Grand Rapids Pundit

Rapid Silver Line Goes Down

Rapid Silver Line: FAIL

It’s fantastic news for taxpayers and for fiscal sanity in the Grand Rapids area. Last night the expensive and redundant Rapid “Silver Line” tax increase request went down in flames. The overall vote total was 52% against and 48% in favor, but when looking at the six cities in the Rapid service district, we see that a majority of the cities rejected the request:

Grand Rapids – 53% yes, 47% no

East Grand Rapids – 64% yes, 36% no

Grandville – 36% yes, 64% no

Kentwood – 46% yes, 54% no

Walker – 32% yes, 68% no

Wyoming – 36% yes, 64% no

As you can see, Walker, Wyoming, Kentwood, and Grandville all soundly rejected the tax increase request and even Grand Rapids was closer than expected.

The pro-Silver Line people are predictably dour. The comments of Peter Varga, executive director of the ITP (Rapid), sum up their attitude perfectly. He said it was rejected simply because voters didn’t understand the request. Right. Voters heard from this blog as well as other groups (including our friends at KCFFR) who exposed the bad plan of the Silver Line. The Rapid folks tried their hardest to limit the information available on this request, but active citizens exposed the Rapid and let voters know the facts. This web site alone received thousands of visits from people searching for more information.

The message was clear:

• This new Silver Line was a duplicate of already-existing bus services
• The Silver Line would cost tens of millions of dollars (just for buses)
• The Silver Line would have cut off traffic on Division by shutting down lanes and dramatically increasing congestion
• The Silver Line was slower than existing bus services (see our previous posts on the issue)
• The claims of spurred development and “new jobs” were based on speculation and conjecture

In summary, bravo for the voters of the four cities who rejected this request. Make no mistake, they will be back, asking for more. Their next request will be for more than $100 million for an even more inefficient light rail line.

Posted by: GRPundit on Wednesday, 6th May, 2009

Grand Rapids: The Next Stop for the Light Rail Boondoggle Train

This weekend’s Grand Rapids Press had an article about the ballooning cost of a potential “light rail” system that is in the works for Grand Rapids. The project hasn’t actually even begun, but already the potential cost has jumped from $69 million to $79 million – in the span of one year. The Rapid is ready to spend $800,000 of taxpayer dollars just on studying the concept.

What would this light rail system look like? The plan is to have one rail route, from the Sixth Street/Monroe intersection, south on Monroe Avenue, to the Rapid bus depot. That’s a grand total of about 3 miles. $24.8 million per mile.

The plan also calls for up to 2,900 passengers per day. The $1.30 cost of riding the streetcar would cover only about one third of the annual $1.75 million cost to continue operations.

Never mind the rediculous re-engineering that Monroe would need to build this thing (seven lanes wide?), why can’t buses accomplish the same thing? We’re no fan of the inefficient fixed route bus system that The Rapid employs, but good God, anything would be better than the joke that this light rail system would be.

Of course, the magical benefits of this system are touted, such as $5 in development growth for each $1 spent on the system. Where do they get that number? They often point to Portland’s light rail system, which supposedly spurred so much development. But did it really? A recent report from the Cato Institute looks at just that question. A couple of telling excerpts:

[W]hen Portland’s first light-rail line opened for business in 1986, the city zoned much of the land near light-rail stations for high-density development. Ten years later, city planner Mike Saba sadly reported to the Portland city council, “we have not seen any of the kind of development—of a mid-rise, higher-density, mixed use, mixed-income type—that we would’ve liked to have seen” along the light-rail line.

…

Over the next decade, the city experienced a boom in high-density developments, virtually all of which were [taxpayer] subsidized.

…

Measured by value, the vast majority of the $1 billion of investments supposedly stimulated by the [Portland] light rail consists of government buildings, some built in response to executive orders by President Clinton and Oregon’s Governor Barbara Roberts that all federal and state agencies should relocate to downtown areas.44 One government-funded building supposedly stimulated by the lightrail line was a $5 million downtown parking garage. If light-rail works so well, why is a new garage needed and in what sense did light rail stimulate the construction of that garage?

Laughably, The Rapid’s web site has on its FAQ page the following item:

• Why not change the current bus system instead of spending new money on streetcars?
• Streetcars have several desirable features for downtown areas. First, with metro dwellers and workers nationwide demonstrating a strong preference for rail transit, streetcar systems draw more riders than equivalent bus systems.
• Second, streetcars have no vehicle emissions and therefore help improve air quality.
• Third, while streetcars have a higher initial investment, their operating cost is typically lower than equivalent bus systems. Higher operating cost for buses is attributed to escalating diesel costs, and shorter service life. The average life span for streetcars is 25 to 40 years and 12 years for buses. This trade-off will be part of the feasibility study evaluation. Is it worth a higher initial cost to provide increased benefits for many years to come?

First, the idea that more people like streetcars because they are cooler than buses has got to be the worst possible reason to spend $79 million. Second, the idea that streetcars don’t pollute is false, since they use electricity, and since much of our nation’s electricity is generated by coal power plants (or natural gas), there certainly are emissions. And third, as we’ve demonstrated previously, the Rapid loses about $5.82 per passenger when they ride a traditional bus. The Rapid will lose approximately $2.60 per passenger when they use the light rail, and that doesn’t include the capital costs. When you factor in a 30 year usable life for the initial capital costs, the loss per passenger rises to about $8.39 each. Where do you think that subsidy comes from? You guessed it… us, the taxpayers! That’s hardly more efficient than a traditional bus.

