Urban Warrior | 'I CAN'T TAKE IT MUCH LONGER'
This is an interesting article and could raise several points for discussion.
The "L" isn't named for fact that the line looks like an "L" on a subway map, but rather because it is an "elevated" rail platform for the paltry city subway. The idea behind these types of elevated railways is that they are much less expensive and much quicker to build (in theory) than actual subways such as the NYC system.
The problem here is that the city has apparently been taking forever to reconstruct the L which has apparently been in bad need of repair for years. Merchants along the L are demanding money to reimburse them for business losses generated by L reconstruction.
Given that the reconstruction has hurt these business (it seems pretty clear), what are we to make of this crisis?
One question is whether an early investment in an underground subway system in this part of the city would have paid off now by not interfering with established businesses that have grown up around the subway system. The L itself is a tremendous eyesore and my impression is that its presence actually makes the neighborhood uglier and more dangerous to drive in. Compare this with DC where nearly everything is underground and I think it is obvious that while the city may have saved a ton of money in initial construction, the economic fallout is much worse. Another thought. If an L style railway is so great, why did they only use it in the poorer neighborhoods of West Philly instead of the whole system?
Another question is whether this crisis is the result of SEPTA and the City avoiding basic maintenance and thereby making the problem much worse when if finally came time to decide to make the repairs. The answer is probably yes.
Another question is that why should the government pay to help private businesses that are hurt by this reconstruction. This is actually a moral question. Obviously the business owners have taken a hit, but is this really a government taking? They have obviously benefited from the presence of the L, although they have likely paid for it with hire rents and property taxes. The question is whether this is a place to draw a line.
This crisis does tend to show what happens when government takes over too much control of something. A corporation running the system could theoretically do the same thing, but the corporation has a much stronger motivation to get the system repaired quickly because they lose money just as much as anyone else when there is less L traffic. On this point, though, I'm not sure if L traffic has gone down or that the lost foot traffic is from local neighbors who are going to other business that aren't near the L even though they still commute using the L.
Yet another question is whether the L would have been better run by a private company. I've taken the L. It isn't horrible, but it isn't all that great either. Every few years SEPTA makes a bad decision regarding the cars they purchase and then never seem to learn form their mistakes. They tend to get dirty and the stations themselves are pretty horrendous as far as cleanliness and associated businesses go. I'm not sure if a private company could make the line profitable, but I'm sure they could do a much better job than SEPTA and the City. The repairs would have been done a long time ago as well.
Back to article.
For one thing, the customers have not likely disappeared. Since it is appears that a reduction in pedestrian traffic is what has cost these businesses, chances are the customers have started going to other establishments. This means, of course, that when the L is back up and running, those businesses will suffer from a loss of customers. Does the city need to compensate them? I'm sure we'll be reading articles along those lines some time.
An irony here, of course, is that the City is now shelling out more money as direct welfare payments to hurt businesses just to keep them afloat because of its decision to save money by constructing an L instead of an underground subway, by not performing timely maintenance, and by being its usual corrupt, inefficient self when it comes to spending money on public works.
We all know that Philly is a bottomless pit for state and federal funding and that any money that gets spent there usually winds up in the hands of everyone except the people it is intended to help, but this is a fairly egregious case of the city ineptness. L construction should have been done years ago. It's continued problems are a beacon for how poorly run the City is.
Showing posts with label Public Transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Transportation. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
SEPTA and its Idiocracy
SEPTA to offer 'fare credit' to ease onboard ticket buy
Another brilliant decision from SEPTA management designed to punish the casual rider - the one group that could actually help it achieve some financial viability.
Every five years or so that have to recall automatic ticketing machines because no one in management ever seems to know or care about their past mistakes with the previous set of ticketing machines. Until about five years ago, these geniuses still had system maps in all of the stations that showed the trains going on lines that were shut down in the mid-80s.
They should spin-off and privatize the regional rail (if they can find a buyer). Then maybe someone will take their ticketing system out of the 19th century and eliminate the need for one union member per car on each train, some of whom make it their full-time job to be surly with passengers who aren’t familiar with the system.
