Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Are State Governments Out of Date?

San Francisco Bay Area highlighted in red on a...
San Francisco Bay Area highlighted in red on a map of California (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take a look at almost any state in the nation, and you will find something interesting. Except for the original states that were created from the colonies, often times our states were created long before they had major population centers. This means that the population of the state and its regional ties may not necessarily conform to state borders.

Previously I talked about the important of a regional agency that should oversee transit service to insure that separate agencies are working together to ensure connectivity between transit systems so that riders have an easier time traveling across the region. One of the major problems of creating a regional board is that they stop at state lines and even though the place across the border may have economic ties to the other, they often have a hard time working together.

To start off lets take a look at California. I grew up there and always listened to the debates about north vs. south and how one was better than the other or more important than the other. In a way you could say there is actually multiple California's. Looking at regional needs you could say that Southern California is one region, The San Francisco Bay Area from Monterey to Sacramento is another region, and the San Joaquin Valley is a third.

An even better case is in the Northwest. While many residents of Vancouver, WA would not want to admit this, they have more in common with Portland, Oregon than they do with Seattle or Spokane economically. Politically Vancouver is more aligned with Spokane, economically they are part of a region that extends from Eugene to Longview.

Politically and economically Spokane and the surrounding area are independent and have little in common especially politically with the Puget Sound region. The Puget Sound area is its own region that you could arguably say stretches from Olympia to actually Vancouver BC but with Vancouver you don't have just another state but a another country which makes matters even worse.

More examples would be Pittsburgh that has more in common with neighboring cities in Ohio than it does with Philadelphia; does Kansas City, Kansas have more in common and belong in a region with Kansas City, Missouri more than say Wichita?; St. Louis and its 'suburbs' to the east in Illinois, the Cincinnati Region and so on.

Lets not fool ourselves, our States and their political existence is a bedrock in our nation and we will likely not see any changes in the future. However, while it may not happen on a national basis, there is still great benefits to regions working together to design and build a interconnected future. Maybe someday Cascadia will represent an economic and planning region in the northwest that will boost the region and not just a time bomb waiting to severly damage the area.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Pros and Cons of moving transportation to the state level

The western front of the United States Capitol...The western front of the United States Capitol. The Capitol serves as the seat of government for the United States Congress, the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government. It is located in Washington, D.C., on top of Capitol Hill at the east end of the National Mall. The building is marked by its central dome above a rotunda and two wings. It is an exemplar of the Neoclassical architecture style. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)When the Republican controlled House of Representatives came out with their budget proposal a few months ago many called it a doomsday budget. Among the items in the budget that had transit advocates scared was the elimination of dedicated transit spending.

So far no permanent transportation budget has been passed and considering it has been years since a plan has been passed through into law and the current state of affairs in Washington I see little happening between now and when our next president whether it is President Obama reelected or the Republican candidate is elected. 

Once the election happens we might be able to see what the future of transportation policy might be in the United States or on the other hand if we continue to have two widely different political influences in Congress, we may continue on this not so lovely state of political impasse. 

For second let me play devil's advocate with my libertarian side and say what if we not only ended dedicated transit funding on the state level, but instead completely eliminated transportation oversight by the Federal government. What would happen? 

Most people looking at this either see doomsday or happy days depending on your political perspective, however like anything there is good points and bad and let me point some of them out. This is by no means a comprehensive paper on the opportunities and unintended consequences but instead a few brief talking points designed to facilitate a discussion of the future of Transportation in America. 

Pros: 

Yes boys and girls, there would be some positive that would come out of this. The most important is that there would potentially be more money available to be used on projects (although see cons also for the funding issue part). Because an entire layer of bureaucracy that costs millions of dollars to operate would be eliminated more money could be used to fund transit projects that the states want. 

In addition unnecessary regulations could be eliminated that would also lower costs on projects. One example that has become punching bag in certain circles is the Buy American Act that raises cost of procuring equipment. While I am a supporter of American made products and want to see our local industries do well, that is an economic issue that should be dealt with separately from transportation. I am sure almost everyone could point out some  needless regulation that has been implemented on the Federal level that increase the cost to build vitally important projects. 

Third, ideally the state government would look to what are the priorities for the state and fund them by that priority list. Instead of having to worry that the Federal level would not consider their project important over something else, they could dedicated their funding to that project. 

