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]

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]