public transit
Portland Public Transit Provides Lesson for Boise, Pundit Warns
"Portland's Chief Neo-Libertarian Critic" talks about Boise's streetcar.By Sharon Fisher, 11-11-09
 |
|
 | |
| Portland Streetcar | |
|
Public transit, such as Boise’s proposed streetcar, is bad for the economy and bad for the environment. Just ask Randal O’Toole, who works on urban growth, public land, and transportation issues at the Cato Institute, and who spoke in Boise today about public transit based on his experiences in Portland.
O’Toole’s talk in Boise was sponsored by the Idaho Freedom Foundation. The IFF is headed by Wayne Hoffman, a former reporter for the Idaho Statesman and Idaho Press-Tribune—“a less honorable profession,” he said—who has worked for Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna and the Idaho Department of Agriculture, as well as heading up Idaho Young Republicans and acting as spokesman for former Republican Idaho Congressman Bill Sali. Hoffman described the IFF as a “nonprofit nonpartisan free-market think tank.”
The event—held, incidentally, in a chain restaurant rather than in a locally owned business—was standing-room only, though apparently members of some Republican organizations received subsidized attendance. Attendees included Lieutenant Governor Brad Little, Representative Pete Nielsen (R-Mountain Home), and Boise City Council candidate Dave Litster, whose primary campaign issue was the streetcar, and who was asking attendees to sign his petition requiring it to come to a vote of the people.
As noted by his critics, O’Toole has made a career out of debunking Portland, the darling of urban planners. Which I guess makes him the darling of anti-urban planners. His website is even called “The Antiplanner.”
That’s not to say O’Toole didn’t have some good points, most notably that funding light rail by cutting buses doesn’t work. Buses offer a number of advantages over rail transit, such as flexibility—particularly in smaller cities such as Boise and Eugene, Ore. And certainly there is a great deal of controversy about the degree to which the streetcar system as proposed will serve Boise.
The problem is that, as described by a Congress for the New Urbanism report responding to O’Toole’s Portland study, “O’Toole’s attacks on Portland often miss the mark by distorting and misrepresenting data.” His talk in Boise was no exception.
* O’Toole cited a number of statistics about public transit in Portland showing that it was going down, that more people were driving to work, and so on. Aside from the fact that this was debunked at great length in the Congress for New Urbanism report, his statistics all ended in 2007, and didn’t include 2008—when $4 a gallon gas prices drove a lot of people from their cars. In addition, the same Portland Business Alliance he cited for his 2007 numbers noted that that in 2008, 44 percent of people took public transit whereas 45 percent drove—37 percent alone, 8 percent in carpools.
* O’Toole said that much of the Portland streetcar system went through urban renewal districts, which through their use of tax-increment financing were “stealing money from fire departments, police, and schools.” Well, not exactly. The reason it’s called “increment" financing is that some percentage of taxes on the additional value of the property in the district goes toward urban renewal. The taxes collected on the original value of the property can still go to the same fire departments, police stations, and schools where they always went.
* During the Q&A session, one person asked about public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, specifically about commuter rail. O’Toole chose to interpret that to mean the Altamont Commuter Express, a train that started in 1998 to connect San Jose to Stockton. He went on to call it a “disaster,” with only three or four trains running every morning and a few hundred people riding it. And that’s true—it offers four trains daily in each direction with an average daily ridership of 3,700. However, he did not mention Caltrain, the commuter rail system between San Francisco and San Jose, which offers 90 weekday trains and serves almost 40,000 people per day.
* O’Toole spoke favorably of several privately-operated transit systems, such as the Atlantic City jitney and the Puerto Rico Publico. “To make a profit, you have to be private,” he said. Well, obviously if a private company can make a profit at it, more power to it. Surely he’s not suggesting that the government should be competing with private companies to make a profit? That’s why government gets involved in the first place: because there is a public need that is not efficient for a private company to fill.
* “What about when gas goes to $5 or $10 a gallon?” asked one attendee. In an amazing coincidence, O’Toole not only had all sorts of figures at hand about public transit in Europe, where gas is indeed that price, but already had half a dozen slides about it queued up in his Powerpoint presentation.
