A Ticket to Ride or a Ticket to Nowhere? (exploring the myths of light rail systems)

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 22 January 2004 | John Semmens, The Independent Institute, and Satya Thallam, The Goldwater Institute

[Alberta's Child]

That's an interesting perspective, and that idea has been bandied about every now and then by transit agencies all across the country.

One of the problems I have with this whole subject is that valid comparisons are never made between one mode of travel and another. A lot of folks have pointed out here that "they can spend money more wisely by improving roads," but in fact motorists generally don't pay much more than 5% of the cost of the roads they drive on, either.

[kevkrom]

And how much would your temper improve if all the money spent on mass transit were put into more roads so there is far less traffic congestion?

It's not just traffic congestion -- it's also an issue of parking. I don't know if you work in a major city (DC), but I do -- parking is vry expensive because it takes up a huge chunk of otherwise valuable real estate.

My personal experience with the Beltway shows that it isn't the number of lanes that metters, it's the choke points at entrances and exits that are the problem. You could widen the thing out to six lanes from four and still have major tie-ups all the way around at key junctions.

[Mr. Bird]

If my city had light rail, I most certianly would use it. I may even consider giving up my car.

Remember, if you do use it, you effectively are giving up your car on that day. I commuted by rail for two years. Sure, it's nice to read the paper and not worry about traffic. But if you need to get home fast in an emergency (or worse, get someplace NOT on the rail line), you are in big trouble. How many times in a year do you unexpectedly have to leave work, or go someplace afterward? Each of those instances is magnified when you are dependent on rail transit.

I gave it up, even though it was cheaper and had its relative conveniences. There is no substitute for being able to get anywhere you need to go on your own.

[stylin_geek]

Yeah, I hear that one. I used to work in a major metro area, so I understand the parking issues. However, city planning and taxation always affect traffic and parking. I've always considered the current push for less roads and more mass transit subtle forms of social engineering, in that they are designed to get people to live and work where city planners think they should live and work.

[txhurl]

Those two new hybrid buses cost 570,000.00 a pop. The other buses cost 290,000.00. I asked.

I've been on the LV feeder, it's kinda fun. They keep it at 60 degrees in summer.

[martin_fierro]

Had an ass at both ends.

[tdadams]

Opinions vary. I see your points but they're not very persuasive in changing my mind. I don't think they would be that much of an issue for me. I'd love to have a light rail system.

[Doctor Stochastic]

How does the cost of light-rail (or other public transit) compare to just buying each family a really tiny sedan?

[Arrowhead1952]

Those two new hybrid buses cost 570,000.00 a pop. The other buses cost 290,000.00. I asked.

Being you made that comment, I will post a thread from the Austin Rag with this title

Cap Metro sues, says bus fleet is flawed

[Fudd]

"My city's transportation authority is pushing for the monorail light rail program. " ... Monorail and light rail are 2 different animals, which is it?

Strikethrough just does not show up well on the word monorail. Just a silly reference to the Simpsons.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

If my city had light rail, I most certianly would use it. I may even consider giving up my car. It does improve traffic congestion, I've seen it. It does improve pollution, I've seen that too.

Not too long ago, in Chicago, they built an elevated rail route from Midway airport to the downtown area. It did indeed improve traffic congestion, made it easier to get to downtown during rush hour, and has saved people alot of unwanted downtown parking fees/hassals. Residential property values along the train route increased as well.

[Petronski]

Had an ass at both ends...

Just like John F**king Kerry.

[John Semmens]

Motorists in Arizona pay around 100% of the cost of the roads when all taxes (including those diverted to the general fund) are considered.

Numerous studies have indicated that in America, at least, motor vehicles substantially (60% according to FHWA data) or more than pay their own way.

[balrog666]

I don't know why so many people have this knee-jerk reaction against light rail, as if it's a concession to leftist advocacy to support it.

I do know why so many people have this knee-jerk reaction against WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS; it's a concession to leftist advocacy.

[John Semmens]

Real estate development near a light rail track is development diverted from other locations.

The losses incurred by light rail and covered by taxpayers eat into a community's capital and reduce the economy's ability to create jobs.

[southernnorthcarolina]

This article should be stapled to the forehead of each city council member in each mid-sized city (including my native Charlotte) which is building or contemplating commuter rail of any kind.

Having "a train" makes us feel so urbane, so sophisticated, so world-class. But rail is hideously expensive in terms of land acquisition, street modifications to accommodate the train, utilities relocations, construction of the rail system, purchase of the trains -- and, of course, the payroll and operating costs are never-ending. Commuter rail is a bottomless pit into which to shovel tax money -- both from the taxpayers of the city involved, and taxpayers across the country in terms of federal matching funds.

The real problem with fixed rail is that it is fixed (duh). Using the best 18th-century technology, it takes people from where they are not to where they don't want to go at a time not of their choosing. With more and more commuting taking place suburb-to-suburb, trains running on a hub-and-spoke route are an anachronism. Even if your commuting route is suburb-to-downtown, additional transportation is usually required at one or both ends of the trip, anyway. Fewer and fewer folks are willing to forgo the convenience of having their own cars for unscheduled business visits during the day, or to meet the kid at soccer practice, or to buy a gallon of milk (or gin) on the way home.

Again and again, we see incrementalism. Train proponents (many of whom just happen to own land near the proposed stations), after a long battle, will triumph over the "antis" and obtain funding for one line, say to a suburb north of downtown. Well, we can't stop there, can we? Wouldn't be fair. Plus, operating costs will decrease when the "whole system" is built. Right.

My advice: if your city is on the verge of starting a commuter rail system, move without further ado to a suburban county, and lobby the commissioners of that county not to participate in the funding of the rail system. Commissioners of Union County, NC, where I live, on the southeastern fringe of the Charlotte metro area, seem to have a good grasp of the situation. They know that if they cede any of their taxing power to a regional government entity, or if they themselves vote so much as a dime toward the Charlotte rail system, their political careers are done.

No, Gomer, having a train is not going to instantly transform your town from Podunkville to London. But the new tax rate will make you feel like you live in a big city.

[mvpel]

The DC Metro is a vastly different animal than the light rail systems they're proposing and running. Plus, DC, New York, and Chicago were already dense enough to support a solid ridership and a system that actually made a positive difference in travel times and convenience. Tempe, Arizona and San Jose, California don't share those aspects.

[John Semmens]

In Arizona, the environmental impact statement prepared in order to get federal aid for light rail was forced to disclose that hours in traffic would actually increase compared to a "no-build" alternative. More automobile engines running more hours means more pollution--which the enviro impact statement also conceded.

You see, when you take out travel lanes in order to put light rail tracks in the street the loss in roadway capacity is larger than the number of persons lured out of their cars and onto light rail. The inevitable consequence is more congestion.

When light rail proponents boast about lower congestion they neglect to account for lost roadway capacity. They just assume away this loss and count every light rail rider as one car taken off the roads.

[John Semmens]

In Arizona, the annual cost for a daily light rail commuter is $6,000.

This is higher than the annual cost to own & operate all but luxury cars.

[pogo101]

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
...
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken... !
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!