Maximize transit, minimize traffic

The Oregonian ^ | 05/06/03 | editorial

[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.

[Teacher317]

congreetion = congestion

[Old Professer]

I wasn't being discourteous, just incredulous.

[Koblenz]

The problem with mass transit systems is "LAST MILE". Mass Transit works great into Manhattan and other large cities, because most of the jobs are either near a station, or there's a supplemental transportation system, such as a subway, which can get people to where they're going. But not a lot of jobs are being added in downtown areas. They're being added in the suburbs. There are many reasons for this: like it or not, people with families want lawns, and therefore want to live in the suburbs. Next, taxes. This is often the primary reason. Property taxes, as well as higher income taxes, drive many companies to the suburbs, where rents are also considerably cheaper. Finally, environmental. What does environmental have to do with white collar jobs? Well, due to EPA laws, you buy a property, you're responsible for environmental damage, even if it was done before you bought it. So you have the choice of building in downtown, where there could have been environmental contamination in 1930, or you buy an old corn farm out in the burbs, and make it into an office park. No risk of environmental contamination.

So you've got all these people living and working in disparate areas in the suburbs. You've got mass transit, but the nearest stop may be 4 or 5 miles from the office park. Some larger office parks have a minivan, but not all. Add to the fact a lot of people have to work until their job is done, and they might miss the last train home. So they drive. That's a problem here in Connecticut: there's mass transit, but a lot of companies aren't that close to the stops.

[arthurus]

In most southern and western areas LR is a pure boondoggle. The streets are laid out in grids with sufficient expressways and the supersexy our-city-has-to-have-one light rail systems consistently lose money, sometimes lots of money.

[arthurus]

Light rail is wonderful for the companies that build them and the politicians who profit from them and the bureaucrats who run them. In my small city we are forced to support buses that travel everywhere with seldom more than 2 passengers and often with none. And it is because we cannot be a "modern" city without public transportation. The bus system in the 50s and 60s at least had a rationale. It transported the maids from their side of town to the big houses on the other side of town. Nobody else rode it then and near nobody at all rides it now.

[Publius]

There's this amazing new discovery that is all the rage throughout the country. It's called "free-market capitalism", and by golly, it sure does seem to make things better in the long run.

And free market capitalism works just fine as long as some governmental entity isn't undermining it with hidden subsidies for a competitive mode. Check my earlier posts, and you'll find that the highway mode is subsidized in many ways, both at the federal and state levels. Some of these subsidies are overt, and many are covert, but one special interest or another will tell you just how important that subsidy is -- at least, to them.

Eliminate those highway subsidies, eliminate those hidden impediments like unions and the minimum wage, and then on a level playing field we shall watch individual and mass transportation compete. In densely populated areas, I can guarantee that mass transportation will win.

[Publius]

Mass Transit works great into Manhattan and other large cities, because most of the jobs are either near a station, or there's a supplemental transportation system, such as a subway, which can get people to where they're going. But not a lot of jobs are being added in downtown areas. They're being added in the suburbs.

Correct. But that's where the most recent suburban light rail systems have succeeded. When Portland built Westside MAX, business development happened at the station sites long before the line opened, some $6 billion worth. Businesses are eager to relocate near these stations.

Take a look at what Dallas' DART lines have done to the suburbs, especially the recently opened Plano line.

Light rail is doing what planners hoped it would do: Create urban villages in the suburbs driven by businesses.

[WOSG]

You: "Fine. If you’re willing to end any and all hidden subsidies for highways, I’ll agree that subsidies for transit systems should end. "

I've said as much already.

And no, you havent refuted the following: "although roads pay their way through taxes while mass transit has required increasing subsidies."

You have asserted many things without sources and I have posted many things from various sources with contrary claims. You have not IMHO refuted the point at all. only the others guys sources a 'biased' uh huh... heard that one before.

I said: "It is now three times as expensive to travel by mass transit as by automobile, on a per-passenger-mile basis." you said: "Only if you ignore the hidden subsidies for highways and count the overt subsidies for mass transit. "

You keep repeating this mantra, but that doesnt make it so. I have given hard numbers after hard numbers of costs and ridership, linked several articles. You ignore all of them. The subsidies of mass transit and diversion of Federal gas tax money is in the billions. you didnt admit it, but you are wrong - its true.