* O’Toole claimed that driving costs 24 cents per passenger mile, which includes the car itself, maintenance, repair, insurance, taxes, and road subsidies. He did not say where he got this figure. In comparison, according to the American Automobile Association, average costs per mile are 45.3 to 70.7 cents, without including road subisides.
The other problem is that much of O’Toole’s argument was couched in political terms that are unrealistic, to say the least. Not only did he believe that transit should be privatized, but roads should as well, he said. In addition, not only was the current recession caused by urban planners—because their policies created the housing bubble—but called them planning czars who were trying to use social engineering to dictate how and where we live, such as forcing us to live in Soviet-style apartment buildings against our will. He emphasized this by including shots of Moscow (the Russian one, not the northern Idaho one) and East Germany and pretending at first to think they were Portland.
But when Ada County Commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Sharon Ullman asked him whether he’d looked at the Boise streetcar proposal specifically, O’Toole admitted he wasn’t particularly familiar with it.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
If you aren't willing to meet my public need -- to buy me a pony, why should the rest of Boise be willing to buy you a streetcar?
The bottom line is that the $65 million price tag for this 2.6 mile streetcar, that will cause greater traffic congestion and problems for cyclists in downtown Boise, is not justifiable.
"1. a learned person, expert, or authority.
2. a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pundit
http://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/transitinfo.html
I'm also laughing about Wayne H's comment that his current role - or perhaps his work for Bill Sali? - is more honorable than newspaper reporting.
Finally, it's nine days after the election, so it'd be nice for David Litster to remove his big sign from the side of Protest Road.
Good story. The streetcar plan may or may not be right for Boise, but it is refreshing to see this debunker so thoroughly debunked.
As far as the 'more honorable profession,' Wayne was referring to the IFF. “I get to talk about freedom and liberty all day," he said.
We have a proposal in Boise to spend 65 million dollars to build a two and a half mile Light Rail system. There are some who refer to this as a "Streetcar", perhaps in an attempt to bring back nostalgic memories from the days before General Motors and Firestone Tire Company got together and bought up most of the Inter-urban trolley systems and promptly closed them down so they could sell more cars, buses, and tires.
The irony. A handful of years back a new leg of the "Light Rail" system in Denver opened, and just prior to the ribbon being cut, the dignitary giving the grand pronouncement of its opening stated, and I must paraphrase - "Fifty years ago we were tearing up the rails, and now we are putting them down again."
But Denver isn't Boise and Boise isn't Portland and our economic Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and things will never be the same again. And one of O'Toole's comments illustrate the point if one can read between the lines, assuming one is well read to begin with. Here's some "Change you can believe in". To quote: "Not only did he believe that transit should be privatized, but roads should as well."
Where did such radical thinking originate?
From the "Chicago Boys" from the University of Chicago - Milton Friedman and his acolytes, whose philosophy was so clearly articulated in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." Effectively, and pardon the pun, "capitalize" on a crisis, whether the cause of the event is natural or spontaneous, or worse, deliberately caused by the financial class so they can advantage themselves of the circumstances.
O'Toole apparently suggested that public roads be taken from those who funded them, i.e. the taxpayer, and either sold or leased to private companies to manage their operation, who then in turn bill those who paid for the construction and regular maintenance in the first place. A sweet deal indeed, and we are to assume "market forces" will regulate these monopolies. Right.
This sort of experimentation become practice was pushed by Friedman and Co. in the Third-World, as his disciples would move into nations undergoing crisis,often times with the help of our "Intelligence Agencies", the State Department, and not too rarely, with the help of our military. In most cases, nothing but disaster followed, as these multinational monopolies bought up, for pennies on the dollar, roads, water systems, electric grids - you get the idea. Then they would charge the penniless a dime for what is essential.
Again, "Sweet Deal". And again, things will never be the same again. O'Toole's seemingly new vision unfortunately has some traction well beyond Idaho. In the last couple of weeks, the City of Chicago, as it descends into hellish status after what cream was left has been skimmed away by the political class, leased its parking meters to some outfit in Europe. Other cities have done the same with roads, is some cases sold them outright. Yes, those same roads paid for by the taxpayer. Whether the cities are run by Democrats or Republicans - it's all the same.
Things will never be the same.
