Subsidizing transit
Thinking about transit, and reading "Taxpayer's league's" flyer against Northstar corridor rail:
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/pdf/Off_the_Rails.pdf
vs
http://www.northstartrain.org/
It is easy to agree, "Yeah, a $0.64/mile/passenger subsidy is outrageous."
And if fares cover 44% of the costs, then costs must be $1.14/mile/passenger! AND if passengers are paying $0.50/mile, and traveling say 20 miles, that's $10 fare - each way! If commuting, that's $100/week, or $5200/year.
One must first wonder why costs are so high?! Secondly wonder why people would WANT to travel so far ANYWAY?!
I imagine part of the cost estimates are related to "start up" costs, and part are "operational costs", well, and part "debt servicing", and averaged over some period.
I do accept the argument that development WILL proceed best along commuting corridors. Certainly it happens along freeways. If we believe the Twin Cities area WILL keep growing and we must MAKE ROOM, it makes sense to encourage growth on corridors where transit can expand.
Well, the rail website says a 35 minute commute from Elk River. I admit a 35 minute commute, where you can relax and read or whatever seems nicer than driving, BUT what's the chances the rail will get you within walking distance of your job? Add a bus transfer with a 10 minute wait, and 15 minute ride, and you're up to 60 minutes anyway. PLUS you don't have a car available to do errands along the way.
Overall I accept the argument that in DENSE development trains can run frequently and cost effectively. I think of my 10 day visit to Washington DC, taking the metro rail everywhere, only transfered to a bus once, and did a fair bit of walking. I bought 2 5-day passes for like $20 each, so $4/day for transit, and I think $0.25 to transfer to a bus. I admit if I lived there I'd likely bike around more than anything.
Another issue is "families". I remember as a kid, my mom took my sister and I downtown by bus. I think we went to the planetarium or something. We may or may not have had a (second) car then, but I think she wanted us to know how to take the bus.
I admit I'm as spoiled as anyone growing up with the idea of the car as freedom - jump in - KIDS - JUNK - ANYTIME - NO WAIT - QUICK TRAVEL. The illusion is only occasionally broken by the reality of road congestion. It is very hard for me to imagine raising a family without exclusive access to a car. Best I can imagine now with the "nuclear family", is a single car, and one adult commuting by transit, and one with the car - ideally both could use transit interchangeably. Commuting is the simplest travel when it works well.
Okay, back to transit. When computing subsidy I'm willing to break down costs, consider development costs separately, and compare just the operational subsidy. I accept this breakdown assuming "growth" and that future development and demand will exist.
Isolating development costs is tricky because there's lots of costs. It might be CHEAPER now to assume everyone has a car, and sprawl development everywhere BUT when energy costs increase, congestion increases, viability is lost. The "costs" are hidden in individual losses of people trapped in debt and unviable economic demands.
I guess with the Northstar rail, I'd only consider it in relation to a "master development plan", where there is plan of housing densities along the rail to make it more viable in the long term.
Density for me is the key idea. Maybe we can't REMAKE our entire metro area into someplace that supports transit, but if we can make some development transit-friendly, I'm sure we'll be better off in the long run.
I accept that current rail demand will be "underutilized" and "overly costly", but the potential for expansion offers hope.
On a related but different issue, development can be an ugly prospect because people WILL SPECULATE on it and people who say buy land early can make lots of money in appreciation. I imagine smart people have bought up all the open land for development around the river and will make a killing to sell it for development IF northstar is built. Well, I don't have a solution against speculation. I dislike it for raising costs - like a monopoly. Still, maybe better to have speculation along higher density corridors than sprawl?
It is funny - if we do NOTHING. If we put up "no development" signs all around the metro extents and force higher density housing, THEN demand will raise property values and rents and everything anyway and "affordable" housing will decrease and MAYBE we might actually FORCE people to leave the metro area, or discourage people from moving here.
A part of me supports the "development walls" to end sprawl development. Well I suppose the "last sprawl wave" would say "Thank you" so they can keep their neighboring open spaces. And "next wave speculators" will curse their useless land purchases that can't be developed.
Overall I'm sure what we're doing is unsustainable, wasteful, and I worry about the people who live in the exurbs and such. An exurb friend said I shouldn't worry, but she's also a friend who is outraged at the idea of a gas tax to encourage conservation, although her blind lashing appears as much on the grounds of "The evil government will have more money to waste" than her own bottom line.
It is also funny how "empowering" modern roads are. Roads are as corrupting as cars because combined they allow people to travel far and wide and often without great thought to the long term viability of their lifestyles.
I'm SURE our existing roadways are UNVIABLE in the long term and some sort of strategic abandonment will have to occur. Road costs are astronomical now and will never get cheaper.