Another brilliant decision from SEPTA management designed to punish the casual rider - the one group that could actually help it achieve some financial viability.
Every five years or so that have to recall automatic ticketing machines because no one in management ever seems to know or care about their past mistakes with the previous set of ticketing machines. Until about five years ago, these geniuses still had system maps in all of the stations that showed the trains going on lines that were shut down in the mid-80s.
They should spin-off and privatize the regional rail (if they can find a buyer). Then maybe someone will take their ticketing system out of the 19th century and eliminate the need for one union member per car on each train, some of whom make it their full-time job to be surly with passengers who aren’t familiar with the system.
Monday, September 10, 2007
High Speed Rail
Gas Costs Spark High-Speed Rail Interest
Amtrak booming amid bust
I'll probably have more on the specifics of these articles later - although the topic will undoubtedly come up again.
I am a big fan of high speed rail and have ridden on it in Europe and Japan. It is expensive, but much cheaper than the airlines. I'm not sure how much of a subsidy it gets from the various governments, but a guess is that both the airline and rail get a rough equivalent in subsidies which is why they are both pricey but not astronomical. In the U.S., we subsidize the roads and the air traffic control system (and bailout the airlines periodically), but the rail lines, without a subsidy, that compete with heavily subsidized forms of transportation, lose money, and so are accused of being inefficient, a relic of the past, a waste, etc.
The stats are already out there regarding how little public rail gets compared to our roads and air traffic control system, so I won't go into that here.
My thinking though is not to worsen the problem of government subsidies by giving even more taxpayer money away - this time to the railroads, but that the subsidies for the other forms of transportation should be taken away. Let the airlines pay for the air traffic control system or add it to the price of the airline ticket. Toll the interstates and make them independent commissions so that the money goes solely to funding the care and maintenance of the road instead of just another source of revenue for government to waste. I'm sure that will keep the tolls sufficiently low enough to not burden interstate commerce while lifting that expense out of the federal budget. If not, then the amount of money to support the highways must be for out of proportion for the benefit they bring.
If all of these forms of transportation were allowed to compete fairly - without government subsidies, we would see a huge turn-around in the use and profitability of passenger rail. It could likely be turned over to a private company and a private company would probably bring high speed rail to the country a lot faster and on better terms than any central planning from the government.
That said, I think the government may have a role to play in passenger rail in two major areas. The first is deregulation so that trains can travel faster in residential areas. The second is in straightening out the right of ways. I don't like the idea of government seizing private land for someone else's gain, but this would be a public need. Even then, although I'm not fond of the idea of government seizing property except for emergencies, I think the government could at least help in obtaining the rights for the right of way to avoid litigation that might be undertaken solely for the purpose of driving up costs, rather than giving people a strictly fair sum for their house. The devil will be in the details of that undertaking however.
So, in short, stop subsidizing everything with our tax dollars, give them back to us, and we will use them to determine what forms of transportation we want to take. Right now we all have to drive in cars or take planes because that still makes the most economic sense since we are already keeping those prices low with our tax dollars. Let the trains compete on equal terms and I'm sure we will see high-speed passenger rail in 10 years. At the going rate, we will either have no change or have some massive tax increase to cover a government controlled fiasco/boondoggle that will promise high-speed rail and deliver an Edsel.
And if we follow this plan and passenger rail still fails, we should let private companies take over Amtrak. They will immediately increase the amount of freight on those lines and be able to deliver freight at a much cheaper costs that trucking. This will take more trucks off the roads and decrease the amount we have to spend on maintenance of the roads.
Amtrak booming amid bust
I'll probably have more on the specifics of these articles later - although the topic will undoubtedly come up again.
I am a big fan of high speed rail and have ridden on it in Europe and Japan. It is expensive, but much cheaper than the airlines. I'm not sure how much of a subsidy it gets from the various governments, but a guess is that both the airline and rail get a rough equivalent in subsidies which is why they are both pricey but not astronomical. In the U.S., we subsidize the roads and the air traffic control system (and bailout the airlines periodically), but the rail lines, without a subsidy, that compete with heavily subsidized forms of transportation, lose money, and so are accused of being inefficient, a relic of the past, a waste, etc.
