Now that Norfolk has done all the heavy lifting, Virginia Beach is reconsidering its rejection of participation in light rail.
Several Virginia Beach City Council members said they are interested in reopening discussions with residents about bringing The Tide line to Town Center and the Oceanfront. The move is a shift in thinking in a city where light rail has been the third rail of politics since voters defeated a proposal in 1999.
“A lot of things have changed since the referendum,” said Councilman John Uhrin, who represents the Oceanfront. “We now have destinations along the route … We have Town Center and Granby Street . I think it’s time to have those discussions again.”
Better late than never, I guess.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Yeah, like THIRTY YEARS late!
I am glad Va Beach has some visionaries on their City Council.
Isn’t this why we have people running the government who are experts (supposedly) on the things that matter to us?
There is something to be said for a government making a bold statement about something as important as light rail. Now, there are destinations along the route. NOW it would be a good idea.
Forward thinking, progressive representation is what makes the difference between right on time and being behind the curve. I am glad to see that it will be looked at again, but it would help if someone in government would quit waving their wet finger in the air before signing off on something this important.
I presume that the government at the time had a position on the 1999 referendum? Did they support the idea then?
Denver went through this for years until the solution could no longer be ignored. The result? Higher construction costs, gridlock in the interim, and a minority determining the fate of the transportation system by blocking those efforts for years.
As I said on another bb, still some problems:
1. At their Retreat Sunday, Council watered down Barbara Henley’s proposal to make a decision on LRT duirng the coming year. The point voted a priority leaves transit down the Norfolk Southern ROW…but waffles on what system. (Not necessarily LRT.)
2. Louis Jones is dragging his feet. The Vice Mayor is quite powerful.
3. The Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance (VBTA) will try to dominate the public meetings.
Yes, the time to move forward with light rail is here, but it’s not as easy as today’s Pilot story makes it sound.
Virginia Beach is still run by a bunch of back-room rednecks who can’t come into the 19th century, much less 21st Century.
Don’t hold your breath! I went to all the Light Rail forums and meetings in the 90’s and I can tell you that the rednecks will prevail!
If light rail were economically viable, private investors would be lining up to build it for a profit.
It isn’t and it never will be, the population distribution in our area is not right for it.
This is about chasing Federal subsidy dollars, and nothing else.
Those rednecks understand economics a lot better than your forward thinking visionaries.
I disagree, Doc. The reason light rail is not economically viable is that the business model does not allow the economic benefits to flow to the company building and operating the rail system.
Assuming it is all privately owned and run, how would a rail system get money? From its passengers, of course. However, the passengers are not the only beneficiaries of a light rail system. Businesses near the stations get more business. Companies located near stations can attract more and better employees. How could such benefits flow back to the owner of the rail system?
Similar issues arise with heavy rail. Heavy rail provides MUCH cheaper cargo transfer than trucks do. But the trucking companies do not have to build the roads. Without subsidies to build the rail lines, the railroads could not compete. The consequences would be more trucks on the roads, more traffic accidents, higher product costs, and even more money spent repairing the roads the trucks tear up.
The question that Tidewater must deal with is whether light rail will provide enough benefit to offset the costs. The topography of the region makes the proposal more expensive than it would be without all the water, but I still think the benefits would outweigh the costs.
What you are referring to is what economists call “externalities” which are costs and benefits that fall on or accrue to others not directly involved in a transaction. There are always externalities, for example, when I fix a patient’s painful tooth, the patient pays me, but the patient’s employer benefits from less absenteeism and more productivity, the patients spouse and children have a less grumpy cohabitant, but none of them pay me. That’s not a problem because the patient has “transactions” with all of them and in part is paying me on their behalf. That’s how the free market of voluntary exchanges resolves externalities. The patients “value” as a worker, parent and spouse has been enhanced and will be rewarded in some way.
We only get problems when externalities cannot be resolved because force (in the form of involuntary transactions) is introduced into the marketplace, either by thugs or government. That’s when we start dragging down the economy with the inefficiencies and bad choices externalities can cause.
Using your example of heavy rail vs trucking, you are correct that the truckers receive an external benefit from public roads. You propose to fix that by offering balancing taxpayer subsidies to rail. But in doing so you are creating thousands of unresolvable externalities.
When you tax me to pay for both the trucker’s road and the rail subsidy, you are raising the price of fixing that tooth, and impacting the quality of life of the patient’s family and the cost of his or her labor to her employer, without any benefit or enhanced value attached. You are also taxing the grocer, the plumber and car dealer and thousands of others who deal with them, with all those ripples of unresolved externalities dragging down the overall efficiency of the economy, the the detriment of everyone, as the standard of living of any population is directly related to the efficiency of their market economy.