What are these people thinking? Can they see the forest from the trees?

You can read more excellent points debunking the value of the Portland light rail system at the Antiplanner web site.

Posted by: GRPundit on Monday, 28th Jul, 2008

Tax Attack 2007 – May 8th!

Grand Rapids residents need to be aware of tax attack 2007! There are three tax increase proposals on the ballot May 8th – did you know that? This is the problem with May elections – who pays attention?

Tax issues include the following:

• Grand Rapids Public Schools – GRPS is asking for a renewal of their 18 mill non-homestead operating millage. Basically what this means is that GRPS depends on an 18 mill tax on properties that are not claimed as primary residences. The 18 mill amount has actually decreased to 17.8258 mills due to Headlee amendment reductions. This is generally a non-controversial issue since homeowners do not pay it, only businesses and rental property owners (thus renters).
• Grand Rapids Community College – This one is a true tax increase. GRCC is asking for a an additional .56 mills, in addition to the current 1.7856 mills they already tax us for. That’s a whopping 31% increase. The increase will bring an additional $11 million to the college each year in revenues. It will cost the average homeowner an additional $28 a year, or about $140 over the next five years.
• Interurban Transit Partnership (The Rapid) – We’re no friends of the Rapid, as our readers should know. They are asking for a .17 mill increase to the .95 mills they already get in tax revenue. That’s an 18% increase. The new tax will raise about $2 million a year for the Rapid. This will cost the average GR homeowner about $8 a year or $40 over five years.

All told, the two homestead tax increases will cost the average homeowner about $37 a year extra, for a total annual cost of $173 a year for both GRCC and The Rapid.

Oh, and Grand Rapids Public Schools board elections are on the ballot too – but does anyone even care any more?

Posted by: GRPundit on Wednesday, 4th Apr, 2007

May 8th Transit Tax – Opposition Organizes

Did you know that you should be voting on May 8th? Probably not. And that’s what the folks at the local bus service agency, the Interurban Transit Partnership (also known as The Rapid), are betting on. They are asking for a renewal of their .95 mill property tax, along with an increase of .17 mills.

As you may know, The Rapid’s web site is at www.ridetherapid.org.

It has come to our attention that opposition to the tax increase is organized this year. Check out www.stoptherapid.org (also apparently at www.rapidno.org). Some of the facts surrounding The Rapid mirror what we’ve been saying for years. In short, it’s a horrible deal. From the website:

• “The average transit bus only gets 3.65 miles per gallon
• Transit buses spew 50 times more pollution and 279 times more soot than a passenger car.
• Each RAPID bus costs $9.40 per mile to operate. A typical car costs about $0.22 per mile to operate.
• For each passenger that rides a RAPID bus, the RAPID loses $5.82. Taxpayers (that’s us!) make up that amount to the tune of $30.7 million a year!”

Wow! 3.65 miles to the gallon? We knew it was a bad deal, but just how bad wasn’t this clear to us.

The best part of the site is the “This Pig Stinks!” campaign. We like it so much, we’ve added it to our menu at the right. This pig really does stink! We just hope the word gets out about this web site before the election. The taxpayers of Grand Rapids and the surrounding area need to understand the facts on The Rapid.

Posted by: GRPundit on Saturday, 31st Mar, 2007

Hold on to Your Wallet!

The era of big government is just beginning…

The newly-installed Grand Rapids mayor George Heartwell gave his second state of the city speech last week at the Rotary Club downtown. His message? More government is needed to improve the regional economy.

He essentially outlined three initiatives that included more funding for downtown, a bigger regional mass-transit system, and more centralized land-use planning.

First, the mayor wants to continue the improvement of the GR downtown district. Sure, downtown’s been doing well over the last decade, but the best way to continue that improvement is to keep taxes low. The continuation of renaissance zones seems to be the most effective tool to increase investment. In fact, renaissance zones should be expanded to all of downtown – or even all of the city… then we’d see some enormous growth rates in Grand Rapids. However, the mayor prefers to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize new business growth – as the governor proposed at her state of the state address. No one seems to realize that this $500 million in proposed venture capital has to come from somewhere… and when was the last time bureaucrats were successful in conjuring up the best investment avenues for money?

Second, and perhaps most laughably, even the new mayor is stumping for light rail service. Nevermind the fact that light rail in most urban and suburban areas is a colossal waste of money, except for in the most densely-populated cities – we need to go for it! (See Myths of Light Rail Transit) And where is the money for this going to come from? That’s right! Not the people riding the system, but you and I, the faithful taxpayers of the Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) service area. The current system subsidizes each rider with taxpayer dollars to the tune of $6 per rider – only 13% of revenue is generated by bus fairs.

Finally, the mayor wants further expansion of the Grand Valley Metro Council, the regional super-government wannabe organization. Wyoming has smartly refused to join, and kudos to them for that decision. The mayor wants to strengthen the GVMC’s land-use powers. In other words, they want to be able to tell you where you can and can’t live. As the mayor talks out of one side of his mouth about regional planning, which drives up the cost of housing for everyone, he also talks about affordable housing. One government-caused problem (a housing shortage, which drives up prices), needs to be solved by more government! A perfect circle. Who said politicians don’t do everything they can to make themselves important?

I thought we had learned our collective lesson that increased government spending and revenue is a gigantic drag on the economy – but apparently not. Is it any wonder that Michigan, a high-tax state, has an unemployment rate way above the national average? Maybe it’s time to study a little economics and let the market correct our past public policy mistakes.

Posted by: GRPundit on Tuesday, 3rd Feb, 2004