We have options to relieve congestion

By Kevin Schmidt

            Forbes magazine ranked Atlanta its number one worst city for commuters this year. It cited the fact that “commuters spend 60 hours a year stuck in traffic, second only to those in Los Angeles. If that weren't bad enough, Atlanta is so spread out that only 29% of drivers get to and from work in less than 20 minutes, the third worst rate in the country, and 13% spend more than an hour getting to work, the fourth worst rate in the country.” During peak hours, it takes 46% longer to get somewhere than during non-peak hours. By 2030, it is estimated to take 67% longer.

That such traffic is a positive sign of a thriving economy is overlooked amid the hair-pulling congestion and rising cost of fuel. Metro Atlantans are coping by switching to alternatives such as telecommuting, flex schedules, carpooling, express buses and MARTA in record numbers. The anxiety was compounded by the failed 1% regional sales tax initiative this past legislative session, and ensured transportation will remain a key issue in 2009.

Taxpayers should be prudent in supporting a transportation plan that will fit the unique situation of metro Atlanta. While many of us wish Atlanta were dense enough for commuter or light rail to be viable, they just can’t compete with the car. According to the 2000 Census data, the mean travel time for driving alone was 26.8 minutes; transit took 47.4 minutes. Atlanta only has six people per hectacre, compared to 19 in San Francisco, 40 in New York City, and 367 in Hong Kong. Also, most work trip flows go from suburb to suburb, instead of to the central city. For rail to become viable, Atlanta would have to increase density while increasing the flow of work trips into a central part of the city. To accomplish this, land use would have to be intensely regulated to increase density and limit sprawl.

A better incentive is to eliminate the subsidies that encourage sprawl. Developers, instead of taxpayers, should have to bear the cost of connecting water and sewer along with the necessary changes to roads and traffic lights. Also, regulations need to be reduced so that low-density mandates don’t limit innovative developments.

            The Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers, a commuter rail advocate, answers the density problem by noting: “A check of the 44 metro areas with more density than Atlanta shows that 29 currently have commuter rail service* and six more are building or considering commuter rail lines. Of the 14 top metro areas with LESS density than Atlanta, six have commuter rail service*, and four more are considering commuter rail service.” In their eyes, since other cities have commuter rail, we need more commuter rail. Regardless of whether or not they worked for those cities they cite, their one-track mind is that “if you build it they will come” and therefore it will work for metro Atlanta.

            There are many improvements possible (and some are in the process) right now to lessen congestion. During the next year, GDOT is installing about 100 more ramp meters at selected interstate interchanges throughout Metro Atlanta. Mark Demidovich, Assistant State Traffic Operations Engineer for Georgia DOT is enthused by the early progress of the recent ramp meters. "Preliminarily the results have been real promising, and I don’t anticipate them changing for the worse," he says. Estimates differ, but most studies show that ramp metering reduces congestion and vehicle crashes.

            The expansion of Highway Emergency Response Operators (HERO) coverage called for by Governor Sonny Perdue’s Fast Forward Congestion Relief program is critical to reducing congestion. Approximately 52% of total delay is caused by non-recurring incidents such as crashes, disabled vehicles or debris. A Reason Foundation study estimated that a $211 million expansion of HERO could reduce peak hour delays by 30%.

            Replacing HOV with High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes would be a welcome addition to the long-term transportation plan. HOV lanes have lost their benefit as a managed lane from heavy congestion; only value pricing lanes can ensure reliable trip times. If priced correctly, HOT lanes can provide relatively congestion free travel for those individuals willing to pay, but the lanes would remain free for carpools of at least three. It would also help in allowing Xpress buses and vanpools to move faster than general traffic, thus making them competitive with driving alone.

            Another type of managed lanes, truck only toll (TOT) lanes are currently being studied. A 2005 State Road and Tollway Authority study found that TOT lanes could improve traveling time for trucks, lessen congestion in general purpose lanes, and raise a “respectable amount of revenue.”

