Let's Derail Plans for Government-Run Trains

We've heard of the magical high-speed rail proposal, right? Proposition 1A? This is a really bad idea, writ really large. And it's a scam. People need to understand that:

1) This state does not have money to waste. We only dug out of the latest budget impasse with a shift in how early people have to pay their taxes. You can rest assured that next year we will be in the same position, but without that gimmick to use again.

2) BONDS ARE NOT FREE MONEY!!! Man, that is a frustrating point to try and get across. How blind do people have to be to the headlines to understand that leveraging your future on credit is a bad idea? If we don't have ten billion to spend today, we also don't have twenty billion to pay back over the next 30 thirty years, starting next year as a 2/3 billion dollar annual dip into the general fund just for this one bond. Let me restate that: If this passes, there will be 2/3 of a billion dollars added to required state spending starting next year that will not go away for thirty years! Well, at least we're off the hook in thirty years, right? Well, actually, that's about the point at which major rehabilitation and rebuilding costs will kick in...

3) But, nevermind that we can't afford ten billion, because the ten billion isn't even the whole admitted cost of this thing! Even the lowball initial estimate of the project (before we are hooked into this and stuck paying whatever budget overruns occur) is $45 billion. Where do proponents hope to get the other $35 billion? Magic fairies? Well, almost. Back when the dreamland figure was 'only' $25 billion, the idea was that the private companies who will take care of day-to-day operations will pony up $5 billion, which is dubious at this point. Meanwhile, the remaining $10 billion was supposed to come from the federal government. When I say, "supposed to come from", I mean that is the totally unsubstantiated wish of the project backers. The Congress has absolutely not voted to send $10 billion dollars our way. Nor should they. As broke as the California state government is, the fed is even broker. Moreover, we aren't the only ones dreaming of laying our infrastructure finances on the tracks in front of an oncoming train. Similar boondoggles are afoot in other states and the federal government can't fund our bad idea unless they agree to fund every other bad idea, too. To them, our $10 billion plea looks like a $60 or $70 billion dollar commitment to the states that are being sold this high-speed rail bill of goods. And that's before bailing out rail programs from inevitable cost-overruns and the fact that states won't be able to get business partners to pour money into this sewer.

4) So, the unaffordable $10 billion dollar project is really a really unaffordable $45 billion dollar project that would still need another $35 billion in mystery money, right? Not exactly. This project will cost way more than even the $45 billion. With cost overruns that are absolutely typical of these projects, we are looking at about a $65 billion dollar project. Look up the cost overruns in Boston's Big Dig project, which was initially supposed to cost about $6 billion In 2006 dollars) but wound up costing over 14 billion. The 1A project is way bigger than the Big Dig - it would be the biggest construction project ever taken on by any state. That leaves even more room for cost overruns.

That's not a worst case scenario. That's the realistic low number. Period. And, don't count on the federal government or private businesses deciding to flush the extra $50 billion down this toilet. We will pay for it ourselves, with even more bonds, leading to even higher taxes, and politicians whining that businesses and high-income residents are leaving the state because they are such meanies for not sticking around to pick up the tab for every dumb idea that sweeps through the state.

5) The plans don't even specify where to lay the tracks yet. That's right: there isn't even agreement on where this monstrosity should cross over from the Bay Area to the Central Valley. That will affect costs, construction time, ticket prices, transit time, and ridership.

6) The primary business case for this system is already dead. The sales pitch for this plan was that it would replace the LA-SF air traffic by making a Northern California to Southern California trip "commutable" (apologies to math majors). In other words, the trip would be like a long commute, something inconvenient but doable on a frequent basis. One could, in theory, head toward a train station at one end at a reasonable time in the morning, zip to the other end in a couple hours, have a productive day of business meetings and so on, then zip back and get home by dinner. Well, that works if the time wasted ticketing and boarding is just a few minutes and the actual trip is two hours or so, maybe two-and-a-half. But that isn't going to happen. Realistically, the trip will be well over three and a half hours. That's right. The trip is now not commutable and has become the pain-in-the-ass red-eye trip or an overnighter that will keep business travelers in the sky. So much for relieving air traffic at LAX and SFO.

Oh, and the arguments that it will be so convenient - no waiting in flip flops to be X-rayed while TSA pokes through your laptop and checks that you don't have a full-sized water bottle - are utter baloney. There is no way that a high-profile, tens-of-billions-of-dollars rail system, with hundreds of passengers on it, moving at speeds that would make a spectacular crash, will not be a terrorist target. And, there is no way there aren't going to be TSA goons making sure you aren't sneaking any deadly, deadly nail clippers on board. If you think that's not the case, you are living in a dreamland.

BTW, all that extra security at the station will mean nothing, because there will be hundreds of miles of unguardable track. To a terrorist, that still equals a spectacular crash, but without the inconvenient suicide.

7) HSR invites a nightmare of urban planning and government control of private property development. Make no mistake: Every city with a rail station or hopes of getting one will now have an incentive to "plan" private property development so that everything is rail accessible. The state will come up with another "matching fund" gimmick to encourage cities to do just that, complete with a commission to evaluate whether a city's rail access development plan meets the visions of the geniuses in Sacramento. Were you hoping to get permits to put a couple retail stores on a lot you own? "Sorry. Permits are scarce unless you are on the tram route to and from the rail station. Why don't you rent some retail space in the new Rail Mall? Golly, those well-connected guys made a mint developing that empty field and they always seem to be able to get approval for new development!" Does your community need the city to add a couple lanes to the local highway to alleviate traffic snarls? "Sorry. Our resources are focused on redesigning downtown to make it more rail-friendly."