But back to Boise - That 65 million for a "trolley" is a down-payment, as operating costs follow just like with anything else. How many buses will sixty five million buy? Flex-fuel too. Even fueled by natural gas. And you can buy cute little buses that look like trolleys too if nostalgia is where it's at. Does Boise need to go 65 million in debt to the same cretins who caused the financial mess we're in as well as feed the insatiable, gluttonous appetites of Friedman's intellectual offspring?
I say no, regardless of what Portland has done. What Portland did was then and this is now, and things will never be the same again. Ever. "Living in the Past", particularly one where all our largess was fueled by credit and an idea of "progress" that was defined solely by growth is not what the future holds. We may well be fortunate to avoid complete dystopia, and another 65 million in debt ought to be avoided.
The economy is not a religion and capitalism is not a sacred icon.
But if it takes the work of the IFF, and a less-than-credible pundit (and I'm happy to use that term in its pejorative sense) to argue against it, maybe there's more to it than I thought?
As much as I love trains (as an experience, as the hobby my grandfather was passionate about, and as effective urban transportation), it doesn't seem like that's what we're talking about. Boise's support for rail transportation is ably expressed in the so-called "Tour Train" (gag me) and a new coat of paint for Big Mike every couple of decades. (And gee it would be nice to have Amtrak swing by again, as long as somebody else can subsidize it enough.)
The heavy lifting in the transportation department is out on I-84, thank you. Check with Pam Lowe about how the good old boy network behind that is prepared to consider alternatives.
Can anyone imagine New York functioning without it? Philly, D.C., or Chicago? Moscow, London, Paris and the like? Even San Francisco, L.A. and Denver? Add those jillion extra cars on the road for commutes, let alone consider how many residents who live near the cores of these metroplexes simply do not own vehicles because of public transportation. These circumstances are a measurable good.
Okay, one can question whether these places actually function, and yes, perhaps the world would be better off without them functioning at all, but the fact of the matter is that rail, whether overhead, surface, or underground is essential in those cities. In Boise? Not hardly.
And hey, I'm a big train fan. I love them. Passenger or freight, it doesn't matter. And I've got a fantastic collection of O-Gauge stuff, both old and new. Lionel, Mikes Train House, K-Line, Atlas... I've even got O-96 curves! 8 footers, so I can be like Casey Jones and keep the throttle wide open.
Frankly, the rail infrastructure in this country is a disgrace. We have far too many tractor-trailer rigs on the highway system, thank to government subsidies that both built and maintain the damn things. 80% of what "moves by truck" should be moved by rail nearer the final destination. But alas, we can't. As freight moved to eighteen wheels off of eight back in the 1950's, short lines and inner-city tracks were abandoned and torn up, the steel sold for scrap and the rights of ways lost. Now it's by truck or forget it.
Frankly this question in Boise is more along the line of "We won't be a great city if we don't..." If Boise was to have rail in the city, it should have been done back in the 1920's and then never abandoned as what happened in so many other locales. You want rail in Boise so bad, forget the cute little trolley. Run light rail from Nampa, Meridian, Eagle, etc, and have a good bus system available to pick up the commuters to deliver them to their final destinations. But then again, just because you build it doesn't mean they're going to come.
As an aside, what kind of drugs are these urban planners on? We haven't even entered the phase of the commercial real estate bubble deflating, there remains that quadrillion dollars or better derivatives time-bomb ticking in the background, the country is what, 15 trillion in the hole, and when counting unfunded liabilities it's closer to 70 trillion, and these great minds want to do what? Did these people ever take any sort of economics classes at all? Do they not think these minor little problems, along with the rest of the world about to abandon the dollar, do they not think there might just be a little paradigm shift around the next bend? Like the end of the world as we knew it? Oh yea, and those two little wars with the third about to break out. Hey - no bother, right?
WAKE UP! WE'RE IN TROUBLE!!!
Yes, there's a train on the track all right, and it isn't a trolley. We're all poor Nell bound tightly to the tracks, and Dudley Do Wrong ain't around to save us! And these bright sparks want to blow 65 million dollars on what? A trolley? Hell, we're going to need that just to fund soup kitchens, and these "planners" should think long and hard about that because "urban planning" isn't exactly much in demand when we're sliding our way into Third-World status. A trolley. Wake up!
