Arguments Against Proposition 1

Proposition 1 would extract nearly $4 billion out of taxpayers over the next 20 years to fund a transit scheme that will handle less than 1% of the travel in the urban region.[1] This is too much to pay for too little benefit.

Spending this money on transit will mean that it won't be available for more productive alternatives. For example, this same amount of money could be used to build about 100 more miles of new freeways. Transit proponents would have you think that building more freeway miles would be bad for the city. What they won't tell you, though, is that freeways provide 15 times more traffic relief per dollar of public expenditure than transit does.

The $4 billion that transit proponents want to squander on empty buses and trains could be better used in building freeways.[2] Freeways that are now "unfunded" or scheduled to become tollroads (for example, the South Mountain "tollway" in Ahwatukee) could be built and without having to resort to tolls if this money were more sensibly directed to needed road construction.

Let's not obstruct the road to the future by clogging our transportation arteries with little-used buses and trains. Placing rail lines along existing freeways will only further restrict traffic flow for the 99% of us.[3] Please, no more bottlenecks. Let's save our resources for more useful and cost-effective methods of reducing traffic congestion.

If our city planners want to experiment with trains and tracks, they can buy their own at Toys R Us.[4] Amtrak recently deleted Phoenix from its routes due to lack of passengers.[5] When's the last time you took a train to go anywhere? [6]

Please join me in voting NO on Proposition 1.

WALTER PETERS

[1] The "1%" figure is misleading since it includes all of Maricopa County, not just Phoenix; it includes vast areas without any transit service; and it is based on a 24-hour reading, when buses do not run.

In places where transit already provides levels of service which are comparable to those which Proposition 1 would fund -- such as Central Avenue -- up to 25% of rush-hour trips are already on transit.

[2] Many buses are empty -- at the ends of their routes (of course!). During the middle of the day, demand is also less. Naturally, our highways are empty in the middle of the night too. It is for peak-hours that we build capacity!

[3] We are unaware of any plans to replace highway lanes with tracks. There are, however, many miles of existing rail tracks in the Valley which could be put to use.

[4] You can also buy toy cars and spaceships. Irrelevant.

[5] False. Amtrak left Phoenix because the Southern Pacific railroad intended to abandon the West Phoenix line -- a decision which Union Pacific has rescinded. Sunset Limited ridership in Phoenix was over 30,000 annually -- hardly a "lack of passengers." Further, Amtrak services here were for intercity riders, not commuters. ARPA intends to work toward the return of Amtrak to Phoenix.

[6] Mr. Peters, when is the last time you took a bus?

The "Traffic Congestion Relief and Air Pollution Reduction Ordinance" is a deliberate misnomer. If the mass transit scheme is completely successful in meeting its goals, congestion relief will be barely perceptible and pollution (the brown cloud) will be reduced by less than half of one percent![1] Yes the Department of Environmental Quality currently is calling for a 14% reduction in pollution to meet clean air standards. Costing taxpayers billions, implementation of this plan would divert resources from more effective and less costly alternatives.

For example, we could reduce pollution 15% by utilizing a mobile emissions testing program. This measure would cost less than $25 million per year. At one-fourth the cost, we could reap 30 times the impact of the mass transit plan.

Cost/benefit ratios show us that Proposition 1 should be titled "Public Enemy Number 1." Vote NO.

BECKY FENGER

[1] According to the Arizona Republic, 23 August 1997, "three... state lawmakers said even the 1 to 3 percent reduction in pollution projected by opponents would help the Valley fight air pollution.

"'One percent -- I'll take it,' said Rep. Carolyn Allen, a Scottsdale Republican who heads the House Environment Committee. 'I will take any percentage I can get.'"

1. This is a tax that will never end. [1]
2. The first twenty years of Proposition 1 will cost taxpayers four billion dollars. This averages to two hundred million dollars per year in taxes and is seventeen times the amount Maricopa County contributed to the baseball stadium. [2]
3. Total U.S. mass transit ridership has fallen from 23.5 billion trips in 1945 to 7.5 billion trips in 1989. A loss of over 68 percent.[3]
4. Nine of the ten cities that established rail in the 1980s show a decline in the percent of commuters using public transportation. [4]
5. New transit system have for the most part added to cost and to unused capacity without attracting riders from cars. [5]

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 1

PETE CORPSTEIN

[1] Transportation, as with all other city services -- libraries, schools -- does not have a time limit.

