However we pay for it, we all need a better transit system

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor

On Wednesday, my truck was in the shop. This sort of situation may mean slightly different things to different people. Here’s what it meant to me:

Wednesday morning, I needed a way to get from home — out west of West Columbia — to work, if for no other reason than I needed the paycheck to pay for getting my truck fixed.

Fortunately, my eldest daughter was staying at our house with her children — her husband is remodeling their home — and she works downtown. So she drove me way south of downtown to my office, before turning around and going back to her office.

(My wife couldn’t take me because she had my daughter’s six-month-old twins, and her car isn’t set up to accommodate the Apollo-capsule-type arrangements that they call baby carseats these days.)

From that point, I was stuck. I knew I was going to have to stay late at the office that night — later than anyone in my department — because I was going to be off Friday and needed to get at least a week’s worth of work done in the four days available. Besides, no one in my department lives anywhere near me. In fact, I started writing this column on Wednesday to get ahead, and as I typed this sentence at 5:23 p.m., I had no idea how I’d get home.

As it happened, my daughter got me at 8 p.m. Fortunately, she and her children had to go back into town anyway; otherwise picking me up would have involved a long round trip for somebody, with gasoline at $4 a gallon. I wasn’t quite at a stopping place when she arrived, so she waited downstairs for me with, as near as I could tell over her cell phone, at least one of the twins screaming.

Then, on Thursday morning, my truck still wasn’t ready. So we improvised a whole new plan, in which I drove my wife’s car into town, and my daughter left work at midday to take her car out to my wife so that she could go to work in the afternoon. But at least I was covered in case the job required me to be somewhere else in the course of the day, which sometimes happens.

This is ridiculous, folks.

Yes, I know: Poor me. These are decidedly spoiled American, middle-class problems.

But never mind me. The truth is, if you are less fortunate, you have a harder time owning a vehicle, fixing it when it’s broken, filling it with gasoline, or paying to park it. Nor can you afford to do without that job that the vehicle would take you to.

There are many places in this country where folks don’t have these problems. I have a New York subway card in my wallet from my last trip there, which I can’t bring myself to throw away because of the wonderful thing it represents: freedom from driving and pumping gas and finding a place to park, simply ducking down a few steps, and moments later finding myself in whatever part of town that I need to be in.

In the Columbia metropolitan area, we have our own sort of mass transit system, in theory. But it isn’t fully adequate to anyone’s needs. It doesn’t go from enough places to enough places often enough, and it’s tough for someone who just needs it occasionally to find out quickly and easily how to use it.

What we need is a better transit system, but what we’re in danger of having now is a worse one, or none at all. That’s because Richland County — the one local government that’s done the most to step up to the challenge of funding said system — is going to stop stepping up in October. That’s when the vehicle tax the county levied for that purpose runs out.

Last week, the County Council ditched a plan to hold a referendum asking voters to approve a 1-cent sales tax increase to fund the buses and other transportation needs and wants. I don’t blame the council. As we said in an editorial before the action, the Legislature has jacked up our sales taxes too high already. And besides, some of the things in that transportation proposal were more wants than needs, and only in there to get people who don’t ride buses to back the proposal.

No one knows where we go from here. The County Council doesn’t know. The citizens group that put together the plan the council rejected doesn’t know.

And just in case we got the notion that the city of Columbia would be taking up the slack, I got a preemptive call from Mayor Bob Coble Thursday morning to tell me that the options range from few to none. (While the mayor didn’t say so, that’s largely thanks to the Legislature’s tireless efforts to make sure local governments can’t pay for any local need that they aren’t paying for already.)

About the only person offering new ideas last week was regular contributor “bud” on my blog, who suggested using the city’s and county’s shares of the “hospitality tax,” a lot of which currently goes for things a whole lot less essential than a mass transit system.

As I write this, I don’t know what the best way to pay for a better transit system might be. What I do know is that Midlands governments need to find a way, for the sake of:

• Those who have no other way to get to work now.
• Those of us who would like a better way to work than we have now (and sometimes need one).
• Those “knowledge workers” who are supposed to make the planned Innovista work, and who have the option of working instead in a community where it’s easier, and cheaper, and cleaner to get around.

For more, visit my blog at thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Comments

[Doug Ross]

First, we need to know how many people are actually impacted by this. Realistically, its only people who live AND work within a ten mile radius of downtown Columbia AND have an interest in trading in the flexibility that a personal car provides for a government subsidized transportation system AND can get to a place to board a bus easily.

I don't think the numbers are large enough to justify the cost or to reap any meaningful benefit.

