Ideally, in my perfect world, we’d never have had the massive fuel, road, car subsidies that led us to this predicament in the first place. In such a world, I would not bother to advocate spending on high-speed rail or lite rail or any other mass transit because I believe we would all drive a great deal less. We would all live a great deal closer to where we needed to be. Mixed zoning would be the norm rather than the exception. Suburbs would be a thing of fiction.
The problem as I see it is that we have invested in the burgeoning and destructive infrastructure that now exists and people and the economy have become quite dependent on roads, cheap gas, and cozy suburban lifestyles. When oil gets too pricey, the whole system starts to tremble and shake. Even if it should all come toppling down on us, there is not and never will be the political will to let that happen.
So we have to invest in something else, and mass transit seems like a good idea. Maybe high-speed rail will have limited use, but certainly expanding freight rail and lite-rail makes sense. If the electric car finally arrives maybe we’ll all just parade about in fancy electric cars until the coal runs out.
In any case, I basically think all subsidies of any form of transportation are a bad idea, but rail and other forms of mass transit strike me as a remedial investment, something to soften the landing of the very bad subsidization of a fossil fuel economy.
I’m warming to the idea of light rail in certain cities. Depending on the city’s layout these can work well as most business is done outside of the city core and in the suburbs. In my city, for example, our two main freeways create concentric circles around the county. These could be replaced by light rail IF there was a complimentary mass transit system on the terminal end of each stop (an issue I mentioned on your previous post).
I’m curious though E.D. If my understanding was correct you were previously a proponent of ending sprawl and returning to the cities and greater population density. Light rail would actually facilitate sprawl and encourage businesses to leave the city for the suburban and exurban periphery. How does light rail match up with your position on sprawl?
Apologies if this is a bit wonkish. Urban/suburban/rural policy is a big focus in my own blogging so I tend to preach.
That’s a good question. Again, I think it’s mainly a remedial measure. Preferably we’d have some good transit options for dense areas such as electric buses/trolleys, and so forth (think downtown Vancouver, BC).
Ideally, we’d push anti-sprawl policies first and foremost, end zoning restrictions, push vertical development and so forth.
The problem is that anti-sprawl policies just don’t work. You can’t incentivize urban living enough to make it desirable for majority of Americans. I realy believe that the desire for ‘elbow room’ is built into the American DNA. Also, with no sprawl there’s not much reason to need light rail.
Well yes and yes. No-sprawl policies have to include incentives that push people toward creating communities where home and work aren’t separated by long commutes. Expensive gas is key here, and yes – light rail would make that sprawl possible even with expensive gas.
My point is really that we won’t ever achieve perfect no-sprawl communities, but we will hit high gas prices. So we’re going to need a combination of anti-sprawl policies and mass transit policies.
I have a different take on things. Sprawl is going to increasingly result in small sub-communities of larger cities. Planned neighborhoods, incorporated areas, mixed-use districs, etc. Basically cities within cities. 10 years form now a significant number of white collar workers in those communities will tele-commute to their jobs and have all the day-to-day amenities they could ever need in their own imediate area. Trips into the urban core will be reserved for recreation (the rise of the ’boutique city’ as coined by Joel Kotkin) and they will likely use their cars to get there.
The only people left commuting out of the suburban and exurban areas will be those involved in physical trades. They are your target demographic for mass transit. As businesses move out of cities more and more, these people may be able to live closer to work but in two-income homes at least one spouse may still have to travel.
So you are right, we are going to see less commuting and people working closer to their employers BUT that doesn’t necessarily mean denser settlement. It just means business will go to the workers, not vice versa.