Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Minneapolis Monorail Morons

Two years ago the Twin Cities metro was sold a bill of goods by the supra-county government called the “Met Council.” It was billed as a necessary public service, but I can’t think of it anything different than the “Monorail” episode from the Simpsons. Yes, we now have had a light rail mass transit line in the beloved Twin Cities for 2 years and if memory serves me correctly we’ve had 3 deaths arise from the light rail (whereas our carry conceal permit has resulted in only ONE death).

Regardless, the whole sales pitch we were given was that this light rail system that ran from DT Minneapolis to the Mall of America was necessary. For not only would it alleviate traffic on the stretch of 35W, but there was this massive pent up demand for light rail which would no doubt finance its costs.

Really?

I’m always skeptical of government types because, by definition they’re in government. They don’t have to answer to the market, they don’t have to make ends meet, they don’t have to turn a profit. My skepticism turns into full blown cynicism when you have political interests afoot;

Environmentalists who have no real purpose or meaning in life that would thinking nothing of forcing a $713 million project upon the tax payers, just as long as it makes them feel good about themselves, even if there is no tangible results.

Outright communists and leftists that envy the suburb people for all their wealth and income and their nice houses. No, don’t become one of them and get a degree in something that matters or establish a career or work hard. No, best to bitch, whine, gripe, moan and complain and criminalize the suburbs and force your socially engineered dream of public transit, East-Germany-Communist era, 1970’s minimalist architectural crap public housing, and making everybody equal (read – equally poor and miserable as you).

And then there’s the politicians. Ah yes, politicians. Parasites worse than lawyers who are willing to sacrifice the integrity of their country as long as they get a life-long political career and don’t have to work for a living. Politicians who can always be counted on to bribe the poorer half of society with worthless public projects to make it look like they’re doing something, when in reality they’re just pissing away hard earned tax money that would probably be better spent on the poor in any number of ways.

So, with the all the aforementioned parties all with a vested psychological, psychotic or political interest in the game, you can see why I was so cynical about such a project.

Anecdotally, my cynicism was vindicated as I could see what a farce it was within the first 6 months of operation since I live near the damn thing. They put the transit line right next to a major artery out of Minneapolis. This just furthered congestion and made stop lights last that much longer. Punishing those of us rugged individualists, capitalists, self-supporters and in general non-parasites who financed our own method of transportation;

The car.

And, was it any shock that the spin the left would put on this is a self-fulfilling prophecy was that we needed MORE light rail lines?

“Look at all of the congestion! And traffic is just as bad as ever on 35W! Which (while sane minds would say, “the light rail is a failure,” brainwashed leftist minds with an agenda would say) shows that “we need MORE mass transit to alleviate congestion.”

Right.

Regardless, my point isn’t about the hypocrisy of all this light rail transit BS. It’s about the economics of it all.

Presumably there was all this “pent up demand” for a light rail. That people were bursting at the seams to have a light rail.

Did they want the disposable income to afford a PS3?

No

Did they want the extra money to mayhaps afford their children attendance at a private school?

No.

Did they want an LCD projector or flat screen TV?

No.

They wanted the light rail. Of course, what kid doesn’t want light rail for Christmas. Glad we had the communists and suburb haters at the Met Council to tell us that.

So, presumably, this “venture” would turn a profit with all this demand and necessity for it, right?

I mean, if the government could make money on the deal, maybe even a hefty profit, then I’m all for it. That would lower and subsidize my tax bill if the light rail produced millions in profits like a normal everyday company.

Of course, the government is not a “normal everyday company.” It’s a political entity. It doesn’t respond to the market forces. It is not scared of losses (for it can always force the taxpayer to pay for its incompetence). And it’s goal is not to make money or be efficient or even deliver good public service. It is first and foremost an agent of wealth redistribution so that it can secure future election and a life-time career in politics to its current politicians, then you bitches (affectionately and euphemistically called “the constituents”) come a distant second.

Now, I know, I know. I’m cynical.

I’m sure those good people at the Met Council would never ever think about forcing people who don’t use the light rail to subsidize it just to either bribe schmucks to vote for them or to masturbate their egos so they call feel like they’ve done something for the community and give meaning to their meaningless lives. They would put first and foremost you ahead of their personal interests because you are a hard working tax payer forfeiting precious minutes of your finite life to convert your time into the life-blood of money so you can make the mortgage and put food on the table. And if you’re not going to use the light rail, that’s OK, because this was such a great idea that it was bound to make a buck and wouldn’t need your subsidy.
Well here’s the latest projected income statement from the Met Council on the light rail for 2006.