This is a solution in search of a problem.
Columbia is not New York City, Washington, DC, or Chicago. And I hope it doesn't turn into any of them.

[MAC]

if it can't support itself without money from my billfold then let it die.....i'm sick to death of seeing the bus from MRTA at Hardee's in Newberry every morning picking up people and transporting them to Columbia every day for a few bucks a week, while i go to the pump and pay almost $4.00 a gallon for gas to get to work.....Brad, why don't you talk The State editors into getting an investigative reporter to do a story on this boondoggle and report back to your readers just how much this is costing the taxpayers per mile/rider......and don't just cover the cost of the bus and gas and driver, figure in everything, including administrative fees and salaries.

[george]

mac ae you upset because you don't have a job in Columbia so you can take advantage of the bus "bargain"? i am sure you would not be discriminated against if you chose to commute an hour plus each way via bus rather than use your personal transportation to work in newberry.

[Lee Muller]

Only those who ride the busses need the busses. Let them pay for it, the full fare. Then, if they really want it they will pay what it is worth to them, and there are enough who really want it, a private bus business can make a profit.

Indirect benefits cannot be measured.
The market reflects real benefits, and the value to those benefitting directly.

[Mike Montgomery]

If we took that attitude, we could put up a toll booth on every road too -- since those roads were built with tax dollars. This debate needs to avoid the jingoism and deal with the facts.

1. The reason that we all see buses running through town that are not full is because the system wasn't designed by SCANA to be effective. It was a loss leader for them -- so they didn't want people to ride it.
2. SCANA then took the City of Columbia and other government agencies "for a ride" when it divested itself of the system for pennies on the dollar of its future franchise liability for operations.
3. The CMRTA plan was not financially viable from the start -- if the goal is to have a meaningful, workable system. A great deal of study has been done nationwide on the difference in viability and economic impact of a "system of last resort" -- which is what we have and a functional system. In order to make our region's the latter, as opposed to the former, we need more frequency of service and better routes. The idea is that someone should be able to navigate the system with minimal inconvenience. Right now, that isn't possible. That requires some infrastructure -- as described in the study done for County Council.
4. Having a good system will help reduce the number of vehicles on the road, improve air quality and limit the need for further road improvements as well as downtown parking. It will also help poor and disabled folks get to work and school -- all which will have a positive benefit to our regional economy.
5. If the area isn't a desirable place to live -- it won't be in demand -- and while that will slow growth and the need for some infrastructure -- it will also lower the property values of most or all of the homeowners' in the area -- certainly not a desirable result.
6. Funding will always be a problem. Right now, we have no state highway dollars to repair our roads, much less any real money to modernize and improve a woefully inadequate system.
7. It is called public transportation for a reason -- it is for the public and paid for by the public -- like public highways, public schools, public parks. The idea is that some services are inherently desirable but not prone to private provision -- either because of capital or other requirements. The public needs and benefits them, therefore the public pays for a part of them.
8. It is frustrating that folks constantly want (and demand, request, solicit) additional government services -- but look completely differently at the need for those services when their own self interest isn't served. The folks depending on that transit are paying sales taxes too. The problem locally is that State government abrogates responsibilities, then blames the local government entities when they either get complaints or when limited sources of revenue are used to pay for those services and people complain of taxes.
9. I think that everyone who wants to eliminate the bus system or expresses a lack of sympathy for the "working poor" who often use it, should consider the impact of those "working poor" becoming unemployed. They can only be replaced by people who can afford to purchase, insure and maintain a vehicle. Additionally, those now unemployed people will be in need of services that are paid for by the taxpayer -- food stamps, medical care, etc. All at a tax cost to us.
You may take the expense out of one pocket and merely transfer it to another.
10. This is a complex issue -- go to:
http://www.richlandonline.com/departments/
CountyCouncil/Committees/Transportation%20Study%20Commission
/Documents/TechMemo_7.pdf

download the study and take a look at a better picture of the problem and the options.

Have fun.

[Lee Muller]

Public roads have a very broad tax base of fuel taxes on the actual drivers. They could be, and are, built and operated as profit-making businesses. The primary reason for them being public is that most are old foot trade routes, which truly were public land.

Busses in many small cities, are money losers because they lack customers. What reason is there for 500,000 non-users to subidize 5,000 users who don't want to pay high fare prices necessary to run empty busses?

I used to ride the bus to work and college a lot when SCANA ran it. The busses ran on time, the schedules made sense, they were fairly clean, and the passengers were not hobos. The same politics of pandering to bums that killed downtown, also killed busses.

