Rail Transit Not About Congestion, Pollution, or Choice

By Art Webb – February 3, 2005

While everyone from the County Executive to Madison’s Mayor are touting the need to “keep up with the Portlands” and install various rail transit systems, what’s the real motive behind this movement? If you listen to the rail advocates it is suppose to be about “getting people out of their cars”, thus reducing congestion and pollution. The claim is often made that if people are given transportation choices they will choose mass transit. However, looking at the facts proves that a completely different motive is at work here.

Madison has had one of the best metro transit systems in the nation for over 35 years. During that time, improvements have been made until now Metro’s budget was $50 million in 2004, of which Madison taxpayers subsidized $17 million, or more than $70 for every citizen. While Metro’s ridership has had minimal increases over the past few years it has followed the national trend and carries less riders then pre-1990 levels. Washington, DC lost 22,000 transit commuters in the 1990s even while it gained more than 100,000 jobs. With Metro’s share of commuters at less then 2% it seems obvious that even with one of the best systems in the nation, people continue to choose driving their cars over mass transit.

Outside of New York City, there is no mass transit system in the United States that can show a measurable effect on congestion. Actually, rail systems don’t even account for the number of new commuters moving into an area during the period of time while the rails are being built. During the 1990’s Portland spent hundreds of millions of dollars on light rail systems, and they increased transit commuters by 22,000. However, during that same period they increased the number of car commuters by over 175,000, which gave them one of the largest increases in congestion of any city in the US. Similarly, Denver built rail transit during the 1990’s and increased daily transit commuters by 17,000, but they had an increase of those driving to work of 248,000. A 2002 study done for Dane County’s Transport 2020 said that a light rail system would actually increase congestion in Madison because the rail cars would block main arteries for up to 13 minutes per hour during peak rush hours. Because pollution is a direct result of congestion, it’s obvious a rail system would cause an increase in pollution also.

The same Transport 2020 study also showed that an express bus service would increase transit ridership about as much as a light rail system, at much less cost. Of course all studies show buses can do everything rail systems can. While rail advocates claim light rail has a higher capacity, that’s only true when every rail car is full and in continuous operation. The issue is not capacity, its usage. At the levels of usage Dane County would have, buses can outperform rail systems in every category. Also, The United States Government Accounting Office found the average LRT (light rail transit) operating speed to be 16.8 miles per hour while BRT (bus rapid transit) was nearly double that, at 32.2 miles per hour. The advantages of buses over rail systems are well documented in many studies.

So what is the motive behind the push for rail systems? It’s all about promoting the principles of “Smart Growth”, while turning Madison and Dane County into a small version of Los Angeles. Portland, which is hailed as the light rail capitol of the nation, and the “Smart Growth” leader, is well on its way to this very same fate. In 1995 Portland Metro’s John Fregonese stated, “Light rail is not worth the cost if you’re just looking at transit. It’s a way to increase the density of the community.” More recently, the general manager of Portland Streetcar, Rick Gustafson (the first Executive Officer of Metro), echoed this theme in a presentation at Portland State University when he said, “Light rail is not about transit; it’s a mechanism for controlling sprawl and implementing better land-use planning.” In other words, it’s all about “Smart Growth.”

Portland-area residents voted in 1992 to give Portland Metro “Smart Growth” planning powers on the promise that it would save Portland from becoming like Los Angeles, arguably the most congested city in America. Los Angeles also has the nation's worst air, densest metropolitan area and among the fewest miles of freeways per capita. But after reviewing statistics for 50 major U.S. urban areas, Metro concluded that Los Angeles "displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate" in Portland. From 1991 (earliest available data) to 2000, Portland’s Housing Opportunity Index declined 51.8 percent (from 68.3 to 32.9), more than double that of Detroit, which experienced the second greatest decline in housing affordability. Over the same period of time, as the economy boomed, housing affordability in the other major metropolitan areas increased 13.5 percent, from 56.9 to 64.6. Portland has become the least affordable major metropolitan area outside of California and less affordable than Los Angeles.

Planners are turning Portland into the congested, polluted, high-cost place citizens thought they were voting to avoid. Portland provides a lesson for city officials elsewhere: “Smart Growth” is the sensible policy only if their goal is to turn their cities into Los Angeles. In 2004 the residents of Portland started to fight back when they passed a referendum taking away some of Metro’s ability to further densify residential neighborhoods. If we allow city and county planners to continue to promote “Smart Growth” through mass transit rail systems, and other plans such as “Attain Dane”, they will turn Dane County into a small Los Angeles. Is that really what we want?