Everyone is all in a flutter about a recent poll that shows a growing sentiment for light rail in the Bay area.
On the surface light rail seems like such a good idea. Get on the train and smoothly and effortlessly get where you are going. No cranky motorists or maddening red lights, it all seems so wonderful.
It rarely works that way, unless you live right next to the light rail station, and where you are going is close to a rail station.
Fact is few of us will live next to a light rail stop, even fewer of us would want to, and the probability that where you want to go, especially in Pinellas County, being within even a reasonable walking distance of the light rail station is very low.
All of the beautiful pictures of futuristic trains and idyllic views of smiling riders can lull you into a false sense of feeling light rail is the answer.
Here in Pinellas County with 24 different local governments, multiple retail, industrial, educational and governmental centers, light rail becomes problematic.
For most of us it will be either a bus ride or a car trip or bike ride to the light rail station and then a hike, cab, trolley or bus ride to our final destination. Reverse that process including dragging all those packages to get home. Going to the grocery store becomes a four hour trip with multiple fares verses a drive.
You're going to hear the word "intermodal" a lot in these light rail discussions, that's light rail speak, for "we have to hang a lot of crap around this thing to make it work".
Things like busses, cabs, trolleys and other forms of transportation to actually get riders to where they want to go. All very expensive, generally inconvenient and not self supporting from a revenue perspective.
Once in place the flow of tax payer money to subsidize light rail will only grow.
Then there is the old ruse that the community will evolve and business will tend to congregate around the light rail stops. That will be real comforting to you if you own a business that will be nowhere near a light rail stop.
Could light rail really work in Pinellas County. Maybe. But the people who push it the most are those who will benefit the most: those selling the train systems, building the tracks and acquiring the right of way.
When you get down to the facts, the cost of acquiring right of way, building the system, operating and subsidizing it and all of light rail's supporting infrastructure in Pinellas county will be as staggering as will the tax bill that goes with it.
Next time they poll the light rail issue, the question should probably be would you support an increase in your property tax or sales tax to build a light rail system? The results might change a little.
Have your say. Be sure to get a petition for the Pier Referendum and complete it properly. Information and schedule of events at Stop The Lens.
I was wondering how long it would be before you would assert the conspiratorial ruse. What I described is in fact what is currently real world. As to Amtrak carrying record passengers, has such an increase in any way diminished the outragious subsidy which Amtrak receives from our taxes? Bottom line, we are indeed paying for transporation on a level which the majority of the population is willing to support from a combination of user fees, local, state and Federal taxes.
I do find it ironic that you complain about Amtrak's "outrageous" subsidy (about $1.4 billion a year) and yet miss the far larger subsidies to other modes, such as the $53 billion in general revenue, non-user tax money Congress has propped up the Highway trust Fund with since 2008. Aviation is more of the same: about half of the cost of the the air traffic control system (without which no airline would fly) is funded through general revenues. Where is the "outrage" over this? As to the "conspiracy theory" stuff: Big Oil, in the form of the Koch brothers and others, bankroll think tanks and pay anti-transit hit men like Randal O'toole and others to go around the country to pooh-pooh transit projects in favor of more roads. They also bankroll politicians with views similar to theirs to help stifle support for public transportation. Maybe you like things the way they are, but there are a lot of us out here who want real choices in how we travel from place to place.
Bill: I'll leave you with some additional thoughts. It is incomprehensive to most sensible taxpayers to seriously consider additional transportation proposals to spend additional taxpayer monies that completely ignore the economic impact. These are not the best of economic times to consider such spend-it-now-benefits-will-come- later transportation proposals. I do not personally object to the concept of lite rail, but not at a totally uneconomic (both service and monetary) result (meaning unwelcome, unjustified taxpayer cost). With respect to my Amtrak comments, it was you who brought up this example, not me. As to those specific subsidies you also mentioned, I expect in the not to distant future all of these, and most others involving Government largess, will have to face the fact that we simply can not afford to continue spending beyond our means. Hopefully our voices will be heard when it comes time to determine how and where our spending will be throttled back. Jeannie: I lived in Elizabeth, NJ for a number of years and am very familiar with Amtrak services. If your proposal made a shred of economic sense, do you really think the political quagmire is to blame for not implementing your proposals to reduce the subsidy? Both you and Bill fail to see the need to at least put forth the total economic benefits/costs when considering such proposals before we the voters decide on spending additional transportation taxpayer dollars. Ciao.
I'll leave it to the other readers to determine if what you propose makes any sense at all.
