The Runt of the Litter
Spend a few days in Washington, and you can’t help but think about politics. Especially after a tumultuous election like the one we experienced this week. In a previous post, I touched on the lack of attention paid to alternative transportation issues in both national and state politics. I also discussed the dysfunctional process for funding alternative transportation projects by carving out small amounts from large appropriations for highway construction and other road projects. The other reality for advocates of alternative transportation is the ritual of public transit systems demonstrating abject poverty before new funds are appropriated. The ritual usually includes a “burning of the furniture” by transit systems to display a commitment to self-sufficiency, before convincing legislatures to send more money their way.
This process is occurring in the Chicago area, where the three major transit agencies have released a study of the projected shortfall in funding for the region's entire transportation network over the next 30 years. I’m all for accountability by public agencies, as well as attempts to determine the sustainable market price for public transit. But the notion that public transit can be self-sustaining is a charade. No other country in the world shares this unattainable standard. In the same way that drivers don’t pay for roads, traffic signals and other public improvements designed to make driving safe and efficient, subway, bus and train riders can not be expected to cover all the costs of providing those services. Attempts to do so only undermine the mission of public transportation by creating the classic downward spiral of increasing fares, reduced ridership, and service cuts.
How come drivers never have to go to Congress and state legislatures with hats in hand? I realize the political constituency for driving resides in places like Michigan and Texas, so the process by which funds are allocated is less conspicuous than public transit funding. But as I posted previously, where is the cost-benefit analysis for new road construction? No one ever asks if road are making money. Aside from toll roads, the notion that roads should make money or be self-sustaining is never part of the debate. Yet public transportation systems are required to go through this dance every funding cycle, a process which, I suspect, partly serves to provide fodder for public transit foes to reduce or delay funding.
Tired of the humiliation of the above ritual, Seattle residents stepped up on Tuesday to address their own transportation needs, approving a property tax levy targeted exclusively to transportation improvements. Also approved by voters was an increase in the county sales tax to increase bus service throughout King County. Although much of the funding is devoted to road construction and improvements, this victory suggests that voters in certain areas of the country view all forms of transportation as public goods.
Finally, no good trip to Washington would be complete without a story about greed and corruption. This story, of course, involves the oil industry and the soul selling activities that companies engage in to gain access to scarce oil supplies. Much of our attention regarding oil supplies is focused on the Middle East, with an occasional distraction from Venezuela. Other countries sit on precious oil reserves, and this stroke of good fortune usually means someone in power is getting rich. In this case, the country is Kazakhstan and the person getting rich is its President, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. This article is another damning piece of evidence that our desperate need to feed the car culture impairs our pursuit of sound foreign policy.