As for the 'hidden subsidies' argument, i've heard many a bogus argument from environmental whackos on issues with that line of reasoning. You'll have to be more concrete to be even close to believable.

"Wonderful St Louis eh? Only 27% of expenses are covered by fares. ... So what? Until we eliminate any and all subsidies for highways – hidden or open – I’m not going to get my shorts in a knot over subsidized trolleys. "

Maybe you dont give a damn, but its TAXPAYERS LIKE ME who pay for these boondoggles and I DONT LIKE SUCH WASTE. You think its hunky dory to make some 'neato' transit system that costs $1+ a passenger mile? Thats what many LRTs cost these days ... it's a huge waste of money!

In my own city they've tried to shove a $1 billion LRT that would not even come within miles of my home nor would serve more than a fraction of city - it would chew up a major roadway *cutting* more apacity that even the LRT would create! All for $1 billion - operating expenses not included.


my city is Austin. "Your neighbors are not socialists."
Well, some of them are - but they call themselves "progressives" and "smart growth advocates" although they always line up for other looney left ideas too. LRT is one of those neato ideas the socialists just eat right up, without asking obvious questions like "is it worth it?" "do people want it in this community?" Thankfully, it's been voted down twice, but the socialists keep trying. After all, they know what we need better than we do!

You sound alot like them.

[WOSG]

http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/

HEre is a one billion subsidy for a Light Rail project: WHO IS PAYING FOR IT?

How much of this Light Rail project was paid for by gas taxes? Ready to take a stab at it???


$1 billion cost. 4500 riders per day. Do you think that is worth it?



http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/o032303a.htm

"But now comes word that the major drain on taxpayer funds won't end when the project is finished, nor at any other time in the foreseeable future. Though running the line would cost nearly $70 million a year in operational costs and debt payments, fares look like they'll generate only $2.5 million.

So NJ Transit needs to study this service for the first year or two of operation and decide a sad, sad question: Will we lose more money by ending the project or by keeping it alive? If the latter, we should mentally prepare to pull the plug and cut our losses."

[billbears]

I'd rather spend our money here than ship it overseas to UN projects

Hmmmm, considering neither was covered nor intended by the Founders, I'd just rather have my money in my pocket if it's all the same to you. End internal improvements and foreign aid altogether

[WOSG]

"This is often the primary reason. Property taxes, as well as higher income taxes, drive many companies to the suburbs, where rents are also considerably cheaper."

Further irony ... our Austin Metro system cannot nearly fund itself with fares of course so it requires a sales tax of .5% to support... so the city burdens itself with higher taxes, driving away businesses just to have this service.
Leading to yet more suburban shopping malls and suburban 'sprawl'. go figure.

[WOSG]

"Once these systems were privately owned. Then a combination of unionization and the minimum wage made it uneconomical for private interests to run them. The unions learned to milk the systems because union members were voters. "

Now you are talking. If you want to get the trucks off the highways, just get the Federal govt to end the age-old work rules on railroads that the unions insist on keeping. We could have great intermodal transport and much lower rail shipping costs, but union rules and fed regulation has held it back in the past and still is hampering productivity. ... JMHO.

Indeed, it could well be argued that this whole car vs. rail
dichotomy is a false one, the govt killed railroads through regulation. The issue is regulatory transport policies, or open / free market transport policies:


http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/protectionismpopulismandinterventionism/socialcost.html

[Risa]

Your reasoning and writing is so poor that I haven't any idea what you are ranting about. I hope for the sake of the future of our country and our nation's kids that the 'teacher317' moniker under which you post is just a joke.
risa

[Poohbah]

I don't know of any law that is capable of "forcing" businesses into a city.

Simple: you just refuse business permits to any business outside of the core.

[jimt]

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?

Willie, it's $15 plus in Dallas.

Speaking of phoney numbers, I notice you didn't post a rebuttal showing a rail system that wasn't subsidized, now did you?

