Paying for Rail Transit

Last week, San Antonio voters overwhelming approved of a measure forbidding the city’s transit agency from building any rail transit lines without voter approval. While that seems like a no brainer, opponents contended that it was unfair to single out rail transit for such a measure just because rail cost 50 to 100 times as much as bus transit.

Meanwhile, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is still trying to decide whether to cancel the $2.5 billion Purple Line (not to mention Baltimore’s $3 billion Red Line). Rail supporters were disappointed that he cut tolls on bridges and toll roads, since they figured that any surplus tolls should have gone to their pet project.

Rail supporters are claiming that the evil Cato Institute is leading a major campaign to undermine their plans. In fact, with the exception of the Antiplanner and maybe one other person, no one at Cato has put much thought into the Purple Line, as they are working on such relatively trivial things as reducing conflict in the Mideast, improving health care, and keeping government from watching everything we do.

If Governor Hogan wants to see where the big money is going in the battle over the Purple Line, he need only look at the supporters, which include contractors, construction unions, and developers. Developers want the Purple Line not because they think light rail will stimulate growth but because they think light rail will lead Montgomery County to rezone for higher densities, allowing them to build more housing, which is needed thanks to the fact that nearly half the county is in an agricultural reserve.
In time, experience will show levitra vs viagra check my link now what works best. It also helps you last longer in the sack as it can give more energy to keep going for longer session. sildenafil 50mg price Erectile dysfunction is said to be a sexual issue where in only men levitra tab 20mg are the real victims to it. Symptoms include numbing pain or viagra stores stiffness from the upper arm down to the hands.
Maryland can not only not afford to build the Purple Line, it couldn’t afford to maintain it even if the original construction cost were free. That’s the only conclusion that can be reached after an examination of the Washington Metro system, which serves the same Maryland communities that would be on the Purple Line. It turns out that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is about to go broke, partly due to incompetence but mainly due to years of inadequate maintenance.

Boston’s transit system is under the same kind of stresses, and someone came up with what they thought was the brilliant idea that they could crowd source the funds needed to bring the system up to a state of good repair. Unfortunately, GoFundMe allows people to use its service to raise no more than $300 million, which isn’t even enough to pay for one year’s worth of maintenance. Despite this setback, they managed to raise all of $1,585 after three months of effort.

As Nate Boroyan at Bostinno suggests, eliminating Boston’s $3 billion backlog would require that everyone in MBTA’s service district donate $62. Since transit riders would be the main beneficiaries, asking Boston’s 300,000 transit commuters to cover the cost would require a donation of $10,000 apiece. Even then, Boston lacks the funds to keep the system in good repair, and it would soon deteriorate once more.

If Governor Hogan really had any surplus funds to spend on transit (which he doesn’t), he should spend it on helping to restore the Washington Metro system, not building more rail that the region can’t afford to maintain. But even that might not be a good use of public funds. Rail is simply an unsustainable form of passenger transportation.

Tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

27 Responses to Paying for Rail Transit

  1. caroline taylor says:

    Fact checker:

    The writer asserts that half of Montgomery County Maryland is an Agricultural Reserve.

    Fact: The County’s Reserve is roughly 93,000 acres, or approximately one third of the county. 30,000 of that is parkland- county, state and federal. There are approximately 550 farms in the Reserve growing food, providing services, jobs and robust economic growth.

    Though it’s difficult to follow the logic in this piece, and I do not have the time (nor inclination) to fact check the number of the other questionable assertions, I will note that the author has slipped the tracks on his assertions about the Reserve.
    Caroline Taylor
    Executive Director
    Montgomery Countryside Alliance

  2. Caroline,

    Thank you for correcting my statement. According to the 2010 census, 45 percent of the county is rural, which means 73 percent of rural areas are in the agricultural reserve.

    According to county zoning maps, almost all if not all of the remaining rural land is protecting by agricultural easements or is public parkland. This effectively puts virtually all of the 45 percent of rural land off limits to development, which is a major reason why housing prices are so high and why developers want permission to build to higher densities.

