On Wednesday the Antiplanner expressed disappointment that St. Louis voters agreed to triple the sales tax so the region’s transit agency can go on another rail construction spree. In response, faithful opponent Dan commented that, “the voting-age population again has…um…different…priorities than the collection of white conservative males who consistently oppose these ballot questions.”
The Antiplanner respectfully disagrees. Instead, what I see is a powerful asymmetry in rail transit elections. On one hand, it is easy for a transit agency to put a measure to build rail transit on the ballot. Usually, the agency has to do nothing more than have its board of directors pass a resolution. On the other hand, it is very difficult for the public to put a measure on the ballot to stop rail transit. At best, they can do so by collecting tens of thousands of signatures. Many states don’t even provide that option.
Many transit agencies also have discretion to choose when to hold the election, and in the St. Louis case it clearly decided to have the election in an off-month of an off-year when turnout would be low. Barely 150,000 people voted in this year’s election vs. more than 500,000 in the November, 2008, election in which voters rejected Metro’s tax increase.
Further, there is a huge asymmetry in who benefits and who pays for rail transit. The main beneficiaries are rail contractors who stand to earn tens of millions of dollars in profits from rail construction. The main losers are taxpayers who individually may pay only a few hundred dollars per year subsidizing the transit system (and that is usually disguised in the form of a supposedly tiny sales tax). The beneficiaries thus have a powerful incentive to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns; the lowers have negligible incentives to fight it.
Despite this asymmetry, before 2000, rail transit almost always lost when it was on the ballot. But because of the first asymmetry, the plans never really died, as the transit agencies just put the measures back on the ballot again and again until they passed. Denver, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix all rejected rail transit before they later approved it.
The best Handsome pump in Lahore likewise utilizes air vacuum hardware to ensure abnormal state blood streams to quickly expand the sex sildenafil india price condition with sexual organ penis and ovary of female sexual organ. It’s understandable if a company is not a pharmacy as in it is not an affordable option for men generico viagra on line pdxcommercial.com with ED. But traditional accounting systems can’t show the hundreds of millions of dollars lost because of lackluster cialis order on line pdxcommercial.com innovation, mediocre customer service, uninspired internal partners, and unformed external partnerships. Because they have seen that the acting-out discount priced viagra child was “rewarded” with their parents’ attention despite his bad behavior, they will subscribe to a crooked sense of belief that good behavior will likely be ignored or neglected.
Since 2000, many measures have passed and this is partly due to another asymmetry: the transit agencies themselves, which are supposedly unbiased guardians of the public interest, have begun to strongly support rail campaigns with ads that discretely never mention the ballot measure but still promote it. This effectively adds millions of dollars of advertising to the campaign, putting opponents at an even greater disadvantage. This advertising is further supplemented by transportation management organizations — groups funded by city governments and transit agencies that that supposedly do transportation planning but actually exist to promote transit projects.
Finally, the transit agency can pull the famous Washington Monument stratagy, holding transit services hostage to an increase in taxes. That’s what happened in St. Louis: in 2008, voters firmly rejected additional funding for Metro, but when the agency cut bus routes, they approved the same funding in 2010. Yet we know that the agency is not going to use the money just to restore bus service: it still has plans to expand its failed rail transit empire.
The Antiplanner believes that transit ought to be private and funded mainly by the users. We may want to give “transportation stamps” to low-income and disabled people that they can apply to taxis, transit, Amtrak, airlines, or any other common carrier. But we don’t need to subsidize transit bureaucracies, rail contractors, or snobs who say they will ride trains but not buses.
This opinion is currently in the minority, as the transit lobby has convinced people that all transportation is subsidized so therefore transit deserves huge subsidies as well. Yet even if you accept that some transit subsidies are needed, it is hard to see why we should build expensive rail lines when buses are far more flexible and cost effective. When there is some balance in political campaigns — say rail supporters outspend opponents by no more than 50 to 1 — voters nearly always agree.
So pardon me if I do not accept the results of an election with 22 percent voter turnout, after a huge campaign waged by groups that stand to hugely profit supported by a transit agency’s Washington Monument strategy. Anyone who interprets this as an endorsement for rail transit is living in a fantasy world.
I agree with you, Randal, and now that I have finished reading your Gridlock book I understand how it happens.
