The United
States has just dropped from
number 1 in transportation infrastructure to number 16, behind Germany, Spain,
and Denmark. 60 Minutes has just run a special on the dilapidated state of our infrastructure nationwide. While our bridges are crumbling, we grow
ever more frustrated with our sinking global status. We want to be world-class
again.
But are light
rails and trolleys what we need to rebuild world-class American
cities? The easy-going liberals of Portland relish that their city is
consistently hailed as having a “world-class” transit system, complete with
buses, light rail, and streetcars. Portland sent its first “sleek and modern Portland
Streetcar“on a maiden voyage in 2001.
Fans of the streetcar have declared the city’s light-rail system, “MAX Light
Rail,” as (of course) world-class.
Los Angeles has
decided that a light-rail station that connects to LAX is worth $200 million.
Mayor Garcetti trumpeted, “World-class cities have world class airports and
world class transit.” Meanwhile, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has
written a bona fide light-rail sermon, titled “Houston Needs to Keep Pushing
Forward for A World Class Light Rail System,” in which she praised METRO Rail
for having “100 million boarding’s [sic] since service began in January of
2004. Eighteen light-rail vehicles (LRVs) have traveled more than four million
miles and achieved this record four years ahead of schedule.” From my home city
of Seattle come the sage words of Sound Transit Board member Dave Enslow, who
proclaimed the rail lines, which almost always fall behind ridership forecasts,
“a 100 year investment.”
Some locals
know that Central Link, Seattle’s first light rail line, was North America’s most expensive light rail at over $100,000 per yard when it opened in 2009.
It serves less than 3 percent of total commuters, as only 3 to 4 percent of
Seattle commuters get to work through mass transit. Apparently flush with cash
in 2014, the City of Seattle will now shell out $10 million to study new
streetcar lines. Yes, to study them. Mike Lindbolm
of the Seattle Times writes, “At least four routes would be examined…all once
served by streetcar tracks before the citywide system was abandoned in 1941.”
Yes, abandoned. Did we ever stop to think that perhaps there was a reason for
that? Like, say, the much niftier invention of trolley buses, since as it
turns out the invention of the wheel was all it’s cracked up to be?
Everyone Pays for Trains that Almost No One Uses
Nevertheless,
almost a decade after the initial plan to build the South Lake Union Streetcar
(also called the SLU Trolley and affectionately titled S.L.U.T. by critics), it
accounts for just1
percent of the region’s passenger boardings
and is heavily dependent on its sugar daddy, the City of Seattle. In 2005 at
the time the project was announced, opposing Councilman Steinbrueck,
referencing the necessary accompaniment of new sidewalks, re-paved streets, and
streetlights, called the S.L.U.T. a “luxury.” John Fox of the Seattle
Displacement Coalition offered the most telling critique: “[It’s] not that
there shouldn’t be a streetcar, but that it’s more of a real-estate toy that
shouldn’t be propped up by more vital services around the city.” (Emphasis
added.) Seattle drops money on mass transit like rich cryptozoology enthusiasts
drop money on expeditions to find Big Foot—the successes of which are
comparable.
Only 3 to 4 percent of Seattle
commuters get to work through mass transit.
In a previous
piece, I discussed the radical
ideological roots of the mass transit scam. There are some, such as Seattle
City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant (who urged Boeing factory workers to seize
control of the plant and begin building
mass transit) who believe centralization and a complete shift to mass transit
are crucial for cities’ futures. Others simply buy into this myth that light rail
and trolleys will somehow elevate their cities to the next level of
sophistication—the very prospect of which is ignorant, at best, and
self-indulgent, at worst.
The
overwhelming evidence shows that these mass transit projects do little to
improve our quality of life, in terms of easing congestion and expanding access
to jobs and, despite popular perception, have no significant net environmental
benefits since they rarely succeed in their express goal of removing
cars from the road or decreasing
congestion-induced idle times, a frequently cited contributor to greenhouse-gas
emissions. As the satirical online newspaper The Onion reported, “98% of Americans favor public transportation for others.”
That statistic may be fake, but we’ve all experienced the sentiment.