The stats are already out there regarding how little public rail gets compared to our roads and air traffic control system, so I won't go into that here.
My thinking though is not to worsen the problem of government subsidies by giving even more taxpayer money away - this time to the railroads, but that the subsidies for the other forms of transportation should be taken away. Let the airlines pay for the air traffic control system or add it to the price of the airline ticket. Toll the interstates and make them independent commissions so that the money goes solely to funding the care and maintenance of the road instead of just another source of revenue for government to waste. I'm sure that will keep the tolls sufficiently low enough to not burden interstate commerce while lifting that expense out of the federal budget. If not, then the amount of money to support the highways must be for out of proportion for the benefit they bring.
If all of these forms of transportation were allowed to compete fairly - without government subsidies, we would see a huge turn-around in the use and profitability of passenger rail. It could likely be turned over to a private company and a private company would probably bring high speed rail to the country a lot faster and on better terms than any central planning from the government.
That said, I think the government may have a role to play in passenger rail in two major areas. The first is deregulation so that trains can travel faster in residential areas. The second is in straightening out the right of ways. I don't like the idea of government seizing private land for someone else's gain, but this would be a public need. Even then, although I'm not fond of the idea of government seizing property except for emergencies, I think the government could at least help in obtaining the rights for the right of way to avoid litigation that might be undertaken solely for the purpose of driving up costs, rather than giving people a strictly fair sum for their house. The devil will be in the details of that undertaking however.
So, in short, stop subsidizing everything with our tax dollars, give them back to us, and we will use them to determine what forms of transportation we want to take. Right now we all have to drive in cars or take planes because that still makes the most economic sense since we are already keeping those prices low with our tax dollars. Let the trains compete on equal terms and I'm sure we will see high-speed passenger rail in 10 years. At the going rate, we will either have no change or have some massive tax increase to cover a government controlled fiasco/boondoggle that will promise high-speed rail and deliver an Edsel.
And if we follow this plan and passenger rail still fails, we should let private companies take over Amtrak. They will immediately increase the amount of freight on those lines and be able to deliver freight at a much cheaper costs that trucking. This will take more trucks off the roads and decrease the amount we have to spend on maintenance of the roads.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Corridor One
Corridor One too costly, Rendell official says
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this announcement. I was initially a big fan of the idea of expanding rail transportation to the area since I would love to see the return of good, efficient rail service to central PA. I also know that traffic congestion in the area is horrible and that the roads are too undersized and unable to expand in any conceivable way that won't cost millions of dollars.
In effect, the millions that opponents say will be wasted on expanding rail service will be saved in the short run, but ultimately 10 times that figure will likely need to be spent on expanding highways in the area to accommodate the increased population and traffic in the area. When that reaches the breaking point, then perhaps regional rail will get the boost in needs to happen. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone won't turn these into bike trails and forever close off the possibility of alternative transportation.
All that being said though, I can understand that rail advocates are disappointed by this since highways get such a huge public subsidy. Rather than make the argument that since highways are getting a wasteful subsidy, public transportation should also be given the subsidy, the energy should be placed first in tolling the highways. Make the people who use the roads pay for them and do it in such a way that the funds go solely for the roads and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, hopefully through some form of privatization, then rail may be able to operate without any public subsidy as well. This could mean that private companies might be able to start or take over existing rail lines, hence no tax increases along with an increase in viable alternatives to cars and buses.
The argument against tolling of course is that it is a vital part of our infrastructure and economy. This is a topic for lengthy discussion on another day, but I will summarize a few points as to why this is a problem. The moral problem with subsidizing transportation, from an economic perspective, is that while some benefit from these expenses directly, in the form of cheaper transportation costs, most do not. One of the arguments goes that if the highways are tolled, all of our consumer goods will become more expensive. That is likely true, but why should we subsidize the transportation of goods any more than we should subsidize production? Should electricity or internet access be provided for free and paid for strictly out of tax revenue because it will allow all businesses to lower their costs? Why should interstate highways be given this special exemption? Why should we not subsidize rail in the same way since it reduces the cost to labor market with transporting workers and reduces the cost of shipping raw materials and goods just like our highways.
