Light Rail

In last night's debate, Bill Richardson brought attention to a much-overlooked issue by saying that an effective campaign against catastrophic climate change will entail us building more light rail systems. Mark Steyn and Mark Hemingway responded to this not with criticism, but with asinine sniggering. I didn't think that was particularly noteworthy, since ninety-five percent of conservative commentators don't know anything about any policy questions, but Matt Zeitlin took note then Steyn took note of him and responded with . . . more sniggering.

But of course that's how it goes.

Bill Richardson did a lot of mock-worthy stuff yesterday, including the moment when he suggested that none of the costs of a cap-and-trade system would be passed on to consumers. But at the end of the day, we have four Democrats with serious plans to forestall a major environmental crisis. On the Republican side, we have Mike Huckabee who thinks global warming is a serious problem but doesn't have any particular ideas about dealing with it. We have Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani who basically seem to be in denial. And then most bizarrely we have John McCain who acknowledges the problem, acknowledges its severity, acknowledges that the only solution is curbs on carbon emissions and then . . . won't endorse the sort of curbs that his own analysis suggests is necessary.

Comments

It shouldn't be too surprising the boys over at the corner are laughing: all the GOP candidates are jokes.

Posted by Jake | January 6, 2008 3:40 PM

'Shit Steyn is a moron' = 'dog bites man'. That he doesn't have Conrad Black to fluff any more just means he inflicts himself elsewhere.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 3:51 PM

Of all the forms of local public transportation, light rail is the most costly and least efficient. But it has become the most politically viable because:

1) there are a lot of politically connected (at the local level) interests that benefit from light rail construction expenses and lobby hard for those projects (lawyers, consultants, public unions, construction firms)

2) among a certain kind of Richard Florida-type affluent type, light rail sounds really attractive, where buses, which are a lot more efficient but less aesthetically appealing, do not.

3) The federal gov't grants large subsidies to local governments to build light rail, in spite of the inefficiency of the transportation form, which makes them appealing locally even though they are extremely expensive.

4) Local mayors who want to be governor like to point to light rail projects as legacies. Saying I helped put 200 more buses on the streets sounds a lot less impressive than saying to middle/upper middle class voters that I built light rail.

The real harm of it all is that the light rail routes rarely adequately serve the poor areas of the city where most public transportation users actually live.

Posted by Joe Strummer | January 6, 2008 3:51 PM

Saying I helped put 200 more buses on the streets sounds a lot less impressive than saying to middle/upper middle class voters that I built light rail.

Well, buses can be taken off the streets. And the denizens of Moron Junction already assume that they smell.

You offer valid criticisms, but I can't help thinking that a bus-based approach is necessarily second-phase, once you've got over the 'omfg, public transport!' in places where it's assumed that buses are for Those People. For instance, London's use of congestion charge income to revitalise bus use isn't easily portable to most US cities.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Pseudonymous - that's right, buses can be taken off the street, or added to the street as population shifts within a demographic region. But just look at how complicated and expensive building the Orange line in suburban Virginia out to Dulles has been.

And, pace Yglesias, DC Metro is actually quite inefficient, expensive, and costly to maintain, it's just that most of those costs are hidden by the massive subsidies the federal gov't chips in.

The middle class do not like poor people, and so they'd much prefer their city gov't build light rail - as it has in Phoenix - so they can enjoy a ride to the ballpark once every few months, than have the city gov't expand bus coverage to the poor.

that's also why light rail in Phoenix does not go into any of the neighborhoods in Phoenix that actually need public transportation

Posted by Joe Strummer | January 6, 2008 4:16 PM

Given that the Albuquerque-Santa Fe rail corridor is woefully over-budget and completely unlikely to ever be worth its investment, I'm fairly certain that Richardson -- who couldn't successfully manage a state system -- is not the fellow we want taking light rail national.

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 6, 2008 4:18 PM

I understand Steyn's vacuity a lot more after Johann Hari's revelation that he's a college dropout who was making a living as a DJ before Conrad Black hired him as an organ grinder's monkey.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 6, 2008 4:20 PM

That there isn't a light rail system that runs down King Street from King Street Metro to Falls Church Metro, intersecting with addtional light rail lines that run down Arlington and Columbia Boulevards, connecting with their own light rail feeders is worse than a crime.

