Transit in Trouble


PBS’s “Blueprint America” series recently did two segments on challenges for transit in the current economic environment.

Part 1 focuses on service reductions due to operating funding gaps and Part 2 looks at Sale-Leaseback deals that are collapsing as financial institutions fail.

, ,

41 responses to “Transit in Trouble”

  1. Transit would not have a financing problem in these days of rising ridership if the real costs were paid by riders, instead of taxpayers. The increased revenue would be flooding into the transit coffers in this time of rising ridership (it is still rising isn’t it? Or did history repeat itself after gas prices went back down?)

    Thanks
    JK

  2. Jim, that’s a nice thought, but transit the world over is subsidized because it’s a common good. Just like highways don’t pay for themselves via usage fees (despite licensing fees and gas taxes) but are heavily subsidized, so is transit. The difference is that transit is something that many people depend on because they can’t afford anything else; and so is really a basic part of the overall engine that keeps the economy moving.

  3. Motorists and motor freight carriers pay a considerably higher percentage of the costs of roadways (somewhere around 90 percent or more) than do transit passengers pay for the costs of transit infrastructure and operations. TriMet’s farebox revenues only pay for a low 20 something percent of operational costs and none of the infrastructure capital costs. Since sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability, this only demonstrates that transit service is NOT sustainable. Fares need to be increased, significantly! The primary role of transit is to move people, not freight. There needs to be a charge for transporting bicycles. For people who rely on transit and would be unable to afford a significant increase in transit fares, a low income program could to be set up for discount fares based on income levels and a proven need for the discounts. If the combined farebox revenues covered 90 percent of the total costs of providing the service, the funding gaps would be less troublesome. Additionally, if transit agencies learned how to better stretch their dollars (by replacing busses and other equipment less often) instead of adding to consumption (with all new bus stop signs, shelters, bricks, etc.); they would be financially better off. Not everything has to be brand new. So if the infrastructure isn’t broken or completely worn out, don’t fix or replace it.

  4. Great post!
    …………………………

    The free marketeers are never gonna give up their failed ideologies.

    Here we are in the midst of a meltdown caused by philosophies as espoused by the likes of the Karlocks of the world, and yet they persist.

    The free marketeers have this almost psychotic hatred for transit while they never seem to get upset about the thousands of other government handouts, such as, well, SAVINGS AND LOAN bailouts.

    No, they want TRANSIT to be self supporting.

    It’s an obsession with these folks.

  5. What failed ideologies?

    We are talking about taking money from one group of people (most everyone) and giving it to others (transit users).

    We do not hate transit, we just don’t think it is fair to take money from everyone, including the poor, to finance a free ride for, mostly downtown workers (the majority of transit users), which includes highly paid bureaucrats and rich attorneys.

    BTW, the best data shows that road user fees pay for more then the total road costs and much of the transit bills too.

    Thanks
    JK

  6. We are talking about taking money from one group of people (most everyone) and giving it to others (transit users)

    How do you know that the latter group isn’t a part of the former? And what about the congestion relief the former gets, assuming at least some transit users would drive if they couldn’t take transit?

    take money from everyone, including the poor, to finance a free ride for, mostly downtown workers

    Are you sure that poor people don’t make up a significant chunk of transit users? I believe that many studies out there show that transit users tend to have lower average incomes than the population as a whole. Also, by mentioning “free rides”, is your issue Fareless Square, and would you be happy if it went away? Lastly, there’s many, many people who take transit to destinations besides downtown workplaces. Think Washington Park, Intel, Nike and other worksites in Washington County, the airport, tourists visiting downtown, events at the Rose Quarter…

    highly paid bureaucrats and rich attorneys

    I would be surprised if they make up a significant percentage of transit riders, since they should be able to easily pay for parking and gas and stuff.

    the best data shows that road user fees pay for more then the total road costs and much of the transit bills too.

    Does that include things like the Big Pipe (of which 40% is needed because of road runoff due to oils, etc left behind by motorized vehicles), free (in reality, 100% subsidized) parking, oil defense, some road projects (at least 20 Oregon cities have a street utility fee), health care for asthma, etc, needed because of pollution…?

    Overall, transit riders do pay for much of the cost of a transit trip when the vehicle is well-used. What increases the need for subsidies, besides discounted fares/passes/transfers, is services provided as a “social service” to low-density areas for those who might otherwise have no other way to get around. If development was denser and more efficient, that problem wouldn’t exist as much. In addition, there’s the mandate to provide personalized door-to-door service for the elderly and disabled.

  7. It should be noted that TriMet’s bus fleet is not encumbered by these crazy “sale/lease-back” arrangements, but most of the MAX system is (and in fact there is one sale/lease/lease agreement that TriMet is engaged in).

  8. Jim, I’d love to see the raw numbers for the amount taken in by license and registration fees, and the total road and/or bridge budgets of ODOT, PDOT, and any other agencies throughout the state that build or maintain roads and/or bridges.

    Not that I’m doubting anyone, I’d just love to see them.

  9. Mr Karlok;
    Capitalism has failed, this is the second time now.

    The first time a world war that destroyed 1/2 the world and killed more than 60,000,000 people brought back capitalism.

    Luckily for the American public this latest failure of capitalism has been muted (so far) by GOVERNMENT (there’s that word)action.

    And what exactly did our government do, They provided TRILLIONS to “free market” enterprises to keep them going.

    In the words of Ralph Nader, socialism has saved capitalism, at least for now.

    We don’t know how this is going to end, but so far the pain has been muted to the low end population, and nobody cares about the poor anyway.

    Transit is one of the very few things that every member of the public can use which is supported by our tax dollars.

