Light rail is the product of arrogant, self-annointed "planners" who hate
cars. Since the vast majority of people prefer the convenience and privacy
of their own car, these "planners" have accomplished nothing but waste
billions of dollars and destroy downtown Salt Lake City.
I hate to dive in, but ...
Light rail is actually a nationwide success story: Portland (Oregon), Denver, Dallas, San Diego, St. Louis -- just for starters.
- Cheaper and more flexible than heavy transit; can stop more often since it doesn't need expensive and massive stations.
- More appealing than the bus. People who won't ride buses will take light rail.
- Fixed, visible right of way -- you can see it is there, and where it goes.
- Rail transit in many many places has improved the neighborhoods where it runs, increasing property values. The Clarendon district in Arlington, Virginia (just one example) was a backwater until Metro came. Walnut Creek and Concord, in California, have business districts, with much employment, thanks to BART. In fact, early last century, San Francisco was actually building streetcar lines out into the sand dunes -- knowing that people needed a way to get to work, before they could consider building and living there! Three years after the line opened, the areas where it ran were full of houses and shops. The city had to start a Municipal Railway to do this (the private company wouldn't) -- a move decried vociferously as "BOLSHEVISM" at the time. Horrors, a publicly owned street railway!
- In most cases the economic development spurred by rail transit brings new revenue to the involved government that far exceeds the subsidy to run it.
- Salt Lake City may be a unique case; I have a friend there (a doctor who moved there so he'd be a half-hour from the ski slopes; his family are Anglicans), and have visited several times. The streets are WIDE and not too pedestrian friendly; some look like you could play football on them sideways! (OK, a bit of an exaggeration.) If you have a downtown area with offices but little retail (plus a place where if you want a drink you have to buy a 50 mL miniature in the lobby then cart it upstairs to the rooftop restaurant and buy a set-up) then your downtown isn't going to attract too many people other than at work times. I can't imagine that SLC was a thriving and bustling downtown, with people in and out at all hours, until suddenly the light rail line came and destroyed it!
- Nonetheless, most light rail projects start only when traffic has gotten to an unpleasant level -- congestion, pollution. You can't keep paving over everything.
The real issue seems to be that some feel that government flat-out should not be doing things like this; that if it was a worthwhile endeavor free enterprise would step in and do it. This is the point of view of the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the virulently anti-rail preacher, Wendell Cox -- who has spent his time trying to stop light rail projects for some God unknown reason -- even in towns where he doesn't live. This happened in Austin, where thanks to well-funded propaganda the light rail referendum lost (note: barely lost). Of course, he conveniently ignores the fact that highways and roads don't generate property tax revenue, that the city has to pay for police, signal maintainers, road workers, etc. to keep the roads patrolled and in good repair, etc. But these aren't in the form of a cash "subsidy" so no one squawks. The highway and road interests are powerful -- as are those whose goal is to keep the USA firmly in the FF! ! ! U camp (many are the same people, even).
Not all conservatives are anti-public transit. Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation is a notable exception. Go to www.freecongress.org and look at this article: "New Weyrich-Lind Study: Bring Back the Streetcars!" I don't think ANYONE will doubt his conservative bona fides -- yet he makes a compelling argument.
And if you want to REALLY read interesting things. go to www.trolleycar.com (same foundation) and scroll down until you find the article "Conservatives, libertarians and rail: a betrayal of ideology??" and., at the bottom, "Conservatives and mass transit: is it time for a new look?" The authors can argue the point far better than my pitiful attempts.
There is also the concept by some that public transit brings in the "riff raff". Some people in north Baltimore shot themselves in the foot by forcing the MTA to NOT build any stops in their area. As if the bad guys take the streetcar to their neighborhood, burglarize their homes, then, carrying their booty under their arms,
walk back to the trolley stop and wait in plain view for the next car to take them back!
The last three days my car was in the shop; I have only one car, I don't need nor do I want to pay for two. Thanks to a good local bus system I was still able to get to the train to get to work.
Yes, people want the convenience of their own cars. So do I. But they are not always convenient for everything -- I would never THINK of driving into Washington, D.C. to get to work; I would be in a permanent horrible mood if I did. There is a place for both -- and even if you don't use the light rail line, your drive to work is probably easier because so many others do.
Sorry for the off topic rant, and I hope good things start happening soon on the metric front -- I still haven't figured out what a "gon" is, and I can tell time just fine the wa it is.
Carleton
