Tampa-fication Thru Tea Party Temperance Not Spend-thriftiness

Democrats claiming credit for Tampa's triumphs 

In anticipation of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Salon Magazine (no conservative rag) published a piece entitled: “Tampa: America’s Hot Mess”, which details how a city which the 1988 bestseller “Megatrends” has degenerated into what is derisively called a “Hot Urban Mess”.

Columnist Will Doig uses the empty 40 acres in Tampa which were slated for the aborted $2.4 Billion Sun Rail project in July 2011 as an example of what he considers the short-sighted parsimonious civic spending in Tampa as a foretaste of what is in store for America if Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is elected as President.

The article seems to presume that Hillsborough County’s rejection of the ½ cent sales tax increase scotched the light-rail deal and unwisely condemned them to congestion.  Actually, the transit tax was a 1 cent sales tax increase which failed to get 60% of votes in 2010.

The presumption that light rail would be a transportation panacea is questionable on a cost-benefit analysis.  Mass transit works well in several cities with established urban cores, such as New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C. and Chicago.  But then there is the infamous example of the $200 million Detroit monorail.  Baltimore’s light rail is not touted as a solution to urban congestion.  Presumably, progressives love choo-choo trains because of centralized planning, emulating European examples and employing municipal union employees. Light rail costs lots of money to establish the infrastructure and maintain it.  Perhaps express busses (which could be designed to look like street cars) running in HOV lanes could more efficiently comnbat congestion. But that derails the dream of urban railroads so beloved by progressive politicos.

Doig recounts that when Tampa went on a building spree spurred by real estate and the financial and insurance markets, there were tall glass buildings that were detached from the city itself and did not offer incentives for parks, transit or walkable space.

Perhaps the author is unfamiliar with Joel Garreau’s theory  why businesses were inclined to relocate to an Edge City  in the 1980s instead of urban centers.  The lower cost of office-space, cleaner campuses (without Superfund cleanups) which the companies control, modern infrastructure and municipalities which offered tax incentives for relocating rather than soaking supposed deep pocket companies to “pay their fair share” of taxes and graft.

It is unsurprising that the Salon columnist blames the Tea Party for not submitting to smart growth policies contained in the non-binding United Nations Agenda 21 document (not a treaty).  But without worrying about conspiracies over international Sustainable Development initiatives, the consternation can more easily be explained by the urban, suburban divide.  Democrats love centrality and dense populations, as this requires active government, lots of municipal employees and empowered politicians who bring home the bacon for their constituents.  Suburban sprawl denudes the density which requires the infrastructure and activist progressive politicians.  Of course the urban core of Tampa are Democrats and suburban Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties (St. Petersburg) are conservative strongholds.

Hurricane Isaac may make shuttling the 400 buses slated to transport RNC delegates to the Tampa Bay Times Arena more complicated, but it will be embracing the consequences of Tea Party Temperance on Taxation.  It is the height of hypocrisy for the Democrat Mayor and City Council to claim credit for the Tampa triumph and then backbite the conservative Tea Party types and conservatives

Considering the empty coiffers of many state and local governments due to boondoggles, overstaffing municipal union employees and ridiculously generous pension packages, there may be much more Tampa-fication in America rather than spend thrift states like California and Illinois.

DC Metro: More Fare Thee Well?

P.J. O’Rourke once observed “Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teen-aged boys”.  This demonstrated with the  latest proposal of fare increases for the Washington Area Transportation Authority.  The DC Metro Board has proposed another 5% fare increase to help alleviate budget shortfalls for the system.  This comes on top of the $109 million fare increases from July 2010 that included the dreaded 20 cent surcharge for peak-of-the-peak.

The Metro overloads believe that they will curry favor by lifting the peak of the peak fares, which they deemed a failure.  Instead, the gimmick would be to charge flat rates for Farecards--$6 for rush hour and $4 for other usage.  Alas, the changes would only bring in $66 million in new revenue so local governments would also need to increase their contributions by $53 million.  Hence the taxpayers get stuck once.

But the dirty secret which the Metro Board does not highlight in their proposal is Farecards tend to be a perk of working for the Federal government. So jacking up the rush hour Farecard toll to $6 throws the excess costs on Federal Agencies, which will inevitably be passed along to the nation's taxpayers.  Thanks Uncle Sugar, that means that taxpayers get stung a second time.

These fare increases frankly seem pretty steep, but they might not stink as much if the service was not so sketchy.  In June 2009, there was a fatal Fort Totten rear end train crash which killed eight passengers and one transit worker which was due to 'anemic safety culture'.   The blog "UnsuckDCMetro" chronicles the safety deficiencies in hardware as well as manpower.  Elevators are prone to be out of service.  Trains can be stuck for prolonged periods, occasionally requiring evacuations.