[2] The average Phoenecian will pay four cents a day.

[3] The loss reflects the short-sighted abandonment of many streetcar systems; transit ridership has increased since 1989; many transit systems are undergoing record ridership.

[4] While the percentage may have declined, absolute ridership has increased. This reflects continuing highway spending.

[5] Transit systems, like highways, handle most of their traffic during rush hour. Rush-hour buses in Phoenix are already full. It is during rush hour that transit systems are most valuable, by allowing those people who choose to ride the bus or train to do so, freeing capacity on our roads.

Right now 99% of travel in Phoenix is in cars.[1] If Proposition 1 passes and meets all of the goals envisioned by the transit planners, 98% of the travel will be in cars, that being the case, one car in 100 will be taken off the road.

The net impact of Proposition 1 would be a minute one percent decrease in the vehicle miles of travel. There would be a smaller impact on decreasing air pollution. [2]

In the July/August issue of Arizona Business Magazine, Elliot Pollack, the president of Elliot Pollack & Co. is quoted as saying "The fact is that there is no evidence that a light rail system or improved bus system will either substantially reduce pollution or congestion." [3]

While highway users pay 95% of the cost of roads, transit users pay less than 25% of the cost of bus service.[4] If fares from transit riders paid half of the cost of their own rides, bus service could be increased by 50% without a tax increase.

Let's not put ourselves in the same position as other cities by forcing tax payers to cover significant annual deficits for a transit system carrying only 2% to 3% of the person miles traveled. [5]

Join me in voting NO on Proposition 1.

Thank you,

HOWARD LEE SPRAGUE

[1] The "1%" figure and those which follow it are misleading; see ARPA Notes above.

[2] See Rep. Carolyn Allen's comments above.

[3] While transit may not reduce congestion, it can indeed help prevent the increase in congestion caused by additonal growth.

[4] According to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, "Motor vehicle users pay for only 53 percent to 69 percent of the social (public plus private) costs of motor vehicle use."

Highways cost more than just building them. They have to be maintained. A significant portion of our fire and police budgets go to keeping the roadways safe.

[5] Misleading statistic. See above.

Now, let's see if I got this straight.

We have entrusted the City of Phoenix with Millions of Dollars to operate an efficient "Bus System." They haven't put together a well run bus system, so we are now asked to entrust them with Billions of Dollars to operate an efficient "Bus/Light Rail System." It's time WE WAKE UP!

Phoenix, fix our busses, and when you have it right, come see us for more of our money to play with on another project. [1]

Until then, why not provide each of the approximately 50,000 bus riders each day with a clean, efficient golf carts, like Sun City.[2] If we spend $1,000 for each cart, it'll only cost $50,000,000, one shot, with no extra monthly expenses. We can put the difference, or $4,950,000,000 (that's 4 Billion, 950 million dollars), into fixing roads, creating cart paths, even giving electricity, etc., to the indigent, to run their cars. The pollution is still less than busses.

My argument sounds silly doesn't it? But let's face it folks, it's makes more sense than what city hall is presenting, and at least my idea saves money. Our money!

Their plan only cuts pollution by about 1%.[3] Even the Fed's require a 15% cut in pollution! Their cost of installation & maintenance are so high, they don't even discuss them. Make them tell us how much it's going to cost to build, to maintain, and assure us that there will not be any cost overruns before we O.K. it. They won't do it because it'll scare you away from the polls.

Gee, maybe providing one time golf carts to the indigent isn't such a bad or expansive idea at all!!!

RAY BARNES

[1] The whole point of Proposition 1 is to augment Phoenix's bus system, and to provide other transportation improvements.

[2] The "buy everyone a golf cart" or "buy everyone taxi rides" begs the question of from where the capacity to carry those vehicles will come.

[3] See Rep. Carolyn Allen's comments above.