            There are many relatively cheap options that can help improve transportation in metro Atlanta. Synchronizing lights, building more roundabouts, and encouraging telecommuting would have a positive impact on congestion. From 1980-2000, telecommuting in Atlanta grew 192%. As we continue in the internet age, expect telecommuting growth to continue, and commuters to benefit from fewer cars on the road.

            GDOT commissioner Gena Abraham is on track with prioritizing and reforming the DOT, but more funding will be needed for future projects. Currently only 3 % of the 4% pre paid sales tax on gas goes to GDOT. That remaining 1% should go to GDOT before tax increases are considered.

            Non-traditional funding sources such as public-private partnerships can be effective for paying for projects without a tax hike. Any proposal for a tax increase should tell taxpayers were the money will go. The funds should go towards a specific priority, rather than into a group of funds were its destination will be forgotten.

            An alternative route around metro Atlanta should be studied. Traffic that only needs to go through Atlanta, rather than having Atlanta as its destination, should be given a viable option to bypass Atlanta without entering the city or packing the perimeter. A big picture idea would be to develop a highway outside of Atlanta that goes in the same direction as I-75, and use tolls to pay for the bypass. Investing in highway where it is cheaper and still deliver congestion relief would be smarter than paying for the expensive land use rights in Atlanta.

            The plentiful options to relieve congestion should have citizens optimistic about the future of metro Atlanta, but taxpayers need to remain vigilant to ensure that their money is being spent on projects that fit the metro area.

When Governor Sonny Perdue signed Georgia’s $21.1 billion budget for fiscal 2009, it contained $6 million for Local Assistance Grants (LAG), funds appropriated and allocated to a specific recipient or local government for a specific purpose. Lawmakers try to use the fact that these handouts are a relatively small part of the state budget – about 0.03 percent the ’09 budget – to defend the spending. 

The size notwithstanding, taxpayers need to question these appropriations. Does the specified program constitute a legitimate function of government? Is this program a local, rather than state, responsibility? Does it pose an undue burden on the local government’s budget? 

The evidence shows that a vast majority of these special projects to which the funds are allocated pose no undue burden on the local government’s budget. Of the 224 cities allotted grants, only 16 of the grants were larger than 5 percent of their fiscal 2006 budget. None of the grants for county government projects would have cost more than 1.75 percent of their budget. If the projects are of such minimal cost to the local government and the projects are so important, why wouldn’t the local government pay for it? 

This year, DeKalb County received a $5,000 grant for materials and supplies to help Park Pride-Druid Hills Civic Association construct a low activity neighborhood pocket park. One could reasonably assume it to be a legitimate function of government. The questions, however, are whether it should have been a local responsibility and whether it put an undue burden on DeKalb’s budget.

This project could have been paid in full, without assistance by the state, without even blinking. At $5,000, it was just 0.0008 percent of the county’s fiscal 2006 budget. The conclusion? The grant was not based on any financial need by DeKalb government. And it’s only one of many examples of money wasted on Local Assistance Grants. 

Among some of the projects grant money went to: $15,000 for replacing water heaters and retrofit for water conservation for the QLS Apartments in Fulton County; $20,000 for renovating the Baxley Livestock Barn and Arena in Appling County, and $10,000 on new football uniforms for Pebblebrook High School in Cobb County.  

These projects can be correctly called “pork.” The fact that these projects could be paid for easily at the local level shows how state lawmakers are using the grants as gifts to constituents.  

Despite the wasted money, there are some Local Assistance Grants being used for legitimate functions of state government. For example, the City of Fargo is getting $10,000 to purchase a used fire truck. This would have been 10 percent of Fargo’s $97,163 budget. The City of Payne received $7,500 to help buy fire hydrants and leak detection and prevention equipment.  The cost would have been 30 percent of Payne’s budget. These grants were allocated to important health and safety projects whose funding would have put an undue burden on the local governments.  

The larger problem with Local Assistance Grants isn’t the cost (though it is a problem), but rather the corruption that goes along with them Want a LAG for your district? Keep the powers that be happy and vote for their bills. If you don’t you could lose your grants. Want to get someone to vote for your bills? Persuade them with the offer of some hefty grants. It happens time and again. At the federal level, the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 was short of votes in the House, but it passed after those who wanted votes threatened to take away the pork of naysayers.  