At first it seems like the light rail is making a tidy profit of $1.3 million.

But let’s put on our “auditor” hat and assume we’re auditors looking at the details of the income statement.

If you look at total revenues from passengers and advertising the light rail took in $8.7 million.

Then there is a bevy of government “revenue” sources. This manifest themselves in the form of various county, state and federal government agencies putting up the money. Of course it really isn’t the GOVERNMENT putting up the money. It’s not like the elected representatives on Met Council, the Hennepin county commissioner at the congressional representatives in Washington are dipping into their own pockets to give us their money.

No.

There is no such thing as “government money.” It’s all TAXPAYER’S MONEY.

Yes, you, me, and just about everybody else I know who hasn’t ever taken one stinking ride on that little toy of socialism are still paying for it. And we’re paying on the order of $11 million (and without our subsidy, if the light rail were to be treated like an adult, ie- private sector firm, it would be losing $10 million per year).

Per working man and woman in Minnesota this translates into about $4 per person to help some spoiled brat, gray haired, trust fund baby boomer that’s on an environmental crusade boost their ego and deal with the fact they’ve never achieved anything in their lives.

That’s $4 per working Minnesotan to ensure a politician gets re-elected by the 12 people that ride the thing regularly and the thousands of Volvo drivers that will never use it (see previous paragraph for more detailed description).

That’s $4 per working Minnesotan to help make the enemies of freedom force their utopian idea of equal misery on the rest of us.

And while you may say $4 per working person is nothing and so what, that doesn’t include the negative externalities or opportunity costs. The light rail corridor is backed up. DT Minneapolis is shot on 3rd street. And let’s not forget that in providing public transportation for people who, frankly, do not produce much wealth going to the “Mall of America” to shop, we forego the opportunity to open up the arteries (read roads) in the suburbs where the real wealth producers are, thus bottlenecking our economic growth.

The real issue though is that public transportation is once again, nothing more than an elaborate scheme of wealth redistribution. The majority of people who are paying for the light rail, not to mention its needed perpetual bailout by the taxpayer, are people who do not use it. The majority of people who pay for it are by default people who drive and live in the suburbs or the rural areas and are in the upper half of income earners. The majority of people who use it are city folk that do not produce the majority of wealth, therefore do not pay the taxes to finance the light rail, not to mention a bevy of kids and shoppers who are just going to the freaking Mall of America to shop. It is nothing more than providing subsidized transportation to the inner city at cost to the suburbs, not to mention the opportunity cost of better roads. It is the most convoluted and complex way to orchestrate an income transfer. Heck, I would have probably voted for a tax break to poor folks for transportation purposes. It just behooves the question why so much sugar was required to make this horrible tasting medicine to go down.

But expect more medicine folks. A new light rail line is going to be rammed down your throats along University Avenue. I just wonder how much sugar they’re going to use this time.

“I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, AND MINNEAPOLIS and by gum, it put them on the map!”

11 comments:

  1. You're two years too late on this one. The barn door's shut, but the horse (or in this case, train) has long since escaped. When economics meets politics, any student of history *ahem* can tell you that reality loses, and especially so in the modern era.

    The Twin Cities used to have an efficient streetcar system that was the wonder of the Midwest, but two things combined to kill it: personal transportation in the form of the automobile (good) and politics (not so good). The Met Council refuses to look back on this system and learn from what was, and intead is creating a monstrosity to please a vocal minority.

    Sad.

    Incidentally, just in case you wanted to read online sources...

    You can go here or go here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:50 AM

    I agree with your argument. But because I get into this argument all the time with friends and family, can you provide data on how much roads are subsidized? For instance, if we pay $8 million to subsidize moving x number of people y distance, what's the equivalent for roads? Any data on the cost of the pollution externality?

    On a slightly different note, I also hear the argument that parking ramps downtown are forced by downtown ordinance (if you build a building you need to build a parking ramp for it). Is this true? Secondly, can a developer buy a parking ramp and convert it to a building then and there? If buying up and tearing down parking ramps is illegal, then that would constitute a subsidy of car drivers.