Go to any third rate, medium sized town in Germany and they have an effecient, pleasant light rail system that goes to most places you have to go.

Hell, go to any third rate, shit hole of a city anywhere in the ex-Soviet bloc and there is a more or less efficient, kind of uriny smelling light rail system that goes pretty much everywhere you want to go.

Out here in the DC 'burbs, I am constantly frustrated by the lack of efficient public transport, despite densities that would support it in any other country in the developed world.

When gas goes to 10 bucks a gallon, even the McMansion owning assholes in Loudon and Prince Williams Counties are going to wish they had light rail.

Posted by calipygian | January 6, 2008 4:55 PM

Although I too think light rail is pretty cool, it is actually the worst of both worlds when you analyze it critically.

For moving large numbers of people in urban areas you need heavy rail (subways) with their own right of way that can run long trains at high speed with rapid frequency. Light rail trains that share the streets with cars simply cannot move remotely as many people as fast and efficiently as heavy rail.

For moving people in more dispersed suburban areas, modern dedicated high-speed bus-only lanes works as good as light rail at far lower costs.

Posted by Kent from Waco | January 6, 2008 5:01 PM

The problem with the DC Metro is that it is a Long Island Rail Road-style sub-urban commuter line masquerading as a subway. If it were a real New York/London/Paris/Madrid/Tokyo/Moscow subway system, there would be a lot more stops, in more places and there would be a ring line.

One just has to look how long it took to get the Green Line complete and look where the Green Line runs to realize whom the DC Metro serves.

Plus - a real subway system doesn't have forward facing cloth seats or carpeting.

Posted by calipygian | January 6, 2008 5:02 PM

Of all the forms of local public transportation, light rail is the most costly and least efficient.

Heavy rail subways are much more costly. Light rail is attractive because the upfront costs are lower, and the established infrastructure results in making it more efficient than buses.

Not only does light rail move more people than buses, but the public transportation administrators end up getting guilt-tripped into running the light rail lines more often than bus lines, which are allowed to be ignored out of benign neglect. Boston's MBTA was so adamant about ensuring that they never had to face political pressure to restart some of the "temporarily" closed light-rail lines that they physically tore up a bunch of unused rail lines to make sure that any proposals to bring back light rail could be countered by pointing out that rebuilding the infrastructure would be to expensive.

It's not that light rail results in the "worst of both worlds," it's that light rail is simply a less-than-the-best compromise position.

Buses might sound efficient and flexible in theory, but in practice, having your community served by a bus system is just setting yourself up to have those services taken away when it becomes inconvenient for transportation authority administrators.

Posted by Tyro | January 6, 2008 5:27 PM

Bill Richardson brought attention to a much-overlooked issue by saying that an effective campaign against catastrophic climate change will entail us building more light rail systems.

Absurd. The idea that light rail--a hugely restrictive and wasteful transportation option in the United States--represents any kind of "effective" response to climate change is just utterly laughable. As others have pointed out, the light rail boomlet in the United States over the past 20 years or so has been all about dealmaking and politics and being-seen-to-be-doing-something. It has nothing to do with a rational response to transportation needs or efficiency.

But at least it's not quite as absurd as the L.A. subway.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 6:43 PM

Leaving aside the merits of particular light-rail projects, another problematic issue is the matter of "Who Decides?"

"Smart growth" (defined here as mixed-use, high-density development along transit corridors) is contentious enough when its advocates try to bypass local government entities to lobby regional or state governments. Suburban voters resent what they see as these urban elitists telling everyone that they need to live in a bungalow over a gellato store next to a light-rail line, and sip lattes, and read the New York Times, and walk around the neighborhood on weekends. Or, as Matt once summarized how the argument is perceived, "Hey, jerk, why don't you go live in a dense downtown?"

Other people like having big lawns and big garages and space. Battles over land-use planning and what role the state government or regional "metro" government entities should take in overruling local entities can get really vicous.

Now try to imagine the federal government stepping in and trying to set the development rules for every medium-to-large city or developing suburb, and think how well that's gonna go over. It'll be the school busing battles and Sagebrush Rebellion of the '70s all over again.

