It started with "smart growth" and "new urbanism." Now this elitist focus on public transit as the solution to congestion has a frightening hold on the U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who has long cited his preference for "livability" instead of mobility, this month announced a $293 million "investment" so that "residents in dozens of communities nationwide will soon enjoy major transit improvements, including new streetcars, buses and transit facilities." It would "boost economic development and recovery, and further reduce our dependence on oil."
Free-market think tanks and policy analysts around the nation who oppose this approach are maligned as "anti-transit." Not so. Transit is a necessary tool in the transportation policy toolbox to accommodate the needy, those unwilling and unable to drive and a growing elderly population. What's at issue is (a) what type of transit to choose and (b) who should manage it.
Why are these issues? First, the numbers of transit users are low and declining. Demographer Wendell Cox reports that in 1955, transit's market share was more than 10 percent; by 2005, it was at 1.5 percent. By 2008, amid high fuel prices, transit market share climbed - to 1.6 percent. It is also high cost. The farebox covers around 25 percent of operations. It requires massive subsidies from already-struggling taxpayers.
Unfortunately, planners are opting for trolleys, street cars and rail. President Obama's $8 billion in grants for "high-speed" rail have over-excited states. And Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff says, "Streetcars are making a comeback because cities across America are recognizing that they can restore economic development downtown. ... These streetcar and bus livability projects will not only create construction jobs now, they will aid our recovery by creating communities that are more prosperous and less congested."
Atlanta's Beltline greenbelt project proposes using light rail, estimated at $25 million to $50 million per mile and the costliest of three options. Cobb County also is looking at light rail. Planners maintain it encourages economic development.
Which leads to management: With taxpayer funds materializing from the federal government to cover up to 90 percent of the cost of the projects they support, policy-makers inflate requests with expensive, ambitious projects that have little relevance to consumer demand. LaHood's streetcar initiative will fund up to 80 percent of projects. The profit motive of a private-sector investor can encourage efficiencies and protect taxpayers.
The feds do appear to be rethinking their generosity. Rogoff said recently it is time to "put down the glossy brochures. ... At times like these, it's more important than ever to have the courage to ask a hard question: If you can't afford to operate the system you have, why does it make sense for us to partner in your expansion? ... (A)re we at risk of just helping communities dig a deeper hole for our children and our grandchildren?"
This is especially not the time to commit funds to fixed transit as a solution. An Atlanta Regional Commission "snapshot" of congested corridors resembles the can of worms it is. Regional planners are considering delaying needed maintenance to fund new projects. The region needs a stunning $56 billion through 2040 just for repairs and maintenance, and $113 billion more to build, operate and maintain "all additional identified needs in the region."
The good news is that even in automobile-oriented Georgia, where land is cheap so lots are large and business centers dispersed, there are less costly transit options. The law enabling regional referenda on a transportation sales tax also creates a commission to investigate combining regional transit entities into one, and another to encourage transit cost-sharing by various agencies.
Then, too, the proposed high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane network proposed for the metro region could provide a seamless, congestion-free transit network for express buses and bus rapid transit (BRT). For reference, the Beltline's estimates for BRT are $15 million to $25 million a mile.
Nobody's taking the train. Georgians must demand that social engineers stop trying to get them on board. Georgians want mobility: freeing their cars from congestion, not moving them out of their cars. As transportation policy advances, focus the finite dollars on practical plans that advance regional mobility, not on modes from which Americans have long moved on.
Read the Foundation's proposals for transportation policy in Georgia at http://www.gppf.org/pub/agenda2011/transportationagenda.pdf
Benita M. Dodd is vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, an independent think tank that proposes practical, market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians.
Follow us on Twitter!
Capital costs are about 20% of what MARTA costs... therefore, lower cost of capital debt.
Automated & elevated... therefore, reliable commute (not subject to at-grade traffic) is attractive to riders.
Small stations... therefore, easily placed in more accessible areas (more rider potential)
Frequent vehicle arrivals/departures... therefore, attractive to potential riders.
Huge service area in Cobb... therefore, more attractive to riders.
Planned access to common points of interest... therefore, more attractive to riders.
There are many more, but I don't want to hijack the blog. One only needs to apply a little common sense to see that the OTG system would be far more attractive to suburbanites than any light rail system.
If your concern would be that operating subsidy would be required, simply make that a part of the contract. That is, Cobb gov't (or whomever) could require that all operating costs be validated before anything be put into action. You and I agree that if it cannot operate without a subsidy, it shouldn't be done! Fares should be set realistically, not with 'entitlement' in mind. If other private entities wish to subsidize poor folks' fares, then they should be able to do that, but not with our hard-earned tax dollars!
Many thanks!
If you were a true fiscal conservative (as I am) you'd investigate it thoroughly and keep an open mind to a new approach. Old approaches have failed. It's time to re-think technology and overall approach.
Either way, if all things are considered "equally errant", you've GOT to at least conclude it's the lesser of two evils.
Do your homework and give it a fresh look. You'll likely be surprised at how it aligns with fiscal conservatism! (no Fed $$ needed = local control!)
Costs are underestimated in nine out of 10 transportation infrastructure projects, according to a 2002 study reported in the Journal of the American Planning Association. For rail projects, actual costs are on average 45 percent higher than estimated costs.
“The key policy implication for this consequential and highly expensive field of public policy is that those legislators, administrators, bankers, media representatives and members of the public who value honest numbers should not trust the cost estimates presented by infrastructure promoters and forecasters,” the authors warn.
I support market oriented solutions, just like Ms. Dodd says she does -- but it appears she actually does not...unless building highways, HOT facilities, and BRT lanes suddenly become private sector ventures. All of these projects also tap the public till heavily with user fees not ever fully funding construction and maintenance.
If politicians would get out of the way (not likely) true market oriented solutions would happen, just as the earliest transit systems in New York did. (Politics eventually wrecked them, however.)
Indeed, let us have a productive discussion on transit -- from a truly market oriented approach. Ms. Dodd wants to talk about "regional mobility", whatever that is. I'd rather talk about encouraging good transit policy AND get government out of the picture.
I appreciate some real facts to illustrate just how nonsensical/costly lite rail is (unless you are going to accept that the tooth fairy will actually come and pay for it all).
As for NW Cobber...OTG-Inc.com is about as "lite" on important facts as it gets (ex: operating costs). What is described looks a whole lot like what I would call "lite rail". Your concerns with Ms. Dodd's costs estimates being low makes me think your OTG-Inc. solution costs will be at least as nonsensical as Ms Dodd's "low" lite rail costs projections. But, if you can get the politcos to support lite rail...then your OTG-Inc. "solution" will probably look good (for an over priced, continuing costly burden on the taxpayers).
Conservatives are always demanding that we decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Transit is how! America only has 3% of the world's oil resources, and accessing it leads to disasters such as the one in the gulf. Transit riders save approximately $9000 and reduce their oil consumption by 4.2 billion gallons of gas a year. We are destroying the environment with car lust and we must demand transit.
Block time is a part of riders' decisions as well. If it takes longer to take transit than to use your car, you'll take your car. Put the "rapid" back into "rapid transit" and you'll have something to offer!
Also, the light rail cost per mile you cited is WAAAAAY too low. The one that was proposed in Cobb was around $137 million per mile!
I still like the HighRoad system concept... you should check into it! (OTG-Inc.com)