Printable PDF Brochure
Commuter
Rail Transit? No, thank you.
By Dennis Oakland
2003
I commute daily from near the Palmer Fairgrounds to just up the hill
from the Eagle River Wal-Mart, and if I don't make any stops, it takes
me 30 minutes. That time has not changed in four years. Highway Traffic
is no worse and no more congested in that same time period, though
the number of commuters has effectively doubled in that time. Even
in the winter, it rarely takes but a few minutes more. Now that the
new interchange is completed, I will no longer have to stop for a
traffic light or the trains, further reducing my commute time, as
well as reducing traffic slowdowns and pollution associated with idle
traffic.
The Citizens Commuter Rail Advocacy Committee, comprised mostly of
people who most likely will not be using the system for daily commuting,
wish to foist this costly boondoggle upon the rest of us. Why? History
has shown that Commuter Rail systems are largely an ineffective means
of reducing congestion or pollution. As recently released studies
show, metropolitan areas that reallocate scarce highway funds to rail
systems, in virtually every case, congestion dramatically increases
as well as the associated pollution.
Portland is a prime example. Since highway spending there has shifted
to rail, traffic congestion has dramatically increased. Seattle's
new Sounder rail system could not fill to even 1/3 of it's capacity
even though it's first few months of service was free. With a population
density as crowded as any, and Billions of dollars invested, Sounder
still cannot get their trains filled and congestion is worse than
ever, though the system runs 100 miles from Everett to Tacoma. Other
cities are faring even worse.
Comparisons have been made to the capital costs of the new Glenn-Parks
interchange and the capital costs of buying 5 new self-propelled rail
cars. However, that is an absurd claim. The cost of the new rail cars
and associated needed improvements is estimated at $28 million, but
the cost of the interchange was $42 million, see how much cheaper
the rail cars would cost? That's where their argument falls apart.
The $42 million dollar Glenn-Parks interchange improvements are permanent,
and the highway system serves everyone, not just a handful of commuters.
In addition, tourists, commercial freight, and casual travelers will
all benefit.
The Commuter Rail system will serve less than 1% of Valley commuters,
and it is historically unlikely that it will ever reach full capacity.
Advocates have also stated that transit system would be cheaper than
adding a third lane to the Glenn-Parks, well that is only partially
true, as the new interchange was constructed to accommodate a third
lane. The bridge support structures and underpasses are built with
a third lane already in mind, and is paid for. Now that, is forward
thinking.
Rightfully, the Commuter Rail advocates admit that "no commuter
rail system can pay it's own way", but they still insist that
it is a workable solution. I say no. The new interchange for instance,
does not require conductors, attendants, fuel, constant maintenance,
nor does it require the need for an entire overhaul of the freight
rail schedule. But above all, the Commuter Rail System will require
an entire new government bureaucracy known as the Regional Transit
Authority (RTA) to oversee it's operation and maintenance. While the
RTA will be able to apply for other Federal operating funds, there
is no guarantee they will be secured. What about derailments, moose
collisions (is the train going to stop everytime it clobbers a moose,
or just keep chugging along leaving the animal to suffer and wasting
the meat?), auto/train collisions at crossings, and of course, the
potential for a catastrophic engine failure like our brand new high
speed ferry just experienced.
Operation of the Valley/Anchorage system is estimated to cost $3 million
dollars annually, and of course that will increase every year of operation.
Who will pay for that? Well, you and I will. Tim Thompson, public
affairs representative for the Alaska Railroad, during a recent radio
interview, revealed that the train rides to the Alaska State Fair
charged $45 per passenger (including Fair entry ticket) was actually
costing the Railroad $80 per rider, and that the railroad was just
going to "eat" the losses. Boy, that sounds encouraging.
Now imagine the cost per rider paying only ticket fares. The Wilbur
Smith Commuter Rail study confirms that we local taxpayers would be
saddled with paying at least 80 percent of the operation and maintenance
costs. Increases in property, fuel, sales, bed taxes are being suggested
by advocates to pay for the service.
Commuter Rail Transit systems and it's associated Transit Oriented
Development, like all other 'Smart Growth' scams, are an unparalleled
nationwide financial disaster. And we are supposed to blindly follow
suit? (Sounds like another fish plant in the making.) Please leave
these 100 year old ideas to a museum.
All those millions of dollars to accommodate a fraction of a percentage
of commuters with no quantifiable positive effects. And of course
when it fails to meet it's promised goals the advocates will blame
it all on you and me for not seeing the infinite wisdom of their vision
for the future.
Dennis
Oakland is the Public Policy Research Director of
The Last Frontier Foundation.