The other problem is that so long as we subsidize the transportation of goods in this manner, there is no incentive to improve efficiency in other means of transportation or to find alternatives. Telecommuting came about because of traffic jams. It might have developed earlier if business were forced to come up with creative ways to attract qualified labor over a larger geographical area without free subsidized transportation.
In addition, subsidizing public highways essentially means that we have a government owned and provided service competing with privately owned companies such as shipping and rail companies. Most people would cry bloody murder if the government set up a business to compete directly with their own, but somehow the government has been able to compete with private companies in this realm for a long time.
Again, there is much more to cover on this topic. Either way, the concept of Corridor One is likely gone for a long time.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this announcement. I was initially a big fan of the idea of expanding rail transportation to the area since I would love to see the return of good, efficient rail service to central PA. I also know that traffic congestion in the area is horrible and that the roads are too undersized and unable to expand in any conceivable way that won't cost millions of dollars.
In effect, the millions that opponents say will be wasted on expanding rail service will be saved in the short run, but ultimately 10 times that figure will likely need to be spent on expanding highways in the area to accommodate the increased population and traffic in the area. When that reaches the breaking point, then perhaps regional rail will get the boost in needs to happen. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone won't turn these into bike trails and forever close off the possibility of alternative transportation.
All that being said though, I can understand that rail advocates are disappointed by this since highways get such a huge public subsidy. Rather than make the argument that since highways are getting a wasteful subsidy, public transportation should also be given the subsidy, the energy should be placed first in tolling the highways. Make the people who use the roads pay for them and do it in such a way that the funds go solely for the roads and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, hopefully through some form of privatization, then rail may be able to operate without any public subsidy as well. This could mean that private companies might be able to start or take over existing rail lines, hence no tax increases along with an increase in viable alternatives to cars and buses.
The argument against tolling of course is that it is a vital part of our infrastructure and economy. This is a topic for lengthy discussion on another day, but I will summarize a few points as to why this is a problem. The moral problem with subsidizing transportation, from an economic perspective, is that while some benefit from these expenses directly, in the form of cheaper transportation costs, most do not. One of the arguments goes that if the highways are tolled, all of our consumer goods will become more expensive. That is likely true, but why should we subsidize the transportation of goods any more than we should subsidize production? Should electricity or internet access be provided for free and paid for strictly out of tax revenue because it will allow all businesses to lower their costs? Why should interstate highways be given this special exemption? Why should we not subsidize rail in the same way since it reduces the cost to labor market with transporting workers and reduces the cost of shipping raw materials and goods just like our highways.
The other problem is that so long as we subsidize the transportation of goods in this manner, there is no incentive to improve efficiency in other means of transportation or to find alternatives. Telecommuting came about because of traffic jams. It might have developed earlier if business were forced to come up with creative ways to attract qualified labor over a larger geographical area without free subsidized transportation.
In addition, subsidizing public highways essentially means that we have a government owned and provided service competing with privately owned companies such as shipping and rail companies. Most people would cry bloody murder if the government set up a business to compete directly with their own, but somehow the government has been able to compete with private companies in this realm for a long time.
Again, there is much more to cover on this topic. Either way, the concept of Corridor One is likely gone for a long time.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Economics of Septa
The house bill that passed regarding transportation appears to screw Chester County over in the sense that they are getting a diminished share of representation, but being asked to contribute more financially at the same to Septa. One question is whether the benefit we receive justifies remaining with SEPTA. What would happen if we stopped giving them money? They would likely halt most bus service and reduce regional rail. While this may have a bad effect in the short term on the local economy, the question is whether or not such subsidies should have been introduced into the economy in the first place.