Posted by Chris | January 6, 2008 7:48 PM

The guy who thinks light rail would be useful in the DC suburbs is smoking something. The suburbs are widely dispersed, and the jobs are also widely dispersed. Rail - light or otherwise - works best for taking masses of people from point A to point B. Outside of people who work in central DC (a small number relative to the population of the metro area as a whole), mass transit in general is just not that useful.

Unless of course, you want to define "useful" as "provides lots of long term jobs for unions, and lots of opportunities to bulldoze houses owned by the politically weak"

Buses are vastly more useful, and use the road network that already exists.

Posted by James Robertson | January 6, 2008 7:55 PM

Suburban voters resent what they see as these urban elitists telling everyone that they need to live in a bungalow over a gellato store next to a light-rail line, and sip lattes, and read the New York Times, and walk around the neighborhood on weekends.

A bunglaow is defined as a small, one-level single-family-home. I am somewhat unsure about how one would place one of these on top of a gelato store, particularly since bungalows rarely have basements.

As to the rest of your poorly-thought-out arguments, try to think about what you're saying before actually typing. One place to start might be to wonder why, if the demand for exurban SFH housing developments distant from commercial centers is so huge, this was the first category of housing stock to suffer from the recent real estate implosion.

Posted by Tyro | January 6, 2008 7:57 PM

The guy who thinks light rail would be useful in the DC suburbs is smoking something.

The proposal to connect downtown Bethesda with downtown Silver Spring with the Purple Line light rail would be awesome, actually, unless you're trying to argue in favor of the stunning efficiency of driving down the East-West Highway.

Posted by Tyro | January 6, 2008 8:03 PM

The RailRunner transportation system Bill Richardson pushed back in his home state of New Mexico has one of the lowest public/benefit payoffs per dollar in history. Ideally that ratio should be greater than 1.0 - the estimates I've seen never exceeded 0.15 .

The trains have to run full for economy and need to run often for convenience: for this you need a densely populated corridor. A densely populated corridor in New Mexico? It is to laugh. Richardson made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

But try to enjoy it, because he did it for _you_: it was a green political gesture in his hapless Presidential campaign.

Posted by gcochran | January 6, 2008 8:10 PM

Tyro,

I think you need to check your facts. In the city where I live, the first category of housing stock to suffer from the recent real estate implosion was older, smaller houses in the "historic" neighborhoods bordering the city center, not housing in the suburbs or exurbs.

In any case, your claim would be irrelevant even if it were true. Americans in general clearly prefer bigger newer more modern suburban houses to smaller older urban houses. The type of people who tend to be attracted to the latter type of housing are young childless singles and couples, and some older empty-nesters who enjoy living in or near the city. Most people, and especially most couples with children, prefer suburban living. This isn't likely to change.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 8:10 PM

Tyro,

The proposal to connect downtown Bethesda with downtown Silver Spring with the Purple Line light rail would be awesome

Yeah, like, awesome, dude! You know what would be even more awesome? A big maglev train across the desert between L.A. and Vegas. Gambler's Express. No more tedious driving on the freeway. I'm sure we could do it for only a few hundred billion. Maybe the casinos will pitch in. And think of all the union jobs!

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 8:18 PM

Mixner, actually, I don't have any familiarity the road conditions between LA and Vegas. However, the E-W Hwy in the DC area is extraordinarily slow and, in fact, almost pointless... the metro connects active downtown areas of Bethesda and Silver Spring to downtown Washington, DC, but there's no efficient connection between those two outlying downtown areas themselves. Robertson, however, seems to think that there wouldn't be any demand, despite the fact that the car traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadways.

I have checked my facts, and it seems from my view, and where I live, that the housing implosion occurred in the outer-ring suburbs first and is much less of a problem as one moves into the more central areas. In Arizona, the mess became most acute in the "drive 'til you quality" distant exurbs where people would drive on the highway until they found a development that was distant enough that they could afford. The implosion started in the most distant developments and cratered inwards.

