FYI to everyone, one minor correction, when the Oregonian stated the numbers for the cost to homeowners they were referring to the combined cost of both the PFD and TriMet bond measures. This still, however, incorrectly portrays the TriMet measure as a tax hike rather than a renewal. My thanks to Galen Barnett at the Oregonian for correcting that.

Second, a shorter adaptation of the first two portions of thise post will appear in Oregonlive’s “The Stump” opinion section soon.

As for the bond measure, yes, bonds are like using the credit card (but with, hopefully, much lower interest rates). And we’ve certainly hit the credit card for lots of things over the last 30 years or so which is, in part, why we’re in the credit crisis we’re in now (yes, it’s more complicated than that – the big banks perpetuated a lot of fraud, etc, but credit demand had gotten way out of control). I’d like to see more “pay as you go” type funding via a tri-county gas tax. We need to make it more expensive to drive in order to reflect the true cost of driving.

…and it would be great if DC would figure out that maybe they should be helping sustain that which has been built – and again, that could be done via an increase in the federal gas tax.

Yes, I am that pessimistic about the future of our economy.

I would agree that TriMet is facing serious financial issues.

I don’t agree that it’s a quality of life service. That implies that roads are somehow basic service. All major modes of transportation are basic services and thinking of some modes as essential while others are “quality of life” (read: extra, non-essential, fluff) is a fallacy and a legacy of the Interstate Highway era of thinking.

It seems to me that the best argument against rail expansion is that government, like all quality of life services in the US, is entering an era of long-term decline. I assume you wouldn’t deny that TriMet is in deep long-term financial trouble?

I’m just playing devil’s advocate on the rail question, though.