It is a matter of trust, a trait that often is an oxymoron when talking about the public’s opinion of government.
And while the discussion of accountability that bolsters such trust easily could delve into private email servers or secret tax returns or Facebook “newspapers,” we come today to speak about transportation.
Because, you know, transportation is a pretty important function of government. There is a school of thought, in fact, that says building roads and bridges is the only thing government should do, considering that economies of scale dictate there is no way the private sector could effectively organize and construct roads.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be mentioned that I used to subscribe to this philosophy; but then I got better. Because government is not inherently bad. Government is not even really “government,” at least not in the way some people think of it. Government is simply all of us, and there are inherent benefits to us providing a social safety net or promoting public health or organizing schools.
But amid all the good things that government can and does do well, transportation often is a fly in the ointment.
All of which has been a frequent talking point in these parts for, oh, the past 15 years or so. All of which has been a constant gouge to the eye as this region has been unable to make any progress toward replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge.
Personally, I believe we need a new bridge; I believe that because I probably could write this entire column in my car if I were waiting to cross the bridge into Oregon right now. Being a responsible driver, I shall not attempt to do so.
Instead, I will empathize with those who develop a twitch and break out in hives whenever governments start talking about transportation. As a couple stories in The Seattle Times point out, there is good reason for such an anaphylactic reaction.
The Times’ Mike Lindblom reported recently that part of Seattle’s light-rail system — the portion that was approved by voters in 1996 — is going to come in with cost overruns of about 86 percent. This is not atypical. As the article also noted, “A traditional view of megaprojects, dating to mid-20th century highway builder Robert Moses of New York, is that sponsors manipulate figures and indulge boosters’ optimism to win political consent. After that, it’s difficult to kill a project. Dig a hole and commit.”
That routinely drags taxpayers into Big Bertha-sized hole. A forthcoming doctoral dissertation by Carole Turley Voulgaris at UCLA concludes that 82 percent of federally funded transit projects in the United States from 1982-2011 came in over budget — by an average of 43 percent. Experts in the field attribute this to “strategic misrepresentation” in the initial proposal; most of us attribute it to “lying.”
Dissent is understandable
Given this track record, it is understandable that citizens are wary of large transportation proposals. But there is a difference between being wary and being unreasonable.
It is perfectly sensible to question the price tags presented by organizers of huge transportation projects, given the track record of accuracy for such price tags. It is perfectly sensible to be leery of giving Tri-Met eminent domain in Clark County when considering a light-rail project. But it absurd to shout down all possible solutions.
You know, things such as tolls. The opposition to proposed tolls on any former or future I-5 crossing flies in the face of logic and conservative philosophy. User fees adhere to conservative ideology, and tolls on a new bridge would be nothing more than user fees — the people who benefit the most from a government project pay a little more for it.
But I digress. The point is that cost overruns have for too long been a fact of life when it comes to transportation projects, and this has diminished the trust of the public. When you get your hand bitten one too many times, you are reluctant to pet the dog again.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