My point is that what many or most people want is not really relevant. What is relevant is relative demand as opposed to supply. The supply of isolated cul-de-sac developments far outstrips demand, while the supply of mixed-use, well-serviced neighborhoods is far less than the available supply. The result, of course, is bad traffic and poor zoning patterns.

Contra your assertion, in the DC area, one sees young, not-so-rich couples buying their starter-homes is outlying areas like Germantown and slowly "buying up" to neighborhoods with greater amenities, like Chevy Chase and Bethesda as they become wealthier, unless they can't afford that, in which case they go elsewhere. But the reason they can't afford it is because the demand for such neighborhoods outstrips the supply.

As to the political angle, the president could simply make it a matter of policy to drastically reduce highway funds for new highways outside of city centers and support policies that would ease the strain on housing supply and transportation infrastructure in more central urban areas. Homebuyers could simply then make decisions based on those realities and move from there.

Posted by Tyro | January 6, 2008 8:39 PM

Tyro,

I commuted from the Columbia area to Arlington, VA for a while back in 1997/1998. The metro ran to within 100 yards of the place I was going, and - after the first 2 weeks on the job - I stopped taking it.

Why? Because the metro was a guaranteed 90 minutes minimum, up to 2 hours max trip, door to door. By car, it ranged from 45 minutes to 2 1/2 hours, depending on the day and time.

It was a far better bet to drive, and my wife insisted on it after awhile, in order to get me home earlier. In general, transit works well for a small percentage of people in the suburbs, and works badly (or not at all) for most. Light rail is extremely expensive, takes a long time to build, and involves some level of buying up rights of way. It's about as bad an idea as any area could decide to pay for.

Posted by James Robertson | January 6, 2008 9:10 PM

Tyro,

I have checked my facts, and it seems from my view, and where I live, that the housing implosion occurred in the outer-ring suburbs first and is much less of a problem as one moves into the more central areas.

Alas, what "seems" to be true from your view and where you live is not a reliable guide to the actual truth of the housing crisis. In order to learn that truth, you need proper evidence and data, not subjective eyeballing.

My point is that what many or most people want is not really relevant. What is relevant is relative demand as opposed to supply. The supply of isolated cul-de-sac developments far outstrips demand, while the supply of mixed-use, well-serviced neighborhoods is far less than the available supply. The result, of course, is bad traffic and poor zoning patterns.

This is all very confused. Of course what most people want is relevant, because that is what ultimately determines land-use policy. Yes, there are lots of suburban houses looking for buyers right now, but that's because we're in the middle of a housing market bust. That doesn't alter the fact that Americans generally prefer the kind of big, "isolated" suburban housing you apparently detest to the cramped urban dwellings you want them to want. I don't see any sign of that changing. The suburbs will keep growing, McMansions will keep sprouting.

As to the political angle, the president could simply make it a matter of policy to drastically reduce highway funds for new highways outside of city centers and support policies that would ease the strain on housing supply and transportation infrastructure in more central urban areas.

No, the president obviously could not do that, "simply" or otherwise. He doesn't have the power. Land-use policy is determined primarily by legislators, federal and state, who are answerable to their constituents. Any legislator who takes a position on such policy that is strongly at odds with the wishes of his constituents is likely to find himself booted out at the next election. Since so many people live in the suburbs, and highways are so vital to allow those people to travel easily and commute to work, a drastic reduction in funds for such highways is highly unlikely.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 9:45 PM

I commuted from the Columbia area to Arlington, VA for a while back in 1997/1998. The metro ran to within 100 yards of the place I was going, and - after the first 2 weeks on the job - I stopped taking it. Why? Because the metro was a guaranteed 90 minutes minimum, up to 2 hours max trip, door to door. By car, it ranged from 45 minutes to 2 1/2 hours, depending on the day and time.

My experience is similar. Even when I lived in London and San Francisco, it was still often more convenient for me to drive than to use mass transit, notwithstanding the hassles with traffic and parking. This was especially true in San Francisco, which has a fragmented and poorly-integrated mass transit system. Large areas of the city are not well-served at all, and a typical journey by mass transit could easily take three or more times as long as the same journey by car. And I'm not even factoring in the other unpleasantnesses of mass transit--the waiting around in the cold for a bus or a train, the crowding, the grime.