An Exorbitant Game of Keeping Up with the Jonesvilles
Even the
writers of “The Simpsons” seem to understand the comical nature of light-rail
adoption in American cities, brilliantly satirizing the salesmanship by transit authorities. The salesman,
“Lyle Lanley,” begins by comparing the Simpsons’ town of Springfield to
Shelbyville. “This is more of a Shelbyville idea,” he says slowly, turning his
back to the crowd. “Now, wait a minute!” the Springfield mayor responds
hastily, “We’re just as smart as the people of Shelbyville—just tell us your
idea and we’ll vote for it!”
Buy-in has nothing to do with demand
for a certain kind of transportation, and everything to do with wanting do the
same as other cities that have, or are building, the same thing.
Gleefully,
Lanley begins his presentation; with a grand sweeping gesture, the salesman
uncovers a model of the city, complete with buildings, trees, and a brand new
Springfield Monorail zooming through the town on its miniature tracks. Holding
up a map labeled with all the towns to which he’s sold monorails, he exclaims,
“By gum, it put them on the map!” Continuing his pitch, Langley heightens the
townspeople’s imaginations and sells them on the “novel” idea of their very own
monorail.
In other words,
the buy-in had nothing to do with demand for a certain kind of transportation,
and everything to do with wanting do the same as other cities that have, or are
building, the same thing. Of course, 50 years ago the Seattle Center monorail
(built by the German company Alweg) could easily have been said to have
elevated the Emerald City at the 1962 World’s Fair, being the cutting-edge of
rail technology at the time; but building monorails, light rails, and streetcars
in 2014 is a regressive move that mirrors the past rather than engages with the
present while leaving room for future innovation.
‘Modern Streetcar’ Is an Oxymoron
“Streetcars are
part of the ongoing renaissance which is bringing new life to American (and the
world’s) urban centers; as more and more Americans return to the city, the need
for new urban transportation solutions grows ever more important.” So says the U.S.
Streetcar Systems Website (emphasis
added). That sounds nice, but streetcars are anything but new solutions.
‘Modern’ streetcars may look sleek
and appealing, but their core functionality is essentially the same as it was
70 years ago.
The four uprooted
streetcar routes Seattle plans to study are no exception to this rule. In 1941,
all of Seattle’s streetcars were replaced with trolley coaches, which are
essentially buses that run along the same overhead wires as the streetcars did.
The city quickly adopted the new technology, painfully aware that the current
system was unsafe, unpleasant, and difficult to maintain. Bus engineering
quickly developed into the types of free-range buses we use today, but the key
transition was that of “rails to rubber,” which proved vastly more comfortable
and easier to maintain.
Today, cities
across the country have extensive bus systems with very low capital costs that
largely meet the needs of their residents. Buses revolutionized transit for the
better, offering much greater flexibility to quickly adapt routes and better
serve riders. Despite being in use for over half a century, they are the
cutting edge of mass transit technology at the urban level. “Modern”
streetcars, on the other hand, may look sleek and appealing, but their core
functionality is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago. They do not
travel any faster than buses, increase congestion
at intersections, take several years
and millions of dollars to build, and for heaven’s sake they are literally and
unalterably installed in the ground.
The same goes
for light rail. “Light” stands for light capacity, meaning that railcars can
carry only a few more passengers at full capacity (when have you ever seen
that?) than the average three-car bus. Are we still to believe, despite over
half a century of American buses proving their value over streetcars and light
rails, that these luxury mini trains are a world-class investment?
Don’t Let the Ultramodern Imagery Fool You
The
ridiculousness of the modern streetcar-light rail enthusiasm extends beyond the
historical context. If you Google “light rail” images, you will quickly see a
pattern develop. Most of the pictures are taken of the front of the rail, at a
slight angle. Conveniently, this perspective hides the end car of the train,
and the rail instead narrows out into a fine point somewhere along its length—a
manipulation of imagery that deceives by omission. The train leaves bold
strokes of blurred light in its wake as it sweeps through the photo, shedding
its colors like the Starship Enterprise entering warp speed. The buyer—that is,
the taxpayer—is led to believe he is getting quite a bit more bang for his
buck.
Light rail and streetcars bear a
strong resemblance in size and shape to buses.
This
perspective, coupled with the bold colors and sleek modeling, lends a
futuristic impression in one’s mind that is not easily displaced. Yet a good
look at a light rail from side goes a long way towards degrading the pedestrian
perception that light rails are akin to terrestrial rocket ships. The harsh
reality of light rail, as well as streetcars, is that they are a collection of
stubby little train cars, three or four of them at most, strung along a fixed
track and traveling an average speed
no greater than your car. Except
from the front of the first car and back of the last car, it bears a strong
resemblance in size and shape to buses (which leaves one wondering why exactly
we can’t purchase or move one or two accordion buses to run that route—even
with its own right of way, it would be vastly more affordable overall).