The one advantage of this is that it will serve to highlight the inadequacy of the eminent domain "reform" the planning commissions snuck through this last Spring. If you live in a rail city or a rail-hopeful city, your property rights will be seen just as an obstacle to those trying to design a rail utopia.

8) But, spending all that money that we don't have will create thousands of jobs in California, right? Don't be silly. Even ignoring the interests costs here, the old New Deal hokum that we can borrow ourselves to economic prosperity has been something of a joke among economists outside political circles and it's no different here. The problem is that that borrowed money has to come from somewhere and it comes from investors who would otherwise be lending it to projects with more direct economic value. In other words, that money the state borrows is coming largely from money that would otherwise be available to entrepreneurs and private companies looking to expand their businesses. The state gobbling up that money makes it harder for those businesses to grow.

Meanwhile, the higher taxes needed to pay back the 1A bond loans will necessarily make it less attractive for businesses to locate here in California. I sure hope the people who vote for this understand that when we suffer sluggish growth as businesses and high-income earners look to locate in states that don't punish them as much as we do.

Anyway, that's government-run high-speed rail in short. Kids play with trains. Good for them. The rest of California needs to grow up and stop throwing money it doesn't have at pie-in-the-sky projects that won't fix actual problems.

The fix is in for Sacramento commuters

Well, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has made its transportation plans, and it appears that the fix is in for us hard pressed commuters.

Click here to go directly to the survey.

I should have been paying attention sooner. In any case, the survey continues until Labor Day and it's not too late to register your point of view to The Powers That Be at Regional Transit (RT), for what little that is worth.

Looking at the three choices presented to us, it becomes clear that the luddite goons and ECOmmunistS aren't content to stop road improvements, they want to saddle us with trolleys. And they have the ears of whoever runs RT. These trolleys have incredibly high fixed costs, so they are more expensive than simply increasing bus service in the areas where they are to be placed. They do not have exclusive rights of way and will only take space away from buses and cars, and thus congest streets further. But hey, for the ECOmradeS, that's the idea, isn't it?

But let us look over the three options:

Option A: Probably the least objectionable and most realistic. Double tracking on the Blue Line bottlenecks from downtown to Watt and I-80 would certainly help, as would an extension to Cosumnes River College (assuming the flyover ramps and exclusive right of way option at the RT website).

However, a light rail Stub to Richards Boulevard? Gee, how about a vehicle bridge between Truxel and 7th/8th streets that buses and even cars (gasp!) could go on? I know, cars are evil and we must all ride unicycles... never mind that people will use their cars anyway from Natomas to Downtown and turn I-5 from Natomas to Downtown into a permanently congested mess. Already RT runs bus lines between Natomas and Downtown that could easily be routed to serve the new Railyards urban renewal area if there was just a BRIDGE across the American River at Truxel.

Option B: The Trolley Wanking begins here. Not everything about this option is awful: The Gold Line to Folsom could use a good double tracking. However, couldn't they just do the Gold line double tracking with the money they intend to waste on the Richards Boulevard stub in Option A?

Trolley systems for downtown / West Sac and Rancho Cordova? As if expanded Neighborhood Ride shuttles couldn't achieve the same ridership at a fraction of the cost? What crack are they smoking?

But that's not the worst of it. Just think about where these trolley lines will go. That's right, at street level, taking away badly needed road space. It would be one thing if a new trolley line to West Sac was built as an extension of the existing RT line at R Street (where a railroad overpass already exists over I-5), and then on a *new* bridge over the Sacramento River from there. But will that happen? Noooooo. Instead that new trolley will putt-putt-butt-plug its way across the Tower Bridge, taking away already strained road space. Ditto for whatever they want to build in "Raunchy Cadaver".

Moreover, will an airport rail line really outdo Yolobus to the airport in terms of service? At least in this option they are beginning to think of a New Bridge at Truxel, which is a must. But I suspect that once again the new RT line will not be elevated and will putter its way at street level. In general, LRT at street level just is more congestion--if you are going to expand the Rail system at all, give it grade separation and it's own right of way.

Option C: Now this option just has to be a masturbatory fantasy of trolley fetishists. Gold Line towards El Dorado County? On an old railroad line that was used by loggers and meanders its way to Placerville? And yet more pathetic trolleys that poke along on street level, taking away badly needed lanes on Arden, Fair Oaks, Howe and J Streets! Once more: If you are going to build rail lines at all, build them with exclusive rights of way and grade separation.

So what are we to do?

1. *Don't* renew the Measure A half-cent sales tax. In the absence of ironclad language that says the revenue will go to real road improvements, all the money will only go to trolley fetishists.

2. *Don't* approve any additional tax, unless the initiative somehow has ironclad language that says the revenue will go to real road improvements. (Given shifty judges and shysters, I'd even be a bit skeptical here)

"Traffic Calming": The Butt-Plug Mentality

Katy Grimes, in the Sacramento Union, points out the deceit of "Traffic Calming" schemes, which are choking off a downtown Sacramento that is finally revitalizing.

At least some of the denizens of Midtown Sacramento and the Land Park areas, those who brought us the farce of "traffic calming", have a "butt-plug" mentality; they enjoy constipating the traffic flow for those who need to commute in or through the area. Many of them are Luddites who want us to ride unicycles whereever we go. (OK, bicycles, but anyone carrying groceries and children knows this to be unrealistic.)