The only busses I see working now are those running short hops for free, through campuses like USC, Clemson and UNC.

[Lee Muller]

There is a big difference between public property, like a highway or park, and a socialist enterprise, like a bus system or medical clinic, which is just a bad investment in something businessmen chose to avoid. The use of the word "public" seems to confuse a lot of people, probably because their public education failed to teach them civics.

[Lee Muller]

If the politicians and their media apologists want to blow money on busses, let them cut another program.

There are plenty of bread-and-circus projects to abolish, like the recreation fields on Sumter Highway, Riverwalk, the Kayak Center, remodeling Township Theater, etc.

Any idiot can raise taxes. Let's see some management, budgets and cost control for a change.

[Herb Brasher]

Bloomington, Indiana has a great bus system, and I.U. students ride on it free. Lots of 4-way intersections that discourage private vehicles, too.

Well, Columbia is larger than Bloomington, but still--why can't USC offer free bus rides for students in the metropolitan area? Universities are supposedly leaders in innovation, and students are supposedly interested in the environment. I'm admittedly naive on how local government works, but why can't we let USC pave the way with funding on mass transit, and then others can kick in?

[Herb Brasher]

"4-way intersections" -- well I guess there lots of those. What I meant was 4-way stops.

[Karen McLeod]

Many of those people who are riding those busses are riding to jobs that we want done, but don't particularly want to do ourselves (consider the workers in nursing homes, and other low paying jobs). If they can't get there, because of lack of transportation, then those jobs don't get done. And those people become part of the jobless, and shortly, the homeless problem. If busses don't come frequently, or on time, and don't go where people want to go, of course they won't be used! The more they are used the less they have to be subsidized.

[JJ]

Since the consensus seems to be against providing public support for transportation, I would like to propose the following:

1) Eliminate gas and property taxes used to pave and maintain roads. All roads and highways should instead be privately maintained toll roads.

2) The Richland County Public Library system should be abolished. Individuals can instead purchase books from retailers like Barnes and Noble, Books-A-Million, and Amazon at the normal retail price.

3) The Richland County Sheriff's Department, EMS and Fire Department should be paid for on a per-call basis, based on the actual cost of responding to the emergency.

4) Public education should be abolished. That's what private schools are for.

5) All public parks and community facilities should be sold to the highest bidder. If you want your kids to play a sport, hop in your car, pay the tolls, and drive them to the Plex.

In all seriousness, the fact of the matter is that none of these public services are profit making ventures. Like public transit, each of these services is an essential element in a safe, vibrant and compassionate community.

I thank councilman Montgomery for his leadership on this issue. Its a sad day when a five member minority can thwart an issue as big as this, without even giving the citizens they represent a chance to vote.

[Doug Ross]

If downtown businesses see the value of having a bus system for employees, let them subsidize it.

I have just read through the document Mike Montgomery referenced (Richland On The Move). Comments below:

1) Too much discussion of bikeways and greenways. This is Columbia, SC. Anyone who rides their bike to work from May through September risks heat stroke. Leave the bike paths for the larger developments for fun. The number of workers downtown who would use them is miniscule. The fact that bicycles are even mentioned so prominently in the report diminishes its value immediately. The problem IS NOT not enough bike paths.

2) The report says a 1 percent tax increase would generate a HALF A BILLION dollars over 8 years with 3% going to Administration (ha!) and 15% going to greenway/bikeway (that's $75 MILLION dollars, people!) and 25% to Transit ($125 million). Why am I starting to be reminded of the Jim Clyburn bridge over 277?

3) Here's a quote from the document:

"The 8-year recommendations include 27.4
miles of greenways projects totaling over $12 million."

That's $437,000 per mile. For bikes and pedestrians. Mr. Cynical might wonder who owns the land where these greenways would be purchased with Other People's Money?

4) The document claims "lack of transportation options hinders Richland County’s ability to promote job growth."

Really? Well, then where are all the tens of thousands of people who have moved to the area in the past decade working? Can you imagine what our schools and roads would look like if the county had even higher job growth?

This is a complete falsehood.

What impacts job growth is the lack of vision in creating an environment to support high technology jobs. High taxes is what keeps top companies away, not the lack of a decent bus system.

We want companies in Columbia who hire people at a wage high enough that they don't NEED to ride the bus!