Phoenix city planners have already drawn plans and projected a budget that calls for spending $250 million in the first give years to begin construction of a light rail line. The first street targeted: Central Avenue. By the year 2020, plans call for spending $1.6 billion on this rail system. Proponents of the transit tax increase would have you believe that light rail is only a possibility, while they have every intention of making it a reality. [1]

Work on the light rail will begin with tearing up Central to install ugly overhead wires and then to lay the tracks.[2] The millions of dollars spent beautifying Central will go down the drain.

The rail line will take up street space that is needed for left turns and create serious safety problems with the tracks running down the middle. Passengers rushing to catch a train will have to cross several lanes of traffic. There will be more pedestrian injuries and fatalities.[3] Lawsuits stemming from these accidents may well deplete the funds raised by the transit tax increase and put the city further into debt.

Many other cities have had studies of light rail. These studies invariably show that light rail is the most costly and least effective option for reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Nevertheless, political leaders and self serving interest groups have been swayed by the nostalgic lure of rail, the chance to make money from it and the perception that it's for the good of the people.[4]

Let's not make the same mistake here. Let's not give the politicians and bureaucrats a blank check to proceed with their ill-conceived rail fantasies. [5]

Please vote NO on September 9.

LESLIE BARRY

[1] Highway backers have every intention of building new highways. Bicycle backers have intentions of pushing for additional bicycle paths and lanes. Light-rail backers have intentions of pushing light rail. All of the above are definitions, not fiendish plots.

[2] According to the Dallas Morning News, residents of areas in which Dallas DART installed light rail have found the wires less intrusive than diesel buses, and have found the trains "too quiet" instead of the anticipated noise problems. In fact, DART has had to make the train bells and horns louder!

[3] Ms. Barry is perhaps picturing streetcars running in mixed traffic. Modern light-rail systems have stations engineered to avoid these problems.

[4] False. In cities across the country, after new rail systems have been started, neighboring communities are all clamoring to be next on the expansion list. Transit is an economic and social engine which creates positive changes in the communities through which it runs.

[5] The Plan calls only for the study of rail. Citizens and the City Council both must approve any possible construction.

We ought to go boldly into the future. Trying to get there by building a trolley line is neighter insightful or visionary. Trolleys and buses are the technologies of the first half of the 1900s, not the wave of the future-- no matter how spiffy they look.[1]

The future belongs to technologies that save time and money. Government transit fails on both counts.

1. TIME: Buses and trolleys' speed averages about 15 miles per hour. Trips by transit take twice as long as trips by car. So, it should be no surprise that transit's share of urban travel has dwindled from 30% in 1945 to 2% today. [2]
2. MONEY: It costs more to provide one person-mile of transportation by public transit (58 cents) than it does by car (41 cents). The only reason government transit's share of urban travel is even 2% is because taxpayers are paying the bulk of the cost. Currently in Phoenix, the rider pays 25% of the total transit cost. Using the government's own projections, it Proposition 1 passes, the rider will pay only 10% of the total cost and will carry less than 2% of urban travel.[3]

Traffic congestion will not be reduced by putting empty buses on the roads.[4] Instead, market-driven technological advances in telecommunications are making telecommuting a more effective alternative.

Work communications can travel around the world immediately over the internet.[5] It makes more sense to move the work rather than the worker. The benefits include:

1) Fewer miles driven.

2) Less traffic and air pollution.

3) Reduced office space requirements.

It would be foolish to invest billions in stale technologies of the past. Visit http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9824 and vote NO on Proposition 1.

GARY FALLON

[1] The automobile, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, has changed far less in this century than rail or transit techologies.

[2] Misleading. See above.

[3] Multiple misleading statements. See above.

[4] Transit already carries 25% of rush-hour trips in areas where service is sufficient. And while transit may not reduce congestion, it can indeed help prevent the increase in congestion caused by additonal growth.

[5] Is Mr. Fallon proposing to substitute Internet access for highways and roads as well? This is patently absurd.

