Harry E. Teasley, Jr.
4621 Bayshore Blvd.
Tampa, Florida 33611
813-837-9627
May 1999
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Governor Bush:
On May 5, 1999, by a 4 to 3 majority vote, the
Hillsborough County Commission voted to request that you veto several line item
projects related to further study of the light rail plan being proposed for
Hillsborough County. I write, as a
private citizen, in support of the four commissioners and their principled
opposition to further study of a scheme that doesn’t make economic or common
sense.
First, we don’t lack for light-rail studies in Hillsborough
County; they are stacked up like cordwood.
Millions of federal, state, and local tax dollars have already been
spent (wasted) on “studying” a scheme that doesn’t pass the common sense test and
is wrong for a county with our demographic characteristics.
In 1998 the promoters, proponents and central planners came
together behind a proposal described as the Locally Preferred Strategy
(LPS). As a private citizen, I funded a
professional analysis of the LPS. The
research was conducted by Professor Peter Gordon, an economist and
transportation expert at the University of Southern California, under the
auspices of The Reason Foundation, an organization with deep experience in
transportation research and public policy.
Prior to publication the report was peer reviewed at three transport
institutes located in California, Texas and Tampa. The findings from the study are insightful and powerful.
I attach, as a quote, the
executive summary from the report titled, A
Transit Plan for Hillsborough County: A Reality Check -
June 1998.
“Transportation planners in the greater Tampa/Hillsborough County
metro area propose to spend $2.5 billion over the next 15 years on an expanded
mass-transit system. The transit
component of the Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS) calls for the addition of
buses and the construction and operation of a 71-mile light rail system. This study concludes that the case for such
a transit system is very weak. Based on
the experience of other cities that have added rail transit over the past 20
years, the proposed system is likely to cost more than expected and to deliver
far less than projected. At best,
taxpayers will have spend $2.5 billion for a system that has very little impact
on traffic or air quality. At worst,
taxpayers could be spending even more than that for a system that ends up
carrying fewer passengers than today’s transit system.
The experience of other cities is chilling. By 1995, after 30 years of federal, state,
and local expenditure of $340 billion in transit subsidies, transit trips per
capita reached a new all-time low.
Adding rail systems has not reversed this decline; all 10 cities that
invested in rail during the 1980s lost transit market share to cars between
1980 and 1990. Most rail systems have
cost far more than projected, both to build and to operate. And rail has not gotten people out of their
cars, has not increased property values, and has not re-shaped land-use
patterns.
There is no reason to believe that rail would fare any better in
the Tampa/Hillsborough County metro area.
The 1990 census found that just two percent of local commuters use
transit -- the same proportion as walked or worked at home. The LPS assumes that the proposed rail and
bus system would increase transit use by between 221 percent and 342 percent by
2015 -- an unprecedented increase far beyond what any other city has
achieved. If that growth could somehow
be achieved, what would each new transit trip cost?
Using LPS figures, this study computed the proposed system’s
annualized capital costs and annual operating costs, and divided this total by
the number of new riders. The total
cost of each new round-trip works out to be $32.24. Assuming a round-trip fare of $3.00, this means taxpayers would
be paying 91 percent of the cost of every trip.
Since no U.S. Metro area has achieved more than 50 percent growth
in ridership from such a strategy (compared with the assumed 221 to 342 percent
growth), our analysis then calculated the costs of the LPS plan based on the
percentage ridership increase and cost growth actually experienced over a
15-year period by the highly touted Portland transit system. Using Portland’s ridership percentage
increase, the Tampa-area cost per round trip would be $147. If the Tampa-area system also suffered from
Portland-equivalent cost overruns, each round trip would cost $223 (of which
the rider, remember, would be paying only $3).
Even if the LPS system did achieve its highly optimistic growth in
ridership, would this produce benefits (reduced congestion and air pollution)
worth the $2.5 billion cost? The LPS
projects that if its ridership target is achieved, transit use would account
for less than five percent of the expected growth in vehicle miles traveled in
the region. That small impact would
have little or no measurable effect on either congestion or emissions. And if spending $2.5 billion on transit
meant that other, more cost-effective transportation investments could not take
place, overall congestion and emissions might actually be worsened by this
choice.
Several alternative transportation approaches would be more
cost-effective than the LPS rail plan.
Among these are (1) expanding and improving the bus system, as Houston has
done; (2) improving transportation management in the region; (3) adding
transitways on freeways and arterials; (4) expanding the use of competitive
contracting for bus service; (5) expanding the role of private transit, such as
shuttle vans and jitneys, and (6) adding tolled express lanes (HOT lanes) on
congested freeways.
Source: “A Transit Plan for Hillsborough County: A Reality Check” by Peter Gordon, published by Reason Public Policy Institute, the Reason Foundation.
For almost a year, the above-mentioned report
has been available to anyone in the community interested in under-standing
more about the light rail proposal, yet no one has stepped forward and prepared
a written critique of the report. While
failing to prepare a written critique of the report, former Commissioner Ed
Turanchik has and continues to make ad hominem attacks on the author, the
Reason Foundation and me. Without
recourse to logic and reasoned response, the only tactic left is a weak one.
The proponents have also never prepared a document setting forth
in brief, clear and logical language the reasons why the community should
support light rail. I can only assume
that they cannot prepare a report that could withstand public analysis and
scrutiny.
In the LPS, the promoters of light rail have projected increases
in public transit ridership that are entirely unreasonable. They are projecting increases far in excess
of increases that have occurred in other cities that invested in light rail,
yet they have never made public their assumptions and logic for these
increases. One might think that their
projections are force fitted to make the economics look better than the
truth. Where is the market? Who is going to ride the train? How big is the market? The economics don’t make any sense. I wouldn’t invest my money in this project
and I doubt if you would. Why should we
invest taxpayers’ money? The answer is:
We shouldn’t.
As a former marketer, I seek to understand why consumers wish to
buy a specific product or service. It
is difficult for me to understand why many citizens would elect to use a train
that splits the county in a way that few live near the train and that would
require multiple, time consuming transfers in the heat, humidity, rain and sun
of Hillsborough County. Maybe I
underestimate the market for inconvenience and pain.
Light rail has been an economic and public policy disaster in
cities that have invested in it. The
literature on such investments is extensive and easily accessible on the
web. Furthermore, light rail has even
less hope of success in Hillsborough County since our demographic
characteristics are less favorable than cities where rail has been tried and
not met expectations. While new rail
systems have not been financially successful anywhere, the low density
structure of Hillsborough County suggests that the efforts to construct such a
system will be even more costly, and the results even less satisfactory. In short, this dog won’t hunt.
Finally and importantly, the responsibility to provide the raison
d’etre for investing in light rail should come from those promoting the
expenditure of money. They have not
made their case. Therefore, one would
assume that they cannot do so.
I challenge Ed Turanchik and his associates to prepare:
1. a written review and critique of Peter
Gordon’s report,
2.
a written report setting forth the purported
case for light rail in Hillsborough County.
Given the money and time already expended to explore
light rail, this should not require a large effort on his part.
I am not, however, holding my breath.
The light rail proposal is a classic example of public choice
economics and politics. The benefits
will be concentrated with a few special interests while the costs will be borne
on the backs of all taxpayers -- at several levels of government. Now is the time to stop this plunder of the
taxpayers’ money.
Attached is a full copy of the Peter Gordon report; I hope that you or one of your associates can find time to read
it.
Please do not provide the funds requested by the proponents of the
light rail system.
Respectfully submitted,