    It’s one thing that government pays for that actually makes sense.

    For people to actually deride transit because it takes government money to run is nothing but obscenity itself.

  10. FMTP, I would think that debates on socialism vs capitalism are FTMP off-topic for this blog. Equating one side or the other of the transit debate, with an economic ideology–seems intellectually lazy.

    I’m sure I’ve engaged in this laziness myself, but one can support mass transit without being a commie; and oppose it without being a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society.

    Apologies if this posting is a duplicate.

  11. Dave Hogan:Jim, I’d love to see the raw numbers for the amount taken in by license and registration fees, and the total road and/or bridge budgets of ODOT, PDOT, and any other agencies throughout the state that build or maintain roads and/or bridges.

    Not that I’m doubting anyone, I’d just love to see them.

    ws:He doesn’t have them. ODOT has a pretty nice document online for its budget (cigs and gambling proceeds fund almost as much as the gas tax does for ODOT). Local streets are not all paid for by gas taxes/registration fees and are paid for by property taxes – which is not a user fee.

    I’m guessing it’s a complicated equation to see how much of roads are actually paid for by “user fees”.

  12. Does that include things like the Big Pipe (of which 40% is needed because of road runoff due to oils, etc left behind by motorized vehicles), free (in reality, 100% subsidized) parking, oil defense, some road projects (at least 20 Oregon cities have a street utility fee), health care for asthma, etc, needed because of pollution…?

    Prediction: this will be the latest in a long line of threads when these and similar questions are ignored or deflected by the Terrys and JKs of the world.

  13. In Oregon, in Portland, property taxes DO NOT pay for streets and roads. Even Susan Keil, Director of PBOT has said at a public meeting that property taxes do not pay for roads. This misnomer/diversion is purported time and time again by alternative transportation advocates as an argument that bicyclists and transit passengers help pay for roads. It is simply not true. The only exception is in urban renewal districts where tax increment funds pay for all kinds of transportation related infrastructure, but only within those districts. One example of this is the local match dollars Interstate Max. It is paid from urban renewal tax increment funding.

  14. Terry Parker:The only exception is in urban renewal districts where tax increment funds pay for all kinds of transportation related infrastructure, but only within those districts.

    ws:This is not an “exception”. Either streets are being improved through general non-user fee taxes or they are not. Likewise, you’re either pregnant or your not. Don’t forget LIDs: http://www.pdc.us/ura/lents_town_center/streetpaving.asp

    Outside of Portland, in Washington County, MSTIP (major streets improvement program) is a property tax increase that funds road projects and improvements (I don’t believe it funds any transit, just roads).

    http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/lut/cap_proj/mstiphis.htm

  15. Terry Parker: “Tax increment funds are NOT general user fee taxes”

    ws: I am no expert on this (clearly) but TIFs and LIDs are different things.

    I believe a TIF allows for future increased property tax base (in an urban renewal district) to pay off any money used to redevelop the area.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but a LID is when a group of homeowners/businesses come together to fund any infrastructure improvements in their area. I think both are used in urban renewal zones/redevelopment, with LIDs probably being less controversial.

    I was wrong to insinuate that property taxes were used (directly) for road improvements in Portland, however, I was referring to the Metro region (as well as other parts of the nation) for funding for local streets. There is a large variance from state, county, and city. Yes, a large portion of road construction/maintenance are through user fees, I do not deny this.

    However, these “user fees” are notoriously low to even maintain what we have, let alone add additional infrastructure. These “user fees” do not cover external costs, either, to which general taxes fund them.

    Are people in LID communities tolling cars that drive through “their” road? No, as it benefits the entire community, including themselves.

  16. b h & all other haters of private ownership & freedom of choice and trade among parties – ala re: definition below.

    I’m a Libertarian, but I’m not pro-auto, I know it has been handed a free lunch on a MASSIVE socialistic scale. No way it could have landed such a massive hand up against the trains & transit of yesteryear (you know, when it was privately operated) without a direct and massive anti-competitive subsidy by the Government.

    Read more at Transit Sleuth.

    I love the transit life, but I can’t stand the dishonest, immoral, theft that goes into paying for it, but neither can I stand the same immoral, dishonest, theft and insanity that goes into propping up the automobile & the simple fact that the vast majority of BOTH systems end up being paid by a small percentage of people, usually the “rich”. i.e. top 10% pay vastly more than EVERYONE else does for road and transit. Yet everyone HATES the rich… the twisted irony of that eh. The simple fact is, if I make more than others in this country I get to pay for myself and a few other people, then in addition the Feds take out debt against my name, by the same multiplier they take taxes from me. Either which way, a VASTLY larger portion of these burdens are on the shoulders of 10% of the population. Which of course some think is absolutely fair!

    btw – EVERY system endorses capitalism. Even the Democrats in the US, the Republicans, the Libertarians & Constitutionalists, and even the Greens do too to some degree. Socialist & Communists even support capitalism to some degree (go read more Karl Marx).

    Do NOT get confused by the lazy argument that free markets are what did this to the economy as of late, what laid out the effects for this have ZERO to do with free market economies & everything to do with subversion & Government screw ups. Just dig harder and you’ll find it all… probably somewhat unsettling in its socialist leanings and Corporatism & Government mishandling at our (citizen) expense.

    Putting arguments and attempting to blame free-markets, open-markets, fair-markets, capitalism or whatever, as another commentor noted, is just lazy.

    Get back to the topic of transit. JK & Terry Parker are of course going to keep repeating what they’ve been repeating for the last 3 years or so. So just keep the conversation going and don’t bite so diligently. In all reality also, JK & Terry Parker are right, except wrong. Functionally what they say is true, you really can’t deny it. Transit is broke because of the way it is funded. There is no way around that. But attacking a particular (supposed) political ideology because the guy pointed out the obvious fact isn’t going to change the simple truth, transit is broke.