Posted by Mixner | January 6, 2008 9:54 PM

Even when I lived in London and San Francisco, it was still often more convenient for me to drive than to use mass transit, notwithstanding the hassles with traffic and parking.

Gosh, and there we were thinking you were an unselfish soul. Where was that London commute from, then?

The suburbs will keep growing, McMansions will keep sprouting.

Uh-huh. Come back in a decade and we'll see about that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 10:07 PM

95% of conservative commentators don't know what they are talking about? You belittle your own veracity by busting out such ridiculous hyperbole right off the reel? Who could take the writer seriously after reading such an asinine comment?

Ask any citizen of Houston, Texas how much good light rail has done for this city, then duck.

Posted by Gary Wood | January 6, 2008 10:14 PM

There are a couple of solid reasons why light rail is preferable over bus service, given the political and social situations that exist in the United States.

In most parts of the country, public buses have a lower-class stigma. (Even school buses have begun to acquire this; note how many upper-middle-class parents pick up their children from school to keep them off the bus.) Light rail lacks this stigma, and might actually have a realistic chance of attracting middle-class commuters.

Light rail implies commitment. It takes a lot of capital to set up a light rail branch, so such branches are unlikely to simply be abandoned. In contrast, bus routes can be changed at any time. Furthermore, bus service is inherently unreliable because buses, unlike light rail cars, can be stuck in traffic. People who have to get to work on time cannot run these risks, and few of them want to leave an hour early just to be absolutely sure that they get there on time. Attempts to set up "dedicated bus lanes" usually fail, as cars inevitably encroach on those lanes. In Boston, people even *parked* in the dedicated lane for the "Silver Line" bus system. Most commuters don't trust buses, and with good reason.

Posted by Josh G. | January 7, 2008 1:41 AM

Josh G.,

As an L.A. to New York transplant, I really don't know what I'm talking about here.

But it seems to me that you're making an excellent case for subways. A surface rail system on dedicated lines could work, but a lot of light rail I've seen (in San Fran, Istanbul, the Netherlands) seems to run on the streets, and is therefore somewhat subject to road conditions. Subways or Els, by contrast, aren't. What am I missing?

Posted by southpaw | January 7, 2008 1:49 AM

Suburban rail uses *electricity*. Not oil.

Posted by Alex | January 7, 2008 5:36 AM

Alex - Not true. Large parts of the largest and oldest sub-urban rail line, The Long Island Railroad, still use diesel engines. One of the pains of using it is having to transfer to electric trains at a couple of stops as you get closer to the city.

Posted by calipygian | January 7, 2008 6:23 AM

Well, as usual, the people who can afford to pay any price to drive...prefer to drive. Not only that, they also think things will go on forever as they have since 1945. After all, they say, that's what people want- and lord knows, that's what we're all about, giving people what they want, as long as it means profits for the oil industry, the paving industry, and the mortgage industry.

And, as usual, they come with a handful of bogus statistics, proving that light rail is a bad investment. They also like to "prove" that bumblebees can't fly.

And, as usual, you can do the short form- having seen what light rail can do, voters in Denver and Salt Lake City approved building systems over a hundred miles in extent for each of their cities. Curitabo, once the great "proof" that "Bus Rapid Transit" was superior, is building light rail.

Like Wiley Coyote, our driving culture ran right past the cliff edge of $100/bbl oil and is now poised in mid-air, trying desperately not to look down. What happens next ain't gonna be pretty. Already, the high school home-ec classes are revising their budgetary advice- try not to spend more than 50% of your income for transportation. You'll need the rest for your mortgage.

Which we will cheerfully do- because that's what people want.

Posted by serial catowner | January 7, 2008 8:35 AM

So Richardson doesn't understand his proposal, yet counts as having a serious proposal. WTF sort of absurd standards are you using to judge whether someone has a serious proposal?

For that matter, can and will Obama tell us how much money he expects the auction of carbon rights to raise? The certainty of emissions has to be weighed against the uncertainty of the effects elsewhere, but it isn't clear that Obama has done that (or that if he has he will share his thoughts).

Posted by Thomas | January 7, 2008 11:25 AM

Popular Mechanics had a great review of high-speed trains a couple months back.