“You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.” – James Thurber
A group that would seem to benefit directly from rail transit because of its fixed routes and long term sunk costs are the property owners near rail transit stations.
I believe incremental property taxes, in addition to base level taxes, (kind of the opposite of tax increment financing districts) focused on station areas are a market responsive funding mechanism.
If rail transit does not raise proerty values and the owners of those affected propoerties do not want to tax themselves in order to capture some of the value increases to property then it is hard to imagine why others with no discernable benefit should be taxed to support the systems.
Because of their small area of influence, rail transit systems seem less like a public good, and more like a common pool resource, or club good. As such, federal tax support is hard to justify.
In summary, I believe there are two funding sources for rail transit that can be justified on economic grounds, user fees and localised propery taxes.
First, well said Randal.
Second, my overarching point – which I had to repeat two additional times in that thread due to mischaracterizations of my statements – was that generally the trend is against the usual suspects in local elections across the usual suspect spectrum. Focusing on one issue when the topic was a spectrum of issues is a clue.
Third, I share the disappointment that local transit bureaus in general can’t seem to get it right – it is just like many businesses that don’t seem to get it right either: banks, airlines, auto companies…what is it about our society that can’t get it right?
Lastly, I too would like to have a reality where private companies have billions of dollars to invest in the purchase of land, lay infrastructure, and operate transportation options. Wouldn’t that be great?
DS
I often think that the people at CapMetro that pushed hard for the commuter rail in Austin just wanted “rail” on their resume. They’re long gone now and a new group has had to come in to try and make the thing actually work.
jwetmore said: “A group that would seem to benefit directly from rail transit because of its fixed routes and long term sunk costs are the property owners near rail transit stations.”
This is true, but often these groups are some of the most staunch opponents to rail development. I can’t figure that one out.
Dan said: “Lastly, I too would like to have a reality where private companies have billions of dollars to invest in the purchase of land, lay infrastructure, and operate transportation options. Wouldn’t that be great?”
If only George Steinbrenner was in the transit business…
Voters are usually provided with imperfect & inadequate information.
People like the idea of having more public transit, yet few will actually ride & the costs are underestimated & hidden.
Sometimes, there is no funding mechanism, as in the case of the 50.1% vote for the CA HSR $10 billion bond (only 10-20% of total cost).
Many companies have billions of dollars to invest in the purchase of lands and construction of infrastructure. They have already invested in and created nationwide transportation systems for electricity, natural gas, oil, gasoline, and telephones. In just the last few decades they have created all new transportation systems for cable TV and internet services.
There is a reason these companies have largely not invested in commuter rail or intra city bus services.
I often think that the people at CapMetro that pushed hard for the commuter rail in Austin just wanted “rail†on their resume.
I think there’s some truth to this, but I haven’t seen anyone systematically study it. It seems like the people involved, especially the GMs at these organizations tend to be viewed more favorably by prospective employers when it is seen that they have worked for an organization that operates rail service.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> The Antiplanner believes that transit ought to be private
> and funded mainly by the users.
I agree, especially with the private part, even though I am indifferent as to who owns and operates the highway network. The reason? Transit is a labor-intensive business, highways much less so.
> We may want to give “transportation stamps†to low-income and
> disabled people that they can apply to taxis, transit, Amtrak,
> airlines, or any other common carrier. But we don’t need
> to subsidize transit bureaucracies, rail contractors, or
> snobs who say they will ride trains but not buses.
I agree with the concept above, but I assert that the proposed transportation stamps should apply to private vehicle use on toll roads, and that the transportation stamps should be provided in such a way that a user need not share with the public that such subsidies are being used.
> This opinion is currently in the minority, as the transit lobby
> has convinced people that all transportation is subsidized
> so therefore transit deserves huge subsidies as well.
In my opinion, more to the point is the claim by the transit lobby that transit provides highway congestion relief, when there is little or no evidence to support such assertions.
> Yet even if you accept that some transit subsidies are needed,
> it is hard to see why we should build expensive rail lines
> when buses are far more flexible and cost effective. When there
> is some balance in political campaigns — say rail
> supporters outspend opponents by no more than 50 to 1 —
> voters nearly always agree.
Many voters that support rail transit (while seldom, if ever using rail transit themselves) do so in the hope that the other guy driving the car in that lane over there will leave his vehicle at the rail station.