Today though I will focus on a much more mundane issue which is the economics of the Chester County based Septa rider. This person will live in Exton and commute to Center City.
Travel by Car:
The distance is 35 miles each way and considering the stop-and-go nature of traffic on 202 and the Schuylkill, it is likely that 4 gallons of gasoline will be spent on each commute. I will revise this if it appears to be otherwise. That makes for a total cost each day of $12.
Parking in the City is usually not free. If the person has a reserved spot, great. If not, parking will be about $150-$225 per month. I have heard many horrible stories though and even knew of someone who purposely got parking tickets rather than pay monthly parking fees because they could negotiate the fines down to a much lower price than they would have paid in monthly parking fees.
2-3 hours in the car each day.
Travel by Train:
Monthly rail pass: $181
Parking: $1/day (I believe)
Gasoline: 5 miles/day and 1 gallon/$3/week
2 hours in the train, 10-30 minutes waiting at station, 15 minutes in car to and from station.
Annual Costs (assuming 250 work days):
Car
Gasoline: $3,000
Parking: $1,800
Total: $4,800
Train
Pass: $2,172
Parking: $250
Gasoline: $235
Total: $3,657
So the train is theoretically $1,200 cheaper each year. Some other costs that might be factored in are the increased maintenance and car insurance for the commute by car into Philadelphia. There are also some intangibles to consider like stress and flexibility offered for each mode of transportation.
All in all, though, I'm simply amazed that more people do not use the train now that gasoline is around $3 per gallon. Also, it appears to me that a rate hike is justified for regional rail commuters not only because the system is not self-sufficient, but also because it would off-set taxpayer contributions to the system.
Today though I will focus on a much more mundane issue which is the economics of the Chester County based Septa rider. This person will live in Exton and commute to Center City.
Travel by Car:
The distance is 35 miles each way and considering the stop-and-go nature of traffic on 202 and the Schuylkill, it is likely that 4 gallons of gasoline will be spent on each commute. I will revise this if it appears to be otherwise. That makes for a total cost each day of $12.
Parking in the City is usually not free. If the person has a reserved spot, great. If not, parking will be about $150-$225 per month. I have heard many horrible stories though and even knew of someone who purposely got parking tickets rather than pay monthly parking fees because they could negotiate the fines down to a much lower price than they would have paid in monthly parking fees.
2-3 hours in the car each day.
Travel by Train:
Monthly rail pass: $181
Parking: $1/day (I believe)
Gasoline: 5 miles/day and 1 gallon/$3/week
2 hours in the train, 10-30 minutes waiting at station, 15 minutes in car to and from station.
Annual Costs (assuming 250 work days):
Car
Gasoline: $3,000
Parking: $1,800
Total: $4,800
Train
Pass: $2,172
Parking: $250
Gasoline: $235
Total: $3,657
So the train is theoretically $1,200 cheaper each year. Some other costs that might be factored in are the increased maintenance and car insurance for the commute by car into Philadelphia. There are also some intangibles to consider like stress and flexibility offered for each mode of transportation.
All in all, though, I'm simply amazed that more people do not use the train now that gasoline is around $3 per gallon. Also, it appears to me that a rate hike is justified for regional rail commuters not only because the system is not self-sufficient, but also because it would off-set taxpayer contributions to the system.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Argument 2 against toll roads
Another argument against putting tolls on the interstate is that it will increase the price of goods shipped in Pennsylvania.
You betcha!
And if those interstate roads did not exist, those goods would be even more expensive of non-existent. So if the argument is that it will increase the cost of goods, should we do even more to subsidize trucking companies? The answer of course is no, so why do we stand for subsidizing them with the interstate highway system in the first place?
Privatizing the interstates and allowing the owners to collect tolls is the best way to incorporate the free market into highway maintenance. They will easily become self-sufficient as demonstrated in other states and they will no longer be the bastions of wasteful spending, neglect, and patronage that PennDOT and the Turnpike Commission are now. It will also take a huge chunk out of the state budget.
You betcha!
