Tory Gattis (Houston Strategies) recently authored this insightful post that explores the vexing question of why many people passionately support light rail in the face of the overwhelming economic arguments against it?

Tory concludes that it has something to do with an unexpressed human psychological need to be liked — sort of like, “Here, check out and play with my light rail toy, and you will probably think better of me.”

Tory is clearly on to something in that there appears to be an element of a civic inferiority complex underlying some folks’ support for light rail. However, Tory’s point still does not explain why people who need mass transit the most — i.e., folks who cannot afford the cost of buying and maintaining a car — support light rail, which certainly does not improve their mobility and, by drawing resources away from mobility projects that would, probably harms it.

My sense is that that question lies somewhere between the human demand for entitlement and lack of viable choices.

As previously noted on this blog, the true economic benefit of light rail is highly concentrated in only a few interest groups — political representatives of minority communities who tout the political accomplishment of shiny toy rail lines while ignoring their constituents need for more effective mass transit, environmental groups that are striving for political influence, construction-related firms that feed at the trough of light rail projects, and private real estate developers who enrich themselves through the increase in their property values along the rail line.

Inasmuch as none of these reasons for mass transit appeal to the part of the electorate who actually need mass transit, this amalgamation of interest groups continues to disguise their true interests behind amorphus claims that the uneconomic rail lines reduce traffic congestion (they do not), curb air pollution (they do not), or improve the quality of life (at least debatable). The literature on all this is public and volumnious — check out demographia.com, cascadepolicy.org, and americandreamcoalition.org.

So, how do these interest groups get away with this? The costs of such systems are widely dispersed among the local population of an area such as Houston, so the many who stand to lose will lose only a little while the few who stand to gain will gain a lot.

As a result, these small interest groups recognize that it is usually not worth the relatively small cost per taxpayer for most citizens who do not use mass transit to spend any substantial amount of time or money lobbying or simply taking the time to vote against an uneconomic rail system.

Meanwhile, the light rail interest groups garner support for light rail from the part of the electorate that actually needs mass transit by simultaneously limiting the mass transit choices and threatening that part of the electorate with loss of the governmental funds for mass transit if they fail to support light rail.

Thus, a referendum on mass transit issues is never promoted with choices between alternatives such as a light rail system, one one hand, and a cheaper and more effective bus-based system system, on the other. It’s simply an “all or nothing” choice, and folks who need mass transit will understandably vote in favor of getting their share of public transportation funds even if it does not improve their mobility one iota.

Indeed, given the cost of light rail systems, one wonders how those citizens who actually need mass transit would vote if the alternative were a light rail system, on one hand, and a new Toyota Prius for each such citizen, on the other? Frankly, the cost of the latter alternative would likely be cheaper than most any light rail plan.

So, at the end of the day, where does that leave us? Is it wrong that people who need mass transit vote in favor of something that does not really address their needs? No, it does not, but it troubles me when they are misled in doing so.

As Anne Linehan and Kevin Whited (blogHouston.net) have repeatedly pointed out, a part of Metro’s pitch for its light rail plan was that light rail would enhance Metro’s bus system and service. Inasmuch as that representation has turned out to be patently false, it seems reasonable that our public officials should at least be required to point out publicly that Metro’s most utilized and efficient mass transit system — i.e., the bus system — will likely continue to erode as Metro continues to invest heavily in light rail.

In the meantime, it would also be nice if public officials would admit publicly that the usual economic justifications for light rail are also dubious. If mass transit users and other citizens want to allow Houston’s public officials to continue to throw money at a light rail system in the face of the economic truth about such a system, then I can live with that result despite my compassion for those citizens who are not being provided the mass transit that they need.

But at least let’s require truth in advertising in connection with having citizens vote on such matters.

A similar sentiment is shared in this interesting Owen Courreges post (Lone Star Times) in which he takes the Chronicle to task for suggesting that Metro’s political opposition — rather than Metro itself — is misleading the public about Metro’s expanded light rail plan.

Finally, Tory points out that we should take some comfort in the fact that Houston’s light rail plan is at least not as big an economic boondoggle as similar plans proposed for Seattle and Denver. Similarly, a couple of commentators to Tony’s post chime in that the marginal cost of the light rail system to Houston area citizens is relatively small for a civic asset that will impress citizens and visitors alike for many years to come. That latter point may have some validity, but let’s make sure that we are talking about the correct marginal cost.

