Interesting WSJ letters about cost of Mass Transit

[question everything]

Masses in Transit Are No Laughing Matter

Humorist P.J. O'Rourke once stated, "Very little is known of the Canadian country since it is rarely visited by anyone but the Queen and illiterate sport fishermen." Most people reading such an outlandish statement would recognize that its purpose was to make a point with exaggerated humor. Similarly, in his "Mass Transit Hysteria," on your March 16 editorial page, Mr. O'Rourke again exaggerates with genuinely amusing writing -- but with an underlying intent of serious criticism.

So, for the purpose of making an alternative point, let's treat Mr. O'Rourke's statements seriously: He says, for instance, that it would be cheaper to lease BMW SUVs for all of the folks who travel on Minneapolis's new light-rail system than it cost to build and operate the system. Well, I priced such a lease. For the 15,500 average daily riders the tab would run taxpayers $44 million a year. Each car leaser would pay an additional $2,800 a year for operating costs out of pocket. But wait! How will these cars get downtown? According to the Federal Highway Administration, highways cost an average $20.6 million per mile, while major urban interchanges cost $100 million per interchange. To replace the 12-mile light-rail system, Minneapolis taxpayers would need to build (conservatively) 12 miles of highway and one major interchange for both the airport and the Mall of Americas. Hmm, that comes out to $440 million -- before highway maintenance costs set in. Then where will all of these 15,500 BMWs park? In the new city parking lots! If built totally on the cheap, these single-level lots will cost taxpayers at least $31 million. Now, let's not forget that whereas a square foot of commercial space will bring in at least $50 in taxes per square foot, a parking lot at best brings in $3. Since our 15,500 BMWs will require almost two million square feet of parking, that equates to a loss of $91 million in tax revenue to the city of Minneapolis every year.

The rail line, which actually cost roughly $700 million, has a life expectancy of 50 years. Its operating costs are $13 million per year and farebox revenues are so far offsetting close to $10 million of that.

So how do these two options compare? Choosing the light rail's 50-year capital lifespan for both the light-rail and BMW options, and amortizing these capital costs over those 50 years, adding annual operating costs and subtracting annual tax revenue losses, and removing any effects of inflation, in present dollars light rail costs the Minneapolis taxpayers just over $17 million per year. But to get the same benefit courtesy of BMW and more highways, taxpayers would have to dish out $166 million per year.

So where did Mr. O'Rourke get the information for his criticisms? From the Heritage Foundation, an anti-rail think tank. Where did my facts come from? The Federal Highway Administration, the American Automobile Association, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, etc. When talking transportation matters, I think it best that humorists stick to bumper cars.

Janek Kozlowski
Alexandria, Va.
(Mr. Kozlowski is an officer in the U.S. military and a trained engineer with an M.B.A. In Operation Iraqi Freedom he oversaw the engineering required for all logistics in support of ground operations in the theater of operations.)

Mr. O'Rourke writes that there are "two problems with mass transit: Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell." If "nobody" uses mass transit, why do I usually have to stand up every time I'm in the New York or Washington subway? In fact, Americans took 9.6 billion (or 26 million per day) trips on buses and trains in 2002, over 40% more than in 1972.

Mr. O'Rourke states that "less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation" and cites similar statistics for other regions. His assertion is misleading because many suburbanites live or work in places with minimal transit service. A more useful question is: In cities where transit service is relatively plentiful, do people use it? And in fact, a majority of New York City residents use public transit, for work commuting alone, as do a third of San Francisco residents.

Mr. O'Rourke also claims that mass transit doesn't pay for itself -- but what government program does? Surely Mr. O'Rourke doesn't expect the Defense Department or Medicaid to be self-financing. Moreover, the federal commitment to public transit (about $8 billion for fiscal 2006) is puny in the context of a $2 trillion federal budget. And even this subsidy is partially offset by federally dictated unfunded mandates such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (which requires transit systems to make buses and trains accessible to the disabled).

Michael Lewyn
Visiting Associate Professor
Southern Illinois University
School of Law
Carbondale, Ill.

http://online.wsj.com/opinion/letters?mod=2_0048