And if those interstate roads did not exist, those goods would be even more expensive of non-existent. So if the argument is that it will increase the cost of goods, should we do even more to subsidize trucking companies? The answer of course is no, so why do we stand for subsidizing them with the interstate highway system in the first place?
Privatizing the interstates and allowing the owners to collect tolls is the best way to incorporate the free market into highway maintenance. They will easily become self-sufficient as demonstrated in other states and they will no longer be the bastions of wasteful spending, neglect, and patronage that PennDOT and the Turnpike Commission are now. It will also take a huge chunk out of the state budget.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Argument 1 against toll roads
One argument put forward against tolling Pennsylvania interstates is the it will create a new bureaucracy.
The idea of course is that we call something a bureaucracy if it is a government program that we do not like. The real meaning of bureaucracy is a set of government officials who are decision makers. Toll booth collectors are not decision makers. They are essentially guards who make sure people pay upon exiting the toll road.
Administering toll booths will not likely create any more management jobs than already exist to govern the maintenance of the interstate. It will, however, require the creation of several new toll both collection jobs. Given that we would like to keep the creation of government jobs to the barest minimum to accomplish a job, how do we do this?
The answer would be the creation of toll gates along various portions of the road. This would have the added bonus of reducing the amount of construction or reconfiguration of roads that would need to take place around the various exits to accommodate toll booths. It may be a better idea simply to place them at the state borders. This would eliminate the inconvenience to those who live and work in-state during their commutes and would put the burden of the tolls primarily on those drivers from out of state who use them. Keep in mind that out of state drivers currently pay nothing to use these roads. That money comes exclusively out of our pockets. Given that much of the out of state users are trucks, it is likely that the trucks themselves are more responsible for the wear and tear on the roads and bridges given their enormous size compared to regular vehicles.
The toll gates could either be placed exclusively at the state borders or, in addition those locations, a few spots near key interchanges with other interstates. That would be it. The system would not be obtrusive in construction or administration and would bring in a lot more revenue from outside of the state to pay for the roads. Right now we don't receive any.
The idea of course is that we call something a bureaucracy if it is a government program that we do not like. The real meaning of bureaucracy is a set of government officials who are decision makers. Toll booth collectors are not decision makers. They are essentially guards who make sure people pay upon exiting the toll road.
Administering toll booths will not likely create any more management jobs than already exist to govern the maintenance of the interstate. It will, however, require the creation of several new toll both collection jobs. Given that we would like to keep the creation of government jobs to the barest minimum to accomplish a job, how do we do this?
The answer would be the creation of toll gates along various portions of the road. This would have the added bonus of reducing the amount of construction or reconfiguration of roads that would need to take place around the various exits to accommodate toll booths. It may be a better idea simply to place them at the state borders. This would eliminate the inconvenience to those who live and work in-state during their commutes and would put the burden of the tolls primarily on those drivers from out of state who use them. Keep in mind that out of state drivers currently pay nothing to use these roads. That money comes exclusively out of our pockets. Given that much of the out of state users are trucks, it is likely that the trucks themselves are more responsible for the wear and tear on the roads and bridges given their enormous size compared to regular vehicles.
The toll gates could either be placed exclusively at the state borders or, in addition those locations, a few spots near key interchanges with other interstates. That would be it. The system would not be obtrusive in construction or administration and would bring in a lot more revenue from outside of the state to pay for the roads. Right now we don't receive any.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Public Transportation
Pennsylvania is once again facing a budgetary crisis over state financing of its various transportation systems, all of which to one degree or another are publicly financed. The only independently financed public mode of transportation is the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is funded exclusively from highway tolls.
Everything else from highways, buses, trains, trolleys, to the few remaining form of water transportation are funded to one degree or another by the state government. I will need to get a breakdown of final numbers on this to see how much goes to each, but the numbers are substantial no matter what they happen to be.
What is interesting to me is how many people hate the idea of public money going to what are generally called "public transportation" such as buses and trains. These are generally run by governmentally appointed authorities. They all lose money and the usual accusation by the opponents of public transportation is that they are run by corrupt or incompetent people. My own suspicion is that these entities would lose money no matter what even if they were in private hands, but it would be difficult to undertake such a study since there are no privately run inner-city bus companies or private passenger rail companies left in the U.S.
