OpEd | National | High Speed Rail: How Much More Convincing Do We Need?

Many of my classmates have already talked about the need for investment in a national High Speed Rail (HSR) system. It is a much-discussed topic in urban planning and transportation classrooms. HSR even has a cheerleader at the very top level, in US Department of Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood. "This is what the American people want. If you build it, they will come," LaHood declared (Chapman, 2011)." So what will it take to convince our legislators that the time to invest in HSR projects is long overdue?   

Opponents say that no amount of ridership will cover the initial cost of creating the infrastructure, nor the continued cost of operations and maintenance. “No mass transit system in the country charges riders enough to offset the expenses of running trains—much less the cost of capital. Amtrak loses hundreds of millions a year,” says author Steve Chapman (Chapman, 2011). It’s true, trains are expensive business. They fail to acknowledge, however, the fact that every other mode of transportation in this country enjoys subsidies of one kind or another. Though President Obama did pledge to spend $13 billion in federal stimulus funds over five years to seed America’s first HSR projects, the federal government hasn’t spent that little on highways in one year since 1958 (Selcraig, 2010). Auto subsidies are simply a prevailing fact of our culture, with federally-funded road maintenance as well as mandated parking spaces taking up precious urban real estate. And we all remember when the entire national auto industry had to be bailed out on the public’s dime. Locally, much-need improvements in bike infrastructure was able to be funded by pairing the work with storm water management projects. Meanwhile, the government has provided $4.64 billion in taxpayer funds to the airline industry for cash grants and $1.65 billion in loan guarantees (Surjaputra, 2008). Yet none of these modes of transport can equal the benefits that HSR can bring.

OpEd | State | TriMet angers many, requires oversight

Photo credit: KGW.com

Did you know that TriMet fares are now among the highest in the nation (Gianola, 2013)? That’s right, a monthly adult TriMet pass is $100, while in Philadelphia, its $83, $72 in Los Angeles and just $70 in Boston (Gianola, 2013). Yet all three cities have operation far more extensive than Portland’s. So why does public transit cost so much in Portland? TriMet General Manager Neil McFarlane wants you to blame the recession and the high cost of TriMet’s union health benefits (Gianola, 2013). He hoped you wouldn’t find out about the $910,000 in pay raises he approved for the highest echelon of TriMet management in 2012, even as he publicly stated that he had frozen their pay (Rose, 2013). “How could this happen right under our noses?” you may ask. This was able to happen because no one was watching. While TriMet management increased fairs, cut service, and gave themselves raises, no one was paying attention. To ensure this can’t happen again, Oregon lawmakers have called on Secretary of State Kate Brown to conduct an unprecedented audit of operations and finances at the state's largest public transit agency (Rose J. , 2013).

Vice-chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development, Rep. Chris Gorsek (D-Troutdale) is the chief sponsor of the proposal, an amendment to his House Bill 3316. HB3316 was intended to regulate TriMet’s governance, transferring operational and finical oversight from TriMet’s board of directors to Metro (Staff, 2013). However, Gorsek simultaneously realized he didn’t have wide support for restructuring and became aware of major management issues at TriMet. He took the opportunity to push for a large scale audit instead (Rose J. , 2013). While the audit will possibly take longer than the original plan - Brown's office plans to have the audit finished before the 2014 legislative session (Thompson, 2013) – it ensures a much more thorough understanding  of exactly what is going on inside the transit agency and why. This is an extremely prudent step, prior to taking any major action which could have unforeseen repercussions. While it’s obvious that things need to change inside TriMet, I believe it’s worth taking the time to do it right.

Op-Ed: To Privatize or Not to Privatize

1956 Map of Eisenhower Highway System

Someone should start preparing the eulogy for publicly operated, built, and financed roads.  The era of government grants, shovel-ready projects, and pork-barrel politics is coming to an end, and, like anyone overstaying their welcome, it’s taking much longer than is appropriate to say goodbye.  I believe that the construction of a standardized, integrated 41,000+ (Roth 2010) mile national highway system could only be possible with the massive amount of capital and funding provided by the federal government.   However, with the completion of the highway system near the turn of the century, the era of mega-scale public works projects is waning, replaced, in part, with the bothersome and costly task of adequately maintaining and operating that infrastructure.  In addition to states deferring routine highway maintenance in hopes that the federal government will simply replace it (Semmens 2012), there are issues with lobbyists and special interest groups impractically influencing the funding and revenue streams;  inefficiencies and waste with multi-level government planning; and over-regulated systems that discourage any kind of innovative cost-saving practices (Roth 2010).  In contrast, private entities won’t build a project unless they see a return in it, i.e. unless it makes economic sense, and their relatively smaller size allows for more customized solutions that better represent the needs and behaviors of the users. 

The Full Costs of Transportation: A Case for Picking and Choosing

While reading the chapter called, “The Full Costs of Transportation" in Sustainable Transportation[1], there were several problematic concepts that were difficult to support. For the sake of writing space, I’ll narrow it down to two key areas within the article. These two areas were land loss and military security/involvement.