New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | June 7, 2005

Car bombs, light rail, or the Intel chip? Choose your poison, in Reason Express.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Stealth Seat Belt Enforcement | Main | Welcome Back to the Machine →

See all 33 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.7.05 @ 7:05PM|#

The point of the "too many passengers" complaint in the Metro article seems to be that the system has attracted so many passengers, and encouraged development around rail stations that increases ridership, that it needs additional capital investment to meed the demand.

I wonder, when a roadway is so popular that it cannot handle all the traffic that uses it, and the transportation department says they have too much volume and need money to add lanes, will a Reason writer make the same snarky point that they're complaining about having too many riders?

Yeah, right.

MP|6.7.05 @ 7:27PM|#

No, but others (like me) would raise the point that the necessary capital improvements should come out of an increased fare charge instead of a sales tax increase.

MP|6.7.05 @ 7:28PM|#

(sorry...I should have made it clear that my statement was an allusion to toll roads)

|6.7.05 @ 7:58PM|#

joe,

extra passengers = extra fares, so why do they need investment?

Phil|6.7.05 @ 9:16PM|#

extra passengers = extra fares, so why do they need investment?

Because they let their former parking vendor steal all their money.

|6.7.05 @ 9:55PM|#

Aspects of this insurgancey have struck me as hard to explain and now there's this from the Washington Times:

"U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA."

"Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050603-021838-6491r.htm

Via Raimondo's interesting column at antiwar.com:

http://antiwar.com/justin/

BTW, It's great to have this non-left and solidly libertarian anti-war site on the cutting edge.

|6.7.05 @ 10:27PM|#

crimethink,

Because rail lines, like roadways, airports, seaports, lighthouses, and pretty much all transportation infrastructure, don't get all of their funding from user fees. Their operations are subsidized.

|6.7.05 @ 11:26PM|#

Ah, well, they shouldn't be. And they don't need to be.

Roadways have been privately built, owned, operated and funded. So have lighthouses. (Per Ronald Coase.)

|6.8.05 @ 12:04AM|#

I remember reading, perhaps in Reason, that in some places in SoCal a few of decades ago, development occurred so fast that government's couldn't keep up so that the roads and attendant infrastructure were built and maintained by the private residential and commercial developers.

|6.8.05 @ 12:23AM|#

...Make that:"...development occurred so fast that *governments* couldn't keep up..."

|6.8.05 @ 2:58AM|#

I'm trying to see the logic of a regional sales tax for the Metro. I could understand (maybe not agree with, but understand) the logic behind a sales tax levied in the immediate vicinity of Metro stops. But if the region for this regional sales tax extends more than a half mile away from the Metro line then I have a hard time seeing the logic.

And even if the tax were only levied in the immediate vicinity of a Metro stop, I can think of a more market-based way for businesses to foot some of the bill for the Metro if they benefit from the presence: Allow businesses to buy Metro passes at standard rates and then sell at whatever price they want. Businesses might actually choose to sell Metro passes at a loss to bring in more customers.

For instance, Starbucks might sell discount Metro passes to anybody who buys a cup of coffee, to bring in people who might otherwise buy coffee elsewhere. Or do a punch card deal where with every 10th cup of coffee you get a $3 Metro pass. Or something.

The result would be that businesses would pick up more of the tab rather than riders, reflecting the benefits that businesses derive from the presence of the Metro. And the lower effective rates paid by riders would mean either (1) more riders and more revenue or (2) Metro can increase rates without losing many riders, because many riders are paying lower rates.

In any case, I'm not convinced that taxes are the only way to bring in more revenue for the Metro.

|6.8.05 @ 8:51AM|#

Slightly off-topic, but here in Connecticut there's talk of raising the gas tax (already among the highest in the nation) to expand our Metro trains. However, the only part of Connecticut that has actual commuter trains is the super-wealthy suburbs-of-Manhattan part, and the majority of those train riders are the wealthy commuters. So in essence, Connecticut wants to make middle-class people like me have a more expensive daily commute in order to subsidize the commute of people in rich towns like Greenwich and Darien.

If commuter trains are so great, why not make the RIDERS pay for them, rather than sticking the bill on people who couldn't ride the trains if we wanted to, because they don't go where we live and work?