The ones that did originally exist went out of business for various reasons, primarily because they were losing money. This was primarily because cars became very affordable to the average American and people preferred to spend their money for the convenience that a car provided rather than use public transportation. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories out there about how Detroit, Congress, local government, lawyers, and the courts worked to undermine privately owned public transportation, but in all likelihood it would have survived if were economically profitable for those companies to remain. My own very brief research into our local trolley company shows that it was losing money even as it was expanding and eventually went under because of competing private bus services.
This brings me to my next point. The role of roads in transportation and the role of government in the creation and maintenance of those roads (and especially bridges) have always been a tricky subject. Everybody wants and needs roads, but there is always a question of who is going to pay for them. Originally roads were needed for moving soldiers and moving merchant items (who knows which came first). In our modern era though, roads are now for travel and leisure. This was not the case, of course, until the invention of the automobile. Prior to that time, travel for pleasure was restricted to the extremely wealthy due to the amount of time involved, and most travel was done by rail and sea since those were much faster than horse powered transportation.
As I stated yesterday, people tend to arrive at their conclusions first and then find the rationalization after the fact. People also tend to support government spending for X if they use X and oppose government spending for X if they do not use it. X is either an essential function of government or a waste of taxpayers' money depending on whether or not someone uses it. So, of course, I am always taken back a bit by people who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" or believers in the "free market" who think that interstate highways are an essential function of government that should be subsidized by all taxpayers, including those who do not use them. As an aside, the Commonwealth Foundation, a proponent of the free market it everything else in Pennsylvania is curiously silent on the idea of applying these principles to our highway systems.
There are several arguments put forth to explain why this is so important, but the question really is, if you believe in the value of the free market as an item of faith in all other matters (based either on principle or positive results in other areas), why not in this area? I will explore the arguments against the various proposals to incorporate elements of the free market into interstate roads later, but at this point, I would just like to explore some of the different ways the free market impulse can be incorporated into the interstate highway system and why this approach should be taken.
The first method is to use toll booths that are used to fund the entity that maintains the roads. There are, of course, different ways to set up toll booth systems, but at its core, the idea of using toll booths is to make the people who use the highways pay for them. If a person chooses to use the highway, the person pays for it. If the person does not use it, they don't pay for it. This is a simple point, but the entire point behind the free market system. People are given 100% control over how their money is spent.
The second method is to make the entity itself private. While this may be difficult with federal roads, it is certainly possible with the Pennsylvania turnpike.
The third method is to privatize certain aspects of a government-run system on the cost side. This could mean not only how those working on these projects could be hired, but also how permanent employees could be hired. In other words, materials and labor could be run by private companies with governmental oversight.
To repeat, the reason I am exploring this is because of the budget crisis in Pennsylvania over the funding of transportation. Leaving aside the fact that this fight involves the various regional transportation entities, we will just focus on the roads. One article I found this morning mentions that there is an estimated $8 billion worth of repairs need to Pennsylvania roads alone - primarily for bridges. This is in addition to the current shortfall for current road maintenance. We do not have the money for this, so the idea is to find a source of funding.
There has been a strong reaction to placing toll booths on interstate highways for various reasons (as mentioned above), but the fundamental question is why not have those who use the interstate highway system pay for it? The money must come from somewhere, so why not have the users of the system be the ones who pay for it? Otherwise money will have to come from some other source not directly related to the use of the highways. More importantly, if tolls are not used, money can ONLY come from Pennsylvania citizens. The primary advantage of a toll system (whether in public or private hands) is that EVERYONE who uses it pays for it, not just Pennsylvania citizens.
Everything else from highways, buses, trains, trolleys, to the few remaining form of water transportation are funded to one degree or another by the state government. I will need to get a breakdown of final numbers on this to see how much goes to each, but the numbers are substantial no matter what they happen to be.
