Reprinted from Tribune Newspapers, 5 June 1996, with permission of the author.
In a recent commentary [Tribune Newspapers, 28 April 1996], the Goldwater Institute's Eric VonDohlen said he doesn't think mass transit will work in the Valley because it forces us to radically change the way we live our lives - where we live, where we work, how we design our building, how we spend our time. "If transit requires such wholesale changes," he said, "it simply isn't worth it."
No doubt, an effective public transportation system would create changes in our lives: changes like lowering stress levels for rush-hour commuters; reducing congestion on freeways and major arterials; diminishing the brown cloud that nangs over the Valley; getting a handle on urban sprawl; reducing strain on family budgets by offering alternatives to the automobile.
Radical? Probably. Public transit gets to the root of our tranpsortation problem, and that's what "radical" means - finding solutions, not just quick fixes. A miltuimodal tranpsortation system that accomodates cyclists, pedestrians and transit users, as well as motorists, would give us choices. By choosing alternatives to the automobile, we help to develop sustainable communities.
Transportation is more than just an economic issue; it's a social issue, an environmental issue, a quality of life issue. With the potential to impact nearly everyone's life, every day, tranportation should be a No. 1 priority; but in Arizona we consistently relegate transportation to the back burner.
Our legislators, state officials, and local leaders need to be visionary in their approach to transportation. They must be able to see past the next bend in the freeway.
Too often that's not the case. When asked about public transit in a television interview, Chuck Coughlin, from the governor's office, replied, "Let's lay down cement first (build freeways); we'll worry about public transportation later."
In an informatl conversation with a Mesa leadership grup, Arizona Department of Transportation directory Larry Bonine said we will never have an effective public transportation system here in the Valley. "We're too much in love with our cars," he said.
These are not the words of visionaries.
Most of our alley communities contribute only meager sums, if any, to public transportation efforts, and attempts to fund public transit at the sate level often do not succeed. The Powerball lottery, for example, was initially designed to fund public transit.
In the final version of the bill, it was decieded that $45 million would be siphoned off the top for the State General Fund; the rest would go to public transit. Here's the hitch: there is nothing left after the State General Fund gets its share. In this year's legislative session, HB 2499 proposed to change that priority for Powerball money and put transit back on top in the funding formula. The bill sailed through the House but died in the Senate.
This is not the work of visionaries.
In his commentary, VanDolhen cited an 1996 report by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy entitled Transit in the Valley: Where do we go from here? This publication offers an excellent overview of the Valley's transportation issues, as well as possible solutions. Van Dohlen's interpretation of the Morrison report is that it says, "Valley residents should live to serve mass transit." My interpretation is that there is hope for the future; we can solve our transportation problems.
But it will take a cooperative effort. It requires leaders willing to take risks; it requires communities willing to commit funding; it requires flexible planning and zoning policies that encourage alternative modes of transportation and curb urban sprawl; it takes citizens who are willing to give public transit and other alternative modes a chance.
If we can get the leadership, funding and planning into place, the citizen response will be easy. Choosing the cool comfort of commuter rail over a freeway jam in drive-home traffic won't be a tough choice to make. Paying more than $5,000 per year to own and operate that commuter car, versus $612 per year to ride the express bus - that, too, is not a difficult decision.
Add to the finanical benefits the incentives and amenities that employers and cities can offer to carpoolers, transit users, cyclists, and pedestrians, and citizens will be eager to try an alternative mode.
To make a multimodal transportation system work probably will require "radical" changes - positive changes that should have been started long ago. These chccanges will translate into economic, social, environmental, and quality of life benefits:
Eric VonDohlen says "it simply isn't worth it." You decide.
Karen PetersBack to the Letters Page or find other Articles and Letters from 1996