> So pardon me if I do not accept the results of an election
> with 22 percent voter turnout, after a huge campaign waged
> by groups that stand to hugely profit supported by a
> transit agency’s Washington Monument strategy. Anyone
> who interprets this as an endorsement for rail transit is
> living in a fantasy world.
Many votes for rail transit come under heading of wishful thinking, again that the other guy will take rail transit.
Hey, at least I’m consistent. I actually take the train or bus and leave my car at home or in the park and ride lot. Only trouble is when I get the clap from the bus seats. It burns! Haha
Another slam dunk, Randal.
Many companies have …already invested in and created nationwide transportation systems [sic] for electricity, natural gas, oil, gasoline, and telephones. In just the last few decades they have created all new transportation systems [sic] for cable TV and internet services [complete with road bed, concrete, rebar, curb and gutter, lights, exit ramps, signage!!!!]…there is a reason these companies have largely not invested in commuter rail or intra city bus services.
Lemme guess: lending conspiracy, right? No bank will float a private company the money to construct and maintain, right?
DS
Ha Dan, blame the banks, funny, not really.
It’s unlikely that there has even been consideration of a private rail line, because of high cost & low performance, with one exception (LV), so the banks cannot be blamed. It’s too bad the private sector doesn’t do cost-benefit analysis; just looking for votes.
What a great attitude, fault capitalism, when people choose away from taxpayer funded group travel. You probably even have sympathy for mortgage defaulters, who over-extended themselves & reneged on their obligation.
I don’t understand your point, Dan. The installation of cable TV into most homes in the US was far more complex than bus or light rail systems and required investment that dwarfs all the investment in light rail and bus systems in the US. Moreover, it is more complex as cable TV systems were state of the art technology in the 1980s while light rail is 19th century technology.
Also, the cable TV system was built almost entirely with private investment. No city raised sales taxes to fund it. Today, cable TV pays more in taxes than all the gross revenue of all the light rail systems in the US (net revenue would be negative).
US Sprint before US Sprint had a railroad name as it laid its fiber optic lines across the country – among the first corporations to do so.
Why did it have a railroad name? A railroad had all these rights-of-way and was wondering how to add value. No negotiating of easements or leases needed.
I wonder how many telecom companies purchased all their easements-ROWs to lay fiber, and how comparably wide those easements were, and how much traffic noise had to be mitigated in these easements…hmmm…
And what are the decibels-emissions-pedestrian safety-ADA requirements for a buried oil pipeline in the middle of a city? How much easier and cheaper is it to run a transmission line straight up a mountain and not pave it? one wonders. How many people drive on an oil pipeline to work?
So, no. There are very few instances of equivalence, either in land used, capital intensity, impacts, investment, etc. Not an equivalent argument. Private corporations are not investing in vehicle transportation infra.
Why? Surely the Koch boys want to play, right? And have the money to sue to play?
DS
Dan you are bringing up irrelevancies & ridiculous questions again, as well as changing the topic or becoming too focused.
You made a false statement that businesses do not invest majorly, & you were easily proven wrongs, as is done often. Now you start talking specifically about transportation. Some freeways have been turned over to private tollways recently.
Well, railroad tracks are private & were built privately. Many original roads were private & tolled. All vehicles (cars, trains, whatever) except some for space are built privately.
What fantasy world are you living in where the big nanny government creates so much?
BTW are you trying to save your face, when I spank your ass all the time for past posts? There’s not an expiration date of a few days for these. Look at many past threads & I tear your pseudo-points to shreds, often by posing questions. Go ahead, stay cowardly. We still cannot believe that you can function outside of an institution.
I agree Dan, they are not equivalent.
How large are their distribution networks across a city?
Light Rail: One to five lines, at the location chosen by the bureaucrats.
Cable TV: To every house, apartment and business in the city, and beyond.
Who pays to build the network?
Light Rail: Government and every taxpayer, whether they use it or not.
Cable TV: Only private investors.
Who loses if it fails?
Light Rail: Government and every taxpayer, whether they use it or not.
Cable TV: Only private investors.
What is the peak investment in the industry?
Light Rail: Federal stimulus bill $8.4 billion for light rail.
Cable TV: Investment from 1984-1992 was $28 billion adjusted for inflation.