No, I really don't care what people do in their private lives, but the metaphor is really appropriate when you think of the demographics of the "rainbow sector".

What to do? Give these neighborhoods a Traffic Enema; perhaps perhaps many Midtowners could appreciate that metaphor.

Here's how:

1. Reopen E and F, G and H, and S and T streets to one way traffic, signals timed appropriately. I have an old city map from 1964 which shows those streets as one ways east-west.

2. Reestablish 19th and 21st streets as one way all the way up to E and F streets, and all the way down through Land Park.

Now in the old days, 19th and 21st, E and F, G and H, and S and T Streets had three lanes going one way. I would do this differently. I would have two wider and safer one way lanes, with bike lanes on each side, the way P and Q streets currently are.

Perhaps 15th and 16th and J and L Streets could get the same "fewer but wider and safer lanes" treatment.

Note to drivers: this is NOT just a sop to bicyclists; bike lanes allow for easier parallel parking maneuvers and wider and safer, albeit fewer, remaining lanes.

The "Mexico City Solution" to traffic, using paint to make more lanes that are VERY narrow, just does NOT work, as anyone from that hell hole can tell you.

Why force Midtown open? Because "traffic calming" is EVIL, that's why!

The term "traffic calming" is simply an attempt to put a favorable "spin" on tactics used to ruin traffic flow (that is, obstruct, divert and slow traffic). Proponents of these tactics are usually persons who live along urban streets in areas known as "mixed neighborhoods" who object to motor vehicle traffic passing by their homes.

Although proponents usually couch their complaints in terms like "speeders" and "reckless drivers," the true irritant for "traffic calming" advocates is "heavy" traffic. Their desired objective is to divert traffic to other streets outside their neighborhood. The devices employed to accomplish this diversion of traffic include:
--inappropriate stop signs --speed humps and bumps
--cement "plugs" blocking streets (metaphoric "butt plugs" if you will)
--lane narrowing and vehicle turning obstructions, and
--absurdly low speed limits.

Only traffic lights (properly timed) are justifiable (for example at pedestrian crossings and busy intersections), the rest are simply hazards.

Increased traffic on residential streets is often caused by misguided and ill-informed management of the main arterials and collector streets. These streets are designed to carry most of the traffic, keeping it off of residential streets.

Misguided proponents of "traffic calming" always fail to realize that the reason they are seeing more traffic on their residential streets is because the same tactics have already been applied to main arterials and collector streets. These include improper installation of stop signs, mistimed traffic signals, and under-posted speed limits on the major arterials that have no relation to actual vehicle speeds. In Midtown, major arterials were actually REMOVED in an utterly perverted attempt to "calm" traffic, such as smoothly flowing one-way streets that were blocked off or were turned into two-way traffic jams. Throw in construction and congestion, and it is no surprise that residential streets are experiencing increased commuter traffic.

The solution to this problem is not to further obstruct traffic flow by pushing the problem into someone else's neighborhood. The real solutions are:

1. To upgrade and improve the traffic handling capabilities of main thoroughfares. This means implementing physical improvements, as well as raising speed limits (major boulevards only) and synchronizing traffic controls to accommodate actual vehicle speeds. If main streets provide convenient access between home, work and shopping destinations, motorists will use them, and stop taking alternate routes through residential neighborhoods.

2. To reconsider land use away from "mixed neighborhoods" in the affected area. Although it has become vogue to have "mixed neighborhoods" (residential, commercial and light industrial closely juxtaposed) in cities, the downside of mixed neighborhoods is very clear: People from outside the neighborhood will come into the neighborhood for the workplace, commercial interest, or recreational interest, and they will drive there to do so. Even if there is an efficient bus system and lack of parking in the neighborhood to discourage driving, that bus system in itself means heavy traffic! There would be a lot less traffic in a neighborhood if it was only residential.

3. Frankly, one real solution is for people in affected mixed neighborhood areas to GET OVER IT. The price of living in an area "where the action is" (an area within walking distance to lots of cafes, "night life", nifty boutiques, and office space) is to have increased traffic. That's simply a fact of life.

Midtown is located between downtown Sacramento and the Cal State University area, and contains many office workspaces, night clubs, cafes open late hours, historical landmarks like Sutter's Fort, two major hospitals, and an industrial park located on a former cannery site. All of which will bring in traffic into and through the area.

The "butt-plugs" who lobbied for these traffic hazards live in Midtown. Middle-of-town. Get it? If they wanted nice quiet neighborhoods, they should go live out in more residential neighborhoods without the commercial and office space nearby.

4. To construct bypasses when possible.

COMBATING TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTION INITIATIVES IN YOUR COMMUNITY

1. Know Your Enemy

Traffic obstruction advocates are local residents, usually few in number, who have decided to rid their street of unwanted traffic. They may use a collection of "politically correct" (sic) excuses about the evils of cars, but usually they are saner and they espouse a safety concern or the "it's for the children" argument. However, their overriding concern is most often "heavy traffic." Because they are local residents, they can attend public meetings and harangue elected officials, unlike motorists who simply pass through a community. The debate is usually one sided and the local officials eventually cave in to the demands for traffic obstruction installations. From their perspective, it's the easiest thing to do.

2. Know Your Advantages

If you also live in the community and you can attend public meetings, your influence will be equal to or greater than your opponents'. Your presence puts elected officials on notice that they can't eliminate the source of their aggravation by appeasing the other side. Now they have to contend with you, your allies, and your arguments.

3. Know Your Allies

Along with other residents in your neighborhood who do not relish more irritation in their daily travels, there are other sources of support to oppose traffic obstruction projects.