I think of the rental property I own with a 110' driveway to a backyard garage. Perhaps $5000 for a new asphalt driveway, or $12000 for a new concrete driveway? Which do I choose? If I was limited purely to "rental income", I'd probably choose "dirt"! Even $5000 is hard to swallow, although $250/year for 20 years, but asphault requires greater maintenance costs and doesn't do well under the strong freeze thaw periods in our transition months.
It seems to me that "smart" communities will invest for the long term - concrete - which will last much longer even with a higher construction cost. Yet very few road projects can afford to double their costs, given our expected needs.
Just like my rental property driveway dilemma, road decision makers have limited funds. And like me, I don't really have an option of "only paving a 50' driveway." How does a city or county or state say "We'll build 80-year concrete streets HERE and let asphalt crumble to dust another 5 years THERE?" Well, such decisions do exist, but political will is tough.
The "fair" approach is to keep dividing the pie until everyone gets a "fair slice", even if NO ONE can afford to make a good long term choice with their portion.
I know - it's not really true if you consider bonding debt. In theory a city CAN BUDGET 50 years for a road project and then invest in the best long term choice. JUST like I can take on more debt for a better driveway in the long run.
I accept DEBT for long term goals, but it's still a risk with an unknown future. I mean REALLY unknown - given our unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels and a world market ready to eat every drop of supply and more. Peak oil or merely supply-limited pricing, energy WILL get more expensive. Well, in that sense, if you believe society will still be viable in 50 years, perhaps building roads NOW with cheap energy is the better bet anyway, assuming future need will appreciate it.
One last stab at transit, along with investing in stronger (and fewer roads), perhaps the future will be as much about converting old crumbling roadways to rail? I'd imagine rails have a lower per mile cost than concrete, and appear to be a better choice for intercity travel.
AND to go fully off topic, I've had a fun dream that future development ought to occur in SW Minnesota near Buffalo ridge where wind development is efficient. Industry that demands power ought to be located NEAR renewable energy sources.
Impossible to see how all the parts will work together to cover the gaps of the next 20 years, but I must believe somehow we'll manage. It's an ugly surrender to an uncertain world.
As much as I wish "good planning" and "common good" can lead us, I think as much like a republican and say "If you're dependent upon the government for your needs, think again, and be afraid." Well, most for the federal government, while I expect state/county/city governments will take up more and more slack as the shit starts hitting the fan in the coming "Long Emergency".
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/pdf/Off_the_Rails.pdf
vs
http://www.northstartrain.org/
It is easy to agree, "Yeah, a $0.64/mile/passenger subsidy is outrageous."
And if fares cover 44% of the costs, then costs must be $1.14/mile/passenger! AND if passengers are paying $0.50/mile, and traveling say 20 miles, that's $10 fare - each way! If commuting, that's $100/week, or $5200/year.
One must first wonder why costs are so high?! Secondly wonder why people would WANT to travel so far ANYWAY?!
I imagine part of the cost estimates are related to "start up" costs, and part are "operational costs", well, and part "debt servicing", and averaged over some period.
I do accept the argument that development WILL proceed best along commuting corridors. Certainly it happens along freeways. If we believe the Twin Cities area WILL keep growing and we must MAKE ROOM, it makes sense to encourage growth on corridors where transit can expand.
Well, the rail website says a 35 minute commute from Elk River. I admit a 35 minute commute, where you can relax and read or whatever seems nicer than driving, BUT what's the chances the rail will get you within walking distance of your job? Add a bus transfer with a 10 minute wait, and 15 minute ride, and you're up to 60 minutes anyway. PLUS you don't have a car available to do errands along the way.
Overall I accept the argument that in DENSE development trains can run frequently and cost effectively. I think of my 10 day visit to Washington DC, taking the metro rail everywhere, only transfered to a bus once, and did a fair bit of walking. I bought 2 5-day passes for like $20 each, so $4/day for transit, and I think $0.25 to transfer to a bus. I admit if I lived there I'd likely bike around more than anything.
Another issue is "families". I remember as a kid, my mom took my sister and I downtown by bus. I think we went to the planetarium or something. We may or may not have had a (second) car then, but I think she wanted us to know how to take the bus.
I admit I'm as spoiled as anyone growing up with the idea of the car as freedom - jump in - KIDS - JUNK - ANYTIME - NO WAIT - QUICK TRAVEL. The illusion is only occasionally broken by the reality of road congestion. It is very hard for me to imagine raising a family without exclusive access to a car. Best I can imagine now with the "nuclear family", is a single car, and one adult commuting by transit, and one with the car - ideally both could use transit interchangeably. Commuting is the simplest travel when it works well.