A big difference between the light rail system and the publicly-funded stadiums that Houston has built over the past several years are that the stadiums have tenants who pay the vast majority of the cost of maintaining the facilities.

In comparison, Metro’s light rail system does not come close to generating enough revenue to pay its ongoing costs, as was brought home by Metro’s recent announcement of desultory operating results coupled with the expenditure of $104 million more on the three-year-old rail line to fix problems caused by construction errors and add more rail cars.

In that regard, even the $1.5 million that Harris County spends annually to mothball the Astrodome pales in comparison to underwriting the ongoing cost of the light rail system.

The bottom line is that light rail systems eat voraciously, and any analysis of the true marginal cost of such a system to citizens has to take into consideration the high cost of feeding that appetite.

This post from last year addressed the economic failure of the urban rail system in Washington, D.C. Now, the Washington Post is running a series of articles (first one here) that is examining the dubious economics and management of D.C.’s subway system. Here are other posts on various urban rail boondoggles.
Tory Gattis over at Houston Strategies picks up on the same WaPo article and observes the following regarding the failed economics of most urban rail systems:

Quite the depressing and scary litany. It’s really hard to have good management at a public agency, and transit is a seriously complicated and expensive business with billions of dollars at stake, especially rail transit. Amtrak’s a mess. DC’s a mess. NY, Chicago, SF/San Jose, and LA all have serious problems with their transit agencies. What makes us think Houston Metro can buck this trend?

The economic lunacy of light rail has been an occasional topic on this blog (here, here, here, and here). However, blogHouston.net has a much more impressive archive of insightful posts over the past year on the foibles of the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, which has completely redesigned Houston’s public transit system over the past decade from a flexible one based primarily on bus transit to an inflexible one based primarily on light rail.
Well, as this Anne Linehan post from today points out, that inflexible light rail system is turning out to be a rather expensive one, too. This Chronicle story reports the shocking news:

Metro wants to spend an additional $104 million on its Main Street light rail line to almost double the number of trains and fix costly problems it blames on construction errors.
Metropolitan Transit Authority president and CEO Frank Wilson laid out his wish list to the agency’s board Thursday, shortly after releasing statistics that show surging rail ridership but decreased numbers of bus riders and overall customers.
The cost Metro estimates for the improvements would raise the bill for what Metro calls its Red Line ? the 7.5-mile route from downtown to Reliant Park ? by about a third.
At the same time, the agency is seeking federal money to help build four light rail extensions with a combined price tag of $1.7 billion.

The Chronicle goes on to report that, although light rail ridership has increased, the total number of people using Metro mass transit (i.e., light rail and buses) has declined by 3% over the past year.
Not exactly the return on investment that one would wish for after plunking down $325 million to build the 7.5 mile light rail system.
At any rate, Ms. Linehan uses her skill in translating Metro-speak to explain why Metro officials believe that spending another cool $104 mil on the existing light rail line is a good idea:

“We cut corners building the 7.5 miles of downtown light rail; we have dismantled bus and trolley service in order to feed the light rail; we don’t have a consistent method for collecting fares so we can’t talk about ‘paid ridership;’ we are bleeding passengers systemwide even though Houston’s population has increased; and now we’d like an extra $100 million to help fix our mess.”

Thus, the scam of this publicly-financed rail system continues to eat money voraciously with no end in sight. The economic benefit of light rail is actually highly concentrated in only a few interest groups, such as elected officials who enjoy touting their political “accomplishment,” environmental groups who seek to gain political influence, construction-related firms who can soak the public till, and real estate developers who enjoy the increase in the value of their property along the rail line. Inasmuch as none of these reasons for mass transit are particularly appealing to the vast majority of the electorate, the interest groups disguise their goals behind disingenuous claims that rail lines will reduce traffic congestion, curb air pollution, or — the one I like best — make a city “world class.” In reality, rail transit has never been an efficient means to reduce either congestion or air pollution, and a rail line has certainly never made a city “world class.”
On the other hand, the costs of such systems are widely dispersed among the local population. Thus, the many who stand to lose will lose only a little while the few who stand to gain will gain a lot. As a result, it is usually not worth the relatively small cost per taxpayer for most citizens to spend any substantial amount of time or money lobbying against even an uneconomic rail system. With political leadership more interested in shiny toys than pro forma operating statements, the publicly-financed rail systems continue to infect metro areas like a bad virus, and the cost of treating this civic virus grows larger each month.
Finally, the foregoing analysis does not even count the cost associated with this carnage.
Where is the Lord of Regulation when you really need him? ;^)