    TriMet is cutting services, because it is broke. At the current model of funding if the country changed over from automobiles to transit 100%, we could NOT pay for it. Just look at the curve. This has NOTHING to do with political views and everything to do with cold hard accounting facts.

    Now do I think the solutions they propose are viable? Taxing bikes. Implementing tolls on roads the country over? Making road users & transit pay for itself. Yeah, sure it would work. By the math JK & Terry Parker would hate the results probably, but it could work and has been PROVEN to work in the past. Do I think it is viable now? No, not with the political incompetence we have in this country and the hero worship (Bush & Reagen by Republicans, Clinton & Obama by Democrats) we where warned about by our forefathers.

    Right now there is some balance, not a lot, but more than we could have unless we went back to a market basis. It isn’t going to get much more balanced then things are now in the ole’ US, unless as I said, the market gets back involved in a HUGE and MASSIVE way. Right now, there is ZERO incentive to do so.

  17. Look,
    If I’m gonna pay taxes the things I would fund are these:

    1-Health care&social safety net
    2-Fire&Police&schools
    3-Roads
    4-MASS TRANSIT

    Forget about free markets, lets talk about taxes and where our beloved government is spending them!

  18. Good post, Adron. A libertarian actually making logical and truly libertarian arguments regarding “free markets” and transportation.

    I think “libertarian” has definitely gotten a bad rap in recent years due to the absurdity of some very vociferous members of CATO arguing for “free-markets” w/o realizing the whole landscape is skewed and unfair.

    The question is, if we did go back to more transparent costs of mobility in America, what would it be like considering we have 60+ years of transportation and land uses that have been distorted.

  19. I think that one reason the road network is so much better developed than rail in this country, is precisely because the roads are largely government-funded (and viewed as a public good, and maintained as such), whereas railroads have been mostly developed and owned as private, for-profit entities–those that aren’t sufficiently profitable tend to get abandoned.

    The Port of Tillamook Railroad (the Port is a quasi-government entity) recently announced that they are discontinuing freight service from the coastal communities they serve, to their connection with the P&W near Banks, due to the millions of dollars of damaged caused to the line by the December 2007 storm. (Service has been down since then, but they have announced that the no longer intend to re-open the line). Repairs would cost $60 million, last I heard, money the Port simply does not have. Something tells me that if it were the Wilson River Highway (OR6) that washed out and needed megamillions to fix, that ODOT wouldn’t simply abandon the highway–the money would be found to fix it. But the Port, it seems, is on its own.

  20. Good post, Scott. Railroads pay property taxes, highways/roads do not. Developing the interstate system in the 50s was a huge blow to railroads because they paid taxes on their ROWs, whereas highways did not (even though there is taxation on automobiles and weights for cars, it is an unfair taxation scheme).

    Street cars also paid taxes on their ROWs and helped pay for bridge crossings, etc.

    Point being, we need both railroads and truckers, however, a majority of freight in this country is disproportionately dependent on trucking instead of more market based freight movement.

  21. EngineerScotty wrote: Something tells me that if it were the Wilson River Highway (OR6) that washed out and needed megamillions to fix, that ODOT wouldn’t simply abandon the highway–the money would be found to fix it. But the Port, it seems, is on its own.

    Yes, but the railroad fills a small niche market in transportation between Tillamook County and the Willamette Valley – only a handful of shippers which can be counted on one hand (three lumber mills and a feed mill), versus the dozens and dozens of uses for Highway 6 – tourists, local and regional freight, buses, etc.

    If the railroad was repaired and Highway 6 was washed out – would the railroad be capable of handling the traffic displaced from the highway? Absolutely not – a train takes about 12 hours to get from Banks to Tillamook, and it was always a difficult and slow railroad route.

    Rail traffic had been declining for years, and despite the fears that the loss of the railroad would spell doom and gloom, those rumors were flat out lies. Hampton Lumber, which owns mills in both Willamina and Tillamook, actually shut down their Willamina mill (with excellent railroad service) over their Tillamook mill (with no rail service).

    Repairs would cost $60 million, last I heard, money the Port simply does not have.

    POTB actually had a good chunk of the money (most of it coming from FEMA). They decided that they could better use the money for income-producing developments in Tillamook (i.e. a golf course and hotel) rather than repairing a railroad that has been a money drain. Again, they knew that the bulk of freight could easily be moved on Highway 6, and that Highway 6 carries so many more users that by simple productivity, the highway is more cost-effective than the railroad.

    ws wrote: Good post, Scott. Railroads pay property taxes, highways/roads do not

    The Port of Tillamook Bay does not pay property tax, or most any other taxes. Just like any other government entity like the U.S. Postal Service, TriMet, Amtrak, etc.

    Street cars also paid taxes on their ROWs and helped pay for bridge crossings, etc.

    So does Greyhound; is one suggesting that Greyhound ought to be exempt from road-use taxes?

  22. Erik Halstead:“The Port of Tillamook Bay does not pay property tax, or most any other taxes. Just like any other government entity like the U.S. Postal Service, TriMet, Amtrak, etc.”

    ws:I can’t speak for Tillamook, as it is a special case apparently. Amtrak does pay fees to rail companies as it operates its trains on rail lines that pay property taxes.

    You can bet BNSF is paying property taxes. In fact, railroads are half the size in length they were years ago, and every mile of track was privately funded and taxed.

    Clearly you’re not seeing the bigger picture. Railroads not only:

    1)funded their own operations and construction costs

    2)they also had to pay taxes on every mile of rail they owned

    Compared to highways and airports, which are property tax free because they are owned by cities, the state, and the feds.