Okay, back to transit. When computing subsidy I'm willing to break down costs, consider development costs separately, and compare just the operational subsidy. I accept this breakdown assuming "growth" and that future development and demand will exist.
Isolating development costs is tricky because there's lots of costs. It might be CHEAPER now to assume everyone has a car, and sprawl development everywhere BUT when energy costs increase, congestion increases, viability is lost. The "costs" are hidden in individual losses of people trapped in debt and unviable economic demands.
I guess with the Northstar rail, I'd only consider it in relation to a "master development plan", where there is plan of housing densities along the rail to make it more viable in the long term.
Density for me is the key idea. Maybe we can't REMAKE our entire metro area into someplace that supports transit, but if we can make some development transit-friendly, I'm sure we'll be better off in the long run.
I accept that current rail demand will be "underutilized" and "overly costly", but the potential for expansion offers hope.
On a related but different issue, development can be an ugly prospect because people WILL SPECULATE on it and people who say buy land early can make lots of money in appreciation. I imagine smart people have bought up all the open land for development around the river and will make a killing to sell it for development IF northstar is built. Well, I don't have a solution against speculation. I dislike it for raising costs - like a monopoly. Still, maybe better to have speculation along higher density corridors than sprawl?
It is funny - if we do NOTHING. If we put up "no development" signs all around the metro extents and force higher density housing, THEN demand will raise property values and rents and everything anyway and "affordable" housing will decrease and MAYBE we might actually FORCE people to leave the metro area, or discourage people from moving here.
A part of me supports the "development walls" to end sprawl development. Well I suppose the "last sprawl wave" would say "Thank you" so they can keep their neighboring open spaces. And "next wave speculators" will curse their useless land purchases that can't be developed.
Overall I'm sure what we're doing is unsustainable, wasteful, and I worry about the people who live in the exurbs and such. An exurb friend said I shouldn't worry, but she's also a friend who is outraged at the idea of a gas tax to encourage conservation, although her blind lashing appears as much on the grounds of "The evil government will have more money to waste" than her own bottom line.
It is also funny how "empowering" modern roads are. Roads are as corrupting as cars because combined they allow people to travel far and wide and often without great thought to the long term viability of their lifestyles.
I'm SURE our existing roadways are UNVIABLE in the long term and some sort of strategic abandonment will have to occur. Road costs are astronomical now and will never get cheaper.
I think of the rental property I own with a 110' driveway to a backyard garage. Perhaps $5000 for a new asphalt driveway, or $12000 for a new concrete driveway? Which do I choose? If I was limited purely to "rental income", I'd probably choose "dirt"! Even $5000 is hard to swallow, although $250/year for 20 years, but asphault requires greater maintenance costs and doesn't do well under the strong freeze thaw periods in our transition months.
It seems to me that "smart" communities will invest for the long term - concrete - which will last much longer even with a higher construction cost. Yet very few road projects can afford to double their costs, given our expected needs.
Just like my rental property driveway dilemma, road decision makers have limited funds. And like me, I don't really have an option of "only paving a 50' driveway." How does a city or county or state say "We'll build 80-year concrete streets HERE and let asphalt crumble to dust another 5 years THERE?" Well, such decisions do exist, but political will is tough.
The "fair" approach is to keep dividing the pie until everyone gets a "fair slice", even if NO ONE can afford to make a good long term choice with their portion.
I know - it's not really true if you consider bonding debt. In theory a city CAN BUDGET 50 years for a road project and then invest in the best long term choice. JUST like I can take on more debt for a better driveway in the long run.
I accept DEBT for long term goals, but it's still a risk with an unknown future. I mean REALLY unknown - given our unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels and a world market ready to eat every drop of supply and more. Peak oil or merely supply-limited pricing, energy WILL get more expensive. Well, in that sense, if you believe society will still be viable in 50 years, perhaps building roads NOW with cheap energy is the better bet anyway, assuming future need will appreciate it.
One last stab at transit, along with investing in stronger (and fewer roads), perhaps the future will be as much about converting old crumbling roadways to rail? I'd imagine rails have a lower per mile cost than concrete, and appear to be a better choice for intercity travel.
AND to go fully off topic, I've had a fun dream that future development ought to occur in SW Minnesota near Buffalo ridge where wind development is efficient. Industry that demands power ought to be located NEAR renewable energy sources.
Impossible to see how all the parts will work together to cover the gaps of the next 20 years, but I must believe somehow we'll manage. It's an ugly surrender to an uncertain world.
As much as I wish "good planning" and "common good" can lead us, I think as much like a republican and say "If you're dependent upon the government for your needs, think again, and be afraid." Well, most for the federal government, while I expect state/county/city governments will take up more and more slack as the shit starts hitting the fan in the coming "Long Emergency".
posted by Ares Olympus at 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home