MP|6.8.05 @ 9:41AM|#

Jennifer,

You forgot the best part of that proposal...the new rail line they want to put in between New Haven and Hartford. Talk about boondogle...

And, yes, I'm one of those commuters that you are subsidizing. Thanks so much for all your hard work.

|6.8.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Steveo,

There have indeed been private roadways by lighthouses, but they were only possible because of the existence of a much larger public transportation system. Your private turnpike won't be making any money if it doesn't connect to a larger road system. And there wouldn't be enough ships to pay for your private lighthouse if there weren't a ton of public lighthouses and ports to make all that shipping possible.

Rick,

The infrastructure servicing new developments is almost always built by the developer who's constructing the homes. Well, the infrastructure within the development anyway - water stations and highways that connect to the development's systems are usually built by the gubmint.

thoreau,

The point of a public transit system is not only to meet the transportation needs of its riders, but to free up roadway capacity for those who don't ride, and to promote desireable development patterns. People over a half mile away from the stations benefit, too.

Neat idea about the farecards, though. "For every $20 you spend, we'll add $1 to your farecard." Sounds like a winner.

|6.8.05 @ 10:31AM|#

joe,

You miss the point in several places.

The infrastructure servicing new developments is almost always built by the developer who's constructing the homes. Well, the infrastructure within the development anyway - water stations and highways that connect to the development's systems are usually built by the gubmint.

I don't care who builds it, we're talking about who PAYS for it. Ultimately the infrastructure is paid for by the people buying the property. And the maintenance costs of the infrastructure is paid for by property (and sometimes sales) taxes. Basically it's a user fee. Same as the water stations. The highways are basically user-fee supported also, by gasoline taxes. The abuse comes from the fact that the money collected is not returned on an equitable basis - some states get more money than they paid and some get less than they paid. It's "subsidized" when it benefits you, it's "pork" when it costs you.

The point of a public transit system is not only to meet the transportation needs of its riders, but to free up roadway capacity for those who don't ride, and to promote desireable development patterns. People over a half mile away from the stations benefit, too.

We're talking about a public transit system that is complaining about too many riders, not too few. Of course, if I drive that also frees up capacity on the public transit system, makes the trains and buses less crowded and more pleasant. Therefore I expect the transit rider to help pay for some of my driving. After all, I'm keeping the transit system from being even more crowded. The logic for funding public transit using money from non-users is as asinine as using alcoholand tobacco taxes to pay for public schools.

Toll Roads (almost all of which are run by government agencies) have the exact same issues of supply and demand as public transit systems and any other enterprise. Toll roads eventually raise their fares when the demand outpaces supply, and "public transit" systems are no different.

Of course, we'd all like to avoid price increases. So if I could just find someone else to pay for me so I don't have to... and if I could just bullshit them into thinking that it's for their own good and not mine... appeal to their spiritual side...

|6.8.05 @ 11:12AM|#

MP-
I hadn't heard about the Hartford to New Haven train proposal. Are these people idiots? Who the hell lives in Hartford and commutes to New Haven or vice-versa? Nobody. Even if they did it wouldn't work--it's one thing to take a train to Manhattan, where you can then take a subway or cheap taxi to go from the train station to your job, but there's nothing LIKE that in any Connecticut cities. Hell, even if they put in a train from central Connecticut (where I live) to Redding (where I work), I still wouldn't be able to take it because the train station would probably be five or six miles from my job.

|6.8.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Jennifer,

I have a friend who works in central New Haven, steps from the train station. Obviously, that city has not been totally abandoned yet and there are still jobs there. Oh, and there happens to be a train to Manhattan leaving New Haven too. Perhaps Hartford wants to connect to that?

|6.8.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Anyone know to what extent roads are paid for by gas taxes? I.e. is any of the driving infrastructure such as roads, departments of motor vehicles, etc paid by other taxes? I don't drive so I'm curious if I'm paying for these things anyway.

