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.
As congestion worsens, people will move closer to where they work. As conjestion lessens, people move further from where they work. Trying to overcome these tendencies is futile.
The lefties living in the plush areas "near" downtown oppose north side highway expansion (totally out of their districts and of no bother to them) because they don't want to see the people who live in outlying areas (and who are taxed as citizens of Houston) enjoying a quick ride into town for work commutes (or even to come into town for entertainments).
The biggest laugh comes when one realized that some of these plush neighborhoods are actually in other cities (West University, Bellaire) yet their citizens work in Houston.
Don't count on leftist snobs to be honest in their push for rail (no rail lines have been proposed for their neighborhoods either).
You are right about the price per rider (we've seen the same thing with bus lines here and are just now getting back into rail).
Subsidized housing is the same way. Homes could have been bought for cheaper than these systems cost to operate. Consider to the trillions of dollars spent on the "war on poverty". Can we end that war yet? The libs keep talking about wanting an "exit strategy" for the war on terror (how do we know when it's over, how much will it cost, etc.) and I've heard the same about the war on drugs ("we should end it..."). When will the war on poverty end?
Absolutely, totally wrong. Highways are heavily subsidized, and unfortunately most of those subsidies are invisible, thus making it difficult for people to understand that they're getting a free ride at the expense of taxpayers. The best way to understand highway funding is to think of three concentric circles.
Concentric Circle #1: Fuel Taxes
Thanks to the efforts of the Better Roads Movement in the post-World War I period, many states have constitutional amendments that restrict the use of fuel tax money for highways only. Those who managed to escape this effort of the highway lobby ended up with similar statutory restrictions on fuel tax use. It would be wonderful if the contents of Concentric Circle #1 could pay the total cost of highway construction and maintenance, but it can’t. More money is needed.
Concentric Circle #2: Other Transportation Taxes
Many states have motor vehicle excise taxes, a sort of property tax on cars. There are state licensing fees for cars and tonnage fees for trucks. There are taxes and fees galore in different states, and while some of them can be spent on rail, transit, environmental abatement and port facilities, the lion’s share goes to highways. It would be wonderful if the contents of Concentric Circles #1 and #2 could pay the total cost of highway construction and maintenance, but they can’t. Still more money is needed.
Concentric Circle #3: The General Fund
We all know about the federal income tax. Most states have a broad-based tax such as a sales tax or income tax. This money can be used for anything, but in every state the legislature appropriates some money for highway construction and maintenance out of the general fund. Here transportation needs compete with education, welfare and a whole lot of other state needs, so the battles can be savage.
When you average a lot of numbers you can lose sight of each number’s individual uniqueness. So when I say that an average of 30% of highway funding comes from state and federal general funds, that covers a multitude of higher and lower numbers. But it’s a fact. The contents of this circle are a subsidy, pure and simple. This subsidy permits you to drive on the public highways and not pay what a cost accountant would deem “your fair share”.
If you truly want highways to be funded from the contents of Concentric Circles #1 and #2 -- i.e. by user fees and subsidy-free -- you’ll have to raise the combined federal and state fuel taxes to at least $2 per gallon to pay for it. This will effectively destroy the trucking industry and force shippers to move goods by rail. It will also take the ability to own and operate a car out of the hands of millions of Americans, who will actually be forced to rub shoulders with their neighbors on buses and trains.
But it gets even worse: Transportation taxes will never go down. Why? Every time you build a new highway or increase capacity on an old one, you increase the maintenance base of your system. That means the cost of maintaining your highway system will always increase. And that means your transportation tax burden will always increase. You’re on a treadmill to penury unless you find a way to step off. There are two ways: triage and privatization.
Triage
Have you ever seen a state remove the number from a highway and turn it over to a county or municipality? It does happen on occasion. Some state highway departments have the authority to give and take highways at will (Maryland). In other states the legislature makes the call, either consulting with the highway department (Washington) or dictating to it (New Jersey). But this merely shifts the burden elsewhere. Most states have formulae for handing out the contents of Concentric Circles #1 and #2 to counties and municipalities. But these monies get mixed with property tax revenue and other county and city taxes to maintain non-state highways. Somebody’s taxes will still go up.
Another method of triage is to tear out a highway. This has only been done in two places that I know of. In Portland, Oregon, a short freeway link was demolished to make way for an urban park along the Willamette River. In San Francisco a freeway was demolished because it was both an eyesore and was badly damaged in the 1989 earthquake. I don’t see roads being torn out on a massive scale in my lifetime.
Old Privatization Paradigm: The “Closed” Financial System
The Pennsylvania Turnpike was built in the Thirties on the model of the German autobahns. It had no speed limit and bypassed the major cities. After World War II, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois linked up to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and spent a decade building a toll limited access highway to permit people to go from New York to Chicago at high speed without encountering a traffic light. People gladly paid for the privilege.
To avoid complaints that people were paying twice -- once at the toll booth and again at the gas pump -- the highways were built on a “closed” financial system. The toll highway authority was authorized by the state legislature to issue revenue bonds based on future revenues to be generated by tolls and by leases from gas stations and restaurants at the service plazas. No tax money was used. (A member of the authority that owns the Atlantic City Expressway toll road once commented to me, “Owning and operating a toll road is like having a license to print money.”)