    Yes, user fees are used to fund airports and roads, however, these are just “user fees”, and is different when compared to railroads which needed not only user fees, but also had to pay taxes on their property.

    Once again, the unfair taxation applied to railroads and indirect subsidization of the government regarding highways led to an unfair transporation market in the US.

    Erik Halstead:“So does Greyhound; is one suggesting that Greyhound ought to be exempt from road-use taxes?”

    ws: Well, until Greyhound has to pay for user fees (gas taxes and registration fees, weight restrictions, etc.) and pay for the property taxes on the highways/roads; then you might have an argument here.

    PS: One of the main reasons for railways mileage decreasing over the years is the rail companies not wanting to pay for the taxes on them.

    We clearly have a non-competitive transportation policy in America. We used to have one of the world’s greatest railways of the world, and in just a short time span it has diminished so much that third world countries today have better railroads than us. *Clearly* there are reasons for this and it is not the free market.

  23. ws wrote: I can’t speak for Tillamook, as it is a special case apparently.

    I seem to recall that we were talking about the POTB and you said that railroads pay property tax. Well, not all of them, the POTB is a government agency and thus exempt from property tax.

    Clearly you’re not seeing the bigger picture.

    I wasn’t asked to see the bigger picture. I very specifically stated the POTB. I’m very well aware that non-government owned railroads pay property taxes. But not the POTB.

    Railroads not only:
    1)funded their own operations and construction costs
    2)they also had to pay taxes on every mile of rail they owned

    And while we’re talking about the “big picture” what about the land grants that many railroads received — FREE LAND?

    Compared to highways and airports, which are property tax free because they are owned by cities, the state, and the feds.

    Just like the Port of Tillamook Bay, owned by a Port Authority established under the laws of Oregon and is a tax-exempt governmental agency.

    Yes, user fees are used to fund airports and roads, however, these are just “user fees”, and is different when compared to railroads which needed not only user fees, but also had to pay taxes on their property.

    Wait a second. Railroads had to pay user fees? To who? Railroads do not pay themselves to use themselves.

    Well, until Greyhound has to pay for user fees (gas taxes and registration fees, weight restrictions, etc.) and pay for the property taxes on the highways/roads; then you might have an argument here.

    Why? Greyhound does not own the road. How would you establish property taxes by a user? That’s why there are different types of taxes; you can’t assess a non-owner a tax based upon ownership.

    (Under the same argument, one could argue that Amtrak is unfairly subsidized and prevents true competition with Greyhound which MUST pay taxes; and under the same anti-highway/pro-rail argument, Amtrak must be swiftly and immediately abolished so that Greyhound may freely operate without unfair competition.)

    One of the main reasons for railways mileage decreasing over the years is the rail companies not wanting to pay for the taxes on them.

    That is a secondary reason; the railroads don’t want to pay property taxes on inactive assets. In fact that’s a big reason why railroads were very active in demolishing railroad stations in the 1970s/1980s — why pay taxes on a structure that is just being vandalized?

    The railroads had no incentive to keep railroads in place — yes, because of taxes, but also because of maintenance costs. Would you want to maintain infrastructure that is not being used? Would you intentionally own and maintain a car with no intention to actually drive it? Of course not, you’d sell the car. The railroads are doing the same thing.

    If the argument is that all property – ALL property – must be assessed property taxes, then how does one assess property taxes on, say, public transit assets? Parks? Libraries? Police Stations? Schools? Frankly TriMet’s MAX system uses a considerable amount of public resources (i.e. police and fire protection) but does not pay for those services, so isn’t that unfair?

  24. ws wrote: We used to have one of the world’s greatest railways of the world, and in just a short time span it has diminished so much that third world countries today have better railroads than us.

    How did we used to have one of the world’s greatest railways of the world? And state a “third world country” that has a better railroad than us.

    (Granted, Mexico has a pretty darn good railroad system now, only after it was privatized and largely purchased by U.S. firms who brought up the mainline railroads to U.S. standards – so it’s no better than the U.S. And passenger trains? They are extinct in Mexico.)

    The U.S. rail network today hauls more cargo by tonnage than in World War II. It is better engineered, it is FAR safer, more reliable, more efficient – and does so with fewer track-miles and fewer employees. Why did we need THREE mainline railroads across Montana (Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Milwaukee Road)?

    Here in Oregon – exactly how much of our railroad network has declined? A shortline here, a branch there — but not ONE mile of mainline trackage was abandoned in Oregon since the 1930s. In fact the Oregon Trunk Railroad is busier today than EVER before. The former Southern Pacific Valley Main through the Willamette Valley sees more trains today than 20, 30 years ago. 30 years ago it was unimaginable that Portland would be an export point for agricultural products from Canada (via northern Idaho and Spokane).

    So what if three miles of railroad track between Fort Hill and Grand Ronde was abandoned – the mill shut down years ago. The rail served industry in Astoria has been gone for a long time; it’s amazing the railroad hasn’t been abandoned yet. The Portland Traction Company had 20+ miles of track but its shippers east of Milwaukie could be counted on one hand (and were only one-and-two carload shippers). Logging in and around Vernonia is long gone; why does a railroad need to go there?

    With regards to other countries’ HSR systems…America never had HSR except the Northeast Corridor. Most HSR systems were built in the late 1970s/1980s; Japan’s was the first in the late 1960s. Our lack of HSR isn’t because of railroad abandonments, it’s because we aren’t the size of France or Germany or Japan (nor do we have excessive tax rates). We have more in common with Russia and China with that regards (China is just building their first HSR line, while we’ve had the Acela Express for about ten years now.)

