Almost three years ago, The Goldwater Institute, a free-market think tank in Phoenix, published a devastating accounting of the light rail system now being built in Metropolitan Phoenix:
[The Maricopa Association of Governments]’s public transit plans deserve close scrutiny. Use of urban public transportation systems has been in decline since the end of World War II, when public transit provided 50 percent of urban travel. Last year, only three percent of urban travel in America was provided by public transit. This decline has occurred despite prodigious government efforts to prevent it. Governments now spend 30 to 40 times as much on public transit as for roadways. But evidence suggests that transit is not the most effective use of public transportation dollars.
Of all the options in the public transit mix, light rail deserves the most scrutiny. Because it requires its own special track, it lacks the flexibility of buses, which use existing city streets. And because tracks would be constructed on existing city streets, light rail in the Phoenix region is actually projected to increase traffic congestion. Furthermore, in no city in America does light rail transit account for much more than one percent of urban person-miles of travel. The Phoenix light rail system is projected to account for only two-tenths of one percent of travel in the region.
The average cost of light rail per passenger-mile is around $1.50, almost double the cost of bus transit, and five times the cost of automobile transportation per vehicle-mile. On average, taxpayers pay nearly 90 percent of the cost of light rail passenger travel, considerably more than for all other transit modes. Worst of all, light rail would do almost nothing to relieve traffic congestion. Because 80 percent of new light rail passengers in Maricopa County would be former bus passengers, light rail would remove less than one car in 1,000 from traffic.
To my knowledge, no one has ever challenged the numbers in this report — perhaps because it is based entirely on Valley Metro’s own projections. The Arizona Republic dismissed it with high-handed hand-waving, insisting — I kid you not — that people say that kind of stuff about light rail systems everywhere. And, of course, they do, for the simple reason that, of all the idiotic ways municipal governments have come up with for “solving” their traffic problems, light rail is absolutely the most idiotic of all.
But it is not sufficient simply to suppress the facts. Light rail systems stack the deck in their favor with Transit-Oriented Development zoning overlays — forbidding car-friendly construction and subsidizing development that, presumably, will make the trains run on time. But even this is not enough. What’s missing is that PR buzz that will make light rail seem like a great success even into its second or third year of palpably obvious failure.
Enter the Arizona Republic, which, as recently as 15 years ago was an actual newspaper. By now it is nothing more than the cheerleading squad for the Boosterdoggler Coalition, a corporate welfare cabal that manages to con the taxpayers, every three years or so, into funding yet another failed rebirthing of Downtown Phoenix. On this Christmas Eve, we are blessed with six utterly incandescent puff pieces about commercial development along the route of the trolley line.
First we have the seen and the unseen, of course. That this money is being invested along the route of the trolley does not imply that it would not have been invested elsewhere, if there were no trolley. Arguably, since the trolley is such a huge waste of money, private capital would probably be more productively invested elsewhere, trolley or none. And, obviously, no one at the Republic wants to take account of all the private businesses that have been destroyed by trolley construction.
But second, we need to take a moment to reflect upon the types of commercial development heralded by the Republic. Let’s say some fine young Yuppie specimen pops for a $400,000 condo in what is, at least for now, a sketchy neighborhood. He can hop in his car and make it downtown (assuming he actually works downtown) in nine minutes flat. Instead, we are expected to believe that he will prefer to take the trolley, at an average speed of 14 mph (Valley Metro’s own estimate), all the while taking the risk that some random wino will throw up all over his Ferragamos.
Any fool should be able to figure this out, and, although this sort of situation is hardly local, perhaps the motto of the City of Phoenix should be changed to, “Not just any fools!”
Technorati Tags: real estate marketing
Dave Barnes says:
A good use of electrons.
Very good. “Light rail is economically inefficient.” Who knew?
Keep up the good work into 2007 “and beyond?”.
,dave
P.S. I hate “captchas”.
