The annual AORTA Passenger Rail Meeting & Luncheon took place today at The Governor Hotel in downtown Portland, Oregon. I was there for the lunch, discussion, and keynote speaker Gail Acterman. Gail is the chair of the Oregon Transportation Commision, Director of the Institute for Natural Resources, and an Adjunct Professor of Forest Resources at OSU. Here's the notes I took from the talks and discussions, and my commentary on the topic.
...there is a funding crisis...
Several times Gail mentioned that there is a funding crisis. With any research of infrastructure research you can find that the entire nation at federal, state, and local levels we are short. Roads have no maintenance funding, there is no funding to expand road systems, transit is under funded, none of the modes are self sufficient. Even the single self sufficient mode, freight rail, is lacking the expected capitol to expand as the nation needs over the next 10, 20, or 30 years. At least according to certain economists and Government data, but reviewing the funding trends and expenditures freight rail is actually more than capable of handling expansion, but I digress, that is another discussion.
...highway funding for interstates and any other systems that are funded via the gas tax is no longer solvent. The general budget is being used to fill the gaps for the gas taxes...
Keep in mind, the funding system based around the gas tax only funded a percentage of Interstate, Highway, and other roads around the country anyway. Generally the gas tax rarely covers more than a percentage of Interstate, and I believe State Highway projects. Rarely is there even a penny set aside for maintenance until it is too late. Usually it takes a bridge falling in a river or something as insane to cause Governments to get the wheels of maintenance moving.
...climate change and peak oil...
Climate change was mentioned several times and the associated problems. Peak oil was mentioned once. Fortunately, even though I still believe we should be laying off of the peak oil discussion because it does some disservice to what we're trying to do. Peak oil, based on prices and market production isn't quit here yet. We're close, at least within a few years or maybe a decade or two from peak oil, however, most people don't understand what peak oil is and don't believe it is happening. Almost everyone though, believes that we should be developing new energy technologies for various reasons. Harping on peak oil or environmental this or that only enlivens and flames the arguments the contra technologists have, so needless to say I'd prefer people didn't banter on about peak oil when there is not concrete evidence we are in its throes quit yet.
...emissions...
I really get sick and tired of this charade of how clean trains are. I love trains, I usually will ONLY take the train to various places. They are NOT, in the United States at least, that much cleaner or even cleaner than automobiles. This is pure absurdity. The weight, energy, and diesel engines that are used in this country (yes, THIS country the USA) are filthy in comparison to truly clean trains like the TGV, Shikansen, or other bullet trains. Our trains are slow and cumbersome. The only reason freight comes out so much cleaner than trucks is because they pull 3-10x as much cargo with few emission spewing engines. Passenger rail however, in this country, is far less efficient than it could be. It is VASTLY less efficient then sticking a bunch of people in ULEV automobiles and hauling them around. Gail appeared to make strong note that the Governer's Team would be making pragmatic decisions about this and thus not going straight for rail choices for everything.
What I'm saying is, we don't need to really build out our rail infrastructure until we can run honest to goodness modern, fast, advanced trains in this country. We're using some pretty nasty trains. Yeah, often they might be a little more efficient or a little cleaner, but rarely and usually only because the average American car gets 22mpg and is a nasty SUV or something. So before we go passenger train crazy, no matter how pro-passenger train I am, we NEED to straighten out the FRA and the stupid and inane laws we have limiting our passenger railroading progress.
...population growth, prospectively exceeding the expected 1 million more in 25 years estimate, and we might get climate refugees...
Here's that nasty pseudo science crap again. Scientists, real ones at least, don't think the oceans are going to rise 20-30 feet like Al Gore does. Nor do real scientists think there are going to be vast areas of land that become non-food producing. The extremes, yes extremes, will cause some major problems but by no means is it going to cause mass exoduses in the United States of some places. Maybe Phoenix will get nailed, maybe Los Angeles will get really screwed up, but really, they deserve it - the stupid cities are built in places that are NOT sustainable even under the provisions of a healthy planet. Phoenix is in the middle of a desert and Los Angeles, well it is a desert too. Simply put, with our knowledge today we should not have cities in those places, but regardless they are there anyway. But that doesn't mean the 7 million plus people in those places are just going to automatically relocate on or near Portland. So let's not jump the gun just yet and freak out over illogically derived fear based projections.
...rail, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure where originally built and funded in an entirely different way than we do today...
This is very true. Gail didn't mention how much more efficient, quick to build, faster to utilize, or the massive returns people received on these things when they were originally built. We've removed all responsibility from the populace and all reward for building these things. They're now in the hands of the bulky and cumbersome, and often incompetent, Government to build and maintain. Our current bridge repair backlog is scary to look at, especially considering who's hands it is in.
My question is, with that slight admittance of how these things where historically handled, how the hell does Gail and the Governor's Cabal expect to build, expand, maintain, and operate this infrastructure if there isn't a single piece of reasonable funding in place, let alone a single entity that is capable of doing so today as there was in the past? I don't know what they're thinking. Maybe turning back to the market? Getting some public private partnerships, with the private entities in charge? Maybe providing some citizen ownership through public means? Who knows, but they better do better than merely mentioning that things aren't funded the same.
...Every 50 years there is a technological revolution in the transportation industry, we're coming upon another one of these...
Are we Gail? Are we really? Who's working on this next technological revolution?
...the state & univisities are working on this breakthrough. I'm not sure what it is but some of the best are...
