Warren Meyer has some fun commenting on the latest Phoenix-area urban boondoggle — a three-quarter of a billion dollar state subsidy for an amusement park in the Arizona desert!

Of course, that subsidy is peanuts in comparison to the subsidy that Houston is gearing up to pay in connection with this local boondoggle (see also here and here). Why invest billions in an inflexible light rail system in a region that is not densely-populated, contains numerous and dispersed employment centers and possesses an excellent freeway system that would facilitate a far cheaper and more effective bus system?

In this recent post about the Miami transit system, Randal O’Toole sums up the common characteristics of light rail systems in areas without the density of population to generate the ridership necessary to make them economically viable:

1. Transit agencies might run excellent bus systems. But when they start building rail, they quickly get in over their heads by optimistic forecasts, unforeseen costs, and the sheer humongous expense of building dedicated transit lines.

2. Though all rail systems require periodic expensive maintenance, few transit agencies set aside any money for this because it is easier to spend the money now and let future managers worry about the future.

3. Though the rail systems are usually built to serve downtown white-collar workers, in the end it is the transit-dependent people who rely on buses who pay the cost.

4. There is only one thing rails can do that buses can’t do better, faster, and more flexibly, and that is spend a lot of your money.

The enormous cost relative to usage and inflexibility of most light rail systems reminds me of something that USC urban economist Peter Gordon observed a couple of years ago about the political forces that support these boondoggles. Some are disingenuous promoters seeking to profit from the rail lines, others pose as high-minded environmentalists and many are simply ignorant of the inefficiency and inflexibility of such systems. Professor Gordon wryly points out:

"It adds up to a winning coalition."

Professor Gordon provides more recent perspective here.