Despite this
unfortunate formational similarity, several other “benefits” commonly
associated with streetcars are much more eagerly presented to the public.
Comparing a bus to a streetcar is like comparing a new 2014 Honda Fit, complete
with leather seats and a hip metallic green exterior, to a well broken-in yet
perfectly reliable 2000 Nissan Altima. The paint is chipping a little and there
are crumbs stuck in the seat cushions, but it was a bargain and gets you to
work on time. Likewise, given the choice between riding the same route on a new
streetcar or a bus that’s collected a couple decades’ of street smells and
grime, of course one would prefer the streetcar.
Is It Really Fair to Force People to Provide New-Car Smells
for Others?
Enthusiasts
exclaim that tourists adore streetcars, based on the idea that the smoothness
of the tracks, laid fresh on a repaved lane, and schnazzy colors of the
streetcar and its tracks (and sometimes painted routes) make them more rider
and tourist-friendly. But it doesn’t take a degree in city planning to figure
out that you can achieve the virtually the same effect by properly maintaining
the street (something we should expect from our municipalities, but don’t),
spiffing up an existing bus, and painting it and the route in bold colors to
reflect the bus’s path.
It doesn’t take a degree in city
planning to figure out that you can achieve the virtually the same clean feel
by properly maintaining the street.
While the
“RapidRide” bus lines in Seattle, for instance, don’t have painted routes or
tracks, they achieve something of the same effect, clearly designated “A, B,
C-line”, etc. The bright red, white, and yellow bus stops match the bus colors
and are distinct from their traditional counterparts. They run mostly on
pre-existing roadways, making the cost of slightly ostentatious new bus
shelters somewhat justifiable.
Given that the
benefits of streetcars are not really specific to the streetcar model itself,
when it comes right down to what it does for you as a rider—move you from point
A to point B—it’s virtually indistinguishable from a bus. When capital costs,
the salaries of transit employees (total executive
earnings for Sound Transit are around $7.3
million, while union
salaries for Portland’s Trimet top $195.5
million) the archaic technology, and the striking resemblance to buses are
taken into account, light rail and streetcars seem much more like
bureaucrat-sized toys than “world-class” investments.
Although the
irony is probably lost on Sound Transit officials, the Seattle Children’s
Museum now has a Sound Transit model train exhibit. According to Sound Transit,
the new exhibit “[gives] kids a chance to learn about public transit and
picture the excitement of riding – or operating – a train.” Yes, the
excitement. I have a thrill running up my leg just thinking about that toy
train.
Grinding True Transit Innovation into the Dust
While urban
planners tinker with archaic technology, the most important mode of mobility
nationwide has continued to innovate and diversify to serve the needs of an
evolving and varied population. Last month the Seattle
Auto Show presented dozens of private-sector
vehicles built on emerging technology, including Toyota’s hydrogen fuel-cell
vehicle and Tesla’s latest marvel S
model, which can range over 300 miles on a
single charge and has as much room for storage under the hood as it does in the
trunk.
Tesla’s latest marvel can range over
300 miles on a single charge and has as much room for storage under the hood as
it does in the trunk.
Which would you
rather take your child to see—the local transit authority’s model train, or the
latest advancements in hybrid and electric auto engineering, lane-keeping
systems, and navigation and communication interfaces? Which do you think are
more representative of the future?
While
automakers have spent the past century innovating their way to nearly universal
popularity and widespread affordability and ownership, government bureaucrats
and pseudo-private monopolies like Portland’s Trimet and Seattle’s Sound
Transit have been swindling tax payers, selling us on the idea that a “real
estate toy” such as a streetcar is a world-class investment. If the history of
transportation has taught us anything, it’s that real world-class investments
are made by private innovators with private funding, such as Tesla and Alweg,
not government bureaucrats building vintage toy trains that run empty through
our neighborhoods.
Comments
Passenger trains are too expensive to build
and maintain in most of the US, Low ridership doesn’t improve no matter how
many billions you throw at this.
Public Bus Service is unnecessary. Private Bus Service is more efficient and is
doable. Government should get out of the
public bus business.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment