by James A. Bacon
Glen Bottoms, executive director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation (ACCPT), takes exception to my recent post, “Eviscerating Rail Transit.” Although he doesn’t budge me from my main conclusion — that we need to stop building rail transit projects that cannot pay for themselves — he raises a number of worthwhile points that need to be part of any intelligent debate on the subject. Herewith is a slightly amended version of his e-mail communication:
Yep, rail transit has a deferred maintenance backlog but which is centered on heavy rail systems in the Northeast (and Chicago) that were built in early 1900s and woefully undercapitalized whether under private or public ownership. Yes, Washington’s Metro has a deferred maintenance problem because its finances are subject to vagaries of its numerous funding partners in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia. Mindful of Mr. [Randal] O’Toole’s “most devastating point” [that rail transit and streetcar enterprises in the United States have accumulated a $77 billion maintenance backlog] I might point out that U.S. highways have the same problem yet we see state DOT’s pursuing mega-projects such as the Columbia River Crossing (Oregon/Washington), and the Louisville bridges project (multiple bridges now predicted to carry less traffic than the original single bridge they replace) to name a few. Need I mention Governor McDonnell’s highway 460 boondoggle or the proposed Charlottesville bypass using outdated traffic data to justify its construction? I won’t get into the “Western Bypass” debacle.
FHWA figures show that highways cover (from user taxes and fees) only 51% of the cost of highways, the rest coming from general revenues from federal, state and local coffers. Rail transit in this country covers about 54% of operating costs (buses about 28%). While you are right that fares do not begin to cover capital costs, the economic development and under-girding of economic output in urban areas more than justify the construction of permanent rail facilities.
While Mr. O’Toole loves to quote the statistic that transit carries a mere 2 -3% of all trips in a typical region, it truly has no relevance. You can only take transit where transit exists. And fully 50% of urban Americans do not have acceptable access to transit. When you examine transit usage on a corridor by corridor basis, you get an entirely different picture. For example, transit carries about 40% of rush hour traffic into Washington, D.C. The BART strike, while regrettable, clearly demonstrates the importance of the BART rail system to regional mobility.
Yes, transit is subsidized. But so is every other mode in this country. Supporting rail transit has many benefits. [ACCPT Director] Bill Lind and I support rail transit (as did our mentor, Paul Weyrich) because it facilitates economic development, promotes pedestrian traffic and is a key ingredient in fostering cohesive neighborhoods. It also reduces dependence on foreign oil. Did Mr. O’Toole mention rail-sparked development? No, of course not, because it does not fit his paradigm.
Bill Lind and I collaborated with Rick Gustafson, president, Portland Streetcar and Eric Hovee, a Portland-based economic consultant to answer Randy O’Toole on many of the points he made in a critique of the Portland Streetcar project. Click here to see our rebuttal to his study. I think our arguments will give you another perspective and answers to Mr. O’Toole’s claims stated in your article. I would update one statistic from our rebuttal. The Portland Streetcar is now carrying almost 17,000 weekday passengers, having recovered nicely from the discontinuance of the fare free zone in downtown Portland.
While I find little that I can agree with in your article, there is one statement that I would agree is spot on: “Unionized workforces hamper productivity and run up massive unfunded pension liabilities.” I would point out that many transit services are well-run, efficiently managed, and have reasonable pension programs. However, others are struggling mightily to get their pension programs under control. They face the debilitating issue that politicians elected with the assistance of public employee unions are loathe to try to bring these pension programs under control. BART is a good example of this, especially with regard to work rules. But if the day of reckoning might be delayed, it cannot be avoided, even by municipalities. Detroit is living proof of that.
Bottoms is absolutely right — road and highway projects in the U.S., and especially Virginia, are heavily subsidized. I railed non-stop against Governor Bob McDonnell’s transportation-funding plan that took road financing even further away from a user-pays system, and I have devoted extensive digital ink to criticizing the very Virginia road projects that Bottoms cites. On those matters, we are in 100% agreement.
Here’s the difference: Where Bottoms regards subsidies for roads and highways as a justification for subsidies to mass transit, I argue that we need to eliminate subsidies for all modes of transportation so projects can compete on a level playing field. If we eliminated subsidies for roads and transit, unsubsidized transit could well become more competitive than it is today. But that’s just my hunch. We can’t know until we eliminate the subsidies.
Forcing transit to compete on equal terms, I suspect, would expose the desperate need to reform monopolistic, government-owned transit enterprises. We must eliminate the waste and inefficiency associated with union workforces. We must support rail with densification and urban design around rail stations to build ridership. We must address the obstinate refusal to raise fares to market rates, which short-changes revenue and leads to chronic under-funding of maintenance. Finally, we must capture some of the economic value created by rail projects instead of allowing lucky (or shrewd, or politically connected) property owners to keep it all. If we could address all of those challenges and eliminate all transportation subsidies, I believe that we would see a rail transit renaissance.
Conversely, maintaining Subsidies As Usual is unsustainable. Absent reform, we will continue to squander capital on road and transit boondoggles alike. State and local governments will build ever-growing maintenance & operations liabilities that they can ill afford. It is folly to make our transportation system a permanent ward of increasingly indebted and financially stressed governments.