Devices that physically impede vehicle speeds hinder emergency response services such as the police, EMTs, and fire trucks. These same devices create problems for public works departments, road maintenance crews, and delivery services. Indeed, I wouldn't want to be an elderly person in an area affected by "traffic calming". If you have "fallen and you can't get up", Life-Alert won't help the paramedics in their attempt to dodge all the asinine traffic barriers.

Traffic engineers are often stymied in their attempts to stop the improper use of traffic control devices, like stop signs, because they have no support from the citizenry. They only hear demands from "squeaky wheels" who want a barrier on every corner to slow down traffic, or even block it entirely. If nobody is coming out in opposition to traffic obstruction, these engineers are less likely to fight the very council that determines their promotions and raises. They may be thrilled to find that there are people in the citizenry who understand that traffic obstruction goes against the general body of traffic engineering knowledge.

Representatives from such factions, combined with a few local residents, can provide formidable opposition to traffic obstruction projects. Also, you may find elected officials who oppose traffic obstruction projects.

4. Finding And Gathering Support

Approach the editors or reporters and let them know that you are forming a citizen's group to oppose traffic obstruction projects. With a little encouragement, the paper may do a story about your efforts. This is a tremendous opportunity to explain why you think traffic obstruction tactics are harmful to your community. Including your email address and telephone number will make it possible for potential supporters to contact you. If it is not possible to arrange for this kind of article, a letter to the editor can serve the same purpose. Do not be discouraged by a small response. If you are starting this fight alone, even one more person on your side will double your capabilities. Personal visits to the police and fire chief, public works superintendent, and the city traffic engineer may encourage them to work with you or suggest other supporters. Do not overlook local car clubs, businesses on affected streets, neighbors, and like-minded friends.

Of course, this all depends upon the local paper. If they are dominated by the sort of interests who want everyone to live in hives and ride unicycles wherever they go or other such Luddites, you won't get a fair hearing. But give it a try anyway.

5. Arguments Against Traffic Obstruction Devices

Traffic obstruction devices:

A. Can increase response time for emergency vehicles. When seconds matter, having to slow to pass over speed bumps and humps or navigate narrow roadways can mean the difference between life and death, or the loss of one's home. The fact that some of these devices can seriously damage emergency vehicles and other vehicles along the roadway is also a concern.

B. Can increase congestion on other streets and create problems in other neighborhoods. If traffic obstruction devices divert traffic to other streets, they may compound congestion problems that already exist in those areas. If not successful in diverting traffic to other streets, traffic obstruction devices will compound congestion problems on the streets on which they are installed.

C. Will increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise. Braking and accelerating in response to speed bumps, speed humps, stop signs, and traffic signals increases fuel consumption and emissions. This can contradict other efforts to reduce emissions and contribute to a community becoming or remaining a "non-attainment" air quality zone, thereby being subjected to federal mandates and restrictions. (Of course, one suspects that for the Luddites, that's precisely the idea!)

D. Can increase street maintenance costs. Speed bumps and humps impede tree pruning and leaf cleaning equipment, a serious concern in older neighborhoods. Removable devices may soon be available, although they will require additional labor to install and remove them. Municipalities must maintain and repair stop signs and traffic signals, at taxpayer expense, of course. Barriers that impede leaf removal (already a BIG problem in Sacramento proper) are that much worse.

E. Increase a community's liability for accidents attributed to such devices.

F. May cause physical discomfort, even pain, for disabled persons or persons with physical ailments. Being jolted or jostled by speed bumps and humps can be painful for persons with injuries or painful illnesses.

G. Create neighborhood friction. Road rage is a growing phenomenon, and the "traffic calming" mentality has much to do with it. Frequently, the response to unnecessary stop signs is to angrily ignore them. One suspects that the growing popularity of jacked-up pickup trucks and very large sport-utility vehicles in Sacramento has a lot to do with the fact that they can drive over speed bumps and turn the corner on those "corner chokers."

Not all persons (not even most persons) on a given street will appreciate having to run an obstacle course every time they drive to or from home or their kids' school. Some traffic obstruction opponents blow their horns or yell verbal insults when having to slow or stop for speed bumps or humps. (Personally, I liked to blow my horn loud and long whenever client business took me to the Midtown Sacramento area with such asinine devices installed. When asked why I am doing so, I always reply, "for safety, because of the children, don't you know...")

6. Presenting Your Arguments

Again, use the local newspaper to broadcast your reasons for objecting to supposed "traffic calming" projects. A letter to the editor will again substitute for an actual article. Letters from multiple supporters (of your position) will add momentum to your efforts. Remember, local officials read "letters to the editor" to gauge local opinion.

Personal visits to local elected officials will put a human face on your arguments and will add credence to the degree of your sincerity. It also puts them on notice that you are not going to go away if they decide to ignore your concerns. Encourage your supporters to make similar visits and to regularly talk with their local elected officials.

Always arrange for someone to attend public meetings where "traffic calming" projects are likely to be discussed. If public notices do not list the topics to be discussed, your friends in the public works department, or an advocate on the council or board, can probably keep you on top of the issue, should it be a topic of discussion.

7. Solving The Problem

The mere presence of organized opposition will often stop the advance of traffic obstruction projects. However, heavy traffic in residential neighborhoods will continue, as will the agitation to reduce this traffic. If the problem is not corrected, your victory will be temporary.