Some of these toll authorities were authorized to exist in perpetuity, and others were to be reviewed by the legislature every time a bond issue was redeemed. When the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act of 1956 was passed, the federal government forbade the use of Highway Trust Fund money on any toll road, even if it carried an interstate number. This created an interesting situation in Connecticut.
In 1975, a bridge on the Connecticut Turnpike collapsed into a river, killing nearly 100 people. An engineering study showed the cost of fixing up the basic infrastructure to be in the billions and the cost of expanding the highway to be even higher. You may remember the cost of money in the Carter era, which is why the state thought that authorizing a new bond issue for the turnpike would be a mistake. So the state legislature violated the principle of a closed financial system and appropriated enough money to call the remaining bonds, dissolve the turnpike authority and take the tolls off the turnpike. This opened it up for Highway Trust Fund money because it was Interstate 95, and the federal-state split in those halcyon days was 90-10. The Connecticut congressional delegation went to Washington with palms outstretched and brought home enough highway pork to rebuild Interstate 95 on the federal nickel.
New Privatization Paradigm: The “Mixed” Financial System
Virginia, Florida, Texas, Colorado and California have been building toll roads where the principle of “toll equity” permits mixing gas tax money with toll income. These toll highways permit motorists to bypass badly congested suburban areas and charge a premium on this based on time of day. It is a “mixed” financial system, which normally would have people up in arms because they are in fact paying for the highway twice. But the roads have become popular enough that Texas is considering building an entirely new statewide network using this principle.
Public Transportation
Before the Depression, America had the best privately owned transportation system in the world -- our railroads. After the Depression, the cost of labor made it impossible for private entities to make money hauling passengers by rail. That is true today more than ever. But there are people who do in fact make money from light rail lines (trolleys) or heavy rail metros (subways) -- the owners of properties near the stations.
It used to take 20 years before a new rail line created growth along its right of way. Now it comes even before the line opens. Portland's Westside MAX, for example, engendered over $6 billion in real estate development along the line, not only with respect to shopping and office space, but also with respect to housing development. These are the people who make a profit from rail transit.
Rail transit is offered today as a public service at taxpayer expense to provide an alternative to more roads. Why? Because rail provides more bang for the buck. To improve a highway, you have to build wider. That's expensive, and it gets more expensive each time you have to increase a highway's capacity. The Ironclad Law of Transportation Dynamics is, "Transportation infrastructure creates its own demand." Every time you increase highway capacity, you buy yourself only 3 to 5 years before the road fills up, and it becomes time for the next generation of improvements. Look at a map of Southern California, and you'll see what happens when the highway lobby gets its own way for 50 years.
To improve a rail line, you build longer. By this I mean longer station platforms and running longer trains. This is much cheaper than building wider and provides more bang for the transportation buck.
All successful cities are congested, and urban life is all about managing congestion, not eliminating it. (If you want to see a city that is not congested, visit Buffalo.) The key is to facilitate commerce, and that's why smaller cities, as they grow and densify, look more and more like the older eastern cities with their subways and trolleys.
Building rail is cheaper than building highways and produces greater throughput. People may not like to give up the freedom of the single-occupancy automobile, but as population density grows in an area, it is unreasonable to expect to drive your SOV on an empty urban freeway at the height of the rush hour at 70 mph.
I often compare this to living in a house versus living in an apartment. If you live in a house, you can practice the piano, crank up the stereo or have a shouting match with your spouse without incurring major trouble with your neighbors. If you live in an apartment and try any of these things, you will get a warning the first time and get evicted the second time.
Living in the city is like living in an apartment. Rugged individualism doesn’t work in the city. When people are densely packed together and your neighbors are above, below and next to you, decisions are made and lives are lived collectively. That’s why public transportation is built and operated with subsidies. Just like highways.
Light Rail Sometimes Fails
There are three notable failures in the world of light-rail systems.
Regretably, I will soon be able to include the Camden-Trenton diesel light rail line in this list of failures. It will open later his year.
But Light Rail Usually Succeeds
San Diego, Calgary and Portland have been hugely successful. I don’t measure success by whether the line can support itself from the fare box. That is naïve. I ask the question, “If the line disappeared tomorrow morning, would there be gridlock in the region?” For the above cities, the answer is a resounding Yes.
San Jose’s line is a bit questionable right now, but that will change over time.
Denver’s line has become a success.
Salt Lake City and St. Louis are expanding their lines because the people are demanding it.
Conclusion
Portland has decided to become a European-style city, concentrating its people in urban villages, and relying on rail to get people around. This is a wise choice. This is what makes a successful, sustainable city.
It should be noted that another misleading comparison is that of comparing light rail construction costs to that of adding another freeway lane.
Adding freeway lanes does nothing to alleviate traffic congestion in densely populated urban areas. Quite the opposite: they funnel MORE traffic into the area, increasing the potential for gridlock and lack of suitable parking. And it just isn't feasible to continually expand the width of ALL the roads in a densely constructed urban area.
The dedicated right-of-way of light-rail systems avoids this madness, permitting large numbers of commuters to travel quickly and conveniently without compounding the traffic problem.
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.