  25. I am starting to think transit is a waste of taxpayer money. Here in Salem they recently lost a ballot measure to keep Saturday service. I have yet to see a Cherriots bus filled with people – if even filled with anyone at all. Now I see the governor wants to reverse the will of the voters and make a new income tax for transit. I recently rode on the new WES from Wilsonville to Beaverton – there were hardly any people on it at all an it was just a little after 5. How much did they throw down that rat hole? And people in Tualatin are upset because of the noise. Look at the little mini buses that Yamhill County uses – seems like they are always empty. Amtrak trains have the same problem – hardly any use but get massive subsidy. All of this happening at a time when 12% of the population is unemployed and many can’t even feed themselves. Why not privatize the entire system and provide subsidy only for the truly needy (i.e. disabled and people with health problems)?

  26. Erik Halstead:“If the argument is that all property – ALL property – must be assessed property taxes, then how does one assess property taxes on, say, public transit assets? Parks? Libraries? Police Stations? Schools?”

    ws:The point I was making was not in regards to having entities pay taxes or not pay taxes. That is not my argument. The police, parks, and libraries are not in direct competition with anyone, and are providing services to the people.

    The crux of my argument is that there is a so called “transportation market” out there and when you tax one mode of transportation differently and more onerously, such as railroads have been, and give another mode of transportation (automobiles/highways) a different and unfair taxation; then that creates an unfair market.

    I cannot be more explicit in my arguments, as this has been my mantra on this website. The creation of this unfair market has lead to the decline of railroads in the US, and a market-skewed dependence on automobiles.

    Erik Halstead:Wait a second. Railroads had to pay user fees? To who? Railroads do not pay themselves to use themselves.

    ws:Yeah, when you buy a ticket or a company pays to ship its freight on the railroads…Highways pay for construction/maintenance through fees, so do railroads.

    Point being, rails paid/pay construction and maintenance, as well as unfair taxation schemes.

    Erik HalsteadFrankly TriMet’s MAX system uses a considerable amount of public resources (i.e. police and fire protection) but does not pay for those services, so isn’t that unfair?

    ws:MAX using any form of police or fire protection is not an externality of mass transit. Mass transit is not doing anything to create these problems in the first place.

    People speeding, driving drunk, and accidents are externalities of the automobile. These incidents are created when using cars – they are unavoidable. The need for police and fire protection to stop these things should be paid for by driver user fees, not general taxes like they are.

    To make my point clearer, someone’s car getting stolen (and reported to the police for investigation) is not an externality (in of the automobile. The car was not doing anything to be stolen, and the individual should not be burdened.

  27. ws wrote: Yeah, when you buy a ticket or a company pays to ship its freight on the railroads…Highways pay for construction/maintenance through fees, so do railroads.

    But your first argument was that the railroad pays a user fee to itself, and now you’re backtracking by stating that the user of the railroad pays the railroad, which is no different than I pay a fuel tax which is to cover the cost of the road. The only difference is in how the revenue is collected (a waybill versus a tax paid through an associated item, namely, gasoline).

    The railroad is not paying a user fee, its users are paying the railroad – just as I pay a fare to ride TriMet, or gas tax (and vehicle registration fee, and drivers license fee, and in at least one state I lived in previously a personal property tax on my vehicle) to use the roadways.

    MAX using any form of police or fire protection is not an externality of mass transit. Mass transit is not doing anything to create these problems in the first place.

    People speeding, driving drunk, and accidents are externalities of the automobile. These incidents are created when using cars – they are unavoidable.

    So we’re going to get into the old argument that “guns kill people”/”guns don’t kill people, people kill people”?

    Without MAX, stations would not exist to deal with loitering and trespassing laws related to MAX. Fare evasion (much of which is now enforced with municipal police officers) would not exist without MAX.

    Yes, a person can drive drunk with access to an automobile; without the automobile that same person while still under the influence of intoxicants can commit a slew of other offenses, including engaging in fights or other disruptions while riding MAX (or for that matter in any public place).

    I have no problem assessing police and fire protection taxes based upon risk but that needs to be applied equally and certainly TriMet spends a great amount of money on MAX related security — yet I, as predominately a bus rider, must pay higher fares to subsidize these MAX only costs.

    someone’s car getting stolen…is not an externality

    And how is this? Just because I own a motor vehicle doesn’t mean I’m going to drive drunk (speaking as someone whose father was killed by a drunk driver – in fact I do not drink alcohol at all). Yet I encounter plenty of drunk folks in downtown Portland that have nothing to do with motor vehicles. So your argument makes no sense.

    The only thing you have managed to argue is to sweep all motorists as drunk drivers and accuse them of so many social ills, which under the same token we might as well bring on Jim Karlock and Terry Parker to introduce the number of crimes committed by bicyclists that, barring the presence of a bicycle could not exist – and thus should be responsible for the costs of increased police protection and medical responses that result from bicyclists that fail to follow laws; while I as a motorist can proudly state that I’ve received exactly ONE moving violation in approaching 16 years of having a license to drive. (Not that I’m proud of having the one violation, but I’m not the maniac drunk-driving, bicyclist-killing, red-light-running, accident-prone driver you portray me and millions others out to be.)

  28. Erik Halstead:“But your first argument was that the railroad pays a user fee to itself, and now you’re backtracking by stating that the user of the railroad pays the railroad, which is no different than I pay a fuel tax which is to cover the cost of the road. The only difference is in how the revenue is collected (a waybill versus a tax paid through an associated item, namely, gasoline).”

    ws:I think you’re micro-analyzing my statements. If I mislead you, I am sorry.