MP|6.8.05 @ 11:43AM|#

Jennifer,

I Googled and came up with this story from December. The best part is that the DOT predicts that the link would attract upwards of 2,500 people per day. WOW! That's like...sooo many.

|6.8.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Rhywun-
The number of people with New Haven jobs in walking distance from the New Haven train station is pretty small. And if you live in Hartford and work in Manhattan, even with a train, you're talking about five hours PER DAY commuting. So unless Connecticut is talking about installing Japanese-style bullet trains, I fail to see how that's an improvement. It also doesn't address the fact that if you pay for this with a gas tax, the majority of the bills will be paid by people who will NEVER be able to use the service. Asking the citizens of a piss-poor dump like Waterbury to shell out extra dollars to improve the lives of the people in Greenwich is (no offense to MP) bullshit. Robbing the poor to subsidize the rich? Jesus.

MP-
I havn't checked that link yet but I will after I finish my conference call.

|6.8.05 @ 1:57PM|#

Just read the story, MP. We can safely assume that those 2,400 people per day will be the same people, so basically we're talking $263 million for a system that will benefit 2,400 commuters. If they're trying to reduce traffic, I think it would be cheaper to just give the money directly to the commuters, and pay them to retire so long as they promise not to drive during rush hour.

|6.8.05 @ 2:08PM|#

The number of people with New Haven jobs in walking distance from the New Haven train station is pretty small.

Which is pretty damn stupid, if you ask me. After decades of the government encouraging people and jobs to move to the suburbs with tax and mortgage incentives, now all of a sudden it's wrong to encourage the reverse?

you're talking about five hours PER DAY commuting

Which is not at all unusual these days. I work in Manhattan - you'd be surprised how many of my coworkers commute from *Pennsylvania*.

Asking the citizens of a piss-poor dump like Waterbury to shell out extra dollars to improve the lives of the people in Greenwich is (no offense to MP) bullshit.

I thought the new train is from Hartford to New Haven? What does Waterbury or Greenwich have to do with it? They already have Metro North.

|6.8.05 @ 2:16PM|#

Jennifer,

One of the purposes of transportation projects is to encourage desireable development patterns, such as the redevelopment of troubled central cities. There may only be 2400 people working there now, but the goal is to provide good access to those cities' centers, making them more desireable for business to locate, and increase the number of jobs there.

Which is, of course, foolish, since who's to say that the redevelopment of high-vacancy urban cores is better than clearing a few thousand acres of Connecticut's remaining woodlands to build office space, and leaving the cities to rot. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

|6.8.05 @ 2:52PM|#

At the end of Reason Express comes this:

Quote of the Week

"Governments will upset at their peril society's wish to do what it wants to do and that is to move around." -- Professor Garel Rhys, director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University, on a proposal to use satellite uplinks to charge British motorists fees based on how much they drive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm

One of the reasons we have to finance roads thru approximations of user fees like the gas tax is that noone has determined a pricing and charging mechanism to collect the user fee directly from the user. Tolls come closer as approximations but the inconvenience of stopping to pay was always a hinderance.

There is no such hinderance with transport method like rail or bus. You set the fare and collect it from the rider. If the fares don't cover the costs you adjust fares or cut costs. If the line can't carry itself you close it.

Open Road Tolling is now in use in many places now. but its use is necessarily limited to limited access facilities. The system envisioned in the Beeb story above suggests that the problem may be solvable.

I am fully aware that privacy advocates will complain, but that too can be handled IMO.

MP|6.8.05 @ 3:18PM|#

the redevelopment of high-vacancy urban cores is better than clearing a few thousand acres of Connecticut's remaining woodlands to build office space

There's plenty of woodland left in CT. Let the cities rot.

Now that I got my cheap comment out of the way, joe, doesn't long distance commuter rail simply encourage suburbanization? I wouldn't be willing to work in NYC and live in CT if I had to drive...too much traffic. If, as a planner, you want to increase densities and encourage cities, shouldn't the focus be on the city's infrastructure and making it a good place to live? Creating a rail service to interconnect two cities does not seem like the most effective way to promote city life.

|6.8.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Rhywun-
What Waterbury has to do with it is that those people (as well as less desperate people like me) are being asked to pay for a system which WE CANNOT USE. Its expensive enough for me to get my own self to work, and now I'm supposed to pay for other people's commutes, too? If the train they're proposing is any damned good, it'll pay for itself, from the fares of people happy to use it.