The phoney numbers are all on the transit advocates' side. And the taxpayers are getting hosed.

[Wolfie]

Don't sweat it. Big Government tax-payer funded socialist boondoggles are A-OK if it satisfies somebody's pet peeve.

[jimt]

When will the war on poverty end?

I know you're smarter than that.

The answer, of course, is never.

There are way too many people in the poverty industry who make good money counseling the poor, tracking the poor, feeding the poor, medicating the poor...ad nauseum.

Twenty-three years ago, if you took all the dough being spent in the "poor industry" and just gave it to poor people, each family of four would have gotten $40,000.

Today it must be at least double, if not triple that amount.

But those friendly, helpful bureaucrats would all lose their "jobs". They aren't going to let that happen.

[Risa]

>>Two unsupported assertions in one paragraph.I am used to the dishonesty of the hope-over-reality contingent.<<

I think it rather unfair of you, and arrogant, too, to accuse others of dishonesty when you obviously have done little to educate yourself on the matter.

1. For resources on the intentional destruction of the public transportation system in America you can refer to the following resources:


Documentary Film: Taken for a Ride
http://www.newday.com/guides/takenforarideSG.html

Ripping Up Rail
Great Lakes Press
http://www.mlui.org/pubs/glb/glb13-01/glb13-14.asp

Articles
Mallach, Stanley, The Origins Of The Decline Of Urban Mass Transportation In The U.S. 1890-1930 (Urbanism Past And Present, VIII Summer 1979)

Foster, Mark, City Planners And Urban Transportation: The American Response 1900-1940 (Journal Of Urban History V, May 1979)

Snell, Bradford C, American Ground Transport, presented to the subcommittee on Antitrust and monopoly, of the Judiciary, US Senate, 26 Feb 1974. see pp. 27-34

Weiner Edward, Urban Transportation Planning in the United States:An Historical Overview, 1999.

Johnston, James, Driving America, American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1997.



2. For reference to the enormous costs of subsidizing travel by automobile:

CAR SUBSIDIES IN A "FREE MARKET"
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL COSTS OF AUTOMOBILE USE
Stanley Hart (shart@igc.apc.org)December 24, 1985
http://www.flora.org/afo/cc3.html

Huge city subsidies for autos, trucks
http://www.trainweb.org/mts/fmt/fmt11.html

Optimizing Public Transit Benefits
by Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
http://www.vtpi.org/optranbe.htm

Why Subsidize Sprawl, Pollution and Consumption?
(Published: Santa Barbara News-Press - Sunday May 28, 1995)

And further:
An Analysis of the Relationship Between Highway Expansion and Congestion in Metropolitan Areas
http://www.transact.org/congestion/analysis.htm
the actual TTI study discussed in the above mentioned report
http://mobility.tamu.edu/

risa

[Willie Green]

Speaking of phoney numbers, I notice you didn't post a rebuttal showing a rail system that wasn't subsidized, now did you?

Here's one for you:

Public transit becoming part of Vegas experience

So many passengers pay their $2 fares to ride public buses round-the-clock on the congested Strip that the bus route turns a profit --

And when the Las Vegas Monorail, the nation's first monorail built as a public transit project and funded by private industry, begins gliding along a 4-mile Strip route in a couple of years, even more Vegas visitors will be turning to transit.

As far as other communities who CHOOSE to subsidize their public transit service, I have no problems with that. Although I would prefer seeing service funded by fares as much as possible, I've also repeatedly stated the benefits communities recieve for providing such subsidies. Sure, there are many local systems that are poorly planned and operated ineffectively. Transit systems require continuous monitoring and adjustment of routes/schedules to provide optimum service. But I don't allow the bogus figures of anti-transit obstructionists skew my judgement that mass-transit is a vital component of our nations transportation infrastructure.

[Willie Green]

And it is because we cannot be a "modern" city without public transportation.

It's true. And in Florida, you also need to invest in other public infrastructure to accommodate population growth: electric power generation, fresh water supply and wastewater treatment systems. You myopic bozos better get your butts in gear before you turn your state into an overpopulated cesspool similar to Tiajuana.