    I need some acknowledgment by you that highways and roads not paying property taxes and having RR’s pay taxes is not fair.

    The taxes paid on highways are for the use of them (maintenance and construction). The high taxes on the railroad system is for profit of the government, and has/had no basis for the for funding the railroad system. RRs had to pay for (privately) the construction/maintenance and property taxes. Highways and roads do not pay similar taxes, only taxes that help fund the operations of them.

    Do you see the difference?

    Erik Halstead:“Yes, a person can drive drunk with access to an automobile; without the automobile that same person while still under the influence of intoxicants can commit a slew of other offenses, including engaging in fights or other disruptions while riding MAX (or for that matter in any public place).”

    ws:Drunk driving in the US is, what I would consider, epidemic. It would not happen unless there were automobiles. Until drunk people on mass transit are causing as many problems as drunk automobiles, I’ll agree with you.

    In regards to intoxicated people causing problems (fighting, property crime, etc.); I feel that there should be taxes on alcohol sold in the US that directly funds the external factors of alcohol consumption: police protection, drug rehabilitation, etc.

    In a perfect world, income taxes would be flat/reduced, and we would give taxation on behavior and consumption. It is not fair that someone who chooses not to drink should have to pay for society’s problems of overburdened police departments and municipalities having to deal with alcohol related externalities.

    Erik Halstead:And how is this? Just because I own a motor vehicle doesn’t mean I’m going to drive drunk (speaking as someone whose father was killed by a drunk driver – in fact I do not drink alcohol at all). Yet I encounter plenty of drunk folks in downtown Portland that have nothing to do with motor vehicles. So your argument makes no sense.”

    ws:You may not drive drunk, but many law-abiding citizens ride on the roads that drunk people drive on. Automobile users (who do not drink and drive) are paying for the protection of riding on safer roads. This is not unreasonable, and I would like you to imagine the roads if we didn’t have large amounts of police/fire resources going to just fighting drunk drivers.

    Erik Halstead:“The only thing you have managed to argue is to sweep all motorists as drunk drivers and accuse them of so many social ills, which under the same token we might as well bring on Jim Karlock and Terry Parker to introduce the number of crimes committed by bicyclists that, barring the presence of a bicycle could not exist.”

    ws:Except I think that bike users should be paying (user fees) to ride their bikes, considering the many dollars that are used in this great state to fund bike routes, infrastructure, etc.

    You will never get the aforementioned people to admit that automobile use in America is hidden behind a mountain of direct and indirect subsidies, and that the market as we know it is broken and has led to auto-dependence, a deteriorated mass transit system, and distorted land uses that promote car-only mobility.

    It insults everyone’s intelligence when so called “libertarians” argue for free-market policies without eating their own feedback.

  29. Our lack of HSR isn’t because of railroad abandonments, it’s because we aren’t the size of France or Germany or Japan (nor do we have excessive tax rates).

    HSR is feasible for a lot more corridors than the NE corridor. Connecting Sacramento, the Bay Area, LA, Orange County and San Diego makes a lot of sense. More than taking the time to fly from San Diego to Oakland, than taking the BART to SF.

    Similar points could be made for connecting Chicago and Milwaukee, or along the great lakes connecting NY, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Niagara Falls. If Canada would want they could connect the Toronto metro area at that point as well and serve near 10% of their population with direct access to New York.

    I have to think that if the US put a comparable match to what it spends in aviation costs we could have quite a good HSR network here.

    Obviously for Seattle to San Diego, NY to Miami, or Boston to Portland you’d still want to fly. It seemed stupid to me to deal with flying from San Diego to Oakland though, for example.

    Flight has many hidden costs as well, such as airport access improvements, air traffic control, radar installations, facilities maintenance, as well as externalized costs, like decreased land values nearby usually.

    If the nations priorities changed from making air travel the only cheap and easy high speed way to travel we might have a good HSR system. It’s not just geography at play here.

  30. a Cherriots bus filled with people

    Have you checked Route 2-Jan Ree? At least in the past, it has had 4,000 rides a day. But overall, Cherriots serves many low-density areas and, therefore, many buses have lower ridership. However, I know that (at least in the past, not sure what their plan is now) they wanted to re-do their system so all of the buses wouldn’t have to go all the way downtown and smaller vehicles could be used for the routes that just serve the outlying areas.

  31. ws wrote: I need some acknowledgment by you that highways and roads not paying property taxes and having RR’s pay taxes is not fair.

    The taxes paid on highways are for the use of them (maintenance and construction). The high taxes on the railroad system is for profit of the government, and has/had no basis for the for funding the railroad system. RRs had to pay for (privately) the construction/maintenance and property taxes. Highways and roads do not pay similar taxes, only taxes that help fund the operations of them.

    Do you see the difference?

    And I need some recognition from you, WS, that our investment in rail is inherently unfair and discriminatory towards bus riders, and that you will support a moratorium on any rail based investment in our region until our bus system is FULLY reinvested upon, with sufficient capacity for growth.

    Give it up, it ain’t going to happen.

    Railroads are a private business. Is it fair that a private concern has the ability to dictate when and how you travel? The railroads as a private entity have every expectation to be taxed. The fact that the railroads consistently oppose any type of regulation or “open access” edict (which would open up the railroads to public-use similar to a highway) is a declaration that they enjoy the quasi-monopoly status while paying a fee (taxes) to enjoy that privilege.

    You will never get the aforementioned people to admit that automobile use in America is hidden behind a mountain of direct and indirect subsidies, and that the market as we know it is broken and has led to auto-dependence, a deteriorated mass transit system, and distorted land uses that promote car-only mobility.