BTW, Randal isn't the only person who believes that robo-cars are the future of transportation. Brad Templeton is a big promoter of them as well.
I used to hunt pheasants in the boondocks all around Meridian, Idaho; and remember when Karcher was simply a highway intersection on the way from Nampa to Caldwell.
I can also remember when La Porte, Ft Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Broomfield and Boulder were distinct little communities between Laramie and Denver on U.S 287.
Now is the time to build a public transportation system with those memories in mind.
Always research and find out who funds a persons work and you'll see the motive behind the biassed "analysis".
http://www.midwesthsr.org/fact/index.html
"A few groups are making baseless claims against high-speed rail to advocate for the status quo – the same status quo that has brought us gridlock, high fuel costs and severe pollution.
Most of the “research” and quotes online and in the media can be linked to just three conservative groups: The Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, which receive funding from the likes of Chevron and Exxon Mobil"
O'toole is from the Cato Institute. Put 2 & 2 together.
So the problems seems to be more one of using social networking to make sure that every car is full. We can do that, using 21st century technology. Seems silly to aspire to 19th century technology (even though I personally love to ride a train and will ALWAYS choose a train over a bus or taxi).
dan, yes, you can rely on the cato institute to tell the truth. Unfortunately, sometimes the truth is ugly and not very happy-making. I would be much happier if my personal desire for railroads and my desire for good public policy coincided in light rail advocacy. Unfortunately, they don't.
Dan, I expect that O'Toole has trouble getting funding from the railroad industry. Why are you surprised that he therefore has to look elsewhere for funding? Seems like the conclusion that logic (rather than the innuendo you hope to smear him with) would lead you to.
A more interesting 21st century transportation technology than the 19th century light rail is the RUF: http://www.ruf.dk/ - combines the best aspects of trains and personal automobiles.
http://megafrontier.com/people/when-an-expert-is-not-an-expert
Someone here brought up Noo Yawk. The infrastructure there is a case of "lowest cost." Or probably, lowest MARGINAL cost. The density of NYC and other old-style, old-urbanist metroplexes, makes mass transit a least-hurtful option. 40 people in a bus versus 40 people in 40 cars that have to be parked? In Manhattan? Which isn't Boise.
And Sharon, I really, REALLY must jump down your throat about:
"That’s why government gets involved in the first place: because there is a public need that is not efficient for a private company to fill."
That statement right there sums up why the deficit is in orbit, taxes are so high, why nothing makes sense. Everyone is trying to pick the pocket of everyone else for stuff they want that they are not willing to pay for themselves. Russ is completely correct, and you should reassess what you wrote. Really, does it make sense, or is it fair, to have someone else pay for your stuff?
I think -- rather, I know -- it is absolutely insane to spend 65 million on a couple miles of trolley track. I did a study years ago, vetted by industry experts, that I could rebuild Class Five main line track for a million a mile. The heavy wire for freight trains was another million and a half. Double that with inflation, and we are still way, way under 25 million or so a mile for a danged 15 mph STREEEEEEEET CAR? I don't care if 40 or 45 million of that is "supposed" to come from TIGER money...right, Boise is going to be competing in the arena with bloody knife fighters from every other city in America seeking to score the lard.
ROToole is right in many ways, especially in one respect. Users should pay directly for the infrastructure they use...then they get exactly as much as they really want and/or need, without massive, stupid misallocations of other people's money.
And that's why I'm a conservative, and you're not.
Okay, I'm a FISCAL conservative...and there are lots of things about America I like that I would prefer not be "changed" while leaving penny change in my pocket. But a neocon, I be not, unkind sir.
And I think your declamation that those of us not in love with Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood Trolley are somehow Luddite is sort of ironic. A trolley is actually pretty basic tech. You need to pay closer attention to what Ned Ludd was all about.
Never mind what is going on along the Front Strange. Isn't the RTA now having trubble finding the money for its empire?
The age of convenience and privilege is ending--finally. Perhaps a system of cooperation with nature might ensue..?
And Sharon, I hear tell in the Great British Isles the road poleece can get you for speeding if you hit the checkpoints too fast. That and cameras. Jolly good show, wot?