This just depresses me. Name one serious technological revolution in transportation that is the result of Government expenditures or efforts, or even a college breakthrough, that is equal to the last several MAJOR revolutions. Automobile? Nope. Private enterprise. Airplane? Nope. Private Enterprise. Train? Nope. Private Enterprise. Diesel or Steam Power? Nope. Private Enterprise. Jet Engine? Nope. Again private enterprise and individual effort. So not a single thing, not a single major advance was the result of some think tank or other oddity the Government could create. It was all private enterprise, and one things that was evidently missing form this talk? Private enterprise. So how we'll get our next big breakthrough is beyond me. If we do, it'll be decades late at best, unless, below the radar of Government, the private enterprise can again propel us into the future.
...people (ME: the citizens) should not be concerned with funding or how roads interact with each other throughout the state...
I often hear from Metro and the city that people should be more aware of the real costs for auto based transportation. But Gail & the Governor don't want you to think about it. What? This is a very mixed signal. Am I supposed to not think cognitively about this?
...the least sustainable models of funding are for transit...
I couldn't agree more. She hit the nail on the head with this point.
...roadway funding is also no longer sustainable with the current fuel taxes...
yup, again I totally agree without refute.
...to remedy this funding gap and create a more sustainable funding model we're pushing forward with congestion pricing (tolls) and utility pricing models.
A Real Whopper! What? Market pricing for congestion? Why not say, "Market Pricing?" Oh... that's why...
Ok, so this just is reprehensible in my book. So the state, or maybe city Government, knows what pricing should be for congestion. They're going to go through all these models which basically simulate some type of market pricing. The difference is they'll have complete control of the pricing models. Also they'll most likely make it cheaper for poor people or whatever, diffusing any prospect that it is applied based on equality. Because even though we're supposed to be equal under law, you know damn well that we aren't, and it won't be applied equally under law. But that's what they want to do to even out transit funding, with congestion tolling.
Now on a non-philosophical note, what about the fluctuations in driving patterns? What happens if the pricing drops off severely because people stop driving into downtown? What happens then, well, logically the budget for transit and other modes would fluctuate. There is no logical correlation between congestion pricing and transit funding. This is one more thing that is completely unrelated to one mode being applied directly to that mode. That's like taking fishing taxes and applying them to road construction. That has ZERO correlation to road construction. It is THAT ABSURD!! But I digress, I could talk for days about how these things will NOT create a steady funding model, and only again offer a massive defrayment of actual market demand that is no analogous to what people actually want or what they actually need.
...and also we'll put in place utility pricing...
Ok, so just as I settle down in my head over the prospect of Government mandated market pricing that they refuse to say is just that. I'm all for market pricing, but I want the market to create the prices, not the Government. Every time they've done this it has turned out a miserable failure. From our US Republic to the miserable death and failing of the Soviet Union, Government mandated pricing of anything is a bad idea. Eventually the market will force a correction and the Government won't be able to fix it.
Aside form the obvious MAJOR problems with implementing this, how are they going to get it past the voter base? I doubt anyone, now that the Government has been handling these things for decades now, will want to pay more or even pay their share of road usage. The Government has already abhorrently screwed up the funding models, and destroyed the business models in the transportation industry. The Government is the last entity that will be able to sell this plan. If they do, I will be amazed. Otherwise I expect to see it pushed under the carpet, then yanked out put in with some other save the children bill or something and passed anyway. Then we'll get devices tagged to our vehicles and all of a sudden be paying congestion charges - without citizen input. That's the only way I could imagine them getting this pushed through.
As for utility pricing, that's easier, the utilities still act as faux business entities. They're allowed to price to a certain degree, and if we tie infrastructure in with it, there is no choice but to pay. This I see as a much better model than congestion pricing, if for any other reason, just because it can be implemented without massive civil disruption.
...Nissan is bringing their electric car to Oregon...
Don't even act like that is because of the Government. Nissan avoided the hybrids solely to work on this project. They're doing it because the CORPORATE entity itself believes that cleaner cars are a good idea. No one forced them down this path, they're doing it. It just happened that the Governor got chummy with some execs and talked them into letting Oregon be one of the initial release states. Of course, Nissan won't get the credit they deserve here in Oregon, most likely the Governor and his crew will steal as much of that as they possibly can. But hey, I shouldn't be fussing, that's what politicians do.
...the cigerette, and other sin taxes will be used to stabilize funding...
Ok, I'm not even going to touch this one. Anyone that has paid attention over the last 20+ years knows that sin taxes are NOT reliable funding mechanisms. I suppose using it for nothing more than one off projects or as a minor stabilization for a few pennies here and there, it isn't such a big deal. But seriously, why even mention this... ??? Aggh, I just don't know.
...will not use general budget monies for roads anymore...
THANK YOU GOVERNOR!!!! Do NOT use general budget monies for roadways. This drives me nuts. That money is for schools, police, and fire, not for extended auto based infrastructure.
...commuter rail, separate form Amtrak...
I'm not sure why she made the note that commuter rail is separate form Amtrak. This of course in context of WES. Amtrak isn't even supposed to run commuter rail, I'm not sure how they manage to sometimes. Often times they cost 3-5x as much as other commuter rail operators, and they cost far more than BNSF, UP, or other existing railroads do to operate commuter rail.
summary
Overall the meeting went well. I support passenger rail, but the fact that most of the solutions are no better than the solutions that put roads in as our primary mode of transportation does not sit well with me. When we received our balance infrastructure and multi-model systems of the late 19th and early 20th century via private means, that means is completely ignored by today's policy makers. The continual application of band aid on top of band aid to fix the infrastructure without trying to bring it forward to the public for real enterprise investment, for real interest from the citizenry really bugs me. It is as though all the special interests, including NARP and others, just want the public to cater to a cause, but not to actually physically do anything more than to petition the Government for a redress of grievances that it isn't 100% the way they want it.
My question is, and still remains, why can't WE build OUR transportation system? What was wrong with the way it was done in the past? We could retrofit it for today's needs, so why not do it? The answers are yet to be provided.