Commuter Rail Transit? No, thank you.
Published Voice of the Times 10/13/2004

I commute daily from near the Palmer Fairgrounds to just up the hill from the Eagle River Wal-Mart, and if I don’t make any stops, it takes me 30 minutes.

That time has not changed in four years. Highway traffic is no worse and no more congested in that same time period, even though the number of commuters has effectively doubled in that time. Even in the winter, it rarely takes but a few minutes more.

Now that the new interchange nears completion, I will no longer have to stop for the traffic light or the trains, further reducing my commute time, as well as reducing traffic slowdowns and pollution associated with idle traffic.

The Citizens’ Commuter Rail Advocacy Committee, composed mostly of people who most likely will not be using the system for daily commuting, wish to foist this costly boondoggle upon the rest of us. But history has shown that commuter rail systems are largely an ineffective means of reducing congestion or pollution.

As recently released studies show, metropolitan areas that reallocate scarce highway funds to rail systems, in virtually every case, experience dramatic increases in congestion and the associated pollution.

Comparisons have been made to the capital costs of the new Glenn-Parks interchange and the capital costs of buying five new, self-propelled rail cars. That’s where their argument falls apart.

The cost of the new rail cars and associated needed improvements is estimated at $28 million; the cost of the interchange was $42 million. But the $42 million in Glenn-Parks interchange improvements are permanent, and the highway system serves everyone, not just commuters. In addition, tourists, commercial freight, and casual travelers all will benefit from highway expansion.

The commuter rail system will serve far less than 1 percent of Valley commuters, and it is historically unlikely that it will ever reach full capacity. Advocates have also stated that a transit system would be cheaper than adding a third lane to the Glenn-Parks. Well that is only partially true, as the new interchange was constructed to accommodate a third lane. The bridge support structures and underpasses are built with a third lane already in mind, and the bridge is paid for. Now that is forward thinking.

Rightfully, the commuter rail advocates admit that “no commuter rail system can pay its own way,” but they still insist that it is a workable solution. I say no. The new interchange for instance, does not require conductors, attendants, fuel, constant maintenance — nor does it require an overhaul of the entire freight rail schedule.

But above all, the commuter rail system will require an entire new government bureaucracy known as the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to oversee its operation and maintenance. While the RTA will be able to apply for other federal operating funds, there is no guarantee they will be secured.

What about derailments, moose collisions (is the train going to stop every time it clobbers a moose, or just keep chugging along leaving the animal to suffer and wasting the meat?), auto, train collisions at crossings, and of course, the potential for a catastrophic engine failure like our brand new high speed ferry recently experienced.

Operation of the Valley/Anchorage system is estimated to cost $3 million dollars annually and, of course, that will increase every year of operation. Who will pay for that? Well, you and I will.

Tim Thompson, public affairs representative for the railroad, during a recent radio interview, revealed that the train to the Alaska State Fair charged $45 per passenger (including fair entry ticket) was actually costing the railroad $80 per rider, and that the railroad was just going to “eat” the losses.

Boy, that sounds encouraging. Now imagine the cost per rider paying only ticket fares. The Wilbur Smith Commuter Rail study confirms that we local taxpayers would be saddled with paying at least 80 percent of the operation and maintenance costs. Increases in property, fuel, sales, and bed taxes are being suggested by advocates to pay for the service.

Commuter rail transit systems and the associated transit oriented development, like all other “Smart Growth” scams, are an unparalleled nationwide financial disaster. And we are supposed to blindly follow suit? (Sounds like another fish plant in the making.)

All those millions of dollars to accommodate a fraction of a percentage of commuters with no quantifiable positive effects, except that perhaps the advocates will “feel good” about themselves. Some deal, huh?

Dennis Oakland is public policy director of The Last Frontier Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit group dedicated to the principles of the free market, low taxes and minimal government control of private property.