December 24, 2006 — 7:57 pm
Brian Brady says:
I’m chuckling because you referred to the Republic as something that resembled a newspaper as recently as 15 years ago.
But, Greg…light rail is soooo cool. You can’t be a REAL city unless you have an inefficient, dollar-sucking public transit system
December 26, 2006 — 2:09 am
Matt Carter says:
Maybe you should take a step back and ask yourself whether your distate for public transportation and light rail in particular (not to mention the Arizona Republic) has blinded you to some of the facts here.
You don’t cite any sources, but let’s assume you’re right that public transit accounts for only 3 percent of urban travel. So what does that mean? What we want to know is whether public transit reduces traffic congestion.
According the most recent congestion study by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University, the number of “annual person-miles” traveled on public transporttion was 43.4 billion in 2003, up from 22.9 billion in 1982. Public transportation saved 1.1 billion hours of congestion-related delays in 85 urban aras, up from 269 million in 1982. In 13 “very large” urban areas (of which Phoenix is now considered one), congestion-related delays would go up 33 percent without public transportation, the authors estimate.
These guys are considered the leading authorities on congestion in the U.S. They recommend building more road capacity, but say public transportation is also a big part of the solution to the congestion problem because A) people tend to use it in the most congested areas, and B) they use it during the hours of the day when congestion is worst.
Let’s NOT assume your assertion that “governments now spend 30 to 40 times as much on public transit as for roadways” is correct, because it seems wildly off the mark. Let’s ask, did you mean the federal government? Because, according to this analysis of more than 360,000 transportation projects, public transit took about 20 percent of federal transportation dollars in the ’90s, compared to 40-50 percent for highway and bridge repair and 20 to 30 percent for new highways and bridges.
If you’re talking about spending at the state level, again, this 2001 survey found that except for New York, the states with the 50 largest cities all spend more on roads than public transit — in most cases, considerably more.
If you are talking about cities, it would make sense that some might spend more on public transit than roads, given that public transit doesn’t pay for itself and cities end up footing the bill for much of the operating expense, while states and the federal government picks up the tab for much of even your local road work. Maybe you can find some numbers for Phoenix?
You say that at $1.50 per mile, light rail is five times as expensive as driving your car. If you are saying cars cost 30 cents a mile to operate, you are working with some old numbers. AAA puts the cost at 48 cents to 62 cents per mile, depending on the type of car and how many miles you drive per year.
As for light rail, there is no doubt buses are cheaper. There is considerable debate over whether the additional expenditure is worth it. When this issue was debated in Phoenix (when voters were asked to foot much of the bill for light rail), I have no doubt the Arizona Republic gave critics of light rail plenty of ink, in both news stories and on the editorial page.
If you went back and read the stories the paper did at the time — and not just the editorials — would you still feel justified in accusing the paper of “suppressing the facts?”
Now that the project is moving forward, it seems sensible for the paper to note the changes it’s already brought about. Land prices around the stations are going up. The story doesn’t “herald” this development, noting that “opportunities near rail bring risks. Ridership could be less than predicted at some stations. A retail complex can be poorly laid out. Builders could outpace demand, which some fear is occurring with condos. Property values are a mixed blessing. Although good for property owners, rising values can price out investors and discourage redevelopment.”
You question why a “fine young Yuppie specimen (who) pops for a $400,000 condo” would ride the train when “he can hop in his car and make it downtown (assuming he actually works downtown) in nine minutes flat.”
Yes, some people are always gonna drive. But did you miss the reference a few paragraphs later to the 160-unit condo complex next to the Camelback/19th Avenue Station where units are expected to sell for $160,000 to $240,000? The developer expects buyers will be “nurses, downtown office workers and ‘middle-income people.’ ” Some may not even own cars (GASP!).
How hard would it be for you to heed your own advice, and “take a moment to reflect upon the types of commercial development heralded by the Republic,” instead of dismissing them out of hand because they don’t fit in with your own personal feelings about public transit?
December 26, 2006 — 6:10 pm