Georgia lawmakers insist the grants go through an evaluation process and the money goes to the places it’s needed. Given the grants’ diversity, it’s impossible to decipher any sort of evaluation process or find out how grants are being prioritized. Relatively rich counties could afford all the projects they are getting grants to pay for. A close look at the 470 Local Assistance Grants clarifies that most of the allocation is based on politics, not good public policy.  

Pork spending has become so engrained in politics that a longtime senator suggested that taking away his highway money was like slapping his wife. Based on all the wasted money, a slapping might be necessary.

Let’s Meet at Starbucks and Discuss Killing Capitalism

By Kevin Schmidt

            “Kill capitalism before It kills you”. That was the headline of many fliers posted around campus, and around the Social Science building. It was followed by facts on income inequality and certain readings that should be read like Marx and Engels (although I applaud whoever wrote in John Locke).

            Socialism means government ownership (instead of private) of the means of production. It has been implemented in many different ways. The Soviet Union used central planning (instead of market forces: supply and demand) to “plan” their economy, and Great Britain and much of Europe nationalized many of their large industries after World War II. The latter being dubbed the “mixed” economy.

            With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, many figured that communism/socialism would die out. From walking around campus this is not the case. Before the wall fell, many prominent economists and intellectuals also believed the Soviet system to be a success. In 1981, Nobel Laureate and MIT professor of economics Paul Samuelson said: “It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable”. Apparently abandoning their comfort, the East Germans rushed to West Germany when the wall fell, and Solidarity risked their lives in Poland to get rid of the Soviet-supported Communists.

            If Al Gore was talking about whether or not market economies are better than planned economies he would say: “the debate is over”. The 20^th century has seen countries that have adopted a capitalist approach achieve political and economic freedom. Why hasn’t opening up to be more capitalist oriented (especially trade) killed China, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand as socialists would like you to believe? The fact of the matter is that free markets and trade have brought prosperity in terms of economic growth, employment, and a higher standard of living than those living under socialism.

            During the 1980s in Britain, Margaret Thatcher took Britain down the path of privatization of previously government owned sections of the economy. The coal industry was losing vast amounts of money and was barely surviving with 1.3 billion dollars of subsidies a year. Without privatization, the whole industry would have gone under, and possibly taken the economy with it. As with many government-run industries, it was costly, inefficient, and not observant of supply and demand.

Millions have difficulty getting a dentist in Britain. In fact, the BBC reported a story of a man pulling out his own teeth because lines went for blocks. He used vodka and pliers. Perhaps Britain is tougher because of these lines.

In India in 1991, The Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation had been open for twelve years. The only problem was the machinery that was bought for it when it opened never fit together. The workers had just been clocking in and not producing anything for twelve years.

In 2006 17% of Canadians didn’t have a primary care physician. Many have to wait for months for certain procedures, and end up the U.S. to get them.

In the mid 20^th century, the Soviet Union allowed a tiny portion of arable land for private farming plots. Although tiny in comparison to the state run and collective farms, they produced 25 percent of the meat and 50 percent of the potatoes. The Soviet economy worked well for the military-industrial complex and the government, but did nothing for the standard of living for the average person.

If one is to look around the world now and find the poorest economies and places to live, many of them will or have been socialist countries. North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all economically struggling with a large block of their populations living in poverty. Venezuela is the best out of the three because of oil prices, but the economy is beginning to crack.

When Deng Xiaoping proposed market based reforms to communist China he broke with Mao’s tradition by saying: “I have two choices," said Deng. "I can distribute poverty or I can distribute wealth."

Ronald Reagan described communism best in 1981 by saying: “we’ll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are now being written.” Only problem is that the socialists are stuck on the afterword of the book, refusing to close it for good. They cling to failed, “voodoo economics” because of perceived injustice. Their once highly regarded and followed theories have sunk; it’s only a matter of time before they go with them.

            Until then, they can sit in Starbucks talking about Marxism and materialism. There’s nothing like planning how to make the “workers of the world unite!” with a four dollar cup of coffee.