|
When
a man begins to reason, he ceases to feel
–French Proverb Quotes
It
is often said that the politics of those on the
left are based on “feelings” while the
politics of those of the right are based on
“thinking.” A recent Letter to the Editors
published in the Washington Times by James
E. Davenport, of McLean, “Metro to Dulles Makes
Sense,” is a prime example of feelings ruling
over reasoning.
This
letter responded to an op-ed piece by Sen. Ken
Cuccinelli, R-Centreville, “Railroading
Dulles,” also published in the Washington
Times. Cuccinelli raised several reasoned
arguments to conclude that extending Metro, the
Washington subway system, to Dulles airport makes
little economic sense—other than to line up the
pockets of the donors of the politicians promoting
this boondoggle.
The
estimated price tag for extending Metro to Wiehle
Avenue in Reston has jumped 20 percent
to $1.8 billion (that’s billion with a “B”),
even before one shovel has hit the ground. An
earlier estimate was much, much larger; when the
higher cost proved politically unpalatable,
project designers scurried back to their drawing
boards to come up with a more acceptable estimate.
Given the typical cost overruns associated with
massive construction projects of this nature, we
can expect final project costs to creep even
higher.
As
pointed out by Sen. Cuccinelli, while congestion
in our region will not improve by extending Metro
to Dulles, the value of real estate owned by big
political donors and the employer (SAIC) of the
Chairman of Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
Gerry Connolly will skyrocket between $2 and $3
billion. It goes without saying that Connolly is a
big supporter of extending Metro to Dulles.
All
this has been discussed in earlier columns
published on Bacon’s Rebellion as far
back as 2003, like “The
Rail-to-Dulles Scam,” “Bad
Company,” and “Railroaded
Again.” Nonetheless, extending Metro to
Dulles has gained steam because corrupt
politicians have duped the public into believing
that subway systems—irrespective of costs—are
a superior form of mass transit.
Mr.
Davenport’s letter is a first-rate example of
beliefs based on feelings. It is indeed ironic
that well-meaning folks like Mr. Davenport
consider themselves to be educated on the subject.
Unfortunately, the “facts” used in their
rationalizations are based on misinformation,
propaganda or simply wishful thinking.
For
example, Mr. Davenport says that one large
passenger train could replace about 500 vehicles
on the road. He bases his estimate on trains
carrying 15-passenger cars. That could work in
Utopia, but in the real Metro world Mr.
Davenport’s “facts” are not possible. Metro
cannot accommodate trains carrying 15-passenger
cars; its platforms are designed for a maximum of
eight-passenger cars, while currently, Metro
trains only carry six cars.
And
then there is the Rosslyn tunnel where Metro can
squeeze through a maximum of 40 passenger trains
per hour. Existing lines already use most of this
tunnel capacity during rush hour traffic. No one
has calculated the costs of building another
tunnel or a bridge to convey the trains across the
Potomac River.
In
the end, we may build an extended Metro line that
can do little to carry passengers to Washington,
D.C. None of the proponents of this project have
mentioned that we may end up with a subway system
that could only accommodate traffic between Tysons
and Dulles—but this is exactly what can happen
if we cannot get the added trains across the
Potomac.
Mr.
Davenport tells us that trains operate in ice,
snow, and rain. Never mind the fact that Metro's
record in heavy snowfalls is dismal - and that
there was a fatal train crash during a snowstorm
at Shady Grove in 1996.
He
says that train stations centralize and focus
surrounding communities, reducing sprawl. Metro
has been in operation for about 30 years now. And
given the enormous sprawl we have experienced
during the same years, we can safely conclude that
Metro has contributed very little toward reducing
sprawl.
Mr.
Davenport closes by maintaining that extending
Metro to Dulles would reduce air pollution. Not
even the most ardent promoters of this project
make this claim. The Dulles Rail environmental
impact statement states that extending Metro to
Dulles does nothing to improve air quality.
Even
if we could afford the costs of extending Metro to
Dulles—which we cannot without irreparably
draining all funding for other significant
transportation projects in the region—this
project makes little economic sense. Metro’s own
studies show that this project will have no impact
on relieving the traffic congestion along the
Dulles corridor.
But
why let facts like these get in the way of
arguments that “feel” so good? In today’s
touchy-feely society, we have come to accept
feelings over reasoning. Therefore, we are bound
to get people believing in “facts” that make
them feel good—irrespective of the fact that
they bear no relation to reality.
--
September 5, 2005
|