A strategy that encourages traffic to move to major streets only will have the greatest effect on reducing through traffic on residential streets. Raising speed limits (on major boulevards only), synchronizing traffic lights, removing four-way stop signs, and improving access to roadside businesses will bring traffic back to the main arterials, where it belongs. You can present this as a "win-win" solution.

If you offer positive alternate courses of action, your municipality cannot argue that it has no choice but to install traffic obstruction devices. You will have proven that these devices do not solve the problems of traffic congestion. You will have shown that they create new and more serious problems for city departments, emergency services, and the general motoring public. You will have offered suggestions that will reduce traffic in all residential neighborhoods, not just the ones slated for traffic obstruction devices. Finally, you will have offered suggestions for improving traffic flow on the city's main thoroughfares.

Here's a great leaflet for people in neighborhoods considering "traffic calming" measures. Tailor it for your situation:

THINKING OF SIGNING THAT SPEED HUMP PETITION?

Here are some questions we thought you'd want the answers to. You may want to reconsider signing!

Fire at your house? Well, the fire truck will eventually arrive after it makes a complete stop at each hump. Time lost at each hump will be about 15-30 seconds. Sit tight, help will arrive - later.

Relative having a heart attack? The ambulance will be there - later.

Does your youngster have skates, a skateboard or a bicycle? Speed humps attract children into the street and into traffic. It's fun to jump those humps! The ambulance will be there - later!

Has leaf removal or storm drain gutters backing up been a problem? If it hasn't, it probably will be.

Is your house attractive? How will it look with two of those 2 1/2-feet-square "Speed Hump - 20 mph" signs (the color of this page) out in front? And those foot-wide zebra stripes on the hump? Lovely! Or maybe they won't be in front of YOUR house. Do you feel lucky?

What do you think will happen to the suspension and exhaust systems on your nice car at normal, legal speeds when you cross those humps at least twice a day? Ouch! It's hard on the brakes, too. And what about your wallet? Ouch!

Some vehicles, like delivery trucks and maybe your own small car, almost have to stop at speed humps. What happens when vehicles unexpectedly stop in traffic? Back to the repair shop!

Are speed humps good for the environment? No, the unnecessary slowing and accelerating they cause results in wasted fuel and increased air pollution.

Humps can cause noise pollution, too, because some drivers who aren't happy with them will lean on the horn button.

Any way you look at them, humps are a major nuisance, and drivers may indeed avoid them so that traffic increases on neighboring streets. In any case, even if you're the only one left driving on your street, you'll have the pleasure of bounding over those humps every day, again and again and again....

Next to last question: Who's paying the bill for installing or removing the humps? (Hint: It's not the city.) You are! Ouch!

Have you thought about signing that petition? We hope you'll reconsider.

How San Jose (and the Bay Area) became unaffordable

A fascinating Cato Institute study on how anti-growth and rail transit policies are screwing over San Jose and leading to the very L.A.-style sprawl that advocates of such policies claim to oppose.

"Free" MUNI Buses and Rail Cars In San Francisco?

At first, I was disgusted when I heard that Mayor Newsom was proposing this. This "free" service will cost the taxpayers of California (which in many ways pay for the policies of this "freestyle" community) with our tax dollars. Taxpayers are already paying 78% of the cost of this bus system.

But then again....although San Fransicko politicos are usually the commiest of commies and the craziest of crazies, here they may have a point. We are ALREADY paying through the nose for their transit system as it is.

Given that transit systems’ farebox recovery rates in most cities are less than 20% (perhaps less than 15%?) as it is, perhaps we should have free mass transit, or at least reduce fares to a nominal "keep the winos and loiterers out" fee. At last we might get more ridership out of them that way. And in effect we are ALREADY almost entirely paying for these systems whether or not we ride them.

Above all, we would end the charade that somehow the farebox is paying for anything substantial at all.

The only exception to this I can think of is the SF cable cars, which are probably raising revenues above their operating costs because of the tourist novelty factor. SF MUNI as a whole, however, is still nearly entirely paid for by we taxpayers as it is, and given state and federal monies going to San Fransicko, that’s true whether or not you live in Sodom City West.

What difference would a free MUNI really make to our taxpaying pocketbooks? Not a noticeable one. I’d rather pay for free MUNI than for in-state tuition for illegal aliens, that’s for sure. Perhaps we could drive a hard bargain with some of these city mayors and county supes.

Let’s all just ADMIT the dirty little secret: that people support (that is, people pay lip service to) mass transit because they think "the other guy will ride it" and have the roads that much less congested for them to drive on.

Of course, if there was sanity, we would get back to building real road improvements, like our massive California gasoline taxes (among the highest in the nation) were intended.

Alas, our gasoline taxes have been raided for useless and impractical and slow "mass transit" rail schemes, built as downtown beautifiers rather than people movers. And that’s in a "good" year, when we are lucky. In other years, our gasoline taxes get raided for debt service or for entitlements and boondoggles unrelated to transportation!

Tom McClintock on Congestion

The Last Honest Politician, or hopefully the first of their return, explains just how California road infrastructure got the way it is.

This was a speech Mr. McClintock made to the California Asphalt and Pavement Association on January 24, 2002. It's too bad this guy didn't become Governor, although there is a good chance he can become Lieutenant Governor this November. As for Ah-nold, despite his initiative setbacks, his only serious challenger is Phil Angelides at this point.

Thank you for your invitation to discuss the transportation crisis in California. The thing that makes it so fascinating to me is how simple the problem is to correct, and how monumentally stupid has been our policy to deal with it during the past 30 years.

