As part of the State of the Region report released by ODU yesterday, Economist James Koch made the statement that the cost of Norfolk’s Light rail is not “justifiable.” He claimed that the continual costs would have to be subsidized at a rate so high that it wold not be worth it. Of course, I want to believe that this economist, Mr. Koch is a smart man. I am very likely to believe that this article was the Pilot’s attempt at once again making somebody’s comment appear to support the misguided notion that LRT somehow is going to be way more costly that our current highways. LRT will cost less than half per mile than building a new highway. It will also last longer. Most people don’t realize that when the interstate system was built, it was paved with concrete in such a way as to give it a lifespan approaching 50 years. First, that lifespan is coming to an end. Second, current more ‘cost-effective’ road construction paves highways with asphalt, which last only 10 years if built and maintained properly. When was the last time VDOT maintained a highway properly. So what we have is a network of highways that will have to be reconstructed every 8-10 years. Current estimates to fix I-264 just inside Norfolk’s borders is $16 million. That is on top of the $33 million spent in Hampton Roads for repaving the rest of the highways this year. This number will only get higher as the years progress. Traffic will only get worse, meaning more wear and tear and more frequent repaving projects. If you think because drivers pay a gas tax then they pay their own way, you are dead wrong. Virginia collected around $920 million in 2008. That sounds like a lot of money. Let’s break it down though.

• $257,700,000 – Debt Service
• +$405,100,000 – Support to other agencies and administration
• +$306,700,000 – ‘Special financing’ and earmarks
• =$969,500,000 - Does NOT include Road Construction OR Maintenance.

• $656,800,000 – Construction
• +$1,698,000,000 – Maintenance
• =$2,354,800,000 - Maintenance and Construction

So your $900 million in gas tax pays for administrative costs. That means that VDOT needs a 70% subsidy over what gas tax covers. Sure that sounds a little bit better than the 80% subsidy that HRT pulls in, but think about this: HRT’s 80% subsidy equals roughly $60 million while VDOT’s 70% subsidy equals $3.3 billion. Also, VDOT is not the only maintainer of roadways. Each city in Hampton Roads pays for some of their roads and the feds kick in the rest. I would venture to guess that the subsidies’ true cost are nearly equal. Let’s move on. Once you get past the negative aspects of the Pilot’s article, you get to this:

Two scenarios could change the cost/benefit ratio: if gas prices rise enough to move commuters from their cars to light rail; and if the rail is expanded to reach more people.

So here is this economist, the same one who just said that the cost was not justifiable, saying that if the system were expanded or if more people used it, the cost would be easier to swallow.  OK. As an economist, I am sure that he would agree that the first part should include all commuter costs, not just fuel cost. Right? If the total cost of operating a motor vehicle increases, then people will start to move from cars to transit. As part of the State of the Region article, the Pilot wrote:

Long standing transportation problems also make the region less attractive to businesses and the military, Koch said. [...] Road improvements, he said, will demand higher gas tax and steep tolls.

As part of his predictions of the future, he acknowledges that the cost of commuting will be higher in the future if we want to fix our transportations shortcomings. Since our transportation problems are a direct result of our region’s lack of planning and cooperation, I would also assume that he would agree that we need to start today if we want to have any chance of improving our outlook. That would be where light rail comes in. We have to built a regional mass transit system because, in the long run, it will be more effective than building roads. If you had asked me 20 years ago (or asked someone else, since I was 3 year old twenty years ago) I would have agreed that roadways were more effective. Gas was cheap. Road construction was (relatively) cheap. Now, however, we can see that there is an end to that. There will be no more cheap gas. It is on an uphill trend. The second game-changing scenario was that the cost would be more acceptable if it were expanded to reach more people. Is that not in the works? We could never afford to build a multi-billion-dollar system all at once. It has to be built in stages. In the end, despite the Pilot’s attempt at more anti-light rail news, I think that, when read into, it is actually quite positive. The Pilot itself wrote that this economist said that if there were more people and higher commuter costs, than light rail would be more cost efficient. Since we should all be able to agree that those two scenarios are approaching, then we should also agree that, while expensive at first, light rial will be more cost-effective than roads as we enter the future.