they're building it anyway.
Which is better: to spend really huge oodles of money equipping all buses with wheelchair ramps which take up space and are such a slow enough to use that on the occasions when disabled person needs to use one it delays everyone, or to spend somewhat less money on a secondary system which provides better service to the disabled without delaying the transit of non-disabled riders?
You make a very good point with which I have only one objection.
I favor light rail as the primary system of local mass transit. Let passengers (including those in wheelchairs) board directly from an elevated platform without having to negotiate steps on the vehicle. Buses and specialized handicap vans could still have their place in the overall mix of transit to provide flexibility. But they should be secondary to the more permanent main transport routes.
Light rail requires a right-of-way which costs about as much as a lane of highway and yet on most routes will transport far fewer people and zero cargo. While there are some routes in which the flux (people per hour) will be better than what can be done on a road, on most routes the reverse is true.
It depends on what is meant by "light rail".
I use it (perhaps incorrectly) to describe any type of fixed track local transit system.
That could include subways, trolleys, overhead monorails, etc. etc. depending on the community. Even in the instance of trolleys, which share the right-of-way on city streets with regular traffic, design accommodations could be made where the stops consisted of elevated platforms for easier access. It likely isn't feasible to convert existing systems in this fashion. But it's worthy of consideration in new construction.
I don't base my opinions on episodes of the Simpsons.
Probably wise, though Mat Groening et al. are sometimes pretty effective at skewering the truth.
The facts are:
How many people use public transportation? In 2001, Americans took 9.7 billion trips using public transportation, an increase of 3 percent more than the previous year, outpacing growth in other travel modes. In the past six years, public transportation ridership in the U.S. has grown by more than 24 percent, faster than highway or air travel. The equivalent of almost a million new trips on public transportation were added each day in 2001.
APTA estimates that over 14 million Americans ride on public transportation each weekday. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates another 25 million use public transportation less frequently but on a regular basis.
Operating funds provide income for operational expenses. Most operating funds originate from local sources (73 percent). Passenger fares pay for 35 percent of operating expenses, local governments contribute 24 percent, and non-governmental sources and taxes levied by the transportation system, tolls and fees, 14 percent. State and federal governments contribute 22 percent and 5 percent, respectively.
Source: American Public Transportation AssociationRidership is increasing and passengers pay 35% of the operating costs on a national average.
As a conservative, I approve of federal matching funds for construction of transit systems. But I don't agree with federal contributions to operating expenses, even though they amount to only 5% of the cost. Those are costs that should be covered by passenger fare increases and/or local and state governments. I have no problem with state and local governments providing such subsidies as they deem necessary in their specific situation. Good transit systems facilitate commerce in congested urban areas, helping to expand the tax base while accommodating growth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.