5) I read through the 150 page document fairly quickly but as far as I could tell, there wasn't a single statistic showing how many actual people would be riding the bus or riding bicycles. There were pages and pages of data on how the $500 million dollars would be spent -- down to individual sidewalks. But not a single mention of who exactly how many people would benefit from this expenditure.
Surely someone has done an analysis of the cost per mile per rider for the bus? Or of how many bicyclists are expected to take advantage of each $400K mile? Let's see those numbers.

Finally, the reason we have congested roads is because of a growth and development policy that favored developers over residents. The short term, quick dollar, increase the tax base mindset resulted in an explosion of growth in the Northeast and Harbison areas that never considered the impact on infrastructure like roads, water, and schools. Now it's time to pay the piper for that greed. A slow growth policy back in the mid-90's would have allowed Columbia to make a sane transition. Now we're stuck with school bond referendums, water shortages, and clogged roads.

Just like with the plaintive wailing about "it's for the children" whenever a bond referendum for schools comes up, we hear the same sad stories about the poor and elderly when it comes to public transportation. It's easy to fix a problem when you can take money from citizens. It's a lot harder to come up with a smart plan in the first place.

Let's see the County push for impact fees first before it sticks its hand into the taxpayers' pocket again.

[Robert]

First of all, have CMRTA run by one person. Surely (I know I'm asking to move a mountain here) Richland and Lexington Counties and the incorporated communities can come together to find a qualified bus manager. This person would be charged to identify routes, times and potential sources of revenue to maximize ridership at minimal cost to the public. Committees never come back with anything other than raise taxes or reduce service or some other simple non-answer that costs us too much money. If routes go where people are and want to go, are easy to understand, and fares reasonable, perhaps we can have decent bus service.

[Jay]

Doug, you said, "We want companies in Columbia who hire people at a wage high enough that they don't NEED to ride the bus!"

I think this is the fundamental disconnect on why people are so anti-public transportation. It's the stigma that riding the bus (or walking or riding a bike, for that matter) is surely beneath anyone who can afford a car, as if that is the true measure of success. I bet there are more people than you would like to think that would be happy to ride a bus, or bike to work, if it were convenient and safe.

[Doug Ross]

> . I bet there are more people than you
>would like to think that would be happy to
>ride a bus, or bike to work, if it were >convenient and safe

Especially if someone else pays the bulk of the cost.

How about instead of spending $75 million on bike paths, we spend that money on food for the hungry and medicine for the sick.

A society that has money for bike paths must have everything else under control, right?

[JJ]

Doug states:

"A slow growth policy back in the mid-90's would have allowed Columbia to make a sane transition. Now we're stuck with school bond referendums, water shortages, and clogged roads."

I couldn't agree with you more. The problem is, during the 90's we did not have responsible growth policies in the county. The question is no longer how we can prevent poor planning, but how we can fix the mistakes of previous councils.

If you look at all the roadway projects on that list, how many of those projects are preparing for future growth? Maybe 1 (Shop Road extension). Just about all of the roads on that list are correcting the poor planning mistakes of the past (ie. Hardscrabble, Assembly Street, Broad River Rd, etc). All of these projects come with price tags in the tens of millions of dollars range. All of these projects are needed, but how can we address them now that the damage has been done?

I would be interested in hearing more from Doug.

[Mike Montgomery]

Unfortunately, we get back to the Legislature again on having a meaningful impact fee. The bills have been introduced -- but not passed. In Orlando Florida, the impact fees approach 7% of the cost of a new residence. They are used for roads, fire stations, schools, water and sewer. That is not happening in SC. I think that such a fee offers many advantages, it lets the growth self finance, it lowers property taxes, and I'd venture to say that it helps stabilize or even raise existing property values. It also could help promote smarter growth. The housing community will argue that it limits the availability of housing by making it less affordable. The legislature has bought that argument. I wonder why I see these calls when some other public expense comes up -- but no other time. I can state that I've been an advocate (very publically) for more than 12 years.

The argument against bike transit may have some merit -- (but looking to the future I think that we're going to need and see the need for more and more. If you really want high tech jobs and high tech workers -- bike lanes and bike transit are a big selling point. Just look at the areas where those companies locate. I'm sure the
comment that folks will have a heat stroke riding in the summer is just hyperbole. IF it's not, try riding and you'll learn otherwise. Many people, in many parts of the world, including the US commute on bicycles. The bike lanes simply provide safe connectivity so that folks have that capability. Every bike trip takes a car off the road, out of the parking lots and removes the exhaust from our ozone filled atmosphere.

The plan is about establishing a system where someone has multiple options to get from point A to point B efficiently - and creating a community where people can accomplish this without being dependent only on automobiles.