What is the impact on city budgets?
Light Rail: All costs must be covered, hope that revenue might recoup some operating costs. No taxes paid. Thus, light rail drains resources from other city services.
Cable TV: Capital and operating costs all covered by private parties, no city risk, large amount of new taxes and leases paid. Thus, cable TV funds many city services.
Anyway, the whole point is that your comment that “I too would like to have a reality where private companies have billions of dollars to invest in the purchase of land, lay infrastructure, and operate transportation options [sic].”
My point was that private industry has funded and built most of the infrastructure in the US. It continues to build most of the infrastructure in the US and it hardly lacks for resources. Thus, there are reasons that private industry is not investing in light rail.
“Second, my overarching point – which I had to repeat two additional times in that thread due to mischaracterizations of my statements – was that generally the trend is against the usual suspects in local elections across the usual suspect spectrum. Focusing on one issue when the topic was a spectrum of issues is a clue. ”
Again, I don’t get the point. Where is the trend? The trend seems to be that more no votes occur than yes votes in terms of sheer numbers. With the “victories” coming in special instances. For example, St. Louis has a special election where 1/5th of the voters show up than just 1 1/2 years ago thus giving them much better chances of getting yes votes.
If this trend is so evident and so strong why is RTD so scared to go back to the voters and ask for a doubling in taxes collected for Fastracks? Why don’t we see a lot of transit-tax increases lined up for the ballot this fall across the country?
And does this mean your silence in regards to the race-base claims means you acknowledge it wasn’t supported by facts?
Dan said: US Sprint before US Sprint had a railroad name as it laid its fiber optic lines across the country – among the first corporations to do so.
Why did it have a railroad name? A railroad had all these rights-of-way and was wondering how to add value. No negotiating of easements or leases needed.
THWM: Indeed, Southern Pacific Railroad Intelligent Network of Telecommunications.
It is clear the ideological opponents of transit on this blog don’t like the results voted on in St. Louis County, including Randal.
What’s missing from their criticisms are alternatives to voters voting on such measures. I’d really like to hear what Scott et al think are realistic alternatives to voters voting on tax measures.
In California, we already have things like a 2/3 requirement for local tax increases, at least when a tax measure is for a specific purpose. Any other ideas, gents?
msetty said: “I’d really like to hear what Scott et al think are realistic alternatives to voters voting on tax measures.”
You already know their answer… “Let the market handle it.” But you did use the word “realistic,” so maybe that’s why there is silence thus far.
maybe that’s why there is silence thus far.
Well, to be fair he asked for ideas, not parroting paragraphs from a third-rate novel. Takes time for reality’s ideation.
DS
There shouldn’t be random general taxes for public transit or other capital goods (ie highways).
They should be paid for by user fees/taxes, such as for water, electricity, subscriptions, memberships, cable TV, etc.
Voting for taxes is mobocrocy.
Why should a majority be able to take from others?
Scott said: “Voting for taxes is mobocrocy.”
No better than the anarchistic plutocracy you advocate for.
I do not advocate anarchy or plutocracy?
How does that idea come across?
Those are mutually exclusive conditions.
Not realizing that, indicates that you are just throwing up labels, as is often down by lefty statists.
Free enterprise, the Constitution & limited government are the main points of advocation.
How could those basic principles be transmuted to other systems?
Why don’t you just characterize those in favor of laissez-faire, liberty & responsibility as fat, renegade boneheads; it has no connection to the ideology, but it just sounds like an awful person.
Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.
I understand these concepts. They are mutually exclusive, but somehow, many antiplanners have managed to create a hybrid political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, and harmful and desires power to be derived from wealth.
p.s. calling voters a “mob” sounds awful too.
Not sure how you get your power & wealth concept.
You are going to extremes (false binary chocie) on anarchy.
The gov has over-reached in being excessive & oppressive. The bureaucracy & regulations are too much. Those are made for 2 main reasons: maintain votes & power, by transferring wealth to special interests & favoritism with certain businesses.
A mob is awful.
Is it fair for the majority to force the others?
That’s what’s happening with initiatives & many of the votes/laws/programs by Legislatures/Congress. The Constitution is to prevent many of those from happening & protect personal & property rights.
Scott said: The Constitution is to prevent many of those from happening & protect personal & property rights.
THWM: You must really miss slavery.