So, I'll pass on the On-Star option.
Mickey, please, no personal attacks.
As far as your statistics, note that they end in 2005, in the same way that O'Toole's ended in 2007. I quoted more recent statistics in my story that show increases.
In response to Jason, I have, thankyouverymutch, utilized the Portland light rail system. Some of it I like, some of it is just bizarre, like the way the airport line peels off into a 10-MPH gantlet section. As soon as the new downtown bits are built to Union Depot, I'll be satisfied with it, eminently.
Being in Montana, it costs a zillion-kajillion dollars to fly out, and taking 27-28 to Portland and nabbing a two-dollar ride straight to the ticket counter at PDX is a "good thing." That is, if 27 is ON TIME. If not, then you get to blow 30 bucks on a taxi from Vancouver and hope like crazy you make it.
That all said, I've ridden enough to be unimpressed with the riff-raff that also utilize the service. Dreads, pot smoke fumes, strange meth-induced twitches, general bad addytudes...and not much personal space. That's a factor for a lot of people less resistant to intimidation that I am.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/
http://www.demographia.com/
Lease everyone Jaguars.
I can't make this stuff up, people:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/jaguar.jpg
Cox and O'Toole are broken records on the subject of transit. We know they oppose it. Great. That adds zero to the discourse. Try an objective article that is historical, contextual, and comparative if you want to look at actual costs. This is a good one:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=554055
Of course the real bummer for O'Toole and Cox is the lead article in the current American Economic Review (the world's leading economic journal) where economist Ian W.H. Parry (Ph.D. University of Chicago - one of the more conservative schools in the country) finds "The results support the efficiency case for the large fare subsidies currently applied across mode, period, and city. In almost all cases, fare subsidies of 50 percent or more of operating costs are welfare improving at the margin, and this finding is robust to alternative assumptions and parameters."
So again, if it is credible research you are looking for, this is it:
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-07-38.pdf
But the other thing Mickey that you and O'Toole and Cox ignore, or won't talk about is the absolutely astronomical costs of maintaining the road system. The American Society of Civil Engineers says that the U.S. needs to spend almost $1 trillion over the next five years on roads, yet has budgeted "only" about $350 or so million - leaving more than a half-trillion dollar shortfall.
Meanwhile, the ARRA contains a whole $8 billion for rail. A whole $8 billion for rail. $8 billion. $1 trillion. I am certainly not into wasting tax dollars, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't worth spending the time fighting over $8 billion fellas. That's one week in Iraq . . .
And not so good for the budget when all of the expenses of fossil fuel are factored into the reality.
As for the two "other" sites you suggest, Mickey... they look like two arms of the same fellow, Wendell Cox. And not that web design (or editing and spelling) is essential to the question at hand, but OMG.
I ride the Red MAX when I'm in Portland, too, because I love it when Portland taxpayers pay most of my fare. I like a gift as much as the next guy!
http://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/rppi245.html
The question not asked is, do federal taxpayers subsidize freeways for the urban areas, or spend the same zillions on track?
And why subsidize either? Gotta admit I hated the toll plazas on the Thruway and other locations, but why not just raise fuel taxes and fares to the break-even point?
the rightwing are all becoming paranoid. I assume it is just their basic white supremacist sympathies; but what do I know?
And how does it work, exactly? I drive around and then am horrified to get a bill at the end of the year because I didn't know how much it would cost me to take the scenic route rather than the freeway? Is it going to be like the phone bill, where sometimes you use a strange pay phone and then you get the phone bill the next month and it cost $20?
Sharon,
The six users on the rural Idaho road probably don't need that much of a road, unless one is a county commissioner. The user fee thing would probably be most rational based on a national system where the use levels are high enough to justify installing the payment infrastructure. Local and secondary roads off the network could probably be billed as a segment of the total driving mileage. If you drive 10,000 miles, and 5,000 miles are on tracked segments, the other 5,000 is put over in the general use, local-taxation pool, paid either though property, local fuel, or other taxes. Call that the Ada or Idaho state user fee.
The system needs to be sophisticated enough to fairly allocate the costs of use, but the price of "perfection" might be too high.