Throughout the first three-quarters of the 20th Century, policymakers understood the simplicity, the efficiency and the necessity of the individualized transportation system made possible by the automobile.

In 1958, they adopted the most visionary infrastructure plan in California’s history that proposed a highway system to link all of the population, commercial and resource centers of the state with this remarkably efficient system – and to do so from existing gasoline tax dollars. This highway system was on schedule for completion in the 1980’s, until a single climacteric changed everything: the election of Gov. Jerry Brown and his “era-of-limits” “small-is-beautiful” “don’t build things and people won’t come” new-age nonsense.

We walked away from our highway program, literally abandoning projects in mid-construction. In this region, they canceled the Whitnall Freeway – which was to be the third east-west freeway through the middle of the San Fernando Valley. We already owned the land for that freeway – all that remained was to grade and pave. They canceled the Reseda Freeway, the third north/south freeway for the San Fernando Valley. They canceled the Pacific Coast Freeway from Oxnard to Long Beach in mid-construction. They canceled the 118 freeway from Oxnard to San Fernando in mid-construction. They canceled the Fillmore freeway in mid-construction. They canceled the Long Beach Freeway in mid-construction. It wasn’t for lack of funds – it was because of a retrograde ideology that held that the automobile is the root of all evil.

McClintock is just talking about LA County, but we all know what happened to Routes 65, 143, 148, 244, and 256 in this area.

And through two Democratic and two Republican administrations, this basic agenda has not been challenged. Since 1974, the miles driven by Californians have increased 116 percent, while lane mileage has increased just 8 percent.

According to one of Jerry Brown’s deputies, Adrianna Gianturco: “We are prepared to endure considerable outcry in order to pry John Q. Public out of his car."

This policy has reached a new level with the election of Jerry Brown’s chief of staff, Gray Davis. Last summer, scant attention was paid when Davis announced that “California’s era of freeway construction is over.” I suggest to you that this statement ranks with “Let them eat cake,” and “Apres nous, le deluge” for sheer irresponsibility and lunacy in public policy.

Well, we stopped building freeways, the people came anyway, and they’re still in their cars.

I am here to state what is politically incorrect in bureaucratic circles, but what is self-evident to virtually every motorist on the road today. California policy makers have conducted a 30-year hate affair with the automobile, to the detriment of our economy, our safety, our environment, and our quality of life. And it is time – it is long past time – that Californians kicked them out of office and demanded the highways that we have paid for.

During those 30 years, we have heard the derisive and condescending comments about “Californians’ love affair with their cars.” California’s highway system was not due to an irrational love affair with a machine. It was the simple fact that the individualized transportation made possible by the automobile offers advantages that no mass-transit system could ever begin to duplicate: high-speed, low-cost, doorstep-to-doorstep, 24-hour a day on call service in safety, convenience and comfort, offering infinite flexibility in travel schedules and routes. It was this efficient, adaptable system that made 20th Century commerce possible – and it is the foundation upon which our ability to socially and commercially interact now rests.

But it is not popular with big government. Highly decentralized systems that respond to individual needs are anathema to the manipulative whims of government. Government likes centralized, command-and-control structures that can be dominated politically. Those who have lectured Californians that they have become too dependent on the automobile would rather make them dependent on government-managed mass transit.

So today, the finest highway system in the world is a shambles. It has not been merely neglected. An ideological war has been waged against it. I am here to suggest that it’s time that war was joined, and that the ideologues that have destroyed our transportation system be challenged by common sense.

Our plight is not for lack of money. California motorists bear the third heaviest taxes per vehicle and on gasoline in the country, and yet we rank dead last in our per capita spending for our highways.

In 1990, they doubled the excise tax on gasoline – and promised that money would be used for road construction. In the decade that followed, the miles driven by Californians increased another 30 percent, our lane mileage increased just ONE percent.

The Left likes to argue that government subsidizes the car. The truth is exactly the opposite. The car once paid for all highway construction. Now it is used to subsidize every aspect of the welfare state – except for a decent road system.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, virtually the entire California freeway system was constructed from the taxes – lower taxes, I might add – paid by the motorists who used the freeways. Since the 1970’s, there has been virtually no new freeway construction. We are carrying 30 years more volume – 116 percent more usage --- on the same road system built by our grandfathers – and paying higher taxes to boot.

The politically correct transportation system is, of course, mass transit. The only problem is that the masses don’t use it. And there’s a reason. It is inconvenient, it is enormously time-consuming, and most of all, if it wasn't heavily subsidized, it would be cost prohibitive.

Take a look at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority for example. Last year, the MTA consumed $2.7 billion: $5,900 annually for every passenger it carried. Last year, they had a 32-day strike. There was no appreciable increase in traffic congestion. There was actually a decrease in air pollution. Even the MTA admitted that 90 percent of its passengers had alternative means of transportation. And for the 45,000 truly transit dependent people in Los Angeles, a low-cost jitney service immediately materialized on every street corner until LA City government aggressively shut it down.

Now, consider this. Shifting just the MTA’s mass transit subsidy funds to road construction – even at Century Freeway prices – would mean four new lanes on the San Diego Freeway from the Ventura Freeway to the Century Freeway in the first year of savings alone. The next three years could do the same on the Hollywood Freeway from the Ventura to the 605 and on the Santa Monica from the Pacific coast to the 605. Within ten years, 170 miles of congested freeway routes in the Los Angeles area could have four lanes of angioplasty done, using the most conservative possible figures, for the MTA’s net operating costs for mass transit.