    It seems silly to ask taxpayers to spend billions of dollars on an obsolete rail line just so developers can get their land rezoned to higher densities. This is especially true when most people would rather live in lower densities and would be free to do so if the agricultural reserves and easements hadn’t put so much land off limits to residential development.

  3. Johnny Lucid says:

    I was just at Montgomery County, MD’s 40th Anniversary celebration of their Ride On bus system. (I’m an MCDOT employee) A featured speaker, MD’s junior senator, Ben Cardin, asserted that every dollar invested on transit yields four dollars in economic benefits.. Has Sen. Cardin recently visited Colorado or is he drinking the Keynesian Kool-Aid or both? I’m probably going to ask his office for a citation.

  4. gilfoil says:

    Shame to see all this valuable land wasted on public parks when it could be used for something useful like a Walmart parking lot.

  5. caroline taylor says:

    You are welcome. And again…

    Statement: “most people would rather live in lower densities…”

    Fact: trends say otherwise:

    http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Emerging-Trends-in-Real-Estate-US-2013.pdf

    http://www.midamericamortgage.com/young-people-seeking-urban-lifestyle/

    Statement: Ag Reserve “is a major reason why housing prices are so high…”

    Question:
    How do you explain the high cost of housing in Fairfax County where there is not a single farm remaining?

  6. Frank says:

    Caroline, I’ll see your Urban Land Institute report and raise you a National Association of Realtors report that found that “Americans overwhelmingly prefer to live in single-family, detached homes – even if that means driving more and a longer commute to work.”

  7. Frank says:

    It seems like we have another “density is good for thee but not for me” commenter. Or perhaps Ms. Taylor is simply in the minority as public records show she lives on 2.3 acres in a 2,848 square foot single family home. Density is so great that its greatest proponents choose not to live in MFH density.

  8. caroline taylor says:

    I post, infrequently, on blog sites. I use my full name. I post respectfully and as accurately as I can in the interest of having a productive dialogue.

    These conversations go south quickly when people, hiding behind pseudonyms or first names, post personal slams and the like.

    Since an attempt to diminish my posts on the basis of my zip code has been levied: I live (for over 25 years) with my family in the Agricultural Reserve and a house built in 1965. This is where I work and this is where my children attend school. We grow food here.

    When I worked in the District, I lived there.

    I will leave you to your insular commentary.

    Caroline Taylor
    Who believes that working farms must be preserved near where we live -just as did her ancestor John Taylor of Caroline County Virginia.

  9. gilfoil says:

    Wow, that wasn’t creepy at all, Frank! Good way to win that debate.

  10. metrosucks says:

    So it’s creepy to expect the public loudmouths to live as they say the rest of us should? I bet gilfoil is a government planner living on 5 acres in the exurbs, and has never used public transit in his life.

  11. Frank says:

    “Wow, that wasn’t creepy at all, Frank!”

    Listen. Someone posted with her real name and job title. It took one search and mere seconds to find a white pages listing. It took a second search and mere seconds to find the parcel viewer website with details the government makes publicly available due to property taxes, so maybe you should take up the issue of privacy with government, from whom we all rent land.

    And yet again, another person advocating density shows themselves to be someone who ISN’T living in density. This is true with planner Dan Staley, who derided suburbs and McMansions, yet worked as a planner for a development building McMansions and who lives in a suburb on the outer fringe of the city. This is true with Michael Setty who lives on massive acreage in a SFH where the only option is to drive; yet Setty constantly advocates for density and transit in SF. It’s likely true for many planners calling for density and transit.

    So, given the easily accessible info made available by your friendly local government, if you don’t want people legally accessing your public info, don’t post your real name while you’re advocating for density and transit.

    Right, GILFOIL?

  12. msetty says:

    Gee, Frank, you’d really gin up your asshole mode if I questioned your motives, other than for what appears to be mainly ideological.