The right way to fix the externality to the trucker’s advantage due ot the road system is to pay for the roads with User Fees(Fuel taxes, tolls) instead of general taxes. These should be proportional to the cost the public incurs so the toll for trucks would be higher than for a car since they take up more space and do more damage to the road.
Tolls, by the way, need not be collected in ways that add to congestion, see http://www.texas121.org
But always we should seek to minimize externalities by keeping all transactions voluntary, and since government uses force to collect taxes, keeping things in the private sector, or operating a government service on a pay as you go basis as though it were private, is the right way to do it.
If light rail can’t pay for itself with fares and no subsidy, then it should not be built at all. Always remember that a subsidy is really a bribe used to get a person to do something a rational person would not otherwise do. In other words, you are using force to collect money from innocent bystanders to pay someone to do something insane.
That is not good policy.
“[The] patient’s employer benefits from less absenteeism and more productivity, the patients spouse and children have a less grumpy cohabitant, but none of them pay me.”
In many case, you will find that the employer IS paying you, via dental insurance.
“That’s how the free market of voluntary exchanges resolves externalities.”
Not all “externalities” are resolved by the free market, and not all are bad. Roads and railroads are prime examples. This wonderful Texas Tollway only opened last year. If ALL roads were private toll roads, we’d never get anywhere.
I certainly agree that the trucking companies are not paying what the roads are worth to them, and probably not enough to cover the damage they do. However, the alternative is increased prices of goods, which will have a larger impact on the poor.
“If light rail can’t pay for itself with fares and no subsidy, then it should not be built at all.”
I would agree, IF its competition (roads and cars) were not subsidized. Since road construction IS subsidized, it is unrealistic to expect unsubsidized light rail to be competitive.
In this case, I see the subsidy not as a bribe, but as an investment in infrastructure. Light rail would bring in more tourists, boosting waterfront businesses. Parking at the beach is a nightmare. Light rail would allow tourists to stay in hotels further from the shore, boosting business all along the rail lines. The idea is that the increased revenue will more than compensate for the cost of the rail.
Vivian — In this one case, I am advocating a “big government” solution over the private sector. You wanna jump in here, just for the fun of being on the same side for once?
You’re doing just fine without my 2 cents 🙂
As I understand the role of government, it is to do things that we cannot do on our own. Transportation has long been considered a part of the role of government, which is why they subsidize the roads. To not subsidize light rail is to treat it as an unequal stepchild in the transportation mix.
As an aside – had the government not decided to enrich the private sector by replacing trolleys with buses, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
How exactly are the roads subsidized?
I would agree that trucking interests do not pay their fair share, but prior to HB 3202, roads were financed entirely with user fees, tolls, fuel taxes and taxes on vehicle sales and registration.
Of that money raised entirely from those who use the roads, 4.2% is diverted to subsidize the Port of Virginia and 14.7% to subsidize mass transit. Only 78% of the Transportation Trust Fund goes to roads. The rest goes to things like lighted signs giving information that the private radio stations gave you half an hour earlier.
Were our fuel taxes not plundered for these other things, we would have plenty to build roads.
So Virginia drivers are not subsidized, rather they subsidize others.
You say that like 78% is pocket change, Donald. Clearly, we’re not subsidizing our roads if 78% of funds raised through fuel taxes, tolls, and vehicle registration fees are going to them. We’ll neglect for a minute what percentage of roads funding comes through the government, which is, well about 100%.
“We’ll neglect for a minute what percentage of roads funding comes through the government, which is, well about 100%.”
Yes, it comes THROUGH government, but not from it. Government doesn’t have a job or a product to sell, it has no money of its own. The money comes FROM the motorists buying fuel, and in the course of coming THROUGH government, 20% of their road money is stolen to be used for something else that does not benefit them. (the other 2% is aviation, but they pay enough in fuel taxes to more than cover that)
If your bank was skimming 20% of your money to use for the benefit of other purposes, they would go to jail.
Mass transit doesn’t benefit motorists? It takes cars off the road, aiding travel.
“Mass transit doesn’t benefit motorists? It takes cars off the road, aiding travel.”
I’m sure that is the intent, but my observation driving in Norfolk is that the buses serve more as movable roadblocks that stop every other corner to let their often single passenger off and then at the next to let a single passenger on.
OK, that’s an exaggeration, but not by much. They certainly don’t carry enough passengers to have a net positive effect on traffic when their obstruction of flow is weighed against possible cars eliminated.
Grade level light rail will tie up traffic even worse.