Is Light Rail The Right Ticket for Columbus Commuters?
Columbus faces an important decision: Whether to build a rail-transit system. Why is the idea so popular? One reason is the lure of easy money. According to the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce, central Ohio will gain almost a half-billion dollars from the federal government over 20 years to build a commuter-rail system if residents pass a multimillion-dollar sales-tax increase Tuesday. So, the argument goes, pay a few million dollars now and get $500 million later.
Not so fast. Taxpayers are footing the bill on both sums. A multimillion-dollar tax increase on top of the billions already taken by Washington in taxes leaves Ohio that much poorer, not $500 million richer. As the saying goes, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” And this “lunch” is hardly free. Heavily subsidized rail is one of the most costly forms of transportation. In fact, by examining estimates of costs and ridership provided by the Central Ohio Transit Authority, the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions found that it would be cheaper to lease every projected rider of the proposed system a new Ford Explorer than to build rail. The master plan to expand COTAs bus lines and to build rail transit would cost more than $4.9 billion over 20 years.
Still, advocates say, rail is worth its expense if it delivers relief from congestion, a cleaner environment and prevention of suburban sprawl. But, according to the Federal Highway Administration, highway congestion increased more than 30 percent faster in cities with new rail service from 1982 to 1994 than in cities without rail. One possible explanation for this seeming paradox is that rail diverts federal funds that would have been spent on highways. Virtually all federal-highway construction and maintenance is funded through the Federal Highway Trust Fund, whose revenues come from automobile users through gasoline taxes. Yet only 80 percent of the trust fund’s revenues are dedicated to highway projects. If you think it’s difficult negotiating the orange barrels around 1-71 and Rt. 315 now, wait until an expensive rail system competes for the same pot of federal dollars.And what about a cleaner environment? Again, rail fails to deliver. By COTA’s estimates, a rail system would reduce pollution from cars less than 1 percent by 2020. The Arizona Department of Transportation recently studied alternative traffic-reduction measures for the rapidly growing Phoenix area. Officials found that, when air pollution is measured by weight, completing freeways eliminated 30,000 tons of pollution. Rail transit, by contrast, removed 750 tons, while expanded bus lines removed 3,000 tons. Further, rail makes no sense unless dense concentrations of people live near transit stations. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the cities with the highest densities have the highest levels of pollution. The densities necessary to sustain rail transit are likely to increase air pollution.
As for so-called suburban sprawl, rail transit will do little to affect the trend toward suburbanization. Cities are becoming more decentralized and less dense. The hub-and-spoke vision of metropolitan communities favored by rail planners, in which the central urban area dominates outlying suburbs, is increasingly a thing of the past. In fact, the population density of Columbus has fallen 63.2 percent since its 1950 peak. Cleveland, experiencing the same trend, built a waterfront light-rail line that has seen monthly ridership fall by 42.8 percent since opening in 1997. The signature pattern of rail systems around the country is declining ridership and rising expenses.
To the extent that travel and pollution problems exist, simple solutions and market-based transportation strategies either are solving or will solve them. Completing existing road projects, such as Rt. 315, will improve traffic flow. Rail schemes will absorb resources that would have gone to these projects. Allowing private transportation companies the right to pick up passengers at designated places would inject competition into transit services. Deregulating the taxicab market by removing Columbus’ arbitrary caps on the number of taxis and licenses would allow entrepreneurs to serve more potential customers.
Last but not least is the advent of telecommuting, whereby employees use phones, fax machines, e-mail and the Internet to work from their homes. The number of telecommuters nationally grew to 11 million full time by 1997, eliminating about 50 billion passenger-miles. Mass transit nationwide, including buses and rail systems, transports only 40 billion passenger miles annually. The power of the marketplace, not the super-expensive train-in-vain designs of city planners, will best serve the residents of Columbus.
James A. Damask is a former Director of Research for the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.