    Ideally, no form of transportation should be subsidized or should receive beneficial regulation (such as required parking ramps). Do you have any data that is comprehensive in measuring all transportation forms and how much they're subsidized? Any more data on MN transportation costs would be much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Awesome post, as usual...when will people learn that government money is OUR MONEY! Raise the price of a Big Mac by 3 cents and the hefty among us will revolt! But tax us for a WHOPPING 25%+ of our income and then hit us up for more...no big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:34 AM

    I would suggest the reason that lightrail might not work as well as it could in the Twin Cities, is that it is waaayy to spread out. Without traffic, I would estimate that it would take about 2 hours to drive from one of the far south suburbs to one of the far nothern ones (we can use Elk River as an example.) Just for the record, I live in the suburbs, because it is closer to my husband's job and between the two of us, we earn about $100,000 a year, my husband drives a Mercedes (and, having no kids, we pay a hell of a lot in taxes.) I lived in Minneapolis for several years, and loved being able to bike to school and work. Unfortunately, I now work too far away from my home to bike (which only works here in fall, spring and summer, anyway) and really wish I could take public transportation to work. The nearest bus stop though, is 20 minutes away, which is about the same distance to work. It would seem that public transportation works in cities that are not as spread out. I have friends that have lived in New York for years without cars, simply because they are able to take the subway anywhere they need to go, and I visited a friend who lived in Washington DC, and we took the Metro everywhere. I have also visited London, and we didn't bother with renting a car or trying to drive on the left because the Underground worked well. My experience with Minneapolis' public transporation is that the buses are never on time, and you have to transfer at least once to get anywhere at all. The only difference that I can see is that the aforementioned cities are more centralized, whereas the Twin Cities and it's millions of suburbs are very spread out. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:48 AM

    Wouldn't it be losing closer $21 million per year from a taxpayer's perspective? $8.7 million in revs from ridership and advertising less the $11.2 million taken from taxpayers, less the $18.5 million in operating expense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We have a similar situation going on here in Detroit. We also used to have an amazing streetcar system (so I've heard) which we sold to Mexico City in the 50s (and apparently they are still using). Of course, here in Detroit, there was a definite agenda, and there was a major incentive to get people to buy cars.

    Now we have a fairly decent suburban bus system and a terrible city bus system. And what is the response from the powers that be?

    Let's build a light rail from Detroit to Ann Arbor.

    IDIOTS!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:57 PM

    Hennepin county pays for half the operating expenses, which at one time, earlier in the process, was around 10 million per year (estimated). The next route will have two counties involved in operating expenses. In fact, if future routes all connect by the new Twins stadium, Hennepin county can pay half on each. Outstate would go up each time as well, but never mind that.

    Automated OSLR would cut operating expenses by the cost of drivers, require less maintenance, and be twice as fast.

    For more info, google OSLR or Overhead Suspended Light Rail.

    By the way, the Met Council is not elected, they are appointed by the Governor, and serve at his/her pleasure. They get paid a pittance, and are representative for an area. Suggestions or complaints are supposed to go to your rep on the Met Council.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Tim,

    Yes, somebody pointed it out before hand with the appointments versus election.

    Regardless, we can spread it across the different counties, if you look at the operating accounts, light rail still needs tax payer's money to subsidize it. Split it across 2, 3, or 19 counties, it still is subsidizing other people's transport.

    I also ran some napkin calculations and "IF" LRT was financed by traditional methods (borrowed money, and would have to operate by private sector standards, ergo pay interest expense) it would cost another $50 million in interest expense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:17 AM

    "I’m always skeptical of government types because, by definition they’re in government. They don’t have to answer to the market, they don’t have to make ends meet, they don’t have to turn a profit. My skepticism turns into full blown cynicism when you have political interests afoot;"

    But in spite of that you LOOOOOVE "W"!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous10:21 AM

    "I’m always skeptical of government types because, by definition they’re in government. They don’t have to answer to the market, they don’t have to make ends meet, they don’t have to turn a profit. My skepticism turns into full blown cynicism when you have political interests afoot"

    And in spite of this coment, you LOOOVE GWB! What's up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous8:38 PM

    Always funny to hear people whine that public transit doesn't pay for itself, then turn around and say more money should be spent something else they can't prove pays for itself: roads. How does that road outside your house "pay" for itself? Show us all the math on that one. I'm guessing you can't because there are some intangible numbers you would have to use that you failed to put in your mass transit caculations.

    (Your gas tax is put, not into roads, but into a slush fund that includes road funding. You must like trusting the government to disperse your money rather than at least a partially more direct payment like mass transit)

    You make an emotional "class war" argument but that's about it. Communists? Are you from the 50s?

    ReplyDelete