    It insults everyone’s intelligence when so called “libertarians” argue for free-market policies without eating their own feedback.

    Ah, yes, those “direct and indirect” subsidies that also support everything under the sun but the bicyclists refuse to acknowledge the “direct and indirect” subsidies that they are often the beneficiary of, and in some cases the “direct and indirect” subsidies are one and the same.

    It does truly insult everyone’s intelligence when so called (fill in the blank but it could apply to anyone) argue for eliminating subsidies which benefit others, without eating their own feedback.

    Why should motorists be forced to eliminate their subsidies while others do not? Just as Lenny Anderson has argued that bike riders and transit riders should get paid to do what they want, I’m still waiting for my “TriMet Refund” (which should be effectively doubled, because of the lack of quality transit I receive as compared by other, specifically MAX, riders.) And I’m sure a lot of motorists feel deserving for a refund of overpayment of fuel taxes which are siphoned off for transit subsidies (fully 20% of federal motorist taxes are siphoned off the Highway Trust Fund and moved to the transit account – one-in-five cents a motorist pays goes to transit.)

    If you truly, truly feel that railroads have been unfairly targeted, then fine, just TRY to force open access. You’ll be faced with a Constitutional lawsuit alleging an “illegal taking” of private property. The only way to resolve it is a federal bailout (buyout) of the railroads in the U.S. (which includes two Canadian companies – Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, both of whom have substantial U.S. operations).

    BNSF: $20.43B
    UP: $20.49B
    NS: $12.4B
    CSX: $10.35B
    KCS: $1.17B
    Genesee & Wyoming Industries: $690M

    Why would you argue a federal bailout of $65 Billion for the nation’s railroad system, which is currently a healthy and operating concern as is? Or is your real motivation more along the lines of Communism? (So, how is mass transit in Cuba doing today? I heard they got some “new” Budd RDCs imported in from Canada after 60 years.) Even China is hardly a pattern that I would recommend following – where the enviroment is clearly not just in the back seat, not just in the trunk, it was left behind altogether in favor of “the people”.)

  32. Dave Hogan wrote: Flight has many hidden costs as well, such as airport access improvements, air traffic control, radar installations, facilities maintenance, as well as externalized costs, like decreased land values nearby usually.

    Actually most of those costs aren’t “hidden”, in fact if you look at your air fare there are several taxes that clearly spell out that YOU, the air traveler, are paying taxes for many of those items.

    As for “decreased land values”, don’t tell that to the hoards of businesses that love to be around an airport. Yes, housing values will go down, just as they will go down for a number of reasons that have to do with incompatible land uses. Just ask those folks in Hillsboro how their property values held up whose backyards had new concrete “sound walls” installed by TriMet.

  33. Erik Halstead:“Actually most of those costs aren’t “hidden”, in fact if you look at your air fare there are several taxes that clearly spell out that YOU, the air traveler, are paying taxes for many of those items.”

    ws: Commerical airports have received BILLIONS of dollars (in subsidies) over the years and get government backed grants and tax-free city bonds for construction. It was not until the early 70s when airports started assessing user-fees!

    Railroads provide their own security whereas airports get funds from general funds to help for security measures in airports. Yes, you pay a portion when you travel, but you’d be blind to not understand that the heavy security measures at airports are 100% paid for by user fees.

    Airports are also tax free for the land that they sit on.

    All of these things create an unfair transportation system. People should recognize this, instead of crying out “Amrtrak is subsidized!”

    Erik Halstead“fully 20% of federal motorist taxes are siphoned off the Highway Trust Fund and moved to the transit account – one-in-five cents a motorist pays goes to transit.)”

    ws:Great, the Highway Trust Fund received 8 billion dollars from the general tax funds this summer because it is in the red:

    http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20080723htf.pdf

    The HTF generated about $28.2 billion dollars in 2006 from gas taxes. The infusion of 8 billion dollars into the fund is almost 30% of the total fund (I believe gas taxes generate about 90% of the total HTF fund).

    Erik, the whole transportation system is fixed.

  34. ws wrote: Commerical airports have received BILLIONS of dollars (in subsidies) over the years and get government backed grants and tax-free city bonds for construction.

    And so does TriMet…what’s your point?

    Railroads provide their own security whereas airports get funds from general funds to help for security measures in airports. Yes, you pay a portion when you travel, but you’d be blind to not understand that the heavy security measures at airports are 100% paid for by user fees.

    And you’d be blind to think that railroads provide 100% of their own security too…in fact Railroad Police departments are VERY thinly spread out, and more likely than not you will find a non-Railroad Police officer responding to a 9-1-1 call involving a railroad. And when the RR Police shows up, usually the call involves multiple jurisdictions and agencies (often including federal jurisdictions).

    Meanwhile, Port of Portland Police doesn’t get any local tax revenue…

    All of these things create an unfair transportation system. People should recognize this, instead of crying out “Amrtrak is subsidized!”

    The issue isn’t that Amtrak is subsidized, it is the extent of which Amtrak is subsidized, for the level of service, and for the geographic reach of the service.

    Amtrak receives on a per-passenger-mile some 20-40 times the subsidy as ANY OTHER form of transportation – air, highway, waterway… It provides “luxury” services like sleeping cars and full diner services — please, PLEASE tell me one ODOT owned/operated hotel on the Oregon State Highway System. Heck, any state. Let’s include Canada too. Why should Amtrak subsidize these services for which there is no equivalent on the highway system?

    I have never objected to a coach-only Amtrak system…where anything above/beyond coaches are fully private sector (and which helps to offset the costs of the basic service). But where Amtrak passengers pay only one-third the cost of the dining car — I think anytime I drive to Seattle that I should receive an equivalent dining service. Maybe WSDOT ought to operate a taxpayer-funded “Interstate Food Court” somewhere.

