On November 4th, 2003, Houston-area voters narrowly (51.7% to 48.3%) approved the METRO Solutions Transit System Plan. The plan included a variety of transit-related improvements such as more bus routes, increased frequency of service, more transit centers and more park-and-ride facilities. The most controversial aspect of the plan, however, was its blueprint for constructing 72 more miles of rail transit (in addition to the 7.5 miles of light rail currently being completed along Main Street, which begins service on January 1st of 2004). The campaign leading up to the referendum was heated and at times downright nasty. Both sides spent millions of dollars trying to persuade voters to vote for or against the plan, and each side accused the other of distorting the truth and telling lies about the rail plan. It was a very divisive debate, and it has not gone away with the approval of the referendum. A recent decision by METRO to modify the plan by initially using bus rapid transit in place of rail on some of the lines has sparked a new firestorm of controversy; proponents continue to defend and opponents continue to decry the rail system even as engineering gets underway.
Houston’s experience is no different than those of other cities around the United States that have considered implementing a rail transit system. Whenever a metropolitan area considers building or expanding urban rail, you can be assured that a polarized and emotionally-charged debate will ensue. Why do trains create such acrimony? Like all political debates, it has to do with a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two sides of the issue.
People who oppose the construction of urban rail systems generally see the debate in terms of cost and congestion relief. They believe that significant public investment in transportation infrastructure should only occur if it helps to promote the free flow of traffic. They believe that rail transit “costs too much and does too little” because it does not remove a significant volume of cars from the road and they argue that money spent on rail systems is better spent on the construction of more roads and freeways. They usually believe that public transportation is a wasteful and inefficient enterprise which requires massive government subsidies yet which carries an ever-decreasing percentage of trips within an urban area. They argue that transportation consumers have shown an overwhelming preference for the private automobile and scarce transportation dollars should be spent serving the needs of the majority.
People who support the construction of urban rail systems, on the other hand, generally see the debate in terms of quality of life. They believe that urban rail makes a city a better place to live by providing an alternative to driving, introducing a conveyance that is more comfortable and appealing than buses, improving the performance of the overall transportation network by adding capacity along high-volume corridors and promoting “urban” economic development. They see urban rail as an amenity, much like a park or library, that increases a city's livability and attractiveness. Rail proponents oftentimes argue that the ever-increasing dominance of the private automobile has had overwhelmingly negative social, economic and environmental effects on our nation’s cities and they see the construction of rail transit as a way of “turning the tide.”
Since the pro- and anti- camps view urban rail through fundamentally opposing viewpoints – the former generally seeing it in quanitative terms and the latter generally seeing it in qualitative terms – there really is very little middle ground in this debate. Rail proponents will declare a particular project to be a success based on a specific set of criteria, while rail detractors will use a completely different set of measurements to proclaim the exact same project a failure. A good example is the recent extension of the DART Red and Blue light rail lines in Dallas. Rail opponents claim that the extensions were a dismal failure because the trains carry an insignificant percentage of the total trips made in the Dallas area and have not significantly relieved traffic congestion along parallel highways such as the Central Expressway. Rail supporters, on the other hand, affirm that the DART system is an unqualified success because it is exceeding ridership projections, is spurring new economic development at places such as Mockingbird Station and is providing commuters in places like Plano and Richardson an alternative to driving to work. Tell any of the DART riders who formerly drove to work that the Red and Blue Line extensions have been a failure, rail supporters point out, and they’re likely to laugh in your face.
I'm sure this will surprise nobody, given my current line of work, but I generally fall on the "pro-rail" side. This is not to say that I am anti-highway - the automobile will be the primary means of urban transportation for the foreseeable future and continued highway and road construction is essential - or that I do not understand the point of view of the anti-rail side. I simply believe that there is more to this debate than cost and congestion, and I do believe that urban rail systems add value to a community. There’s something to be said for the reliability and efficiency that urban rail offers. There’s something to be said for the psychological appeal of rail – why is it that there are so many people out there who would never step on a bus but would gladly step aboard a train? There’s something to be said for an alternative form of transportation that doesn’t require concrete, rubber and gasoline to work. And, yes, there’s something to be said for rail’s role in fomenting civic pride. Just because you can’t always quantify concepts like these in terms of vehicle-miles reduced or dollars spent doesn’t mean they’re not valid.
Whatever side of the urban rail debate you're one, be sure to see my list of bad rail arguments that both sides sometimes use.
Also, see my maps of North American light rail systems.
Links:
The battle about rail is being fought on the web with as much vigor as ever:
Informational sites:
www.lightrail.com - all sorts of maps (including some drawn by me!), stats, facts and links about North American light rail systems
www.urbanrail.net - another site which focuses on heavy rail systems around the world; all sorts of maps, pictures and facts
world.nycsubway.org/ -this site focuses on heavy and light rail systems worldwide and contains hundreds of pictures. It's part of a larger site dedicated to the New York City subway
quarterly heavy rail, light rail and commuter rail ridership statistics in .pdf format, courtesy of the American Public Transportation Association
Pro-rail
sites:
www.lightrailnow.org - an Austin-based pro-rail site
www.publictransit.us - information and analysis about transit
www.trolleycar.org - Paul Weyrich's conservative Free Congress Foundation is a staunch supporter of urban rail systems. This site does not appear to be active anymore; however, some of Weyrich's reports in support of rail transit, such as Twelve Anti-Transit Myths: A Conservative Critique and Bring Back the Streetcars!, are available on APTA's Online Publications page
www.transitcabal.blogspot.com - The Secret Worldwide Transit Cabal is a site dedicated to ridiculing anti-rail personalities such as Wendell Cox and Randall O'Toole. It doesn't appear to be active anymore, however
www.cfte.org - the Center for Transportation Excellence
www.transact.org - the Surface Transportation Policy Project
www.vtpi.org - the Victoria Transport Policy Institute has produced reports in defense of rail transit such as Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits and Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism
Anti-rail sites:
railroadingamerica.com - an Austin-based anti-rail site
demographia.com and publicpurpose.com - a pair of Wendell Cox sites; Wendell Cox is considered to be one of the "leaders" of the anti-rail faction (read more about Wendell Cox here, here and here)
ti.org - Randal O'Toole's website; he's another "leader" of the anti-rail lobby; his notable anti-rail reports, "Great Rail Distasters" and "Rail Disasters 2005," can be accessed here
Peter Gordon's Blog - Peter Gordon is a professor at USC and one of the few academic critics of rail