Cons: 

If there is pros, then there has to be cons and once again let me point out I am just picking out a couple of important talking points here. You could write a book on the subject which is not the intention here. 

The biggest con is the counterpoint to number three of the pro's and that's the priorities of the state government. The question, how many state legislatures are in tuned with the needs of the people in the biggest cities in that state? I think you would be hard pressed to find a state where their priorities seemed in tuned with the needs of the cities. 

Then you add the totally wacked out state legislatures like Utah. For years anti-transit forces have been lobbying to get the Utah Transit Authority put under the control of UDOT which is strictly a highway organization. The primary goal here is to take away the voter approved funding from UTA and give it to strictly high spending. So far they have not been successful. However, if the state legislature of Utah had control of transit funding considering most members are either hostile or oblivious to transit such as my former legislator Carol Spackman who is one of the latter members. 

To see what could happen lets take a look at one law that went through the Utah Legislature this year. The city of Salt Lake City passed a no-idling ordinance to reduce pollution especially during times of inversion. The legislature decided it didn't like that so their might hand decided to change the law. 

Another con would be funding itself. With the elimination of the Federal Gasoline Tax and funding mechanisms  the responsibility for funding ALL transportation in the state would fall on the state. How hard would it be for state legislatures especially in states like Washington that has a anti-tax political machine to ramp up initiatives to shoot down any tax the state tries to levy? While the Federal government has been inept at raising the gas tax most states have not been doing anything either for fear of voter reprisals. What money was allocated would quickly be absorbed into the highways with nothing left for the alternatives. 

Finally it would also mean that the states would have to take a more active role when it comes to safety measures when it comes to transportation. This could actually make costs worse as every state enacts different regulations requiring bidders to change the specifications for every state. When it comes to transit, most orders are small enough that it could have a major detrimental effect on industry. 

Conclusion: 

There is no easy answers of this is probably only the tip of the iceberg of the pros and cons to this issue. Sadly, I see little being accomplished in Washington DC over the next few months and maybe longer depending on the outcome of this years elections. 

What is clear is we need to have an effective dialogue on the future of transportation in our country. Whether it will happen is anyone's guess. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Mortgage Deduction

Half million dollar house in Salinas, Californ...Image via Wikipedia
Not too long ago I posted about how the government since the days of FDR has been artificially inducing demand for real estate. Over the years owning a how has gone from being a privilege to the point it is now an entitlement.

Now from the Inside Real Estate News out of Denver comes an article that promotes keeping another one of the long standing government enhancements to the real estate market: the mortgage deduction on taxes.

Anyone who carries a mortgage on their home may deduct the interest from their taxes and so could have a tax deduction up to $2500.00. One of the reasons that the justifications for keeping the mortgage deduction is that it will increase foreclosures. Now if a $2500 tax deduction is the only thing keeping people out of foreclosure, I would have to say that those people could not afford the home in the first place and should not count on a government enhancement to keep them in their homes.

In fact, as I mention in my previous post, more than 50% of the people buying homes could not buy them without some type of government enhancement and that number probably went substantially up in the last few years before the bubble burst.

I could go on forever about the social-economic impacts that the enhancements have created in our society. After all, when FDR started these programs only 2% of homeowners had a mortgage and today it hovers somewhere around the 65 to 75% range.

What you should not expect is any changes. The Reality lobby is one of the more powerful lobbying groups in many state legislatures and probably in DC too. They have too much to loose if the government stopped inducing demand for real estate.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Should UTA Change its Meeting Times?

Picture of a Spokane Transit Authority bus.Image via Wikipedia


For those of us that have jobs, making Utah Transit Authority board meetings can be a difficult thing since a majority of them are held in the afternoons at the UTA headquarters. If you plan to attend you need to take a day off work or make other arrangements to make the meeting. While some employers may have no problem with this, others who have to schedule for customer service needs may have a bigger issue with it.

So the question is, should the meetings be changed to the evenings so that more people can attend? I say the answer to that question is no.

While some may argue that more people would be able to attend the meetings if they were in the evening, in my experience the time of the meeting makes little difference on the number of people attending the meeting.

For example the Spokane Transit Authority holds its meetings at 5:30pm and its headquarters is within a five minute bus ride or drive from downtown Spokane. However unless there is major cuts planned in bus service, the meetings see little public participation.