Government is what the people want it to be, and government at all levels already "subsidizes" all forms of transportation: (1) no local or county roads are built, or maintained, without cost to taxpayers; (2) the air traffic system was created and is maintained by federal revenues; (3) the regional rail system is kept alive by Federal and sometimes State revenues. The idea, proposed by some, that no transportation system should exist with government support is ludicrous; we all have a stake in our national transportation structure, and we will succeed, or fail, depending upon how well we execute those various parts of that system. What is needed is a dispassionate and objective study of our comprehensive transportation networks.
Make no mistake: light rail is big business, BIG business. These projects can run into the billions and summon very powerful forces to sway political and public option. Additionally, these powerful forces have two very important allies: federal funding and light-rail envy. The prospect of federal funding generates some very predictable behaviors from both citizens and politicians: “if they are giving out money, let’s make sure we get it!” This thinking crosses party lines and is rarely tempered by the project’s total price tag or ongoing costs; as politicians see money spent in their district as ensuring reelection and/or a positive legacy. Light-rail envy of other cities is equally as powerful. What politician or citizen wouldn’t want to be part of a “world-class city”; since light-rail is commonly viewed a badge of membership to that club.
All that said, there are some (albeit few) areas where light rail could make sense. These have a very specific combination of geography, culture, demographics, population density, lack of competitive transit options, etcetera. My general understanding tells me our region is not one of these places. Experts might disagree, and certainly the powerful forces described above will ultimately determine our fate. Bibliography: “Urban Light Rail Fail” Warren Meyer, Forbes Magazine, Sept 21, 2010 “Marge vs. The Monorail” season 4/episode 12, The Simpsons, Jan 1994
On a personal level, I love the idea of light rail. Hopping on a sleek train and being whisked to my destination without the hassle of driving or parking seems so hip, so European- just plan sexy. Unfortunately, reality is much more convoluted. The few domestic examples of successful light rail projects are dubious, as the definition of “successful” tends favor subjective metrics over objective metrics (e.g. ridership satisfaction surveys versus measured reduction in traffic congestion). There is a good reason for this: objective measures usually paint a bleaker picture. In most cases, cost per passenger mile (capital and operating) relative to other forms of transit (car, bus) is usually much higher. Optimistic ridership projections rarely materialize, and the promise of economic development around rail stops simply doesn’t happen very often.
Boston MA, Streetcar, light rail, subway, commuter rail Philadelphia, streetcar, subway, commuter rail Washington DC, Metro subway, commuter rail Norfolk-Virginia beach VA TIDE light rail Charlotte NC LYNX light rail - being expanded Atlanta GA, streetcar under construction, MARTA heavy rail Miami FL, Metro heavy rail - being extended to airport and new intermodal hub New Orleans LA, streetcar - several extensions Buffalo NY, light rail - the one that has problems, because it does not go very far Cleveland OH, light, heavy rail Pittsburgh PA, Light rail - brand new extension under Alleghany River Detroit MI, new Woodward Ave light rail Cincinnati, new streetcar under const. Indianapolis IN, streetcar proposed St. Louis MO, Metrolink light rail - expanded twice via ballot intiiative Minneapolis-St Paul MN, light rail, now exteded to St Paul Kansas City, light rail about to begin construction Little Rock AR streetcar Oklahoma City, light rail Dallas-Ft Worth, light rail everywhere, more to come, Trinity River Express regional rail Austin TX, regional diesel powered light rail Houston TX, light rail undergoing major expansion And that's just the eastern half of the country!
I never—EVER—hear any commentators or critics using the term “highway subsidy” or “giveaway to the highway interests” or “highway-contractor welfare queens.” Yet this sort of thing has been going on since the 1960s, when Eisenhower had Congress write a big check when he learned the new federal gasoline tax created by his 1956 Interstate Highway Act was bringing in so little revenue that his Interstate network, which was supposed to take 20 years to complete, actually would take 50. The fiscal hard-liners want to kill or cut public transportation, but nobody ever utters a peep about highway subsidies. //rant off//
I live in safety harbor but work over by the hard rock cafe & i have looked into a bus ride but I could get a bus early enough to be at work at 7:00 as the commute would be 2-3 times as long as it is now. *Maybe* an elevated train (disney style monorail?) from st pete to clearwater to TIA to netpark with no other stops. Put commuter lots at those four spots & you might have something that would work if it ran frequently enough with low enough fares & low enough tax-based subsidies.
If "the majority" of citizens support light rail and the added taxes it brings, then why did PSTA spend $300,000 on a Public relations firm (Tucker Hall) to do a PR campaign to convice us rail is "good?" How is it that the proponents of light rail can confiscate our tax dollars to promote their plan, while opponents get nothng?
To be more in line with the true meaning of being conservative, his position as a fiduciary of our commonwealth, would have been to preserve our environment.
Who knows it may be due to this that some folks renage to the idea of a more efficient mode of transportation. Some seem to entertain a stronger emotional relationship with their car than with one family member.