For years citizens of major metropolitan areas have borne witness to the growing cacophony of urban planners and unwary politicians vying for new rail systems to deal with perceived pollution and traffic congestion problems. The problem is that the monetary requirements are enormous, the actual effect on traffic and pollution is marginal at best, and the majority of citizens (once informed) are against it. So, why do leaders in our largest cities continue to think it’s a good idea?
In the absence of facts, elected officials “buy into” whatever the planners say will “benefit” downtown areas. From the planners’ perspective, having implemented a light- rail system really looks good on a résumé. So the process is rather effortless in that you just persuade a few sitting board members, and not the public, that this is a good idea.
Ah, but then trouble from on high (and it is a problem) happens when the Federal Transit Authority decided that Raleigh and Charlotte essentially weren’t ready by relegating them to the “promising projects” category and cutting requested funding significantly. This and the fact that the federal deficit is starting to soar like a raptor on a thermal plume should also make you wonder why we need this.
Let’s continue our argument. First, we know that the current light-rail proposals in North Carolina are being built to serve less that 1 percent of the commuting population (that is their assertion). Second, we know the cost ranges from $370 million for 10 miles in Charlotte and $888 million for 34 miles in Raleigh are ridiculous compared to building and maintaining roads. This brings us to the third point, which is that the money for this will come from the same pool of money to build and maintain local roads. This point I really love, because you then have to ask why you’re spending up to 80 percent of your available transportation funds on less than 1 percent of the mobile population. And let’s call this the fourth point; the proposed rail systems in Raleigh and Charlotte on their best day won’t change highway congestion. In fact, according to the American Dream Coalition, “No rail system outside of New York carries as many people as one freeway lane.”
And I haven’t mentioned the fact that both of these systems are to roll along and create new traffic stops. So, while you whisk along at a speed somewhere below 30mph you can be happy with the fact that you’re not sitting in traffic at the railway crossings where folks will have to stop 40 to 60 times per day to let the trains go by. Incidentally, the newly introduced Houston light-rail train hit four cars during testing at these crossings and then hit another one on its first outing. The Houston City Council then spent $110,000 in local money to block off several intersections (preventing cars from crossing) to prevent more mishaps. And to top it all off, they shut down the train during the Superbowl festivities for safety concerns. But I thought moving drunken partiers safely to their destinations would be a good rationale for the system?
Alas, I digress and I’m hopeful that you’re scratching your head, too, at this point. I did as well, especially when the poll from the Center for Local Innovation pointed out that 59 percent of the 400 registered voters in Raleigh polled thought the rail system was a “bad investment” when they learned about the cost. That same poll said 54 percent of the same group thought that expanding buses would be a better investment than rail.
To make it simple, voters think light rail is a bad idea, it doesn’t relieve traffic congestion and may increase it, it doesn’t alleviate pollution, it costs $28 million per mile (Raleigh) to $37 million per mile (Charlotte), it serves a small segment of the population, and federal authorities think the plans are “too ambitious” at this point.
So, why don’t leaders save a great deal of money by adding buses (which can actually get closer to where people live) and use scarce highway money to maintain their roads and improve them? Maybe it just makes too much sense. Besides, it’s always easier to take money away from people who earn it and buy really expensive rail systems you don’t need to impress people who might come to visit.