    Great, the Highway Trust Fund received 8 billion dollars from the general tax funds this summer because it is in the red:

    Because:

    1. A certain administration overspent the Highway Trust Fund,
    2. It still doesn’t acknowledge that 20% of the revenues that are paid in by motorists, are taken out and fund transit, which is part of the problem.

    Erik, the whole transportation system is fixed.

    I never denied that. But some forms of the transportation system are more “fixed” than others. Namely, Amtrak (specifically the long distance trains), and our local region’s pro-Rail/anti-Bus bias.

  35. Erik Halstead:And you’d be blind to think that railroads provide 100% of their own security too…in fact Railroad Police departments are VERY thinly spread out, and more likely than not you will find a non-Railroad Police officer responding to a 9-1-1 call involving a railroad.

    ws:I was not referring to security like 911 or police calls, but rather security to protect the “system”. Amtrak funds all of its own security in that regard. I don’t think “police calls” are an issue with airports or railroads. I make this argument for automobiles because it is very pertinent.

    My comparison was between security for airports such as the FAA (when you get patted down 100 times when you go to the airport).

    Erik Halstead:The issue isn’t that Amtrak is subsidized, it is the extent of which Amtrak is subsidized, for the level of service, and for the geographic reach of the service.

    ws:I agree, for what Amtrak gets and gives back in return is not fair. It was not my intention to make this an Amtrak vs. highway argument, but rather a railroad vs. highway argument. That is my main point.

    Amtrak is really just a service that operates on rails.

    Erik Halstead:It still doesn’t acknowledge that 20% of the revenues that are paid in by motorists, are taken out and fund transit, which is part of the problem.

    ws:

    1) Even if HTF did not have to fund mass transit, there would still be spending issues. The whole system has been to build build build, and not build and maintain.

    2) I believe mass transit gets 15% (federally) out of the highway trust fund. Percentage wise, the injection of 8 Billion this past summer is more than what mass transit gets in two years.

    Creating fairer markets in regards to transpiration will reduce traffic, stabilize transit, create better land-uses, reduce environmental degradation, and help reduce subsidization.

  36. WS wrote: but rather security to protect the “system”. Amtrak funds all of its own security in that regard.

    Amtrak doesn’t “fund all of its own security” — Amtrak has very little if any of “its own security”. And the TSA is providing an increasing amount of Amtrak security in certain corridors – with zero reimbursement from Amtrak.

    My comparison was between security for airports such as the FAA (when you get patted down 100 times when you go to the airport).

    Huh. That’s strange. I was patted down a total of…ZERO times…in all of the air travel COMBINED I’ve taken since 9/11.

    for what Amtrak gets and gives back in return is not fair. It was not my intention to make this an Amtrak vs. highway argument, but rather a railroad vs. highway argument. That is my main point.

    Are we talking freight or passenger?

    1) Even if HTF did not have to fund mass transit, there would still be spending issues. The whole system has been to build build build, and not build and maintain.

    But with 20% more money there would be more funding for the spending.

    Regardless, I’ve already stated that a large part of the problem was a recent Administration’s “spend and spend” attitude, which was the actual cause of the HTF deficit.

    I believe mass transit gets 15% (federally) out of the highway trust fund. Percentage wise, the injection of 8 Billion this past summer is more than what mass transit gets in two years.

    That’s still 15% (by your admission) that is paid by MOTORISTS and subsidizes Transit.

    Creating fairer markets in regards to transpiration will reduce traffic, stabilize transit, create better land-uses, reduce environmental degradation, and help reduce subsidization.

    And to do that, you must first eliminate the unfair subsidy of transit by motorists, require transit users to pay the full cost of their service (or at least closer to it)…

    In effect, you’ll find that your definition of “fairer markets” requires that transit be heavily subsidized by other modes of transport, which in itself cannot be “fair”. You want transit to be “stablized” but without paying the full cost of transit, the only way to “stabilize” it is to increase taxes elsewhere (or in the case of Portland, forget about the bus system but still require residents of Sherwood to pay for the City of Portland Streetcar). “Better Land-Uses” does not involve transit; there are plenty of neighborhoods that have excellent land-uses but poor transit investment by our region; developers will not develop “transit-oriented development” without extensive subsidies – another cost that is “unfair” to everyone.

    Fortunately for me, I will be moving out of the Portland Public Schools district (which has been a “loser” in terms of transit-oriented development tax losses) and will be moving to a school district that has been building new schools, more modern schools, and doesn’t have to face competition from “transit-oriented development” and local improvement districts — where, everyone pays their fair share. And we’ll be within walking distance of both an elementary and middle school with sidewalks (unlike my current City of Portland residence) and within walking distance to shops and restaurants (unlike my current City of Portland residence).

  37. Here’s the thing Eric,

    Why do you think of motorists and transit uses as two mutually exclusive constituencies? Up until I moved to Portland, I had no choice but to contribute to the construction of more highways through the gas tax because I lived in Texas where I had no choice but to drive. There was no way for my tax dollars to go to transit, and such is the case in many (if not most) areas of the country, including some in our metro area. Assuming that those gas tax dollars belong to road construction is assuming that the gas taxpayers want that outcome. I don’t, and I think many people who drive to work every day would much rather be taking MAX or a frequent bus, but they are forced to drive. There is no moral imperative for spending gas tax dollars on highway construction.

    I don’t want to hunt it down right now but I’ve posted before charts that show that the Interstate Highway system has received significant subsidies from the general fund. If I remember correctly the THF only paid for around 60% of construction.

Leave a Reply to Greg Tompkins Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *