Five U.S. metros (Buffalo, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and San
Jose) opened light rail systems in the 1980s to great fanfare. The mode
offered many of the benefits of subway systems for far less public money; San Diego's system, per mile, cost about one-seventh
of Washington, D.C.'s Metrorail. Light rail cities like Portland became
transportation models for the country, pointing toward a
transit-friendly urban future.
Thirty years later, light rail remains the most appealing mode of new public transportation for many American cities.
Billions of local, state, and federal dollars have been invested in 650
miles of new light rail lines in 16 regions, and today 144 miles of additional lines
are under construction at a cost of more than $25 billion. Many more
lines are planned. No region has invested in a new heavy rail subway
system, on the other hand, since 1993.
Based on the decisions to build these projects, which were made by
hundreds of local officials and often endorsed by residents through
referenda, you might think that the experience building light rail in
the 1980s had been unambiguously successful. Yet it doesn't take much
digging to find that over the past thirty years, these initial five
systems in themselves neither rescued the center cities of their
respective regions nor resulted in higher transit use — the dual goals
of those first-generation lines.
Read the entire article:Have U.S. Light Rail Systems Been Worth the Investment? - Yonah Freemark - The Atlantic Cities
2 comments:
His concluding point was that if you build new freeways AS you build light rail then you undercut your own effort. His conclusion was that we undercut the light rail in Portland by building I-205 - which is different than saying that light rail is a bad thing.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the worst public policy I can think of
Post a Comment