Despite the service shortcomings, the DC Metro has embarked on an $11 billion 23 mile expansion to Dulles International Airport.  Costs to local taxpayers were slated to escalating because the Washington Metro Airport Authority unilaterally decided that the metro station at Dulles should be buried so as not to interfere with the aesthetic of the Eero-Saarinen, which only adds another $330 million and an extra year to the expansion project. Fortunately, the WMAA flip flopped eschewing the burden on local taxpayers.  But this shows the dangers of bureaucrats behaving badly and  unaccountable public entities making uneconomic decisions with the burdens falling on taxpayers.

Raising fares without offering perceived benefits is financially dangerous.  The new Fyra High Speed Rail Service in the Netherlands between Amsterdam-Rotterdam and Breta cost Dutch taxpayers nearly $11 billion.  The Fyra does not offer marketedly better service and costs 20% more so consequentially those trains run 85% empty and run at about a half million dollar a day loss.

Urban planners and green enthusiasts have long touted the virtues of having railroads and subways to ease congestion and lessen the "environmental footprint".  Few of these modes of transport are profitable.  The reality is that most rail systems will be publicly operated boondoggles which enrich municipal union workers at the expense and convenience of the public.

H/T Nate Beeler, Washington Examiner

[This piece originally ran at DCBarroco.US]

DOTty about High Speed Rail

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) rejected $2.4 Billion in Porkulus spending “High Speed” rail line in Central Florida.  There was not strong support from Central Florida citizens for this High Speed Rail project.  Voters in in Tampa and Polk County (FL) rejected a 1 cent sales tax increase dedicated to the “Supertrain”. Moreover, Gov. Scott reasoned that the Orlando metropolitan area (2 million) and the Tampa Metropolitan area (2.7 million) was too small to sustain the high speed rail system.  In addition, it is unlikely that the five scheduled stops in the 84 mile route would allow the train to ever reach “high speed” status.

Gov. Scott claimed that he was trying to protect Florida taxpayers from an estimated $3 Billion in cost overruns. The SunRail deal was structured so that Florida was responsible for half of the high speed rail costs and 20% of commuter rail costs.   Gov. Scott suggested “Rather than investing in a high-risk rail project we should be focusing on improving our ports, rail and highway infrastructure.”

Obama Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood snarkily reacted that since there was an overwhelming demand for the stimulus funds earmarked for high speed rail and states like California ought to send a thank you to Florida for rejecting the funds.  LaHood denied that Florida taxpayers would be on the hook for cost overruns or stillborn project planning costs. This assertion is a stark contrast to the New Jersey paradigm, where the Obama Administration levied a charge back of $350 million to the Garden State when Gov. Chris Cristie (R-NJ) refused to write a blank check for the train to Macy’s.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. John Mica (R-FL 7th) has been conflicted about rail expenditures.  Rep. Mica inveighed that “Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service." Mica also derided the Obama Administration’s push to spend an additional $53 Billion in passenger rail projects under the auspices of the Federal Rail Authority and Amtrak as “This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio.”   But Mica was also disappointed that the SunRail point was scuttled by Gov. Scott, perhaps because a pet project of a Congressional Cardinal was being sacrificed.

Building upon the fact that Orlando attracts 63 million visitors a year, Rep. Mica renewed a call to complete 21 miles of the proposed SunRail route that would connect Orlando’s main airport with the Orlando Convention Center and Disney World. Based on the massive influx of tourists, this cautious first step on the Central Florida HSR route has a chance of not being a modal money pit.

However it is unlikely that the Obama Administration DOT Secretary LaHood will approve the project on its merits because it is not a high speed rail connecting two cities.  The real reason maybe somewhat murkier.  The Obama Administration was poised to point to SunRail during the President’s re-election effort as a validation of the $836 Billion in Stimulus Spending on shovel ready projects, as well as to burnish the 21st Century Infrastructure improvements and as a sop to green voters who want to force Americans out of their evil polluting automobiles. That argument is less auspicious when it is effectively a commuter rail for tourists.

It is probable that financial and power considerations also make Rep. Mica’s modest proposal less palatable to the Feds.  The State (or municipality) only needs to pick up 20% of commuter rail costs.  A commuter rail between MCO and Disney would be under the auspices of the City of Orlando and Orange County (FL), thus bypassing the authority of the Federal Rail Administration or Amtrak, which is a government sponsored enterprise that has long been a financial featherbed for connected Democrat politicos. No wonder why Between-the-Beltway elites are dotty about trains.

Florida is the fourth most populous state and does not receive anywhere near its fair share of federal transportation expenditures compared to its gas tax contributions to Washington.  It is unseemly to have unwanted federal public policy projects from outside of the state foisted on its citizenry who will bare the brunt of the boondoggle.

But local pet projects of politicians also can be undesirable.  In 1987, the Detroit People Mover was completed at the behest of longtime Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young (D-Detroit) for a mere $187 million.  The 2.9 mile route does nothing to alleviate congestion or commuting.  It does attract 2.7 million in ridership, mainly because the $0.50 fares does not include the $3 per ride that the government absorbs.  It was a vanity project to take advantage of Federal transportation dollars.