What is interesting to me is how many people hate the idea of public money going to what are generally called "public transportation" such as buses and trains. These are generally run by governmentally appointed authorities. They all lose money and the usual accusation by the opponents of public transportation is that they are run by corrupt or incompetent people. My own suspicion is that these entities would lose money no matter what even if they were in private hands, but it would be difficult to undertake such a study since there are no privately run inner-city bus companies or private passenger rail companies left in the U.S.
The ones that did originally exist went out of business for various reasons, primarily because they were losing money. This was primarily because cars became very affordable to the average American and people preferred to spend their money for the convenience that a car provided rather than use public transportation. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories out there about how Detroit, Congress, local government, lawyers, and the courts worked to undermine privately owned public transportation, but in all likelihood it would have survived if were economically profitable for those companies to remain. My own very brief research into our local trolley company shows that it was losing money even as it was expanding and eventually went under because of competing private bus services.
This brings me to my next point. The role of roads in transportation and the role of government in the creation and maintenance of those roads (and especially bridges) have always been a tricky subject. Everybody wants and needs roads, but there is always a question of who is going to pay for them. Originally roads were needed for moving soldiers and moving merchant items (who knows which came first). In our modern era though, roads are now for travel and leisure. This was not the case, of course, until the invention of the automobile. Prior to that time, travel for pleasure was restricted to the extremely wealthy due to the amount of time involved, and most travel was done by rail and sea since those were much faster than horse powered transportation.
As I stated yesterday, people tend to arrive at their conclusions first and then find the rationalization after the fact. People also tend to support government spending for X if they use X and oppose government spending for X if they do not use it. X is either an essential function of government or a waste of taxpayers' money depending on whether or not someone uses it. So, of course, I am always taken back a bit by people who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" or believers in the "free market" who think that interstate highways are an essential function of government that should be subsidized by all taxpayers, including those who do not use them. As an aside, the Commonwealth Foundation, a proponent of the free market it everything else in Pennsylvania is curiously silent on the idea of applying these principles to our highway systems.
There are several arguments put forth to explain why this is so important, but the question really is, if you believe in the value of the free market as an item of faith in all other matters (based either on principle or positive results in other areas), why not in this area? I will explore the arguments against the various proposals to incorporate elements of the free market into interstate roads later, but at this point, I would just like to explore some of the different ways the free market impulse can be incorporated into the interstate highway system and why this approach should be taken.
The first method is to use toll booths that are used to fund the entity that maintains the roads. There are, of course, different ways to set up toll booth systems, but at its core, the idea of using toll booths is to make the people who use the highways pay for them. If a person chooses to use the highway, the person pays for it. If the person does not use it, they don't pay for it. This is a simple point, but the entire point behind the free market system. People are given 100% control over how their money is spent.
The second method is to make the entity itself private. While this may be difficult with federal roads, it is certainly possible with the Pennsylvania turnpike.
The third method is to privatize certain aspects of a government-run system on the cost side. This could mean not only how those working on these projects could be hired, but also how permanent employees could be hired. In other words, materials and labor could be run by private companies with governmental oversight.
To repeat, the reason I am exploring this is because of the budget crisis in Pennsylvania over the funding of transportation. Leaving aside the fact that this fight involves the various regional transportation entities, we will just focus on the roads. One article I found this morning mentions that there is an estimated $8 billion worth of repairs need to Pennsylvania roads alone - primarily for bridges. This is in addition to the current shortfall for current road maintenance. We do not have the money for this, so the idea is to find a source of funding.
There has been a strong reaction to placing toll booths on interstate highways for various reasons (as mentioned above), but the fundamental question is why not have those who use the interstate highway system pay for it? The money must come from somewhere, so why not have the users of the system be the ones who pay for it? Otherwise money will have to come from some other source not directly related to the use of the highways. More importantly, if tolls are not used, money can ONLY come from Pennsylvania citizens. The primary advantage of a toll system (whether in public or private hands) is that EVERYONE who uses it pays for it, not just Pennsylvania citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)