To put the issue into better perspective lets take a look at city council meetings. The city of Spokane holds their council meetings in the evenings. For business reasons I attended almost every meeting during a several year period in 2001-2002 period. The average attendance during that time was twelve. To put that into greater perspective that was something like two one thousanths of one percent of the population.

To make those numbers sound even worse, six of those people were a part of a group that attended the meetings that were Spokane's CAVE people (Citizens against virtually everything).

The only time the city council chambers were full was when they were proposing massive changes to the building code to concentrate new high density development around major transit stops.

So changing meeting times do not equate to better attendance at meetings and should not be considered for changing meeting times for transit agencies or other government agencies for that matter.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Is the Streetcar the only hope for Downtown Bountiful?

The Portland Streetcar in front of Powell's Books.Image via Wikipedia


Recently I had the opportunity to take a walking tour of the downtown Bountiful area. As many of you know the Downtown Bountiful Business Association is opposing the proposal to bring the streetcar through the area. However, after looking at the current status of the downtown area, the association should be supporting this proposal as it may be the best hope of downtown bountiful surviving in the long term.

The first problem I see with downtown Bountiful is there is not much to attract people to the area. The only restaurant in the immediate area has closed so you have to walk to the extreme end of the downtown area to find a place to eat. In addition a shopping area needs a large variety of stores to keep the area vibrant. However, that is sourly lacking in the downtown Bountiful area.

Of course the city of Bountiful is not helping the downtown area. They used government money to put in a Costco obviously like many city councils lusting after the sales tax dollars. Sadly what city councils turn a blind eye to is that healthy small business bring in more sales tax dollars per square foot than a big box retailer.

While I am sure the city council sold the concept that Costco would bring in additional shoppers to the area, the truth is a Costco and stores like it do nothing for the immediate area businesses. A Costco is a destination store so that people go into the store, shop at it and then head home so they bring no money to the surrounding area.

So is the streetcar the magic that will save downtown Bountiful?

The answer to that question is no. However, what the streetcar does is bring new people into the area that would not otherwise travel to downtown Bountiful. It will create new business opportunities for those that take advantage of them.

To bring true success with the streetcar would probably take something that residents of the area would not be willing to do and that is to increase density and bring some infill development into the sea of parking lots that presently litters the area.

While downtown Bountiful has lasted longer than many downtown areas, its life its slowly being sucked away between their own city council and the Centerville city council slowly subsidizing their business away.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Today is national train day


Westbound California Zephyr
Originally uploaded by jmdspk
For those of you who did not know it, today is national train day, a day to celebrate our national rail passenger system. Of course those of use here in Utah were we have only one train per day that comes through in both directions at night, there is not much to celebrate and since Utah does not help Amtrak fund a state operation we seemed to get ignored like many other places.

In fact, Amtrak passed its 37th birthday on May 1st; I would scarcely call it a celebration since there is little to celebrate. I guess we can celebrate that we do have some semblance of a rail passenger network in place sense the creation of Amtrak was designed to shut down rail passenger service, not make it survive.

Personally, I support long distance rail passenger service. In the past year I have taken a couple of trips over to Denver on the California Zephyr, plus my wife and I have traveled up to Portland, Seattle and Spokane on the Coast Starlight, Cascade Service, and the Empire Builder respectively.

However, while Amtrak seemed to make progress in its first 10 years especially redoing the run down fleet in found itself with, there has been little progress when it comes to rail passenger service the Carter Administration cut many trains out. Today, the system is in worse shape for the most part than when Amtrak first started on May 1st, 1971.

In fact the only success stories you find is were the states have funded improvements having to bring Amtrak along kicking and screaming.

Rail Passenger service can be a success in spite of Amtrak not because if it. Here is some articles that may be of interest including one I wrote a few years ago comparing Amtrak to K-Mart.

Does Amtrak Have Too Much in Common with K-Mart?

America wants more Rail Passenger Service


Amtrak needs leadership, not more managers

The CZ: Amtrak’s forgotten train

The Long Distance Trains need more local control

Matrix Theory is not the name of a movie


What Do We Need From Amtrak?

Strategic Points for a Privatized National Rail Passenger System

Three Radical Ideas Concerning Amtrak

Concepts Of The Successful Long Distance Train Of The Future

Overview, Concepts Of The Successful Long Distance Train Of The Future

Corridor and Long Distance Myths and Realities