The Light Rail Pushers
In the past five years light rail has been voted down in Cincinnati and Columbus and exposed as a boondoggle in Cleveland. Yet, planning continues unabatedly for light rail in Ohio’s cities. [1] The reason for the disconnect is the federal government’s pro-light rail agenda, which results in the ongoing funding of light rail proposals long after local voters have rejected them.
Since 1991, the federal government’s transportation policy has shifted from transportation to social engineering. Two main objectives arise from this shift — reducing automobile use and reinforcing the Clean Air Act. Alternative travel options such as walking, bicycling, buses and rail, therefore, receive greater funding. [2]
One of the major methods for distributing this funding is through the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Program, which helps pay for the design and construction of transit projects. [3] Local agencies have responded to this program by beginning the design process and seeking these funds — regardless of whether the city will actually benefit from rail projects and to the exclusion of more cost effective means to achieve transit improvements.
The United States General Accounting Office states that, “there is a long list of potential transit projects vying for limited New Starts funding. The New Starts program will likely start the next authorization period with a considerable number of future commitments, which could significantly increase competition for funding.” [4]
Jessica Rubinstein, a spokesman for The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) has summed up the Columbus agency’s motivations exactly along these lines. The $250 million in potential federal money for COTA’s light rail project, she says, is “$250 million of federal funds for central Ohio that otherwise wouldn’t be there. Ohio’s taxpayer dollars have been going to the federal government to fund other cities’ rail projects for years and years.” [5]
There are two problems with this mindset. First, it completely disregards the will of the people. Despite being rejected at the polls, transit agencies will return a rail issue to the ballot again and again in the hope that it will eventually pass. Funding from the federal government is all the incentive that is necessary.
COTA is now asking for $10 million from the federal government to advance to the next stage of planning. As COTA Director of Rail Development Mike Bradley has said, “Right now, we don’t need the local funding.” [6]
Time will change that, illustrating the second major difficulty with current federal transportation policy. Current cost projections for COTA’s light rail plans in Columbus range into the billions of dollars, making the $250 million from the federal government seem rather insignificant. That means COTA will be calling for a tax hike yet again. “Eventually,” says COTA President Ron Barnes, “we’re going to have to be out there [asking for a sales tax increase].” [7]
Franklin County taxpayers have rejected additional taxes for light rail, while continuing to support less expensive public transportation options. The federal government’s own fiscal watchdog, the General Accounting Office, questions the effectiveness of light rail. [8] Yet, local officials nonetheless push for light rail because the federal government funds the planning of new rail systems.
The federal tax dollars COTA spends on planning are not free. Those funds come from federal tax dollars paid by Ohioans. Those tax dollars could be returned to taxpayers or spent on more pressing national interests such as homeland security. Instead, transit officials are engaged in a pricey game of “keeping up with the Joneses.” The result is transit projects that have little to do with real needs. [9]
The focus of federal, state, and local transportation policy should return to maintaining and improving current infrastructure while remaining committed to the most cost-effective solution. If local taxpayers want light rail and are willing to pay for it, then that should be their choice. The federal government, however, should stop trying to impose an ineffective and incredibly expensive form of transit on an unwilling citizenry.
Notes
[1] See James Pilcher, “Light rail advocates outspent the foes,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 3 January 2003. Also, Kristen Convery, “COTA to Columbus: You Will Have Trains” The Other Paper, 19-25 September 2002. And, Rich Exner, “Riders abandon Waterfront Line,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 23 January 2002.
[2] Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D., If You Build It, Will They Ride? The Potential of Rail Transit in Ohio’s Major Cities, (Columbus, OH: The Buckeye Institute, October 1999), 3.
[3] John H. Anderson, Jr., “Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Program and Potential for Bus Rapid Transit Projects,” Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of Representatives (Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, June 20, 2002). Available at: http://www.gao.gov.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Brian Williams, “Columbus Light-Rail Plan Awarded Federal Funding,” The Columbus Dispatch, 24 January 2002.
[6] Bill Melville, “Light rail plans back on track after receiving ‘recommended’ rating,” Hilliard Northwest News, 14 May 2003.
[7] Brian Williams, “Columbus Light Rail Plan…”
[8] “Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise” (Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office, September, 2001).
[9] Rich Exner, “Riders abandon Waterfront Line.”
