Number 36 - March 2000
Poicy Statement:
Analysis by The Public Purpose has consistently found that rail systems in highly
automobile oriented urban areas are excessively costly and ineffective. This is not because The
Public Purpose is opposed to rail --- indeed we are not. The Public Purpose finds urban rail systems
to be superior and effective strategies where conditions are conducive to their use
(See Rail Success Stories).
The Public Purpose is opposed to
public strategies that do not effectively address public purposes and spending more to
achieve public purposes than necessary, consistent with our mission, which is:
Regrettably, failure to effectively address public purposes and costs that are higher
than necessary represent the record of new urban rail systems in automobile oriented
urban areas, especially in the United States.
The problem is that where the automobile has become the dominant form of transport,
and where urban areas have become decentralized and highly suburbanized, there are
simply not a sufficient number of people going to the same place
at the same time to justify urban rail. As a result, it is typically less expensive to provide a new car for each
new rider than to build an urban rail system.
This is not to suggest that urban rail is inappropriate everywhere. In fact, urban rail
plays a crucial role in the worlds most dense and centralized urban areas or portions
thereof, such as
Tokyo,
New York,
London,
Paris and
Hong Kong. With central area
population densities up to 10 to 100 times that of US urbanized areas and very
large central business districts, urban areas
such as these could not function without their rail systems
(See Keys to Urban Rail Success). But Portland, Phoenix,
Orlando, Atlanta and Sacramento have nothing in common with the spatial
arrangements of these dense urban areas, and urban rail is simply incapable of
materially reducing traffic congestion, at any price.
Yet, virtually without exception, urban rail systems have been promoted to public office
holders and voters as a means of reducing traffic congestion in highly automobile
oriented urban areas. For example, it is typical for promoters to claim that light rail will
carry the same passenger volume as six or even 12 lanes of freeway/motorway traffic. This is specious and
misleading, in view of the fact that the average new light rail line in the United States carries barely
20 percent of the volume of a single freeway/motorway lane.
The Public Purpose does not oppose urban rail. The Public Purpose is against wasteful public expenditures, and
false advertising. Unfortunately, these are all too often characteristic of light rail systems and their
promotion. The Public Purpose will support any urban rail project that is the optimal solution to a critical transport problem.
|