For the cost of the 79-mile long Los Angeles Metro-rail, we could have added 618 miles of new freeway lanes to the Los Angeles Freeway system – at Century freeway prices.

Let me ask for a show of hands. How many of you rode on the MTA in Los Angeles last year? How many of you rode on a Los Angeles Freeway last year? Any questions?

A few years ago, I attended a “transit summit,” composed of several hundred mass transit advocates throughout the region. There was a bus stop right outside the hotel. I asked these transit officials and lobbyists how many had come by bus. Of roughly 300 in attendance, three hands were raised. More recently, the director of Rideshare for Los Angeles was asked if she carpooled. She said “No,” it seems her schedule was just too unpredictable. Well, welcome to the world.

Four years ago, the San Fernando Valley Industry and Commerce Association conducted a survey of commuter preferences. According to the poll, a vast majority of area commuters want transit service that requires no more than a ten minute wait, stops no more than once on the way home, takes no more than thirty minutes in transit, and charges no more than 75-cents. For a Southern California mass transit system, such demands are impossible. Fortunately, what the public is describing is something they already have: the convenience, versatility and economy of the politically incorrect automobile.

But we don’t have that system any more because the taxes that once paid for all of our roads now have been diverted to pay for everything except our roads, and specifically to mass transit systems that are wildly unrealistic, hugely inconvenient, and enormously expensive.

There is method in their madness. County Supervisor Roger Niello of Sacramento, a strong advocate for highway construction, told me of his experience at one of these “mass transit summits.” There, the speaker said to the approval of the audience, “Remember, gridlock is our friend.” If you make the highways impassable, if you make life miserable enough for the single motorist, then people will have no choice but to take mass transit, with all its inconveniences and inefficiencies.

As boring and as politically incorrect as the road system is, it is the most efficient, most economical, safest, and most environmentally friendly transportation system we have. And if that statement surprises you, it is because of a massive mis-information campaign to which the mass transit lobby has subjected us for a generation.

I have already talked about the economies. The efficiency of doorstep to doorstep service should be obvious to all.

The safety figures are there for the asking. Private automobile traffic has a lower injury and mortality rate (per mile traveled) than the public mass transit systems in operation today.

But let me also mention the environment, which is the most prevalent excuse we have for California’s 30-year hate affair with the car.

Gridlocked automobiles create twice the NOx contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per mile as those operating at peak efficiency. Think about that. Bringing California’s highways back to capacity would be the environmental equivalent of removing half the automobiles from the roads during rush hours for nitrogen oxide and removing five cars out of six for carbon monoxide.

And let me ask you this: does even the most wild-eyed environmentalist ever suggest that these mass transit systems will remove half of the cars from the roads?

Instead of doing the obvious, the big government crowd is suggesting everything but. We are told that we need to expand bus systems, add more light rail, telecommute, offer flex-time schedules, more HOV lanes, and on and on.

We’re told, “If you build more lanes, in ten years they’ll be as crowded as ever.” Listen to the logic of this statement: “Don’t build more lanes, people will just use them.” Instead, they have squandered billions of dollars on transportation systems people don’t use.

We’re told, “We can’t build our way out of these problems.” Well, how would you know, we haven’t tried in 30 years. When we kept pace with our needs, congestion was limited to a brief period at the height of rush hour. Now look at us.

We’re told, “Freeways will create suburban sprawl.” Well, there’s a reason for that that has nothing to do with freeways. People don’t like living in dense urban cores. It seems they like to have a yard for their kids to play in. And that’s why they are willing to endure endless traffic delays to provide that room for their kids. We can either recognize that and accommodate their needs, or refuse to recognize it and ruin of our standard of living and our quality of life.

I would add one caveat to McClintock's statement here: There are oh-so-many incidents where developers WANTED to build denser in a given area, but were stymied by growth controls imposed by residents frustrated by gridlock, caused by road construction not keeping pace in the first place. So communities imposed growth controls, and developers just took their projects a few miles up or down the road. The "sprawl" was in effect CAUSED by a lack of road capacity in the first place.

It is one of the ironies of human nature that the more we invest in our mistakes, the less inclined we are to admit them.

So let me offer these politically incorrect suggestions:

First, restore highway revenues for highways. I first proposed dedicating our sales taxes on gasoline for our highways three years ago. Today, a similar measure is before us as Proposition 42, and it is a start.

Second, let’s ask that MTA and all the other mass transit systems pay for themselves through their own fareboxes, just as we expect highway users to pay for their highways through their gas taxes.

Third, fire the social engineers at CalTrans, update the blueprints for the highway system that our parents and grandparents drafted, and that we were supposed to have in place by now. And then, where it is still economically possible to do so, re-purchase the land and get to work.

This prescription raises a very important practical question: “How?” How do we change the thinking that has dominated transportation policy in this state for nearly 30 years?

I don’t have an easy answer to that question. I only have a hard answer to it. We have to change public opinion. We have to confront the mass transit lobby. We have to remove from office an entire generation of Luddites who have an utterly irrational abhorrence for the automobile and a blind faith in 30 years of failed transportation policy.

And that ain’t easy. Changing governing agendas is never easy.

But every now and then, change does occur – once the necessity for it overcomes our natural resistance to it.

But here’s the tough part – it takes years – sometimes decades of setbacks and disappointments and defeats and routs. It means going out every day into that marketplace of ideas and selling a position that a majority initially opposes.

