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.
Along with many other Houston fringe residents, I watch what the city does in regard to mass transit and other expensive public projects ñ they affect us in more than one way. I was dead set against the first Metrorail; all the things that spoke against it have come true in spades. I still think it was a waste of money. I feel like the next proposed rails are just more of the same.
But I go to the Medical Center a lot, now. My wife and I seem to have reason to do so frequently. The train as it exists now is a good deal, for us, and we use it often, so I canít bitch too much, any more. The convenience of an easy access park-and-ride lot then a train ride beats the hell out of navigating crowded, unfamiliar, streets to a parking garage that you donít know the location of is not to be discounted.
Good or bad, though. If you recall, someone was determined to get approval for that first rail project, and spent millions on studies and propaganda and referendums on it, until the result they wanted was finally obtained.
I hope reason prevails in this, but I have doubts. The way it looks and sounds from the media, I think the fix is in again. If I had a bunch of money, Iíd invest in whatever companies stand to profit most from construction of the new rail expansion. But I donít.
JD, thanks for the comment. I agree that an internal transit system for a relatively dense employment area such as the TMC makes sense. However, the current light rail system, which only serves stops on Fannin and Main, isn’t remotely the most efficient one for the Medical Center area.
I understand everyone’s pain over light rail. The criticisms are as obvious as they are plentiful. But one thing I am curious about is how a rail system changes development over time, if at all. Will the existence of the light rail encourage density because people want to live and work near the light rail, particularly the hubs? I know that assumes the city/metro has the money to keep the system running long enough. Just wondering if that element has been explored in the research by the critics.