Mickey's model based on weight takes into account the main factor of road wear, pounds per tire inch. Once tire-inch weights get past a certain point, the pressure on the road becomes enough to cause structural wear and/or damage. So a Prius would be comparatively cheap, while a Peterbilt at max load would not be, as trucks do in fact cause the most roadway wear aside from climate. I would further assume that all vehicles would have a base rate. A Prius takes up as much space on the highway as an Escalade, ya can't do much about the physics of that, so there has to be a charge for your buffer between you and that nitwit Twittering away.
You just keep pretending to know all the answers--let Jay and I keep calling you down. What a poseur.
Under the First Amendment, you have a perfect right to your snarky peurility. But the fact remains you have not made any comment on this thread even close to the subject matter, that does anything but put out the same old rote insults, and it is my right to point that out -- and not with my index finger, either.
You don't say.
How is 16% longer, 16% wider, 29% higher and 95% heavier "the same space"?
The idea of precisely metering road use and collecting user fees would be a fascinating technology project, but there are a lot of sinkholes for public investment along the road to a result which is by no means assured of increasing public welfare.
Among other potential problems, we folks in the flyover red states would likely see a drastic reduction in our subsidies from the blue states.
The U.S. DOE has a Transportation Energy Data Book:
Site = http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
Document = /ba/pba/transportation_databook.html
(workaround for the blasted blacklist filter)
Chapter 2 is informative:
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Edition28_Chapter02.pdf
Automotive efficiency is increasing, but it appears that rail is at least holding its own. (Mickey's claim about "most light rail lines" may or may not be literally true, but it's presented in such a way to obscure both its provability and utility.)
Most important I think is the caution the DOE puts on its statistics: Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.
Ever heard of the two-second rule? That's why. You don't get to pack a stream of 70 MPH Priuses any tighter than a stream of Escalades. And you ESPECIALLY shouldn't want to pack a stream of Priuses, Escalades, and Peterbilts any tighter...unless of course you want to eliminate all the liberals through attrition, right?
Good point on the subsidies "to" red states, however. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a dang bit if our infrastructure was a bit more minimalist and rugged...fewer Priuses, fewer Escalade/Lincolns and more Jeeps, with the proper sociological trickle-down. Fewer Lears and more Super Cubs, too.
A family friend is a highway engineer, now retired, and once he took me and my stepdad down to the big box to see some really wild time-lapse films of the ripple effect. Absolutely amazing stuff, and they also had data on count, everything would be peachy and then, just an iota over certain points, TWANG the whole thing would start accordioning and keep doing so until flows were considerably below the first trigger. The most exciting spots were where choke-downs occurred, and it seemed no matter how far out the engineers put the warning signs, there was always some dolt who didn't get the message and disrupted flow...TWANG.
Here's a story from 2006, says $176 million:
http://sandiego.about.com/od/transportation/a/caltrans_merge.htm
It also said 23 (!) lanes, but zooming in with the Google Maps satellite view this morning, I only see 21.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment climate/article/1051/Freeways_The_Ultimate_In
If the task of designing transportation systems had a single metric of goodness, "relieving congestion," we could just pave everything (and hey, we're not that far from that now), and we'd be good.
The more you work ad hominem angles, the weaker I have to assume your argument is. That particular correlation does have a basis in causation.
He is an idealogue--or possibly a paid shill for the rightwing.
He has no scruples.
Is there no justice on this earth, Sr. Garcia?
26 RUDA ROAD
LOME TOGO
RC05446
MANAGER NADOR
Phone +228-744-6622
Fax +228-839-2639
For more information contact:
Notice: METAL, COPPER, STEEL SCRAP.CAR-BATTERIES FOR SALE :
This is to inform you on our products in stock,. we hereby show our aim to the world market and fellow scrap companies in the world. Our stocks is semi to new, it is due to inadequate accommodation of our goods and our government superiority makes IBE SCRAP AND METAL LTD to appear on line today to enable us export some of our goods to the final consumers in the world.
Note: You are to come down to our company to inspect the goods and make your process to be accurate in shipping the goods to your own country where you company is located.
OR we have the power to show you the picture of the goods on line before your coming.
Advice; IBE SCRAP have access of transaction on line if possibly your company can purchase on line. You can contact us on line for more information Online Transaction.
MANAGER ;