But the good news is, the facts are not subtle. This is not a close call. But the facts have to be out there for the people to consider, and that is where we have utterly failed. And as we educate – as we agitate – as we bang our heads against a brick wall – public opinion will start to stir – glacially at first – imperceptibly at first – then very slowly, then slowly, and then quite suddenly the folly of decades gives way in a climacteric.

The good news is that the public will exercise solid judgment once they are in possession of all the facts. The problem is, all they currently hear is the propaganda of the mass transit lobby.

Change will not originate from within the Capitol building. In order for change to occur inside a Capitol, it must first change outside.

So I must ask you, and your companies, and your organizations, and your clients, What are you prepared to do?

Are you prepared to educate every Californian that in the decade since our road taxes doubled and our driving increased 30 percent, our highways have increased just one percent? Are you prepared to confront the MTA and its clones over the misuse of our highway money? Are you prepared to undertake a steady campaign until every voter is as aware as each of us in this room of the condition of our highway system and how we got there?

Because until you are prepared to do so – things are not going to change. And once you do – it might be years before we see results. And that is not an easy answer. It is a hard and expensive and uncertain answer. But it’s the truth and it is time we learned the truth – and acted on it.

What I can promise is that I will continue to press on these issues at every opportunity. And every voice that is raised will bring us closer to the day when all Californians can again enjoy high-speed transportation that is perfectly individualized to meet their precise needs -- that picks them up at their doorsteps and whisks them to their destinations in safety and comfort – whenever they need to go, wherever they need to go.

In short, what we once had, what we foolishly threw away, and what we must restore for our children and grandchildren: the finest highway system the world had known.

Ben Stein: Oil Company Profits ARE GOOD!

The Nation's Pulse
Oil Is Well
By Ben Stein
Published 1/31/2006 2:23:20 AM

I see that the media and the left-wing foundations are in a state of hysteria over oil company profits. Exxon Mobil reported profits of about $10 billion for the last quarter of '05, and this has driven certain people who don't really know a lot about the oil business or how gasoline gets into their Volvos insane.

Kindly allow me to make a few points that won't make those people calm down but might make independent-minded thinkers think.

First, Big Oil did not make these profits "...off the suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina," as I actually heard someone say on the Air America (sic) radio on Monday. Exxon Mobil made these profits because it has invested upwards of $10 billion a year in exploration and development for hydrocarbons, in good years and bad, in years when they made as much as they spent and in years when they made less than they spend exploring.

That meant they had oil on hand and the wherewithal to transport and refine oil when Katrina struck. But the suffering of the Katrina victims did not make the price of oil and gasoline rise. That rise came about because oil and gasoline traders at desks in investment banks went into hysteria mode when Katrina struck and bid up the price of oil and gasoline to hysterical levels. Because the big oil companies had a lot of oil on hand to sell despite the damage to refining and production caused by Katrina, they made money on some of that oil. (They had to buy some on the world market and they did not make anywhere near as much on that oil.)

The situation is precisely what happened to U.S. wheat farmers periodically in the 1970s and 1980s. If Russia had a poor harvest and needed to import grain, wheat farmers made good profits because world wheat traders bid up the price. They did not make money off the suffering of Russian wheat eaters. They made money because world wheat traders bid up the price based on Russian wheat conditions. (Before there was a world wheat market that included Russia, Russians and Ukrainians just starved when the wheat crop was poor.)

The oil situation is exactly the same.

Or to put it another way, the oil companies do not come even remotely close to setting the price of oil and gasoline. They either benefit from high prices or get hurt by low prices, but they do not set the price. ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the U.S. (a piker compared with many nation-backed foreign companies, such as PEMEX, GazProm, or TotalFina/Elf) controls less than 3 percent of the world's oil. Does that offer a clue on how prices get set?

Next, isn't it great that there is a world oil market that allocates oil and gasoline by price? Those of us who lived through the early 1970s when low, artificially fixed oil prices meant that there was sometimes literally no gasoline or heating oil, can only give praise that there is a price system to make sure there always is gasoline and heating oil at some price. (And I assure you, I pay a stunning price for gasoline, just as everyone else does, and I am awfully darned glad I can get it, rather than having a low posted price at a gas station with no gasoline to sell.)

Meanwhile, why is it so bad for oil companies to make a profit, even a big profit? That profit doesn't go into the pockets of Dr. Evil. It doesn't go to Saddam Hussein (not anymore). It goes to tens of millions of stockholders who use the dividends and the increase in share price to pay for their RV's and retirements and their (ungrateful) kids' college education. John D. Rockefeller is long gone. Anyone in America with a few twenties in his pocket can become a shareholder of a big oil company and share in those profits. Those profits go to teachers' unions and policemen's unions and to any person on this earth who cares to speculate that the big profits will continue. Or, as my father once said to me, and I have said before, "If you think oil company profits are obscene, buy stock in the oil companies."

Then a huge slice of the profits go to federal and state taxes, running into the tens of billions of dollars. Oil companies in general pay between 30 and 40 percent of their profits in tax. That pays for a lot of "multicultural textbooks" (that no doubt teach how bad oil companies are) and a lot of hospitals for rehabilitating wounded Marines.

And vitally, lots of the money that goes into Big Oil goes to find ever scarcer oil reserves. And without them, we ain't going nowhere.

Big Oil are not our Moms and Pops. They're in it to make money. But they are not fixing prices. They are not restraining trade. They are doing an incredibly dangerous, risky thing: getting oil for us to cruise down the highway. Let's stop killing the geese that lay the golden eggs -- for the motorist, homeowner, factory worker, and pensioner. Envy never powered one car. If it did, there would be no need for gas stations in Beverly Hills.