Of all the problems our city faces, City Council has chosen to elevate a scheme to put more empty buses on our streets to the top of their list of priorities. They are urging voters to commit to a $4 billion tax increase over the next 20 years to pay for a plan, that if completely successful, will reduce traffic congestion by a mere one percent.[1]

This huge expenditure is hard to understand when the most important function of government, protecting the safety of its citizens, is not being performed. Crime continues at unacceptably high levels. If Phoenix really has an "extra" $4 billion to spend it should resolve the crime problem first.[2]

Proponents of this tax increase argue that since we subsidize libraries, police and fire departments, we should also subsidize transit. Well, we already do subsidize transit. Taxpayers currently pay $50 million per year so that bus passengers only have to pay one-fourth of the cost of their own rides. The proposal now before voters would force taxpayers to pay $150 million per year so that bus and train riders would only have to pay one-sixth of the cost of their own rides. Why should taxpayers be required to pay so much more per ride than the bus passengers themselves? [3]

The irony of the proponents' argument for this tax is that spending this money on a transit system that will serve so few people [4] will mean that there will be less money available to spend on libraries, police and fire departments.[5] Higher priorities will be neglected so that transit bureaucrats can expand their inefficient monopoly bus system.

We must keep our priorities straight and send Proposition 1 down to defeat on Sept. 9.

ROY MILLER

[1] Misleading. See above.

[2] Who says this is either/or?

[3] Highway users are heavily subsidized too. One reason to have public transit is to increase roadway capacity during rush hour. See above.

[4] Already every day, 96 lane-miles of freeway capacity is added by the existing Valley Metro bus system. This is more than just a "few people."

[5] Again, who says it's either/or?

Voters should reject the proposed transit tax because it contains what can only be described as a "Trojan Horse" which could eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Just as the Arizona Legislature authorized Maricopa County to increase the sales tax to fund Bank One Ballpark, this proposal would authorize the Phoenix City Council to raise the sales tax to fund a light rail system.[1]

The stated reason for building such a system is to reduce traffic congestion and to improve the valley's air quality. however, light rail is notorious for having an insignificant impact on both automobile mileage reduction and air quality.[2] What they do accomplish is a perpetual drain on local taxpayers to subsidize the inevitable, and significant, operating deficits which characterize every such system in North America.[3]

The operating deficits promise to be even larger in the sprawling urban environment of Phoenix.[4] The truth is that if light rail could be operated profitably, the free market would already have provided us with such a system.[5]

These facts beg the question of what benefits would light rail provide, and to whom would they accrue? Current proposals indicate that a light rail system using existing right-of-way and tracks would run from downtown Phoenix to Sky Harbor Airport, and eventually to downtown Tempe and points beyond -- all at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

In other words, a light rail system costing hundreds of millions of dollars would be used almost entirely for shuttling tourists from Sky Harbor Airport to the hotels, stadiums and shops in downtown Phoenix -- then later, downtown Tempe and Mesa.[6] Say NO to millions of dollars in additional taxpayer subsidies for the tourist and professional sports industries. See http://www.lpaz.org

MIKE DUGGER
SCOTT GRAINGER

[1] Only if a Citizens committee also approves it, and only if ridership on the expanded bus system warrants it.

[2] Misleading; see above. See also Rep. Carolyn Allen's comments above.

[3] There are no "deficits" leading to an accrued debt, because the costs of transit are paid each year. Nor do other city services have "deficits."

Further, what transit systems do is:

• Add roadway capacity during peak hours
• Add momentum to revitalized downtown areas
• Concentrate new development in transportation corridors

I suggest Mr. Dugger and Mr. Grainger take a field trip to Dallas and see the incredible positive impact the DART system has had there. Or Portland, or Denver, or San Diego, or St. Louis, or...

[4] Dallas is just as spread out as Phoenix, but is reaping the benefits of expanded bus and light rail.

[5] The "free market" argument holds no water, given heavy government subsidies to roadway, air, and water transportation systems.

[6] And undoubtedly commuters, ASU and MCC students, and Valley residents from all over. All of whom would not be driving their cars on Valley roads. Who among us has not driven behind a tourist trying to read a map, doing 15 mph on the highway? A very strong argument for light rail is provided by Messrs. Dugger and Grainger!