They information on bus ridership is in the techmemos leading up to the final report which can also be downloaded from the county's web site.

If you're interested in the impact of greenway's projects, just look at the one we have along the river and what it has done for the quality of life of folks there -- alot more than any other use of your public dollars -- (see e.g. City spending on "Streetscapes")

I recognize that it is easy to pick apart some portion of every plan. Also, no plan lacks room for improvement. Hundreds of members of the public participated in the creation of the Richland on the Move document -- it is not a creation of county council. I believe that had it been, it would have been a much lesser plan -- because it would have been focused on what went where instead of what was needed.

And one final note, when a referendum is held, the County is not "sticking its fingers in the taxpayers pockets" -- the taxpayers are making a decision by popular vote to pursue a policy.

[eric]

I thank Councilman Montgomery for his efforts in this issue. Having spoken to him about it I understand his interest are mainly ones of public service and that since others in positions of responsibilities have abrogated their responsibilities in this area, he has had to lead. Most of our leaders are worried about partisan or petty politics. No doubt that Mr. Montgomery’s efforts will lead to a better place to live.

[Wilson]

Mr. Montgomery makes a grave error if he think he can debate with the Libertarians on this blog. They will never concede intellectual points to human need...as in their world on the argument matters...the people don't.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Montgomery. Honest, hardworking people need you.

[Doug Ross]

Wilson is incorrect. Read my later post regarding using the funds for the hungry and those who do not have access to the medicine they need. I have a great interest in seeing that those who are in need are helped. It comes down to using tax revenues in a way that addresses the greatest need with the least bureaucracy. For me, bike paths don't come close to caring for the sick and the hungry.

I just learned yesterday of the death of a longtime Columbia homeless man named Champ. Perhaps you walked past him one time and avoided eye contact. He was a large black man with no legs who could be seen around the First Baptist Church area on the fourth Saturday every month when we hold a Feed The Hungry meal. Over the past year, I gave Champ approximately $100 for prescriptions, new tires for his wheelchair, and whatever else he needed.
Any thoughts on whether Champ would have voted for $75 million dollars worth of bike paths? Maybe he would have lived a little longer if he had access to a decent diet and a warm place to sleep and the medicine he needed.

The roots of Libertarianism are not based in selfishness. They are based in personal responsibility. It's about doing the right thing, not about forcing others to do what you think is the right thing.

A Libertarian solution to the transportation issue might include relaxing local government rules that regulate private taxi cabs to increase the supply. Or establishing tax breaks for companies who set up shuttle services for their employees. Or providing matching funds or access to vehicles to charities to use for public service -- how many school buses sit idle during the middle of the day and on weekends? Why can't they be used for other purposes --- because the "government" can't think beyond rules and regulations.

The easiest solution is the tax everybody and hope that enough money flows through the system to make it to its intended purpose.

[Alex N]

I appreciate Mr. Montgomery taking a broad view of our needs. He is one of the few people in public life that understands that government only works when it is efficient, and serves the needs of the people.

Our world is changing, and public transportation is going to be a meaningful part of our lives. We can change now, or later...the choice is ours.

[Doug Ross]

Mike Montgomery says:

"Many people, in many parts of the world, including the US commute on bicycles."

Mike, I spend at least half my work weeks traveling around the country. I've spent the past two years in the San Francisco and Denver areas -- two areas known for higher percentages of "green" residents. I see the bike paths. I don't see the bike riders. Certainly far less than 1% of workers. It's impractical unless you are in excellent physical condition and the weather permits it. That's not Columbia. I would make a bet that you would see fewer than 100 people a day take advantage of a bikeway that allowed them to commute to work. For $75 million, we need something that has a better payback.

All you have to do is Google some of the names of the committee members from the report and you'll find that many come to the table with a vested interest in a particular way to spend tax revenues.

[Lee Muller]

Any idiot can raise taxes. Let's see some management, budgets and cost control for a change.

City Council has decided that the recreation center on Harden Street for the government crime pockets is more important than busses.

Richland County has decided that recreation fields on Sumter Highway are more important than busses.

Let the developers pay for the bike paths, instead of the taxpayers paying for parks and greenways to subsidize developers.

[Doug Ross]

Here's a key data point from today's article in the The State on Columbia's bus situation:

"That leaves the transit authority with about $2.5 million from bus fares, and $1 million a year it already gets from Columbia’s hydroelectric power plant."

That $2.5 million is out of a $12 million dollar operating budget. So taxpayers are subsidizing 80% of the cost for bus riders.