    For the record, I have lived more than half my life in dense environments, my first twenty years in Pacific Grove, and Monterey, CA, both traditional gridded communities that were quite walkable, thank you, and I didn’t have a car until I went to junior college (and bicycled to that because the local transit service sucked so badly. Then nine years in Oakland, CA. in an apartment complex also in a very walkable neighborhood 0.5 mile from the Piedmont Theater and Piedmont Avenue, where I used transit several times per week, thank Then three years in central Napa and two years in Vallejo, all in walkable neighborhoods. I currently live where I do as part of my contributing to the family business, which returns a reasonable income covering the mortgage, thank you. So go fuck yourself in your current questioning of my motives. And Metrosucks, STFU in advance, as always.

  13. msetty says:

    that should have been “…or bicycled…”

  14. Frank says:

    So who was the first on this tread to drop (multiple) profanities?

    I guess the truth really hurts.

    The truth is that those here who advocate for massive government intervention and subsidies to create dense and walkable neighborhoods full of multifamily housing CHOOSE not to live in dense and walkable neighborhoods in multifamily housing.

  15. metrosucks says:

    We expect those who espouse the density uber alles lifestyle so fervently to live that lifestyle, not to live on 40 acre ranches while telling the rest of us to live stacked up in some sardine can apartment.

    Caroline Taylor
    Who believes that working farms must be preserved near where we live -just as did her ancestor John Taylor of Caroline County Virginia.

    Guess what, you sanctimonious bitch. No one cares that you “think” farms must be “preserved”. Before your farm was founded, it was once howling wilderness. Only by someone exercising free will and expending sweat were your ancestors able to build that farm up. If it were up to you, we’d all be living in caves because your kind wants to endlessly protect even the most innocuous little piece of land from anything other than government approved usage.

  16. transitboy says:

    As yet nobody has responded to her question:
    How do you explain the high cost of housing in Fairfax County where there is not a single farm remaining?

    Possible answer – article arguing that NIMBYs have stunted the national econonomy, resulting in an economy that is 10% less than it otherwise would be: http://www.planetizen.com/node/76654 .

    The antiplanner could argue that New York housing prices would be lower if Central Park was replaced with new housing developments. However, would that be a New York anybody would want to live in?

  17. Frank says:

    As yet nobody has responded to her question:
    How do you explain the high cost of housing in Fairfax County where there is not a single farm remaining?

    Why respond to a lie non-fact?

  18. ahwr says:

    Frank, so 97% of the county is not farmland?

  19. raskrask says:

    The term “economic benefits” is a weasel term. Ask for the return on investment instead. Ask for a peer reviewed economic analysis. Bet you that just as with the NFL’s claims of “economic impact”, you won’t find any econ professors supporting their methodology.

  20. Frank says:

    ahwr, so you are moving the goal posts for Caroline?

  21. metrosucks says:

    Absolutely!

  22. caroline taylor says:

    Meh…
    To be clear: not once have I written here or elsewhere advocating for this transit project or hyper density development. Someone forwarded the blog post because it referenced MC’s Reserve and because my occupation its economic health. I posted here on verifiable information. We were then off the the races with defammatory – personal commentary. (Comments awaiting moderation- – for?) Were these aimed to… Crush other viewpoints? Intimidate? Believe me when I tell you this- I am not easily intimidated. More likely bored by myopic, thin veneer thinkers who won’t read and only want to hear the sound of their own voice in a tank with thick walls.
    And:
    Fairfax Co. – not farm parks or petting zoos. Farms that feed/clothe people:

    http://mobile.dudamobile.com/site/pickyourown_1?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pickyourown.org%2FVAnorthern.htm#2920

    And as to my roots and what motivates my work to ensure that we do not have to import the food to feed our region or nation.
    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/02/john-taylor-of-caroline-american-cato.html

    Put that in your pipe and smoke, as my father says.

  23. Frank says:

    “in Fairfax County where there is not a single farm remaining”

    “I posted here on verifiable information.”