Joe-
I don't care if they build new office space in the cities, in the country or on landfill in Long Island Sound; I'm saying that I should not have to pay to get those office workers from their homes to their jobs.

|6.8.05 @ 5:55PM|#

being asked to pay for a system which WE CANNOT USE

That's why I asked whether gas taxes really cover the entire automobile infrastructure. Anybody know?

|6.8.05 @ 7:26PM|#

Rhywun-
I don't know the answer to that, but I could make the point that even non-drivers benefit from roads; how do you think the food you eat and the clothes you wear and the luxuries you enjoy get to the stores from which you bought them?

|6.9.05 @ 10:05AM|#

MP, "doesn't long distance commuter rail simply encourage suburbanization?" I wrote a paper about that in school, titled "Transit Disoriented Development." A very good question, and one that gets at an important, and too often overlooked, distinction, between "suburbanization" and "sprawl." There is nothing wrong, from a smart growth perspective, with a town 30 miles from a major city growing from 5000 people to 20,000 people. There is nothing wrong with the entire ring of towns within 45 minutes of a city growing by such a rate. People have to live somewhere. The issue is how that town, or that region, grows. It's a pretty safe bet that the Connecticut suburbs of New York are going to increase in population. It would be better on any number of scales if that growth occurred in a way that refilled hollowed-out cities, made rail commutes convenient and desireable, allowed people to run a good portion of their errands without long drives, and protected large areas of open space. Encouraging growth to be transit- and -pedestrian oriented, rather than auto-oriented, is the key issue. Trying to make all of Metro NYC's growth occur within NYC is impossible, and not even desireable.

|6.9.05 @ 10:08AM|#

Jennifer,

"I don't care if they build new office space in the cities, in the country or on landfill in Long Island Sound; I'm saying that I should not have to pay to get those office workers from their homes to their jobs."

"even non-drivers benefit from roads; how do you think the food you eat and the clothes you wear and the luxuries you enjoy get to the stores from which you bought them?"

Similarly, even non-transit riders benefit from rail lines, and the development patterns they promote.

|6.9.05 @ 10:14AM|#

Russ D, if you're still here,

"Of course, if I drive that also frees up capacity on the public transit system, makes the trains and buses less crowded and more pleasant."

No, it doesn't actually. If a large number of drivers opt to take the train, an extra car or two can be added onto the train. The train with then move along its route at exactly the same speed, increasing its per-passenger efficiency. At the same time, the efficiency of the roads will also increase, as there will be less gridlock and congestion.

If the opposite occurs, and lots of transit riders decide to drive, they will produce extra traffic, thus reducing the efficiency of the roadways. Either congestion will increase, or there will have to be expensive and inconvenient road widening work. At the same time, the same train will use the same energy (almost - the improvements in efficienty from taking off a couple of passenger cars is marginal) to run along the same route, but will servive fewer people to do so.

|6.9.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Joe-
I don't stand to benefit for a system that increases already-high gasoline taxes and makes me drive over shabby rural roads while making it easier to commute to Manhattan. NONE of Connecticut's train proposals--Hartford to New Haven, I-95 corridor to New York--will reduce the number of drivers on my commutes by even one vehicle. And you still haven't answered the explicit or implied question--if these transportation systems are so wonderful and so desirable, why can't they pay for themselves rather than require subsidies from non-users?

|6.9.05 @ 11:21AM|#

Comment by: Rhywun at June 8, 2005 11:33 AM
and: June 8, 2005 05:55 PM

No, depending on the state, gas taxes do not cover all road construction and maintenance costs.

State governments have for a long time been reluctant to raise gas taxes, especially as the price of gas has risen. No pol wanted to be seen as raising the price of gas. In fact Florida removed a portion of the gas tax for about a month or so last year during a price spike. Since the gas tax is a per gallon charge rather than a percentage this means that gas tax revenues have not kept up with inflation so that in many places general revenues have been used to fill the gap. In Florida some counties have been using the local option sales tax as a revenue source. These are a leser evil in some ways since they must be approved by voters.

At one time gas taxes exceeded road construction needs so that drivers actually subsidized the rest of the budget. Those days for the most part are gone.

Local streets like the one in front of your house are mostly built and maintained with property taxes.