My take on it is here:
http://invisiblegreenhand.blogspot.com/2007/12/high-speed-trains.html

"Meanwhile, there is also a productivity argument hiding in here. From the article, the average commuter spends 38 hours a year stuck in traffic (and much higher in some urban areas), burning 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. Given that 100 million Americans commute...that 3.8 billion hours and 2.9 billion wasted gallons could theoretically be worth quite a bit. If you use a $17.63 average hourly wage and average US gasoline prices ($3/gal), that's almost $76 billion wasted per year (half of 1% of GDP)."

Posted by Cai Steger | January 7, 2008 4:53 PM

There are a couple of solid reasons why light rail is preferable over bus service, given the political and social situations that exist in the United States. In most parts of the country, public buses have a lower-class stigma. (Even school buses have begun to acquire this; note how many upper-middle-class parents pick up their children from school to keep them off the bus.) Light rail lacks this stigma, and might actually have a realistic chance of attracting middle-class commuters.

Sorry, but the assertion that light rail "might" have a chance of attracting middle-class commuters doesn't strike me as a "solid reason" to pursue it. Given the enormous costs of such systems, you're going to need to something better than that.

And the light rail systems in most of the U.S. most definitely have a lower-class stigma, just like buses. Middle-class and wealthy people drive. Even the New York subway is looked down on by middle-class New Yorkers. They walk or take cabs. And the rich have cars and drivers.

Light rail implies commitment. It takes a lot of capital to set up a light rail branch, so such branches are unlikely to simply be abandoned. In contrast, bus routes can be changed at any time.

I'm not sure why you think this is an argument for light rail rather than against it. Yes, bus routes can be changed. That's a good thing. The bus system can be reconfigured dynamically in response to changing demand. A light rail system, in contrast, involves a huge fixed capital expense that cannot be recovered, and a fixed route network that cannot be changed if the system fails to attract riders.

Posted by Mixner | January 7, 2008 6:14 PM

Light Rail eh? It's clearly no laughing matter.

Posted by Jam B | January 7, 2008 6:18 PM

I think previous comments have underestimated the extent to which existing land-use regulations shape housing demand, not the other way around. While American consumers certainly have an appetite for McMansion-type development, many would tolerate and even enjoy higher densities. Certainly enough people like high-density small-town downtowns that expensive malls are taking pains to imitate them. Of course, building an actual small-town downtown wouldn't pass zoning muster in most suburbs.

The disadvantage and the advantage of light rail over buses are the same: light rail costs more and is harder to change once built. Consequently, light rail is a signal to developers that they should invest in land around stations, which is an advantage, but costs much more per route-mile than buses, which is a disadvantage.

Posted by TransitFan | January 7, 2008 6:37 PM

Also, pardon the quibbling, but it's important to distinguish between light rail as a kind of vehicle and light rail as a kind of route. Light rail cars are smaller than heavy rail and are electrically powered, whereas heavy rail is sometimes diesel powered. As a kind of route, light rail usually means that it can operate in mixed traffic like a streetcar but also on its own tracks, like heavy rail.

Speaking as an impassioned transit fan, I do think that light rail as a kind of route combines the disadvantages of a streetcar (slow) with the disadvantages of heavy rail (expensive).

Posted by TransitFan | January 7, 2008 6:45 PM

I think previous comments have underestimated the extent to which existing land-use regulations shape housing demand, not the other way around. While American consumers certainly have an appetite for McMansion-type development, many would tolerate and even enjoy higher densities.

"Many?" How many. If there is a huge pent-up demand for higher-density housing, why have homebuilders not responded by building such houses? Why haven't people voted to change land-use regulations to permit it (assuming it's actually prohibited)? The "master-planned communities" that attempt to mimic small-town America, with houses built around communal spaces and compact shopping districts, do not seem to be very successful. The ones I have visited have an antiseptic, Stepford-esque feel to them. I'm not surprised they're unpopular.

In some ways, densities have increased. The large yard and single-story ranch-style homes popular in the 60s and 70s have given way to smaller yards and two-story houses in newer developments. The trend seems to be toward bigger homes but smaller lots.

Posted by Mixner | January 7, 2008 7:57 PM