    Verifiably false. In 2012, there were more than 148 farms, and acreage of land in farms increased by 12% since 2007.

    And now you’re moving the goal posts from “not a single farm remaining” to “not farm parks or petting zoos.” Those categories aren’t listed on the agriculture census* and are obvious attempts to ridicule. I’d think an executive director would have her facts straight. And would be able to post working links.

    As my favorite progressive planner—who is no longer with us on this blog—used to say, “If this weak brew is the best you can do, boy, let me know now so I can ignore your weak s—.”
    .
    .
    .
    .
    *If you’d looked at the census, you’d have found the top crop items per acre: Forage-land used for all hay and haylage, grass silage, and greenchop; Corn for grain; Cut Christmas trees; Nursery stock crops; Grapes. Perhaps these types of farms don’t meet your high-brow approval; sure, they don’t make organic salad dressing, but they’re not a petting zoos either.

  24. caroline taylor says:

    This is more productive. My attempt to find Fairfax farms via search terms etc. yielded only non- working farms. My original source of the zero farms assertion, generally quite reliable, was not correct and I did pull up this link:

    http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Virginia/cp51059.pdf

    I apologize for my error.

    Yet, the underlying argument that MC housing is expensive because there is an area whose primary land use is farming is at issue. My point, despite the regrettable incorrect citation, is this: housing in the Washington Metro area is expensive. To attribute MC’s cost of housing to the existance of the Ag Reserve is missing the regional reality.

  25. Frank says:

    “Yet, the underlying argument that MC housing is expensive because there is an area whose primary land use is farming is at issue. My point, despite the regrettable incorrect citation, is this: housing in the Washington Metro area is expensive. To attribute MC’s cost of housing to the existance of the Ag Reserve is missing the regional reality.”

    Agreed. The Antiplanner could also look at the boom in federal government hiring in DC and century-old regulations that put a cap on building height in the District and artificially low interest rates that drive speculation and cause malinvestment in real estate. This is an old topic here, and while the agriculture reserve may have an effect on housing prices, it is likely small. As others have said, and I agree, you could develop Central Park or Forest Park in Portland or the MC reserve, but it would likely have only a moderate effect on prices and it would remove amenities that drive housing demand in those places.

  26. prk166 says:

    Statement: “most people would rather live in lower densities…”

    Fact: trends say otherwise

    ————–

    The statement is broad. Your “fact” holds a very specific interpretation of that. I don’t have any fancy studies to offer anyone. I do point out oddly enough that in this day of mass polling, this day of age when most Americans live in low density areas, there is a clear lack of displeasure about where people live. Even if – and that’s a big IF – most people want to live in high density areas, they’re clearly relatively content if not still happy with their current situation.

    The question isn’t “do they want to live in a higher density residence ( or not )” but “how much will they pay for it out of their own pocket?”. If someone doesn’t have skin in the game, they’re choice is going to be distorted.

  27. prk166 says:

    Set aside the ideology and what political goals one has. Just look at the argument at face value. The problem with arguing that farms should be preserved because of their economic benefits is that there are 100 thousand billion other uses of that land that land.

    Building this policy on that argument is setting that policy up for failure. Housing will provide more economic benefit. XYZ government agency wanting to build new facilities will provide more economic benefit. Building a new football stadium, airport will provide more economic benefit.

    If the long term goal is to preserve the farms, that’s a risky argument to use. It will be trumped by bigger, better connected interests in the long run.

    And maybe that isn’t a bad thing. After all, the real question is economic benefit but being the most valuable use of that resource. I’m not sure it’s the public’s long term interest to be preserving farming and a few farm jobs in a highly developed area when it could be used to produce biotech, software, high end manufacturing and other industries that would employ more people and provide much more value. If we need more good food to eat, we do that in the Red River Valley or western Kansas. It’s not apparent that we develop life saving cancer drugs nor world class software in mass there though.

Leave a Reply