If the U.S DOT diverts Florida’s transportation earmark from Florida to California, it will have the appearance of rewarding political friends and punishing foes to push an idealistic ambition.  Considering the estimated cost of $45 Billion for the Golden State High Speed Rail project and the possibility that cost overruns will skyrocket the cost to $60 Billion, they can use all of the earmarks that they can get.

H/T: Orlando Sentinel
H/T: Rick Geller

[This piece originally ran at DCBarroco.US]

TRAIN-ing Wheeling and Dealing

During a speech at Philadelphia’s 30th  Street Station, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the Obama Administration plans to spend $53 Billion over the next six years to upgrade and expand inter-city rail networks.  The Transportation Administration hopes that 80% of all Americans will have access to rail travel within 25 years.  These proposals keep Biden’s campaign promise that this would be the most train friendly administration ever.

The Porkulus legislation earmarked $8 billion in seed money to play with passenger trains and the FY 2010 budget included another $2.5 billion to railroad development.  But only $3.5 billion is going towards true high speed rail projects.  Instead The bulk of these funds have been directed to railroad projects in Central Florida and in California in order to have a ribbon cutting early in President Obama’s prospective second term.

Biden’s experience of taking over 7,900 round trips commuting on Amtrak between Capitol Hill and his home in Wilmington, Delaware apparently makes him an expert on railroads. Even though taxpayers take an estimated $50 loss on each Amtrak ticket sold, I doubt that many Americans who can not expense their quotidian commute to their Senatorial office can afford the $195 round trip on Acela or the $90 for the regional passenger service.

Either it is extraordinary forward vision or tunnel vision to keep touting the Supertrain. Amtrak only currently serves 78,000 passengers daily and has cost American taxpayers $35 billion since the government takeover in 1971.

The Orlando to Tampa leg of the Florida High Speed Rail System might be capable of traveling at 168 miles per hour.  But due to the number of stops along the 84 mile route, the “Supertrain” would only beat a car trip on a congested I-4 by a half an hour. This innovation comes at an estimated cost of $2.7 billion, but such government run infrastructure projects inevitably have severe cost overruns.  In two years, the cost estimates for California’s Bullet Trains have risen by a third to $43 billion.  For the High Speed Rail System which the Obama Department of Transportation envisions, it would cost $100 billion.  For true high speed trains, CNN estimates the cost of the system at $500 billion in 2009 dollars.

Train enthusiasts insist that investing in passenger rail improvements will alleviate road congestions.  Reason TV rightly points out that intercity passenger rail does nothing to alleviate rush hour traffic jams. And many of those metropolitan areas already have commuter rail services.  Based on overseas examples, these high speed rail projects are a money pit as only two bullet train projects have ever re-cooperated their infrastructure costs.

Naive observers may wonder why the Obama Administration seems almost as obsessed on trains as the Simpson’s Springfield was smitten with Monorails?  I believe that there is a sincere impetus to improve our nation’s intermodal infrastructure with a bias that a bigger government can do a better job.  But there is certainly some TRAIN-ing (sic) wheeling and dealing.  First off, to quote our National Treasure Joe Biden “[A]s Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”  Union jobs in particular. When these projects receive such massive federal funding, they will be obliged to follow federal rules, which have a strong bias towards hiring union workers.  After the ribbon cutting, who will need to staff the rails? Union workers of course.  Once the systems are operational, they will continue to require massive government subsidies. And unless we risk being paralyzed by a intercity rail strike, it is necessary to appease the rail unions.

There is the notion of political payoff.  When newly elected Governors John Kasich (R-OH) and Scott Walker(R-WI) decided to opt for a political train derailment of this high speed rail folly, the Obama Administration withdrew those allocated transportation funds with prejudice. When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) opted not to proceed with the $9 billion Hudson train tunnel to Macy’s, the Federal government sued to get the planning seed money back.  Is it any coincidence that whenever Republican Governors try to derail the Obama Administration's obsession with trains on behalf of their constituents that these red states are figuratively thrown from the train and they lose the intermodal transportation funds that they richly deserve?

I fully appreciate House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL 7th) cynicism regarding the latest push to spend lots of money on a train folly.  Mica asserted that the Federal Railway Administration should not be giving grants or selecting projects.  Moreover, Mica recognized that Amtrak highjacked 72 of 78 projects, that were mostly costly and many had already been rejected by state agencies.  Mica inveighed that “Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service."  To make a point, Mica analogized this rail proposal as: “This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio.”

Notwithstanding this skepticism of the merits of improving the intercity passenger rail system in intermodal transporation, the expensive earmark makes a mockery of President Obama’s State of the Union show, where he promised that there would be a five year across the board freeze on federal spending.

[This piece originally ran on DCBarroco.US]