A state senator who has questioned Pittsburgh International Airport’s (PIT) supposed lack of public transportation options to Downtown says building a light-rail line would solve the problem.
Here we go again.
The musings of Sen. Timothy Kearney, a Delaware County Democrat, came during a Senate Transportation Committee hearing this past week at the Findlay Township airport.
Per a Post-Gazette story, Kearney said, and as the P-G put it, “public transportation is the key piece missing from the airport puzzle.”
PIT is in the process of a dubious and nearly $1.6 billion terminal modernization program.
“When traveling to Pittsburgh for the hearing, Mr. Kearney said he looked into taking a train, but then considered getting to the airport.
“’We’re staying in the city. How do we get out to the airport? It wasn’t obvious,’ he said.
“Ubers can be expensive — often in the $50 range — and rush-hour traffic can slow the drive to well over 30 minutes,” the P-G continued.
“If you’re waiting for the Pittsburgh Regional Transportation’s 28X line, you might have to transfer buses to connect to airport service, which can be subject to the same traffic issues as well as delays from lack of operators.
“’Every airport I’ve ever been to that’s been considered a really great airport has a huge public transportation piece to it,’ Mr. Kearney told the Post-Gazette. ‘And that’s not 25 buses … it’s got to be light rail.’”
Which research has shown time and time again to be the least cost-effective mode of public transportation outside of the most densely populated jurisdictions.
Which research has shown time and time again to be the least operationally effective mode of public transportation outside of the most densely populated jurisdictions.
Enter Vince Gastgeb, chief government and corporate officer at the Allegheny County Airport Authority. He reminds the P-G there has been talk off and on about light rail to PIT for decades.
Then he went off the rails:
“You have to have political will,” he said at this past week’s hearing. “Someone has to stand up and say, ‘I want to do it.”
But somebody also has to have the courage to call the baby ugly and call out most light rail for what it is – a massively expensive farce.
In a Dec. 31, 2003, white paper, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis did just that. From the conclusion:
“Citizens can pay tens of millions of dollars annually to subsidize light-rail transit in their community. If the benefits exceed these costs, then rail transit would be socially beneficial. However, many of the argued benefits of light-rail transit, such as alleviating traffic congestion and pollution, may not come to bear.
“One clear benefit of rail transit, however, is higher property values for homes and businesses located near a transit station. In fact, in many cities one can see economic development occurring around transit stations, although this may not be causal evidence of the relationship between rail transit and economic development.
“But again, the increase in property values and economic development are subsidized benefits and may not be greater than the subsidy costs.
“Both citizens and local officials should have an understanding of the costs of light-rail transit relative to the potential benefits. Given the size of costs relative to the benefits, the creation of light-rail transit systems or the expansion of existing systems in American cities may be difficult to justify.”
Then as now – and most assuredly in perpetuity.
Reviving talk of a light-rail link between downtown Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh International Airport is a reckless exercise in political hubris and a gross misunderstanding of the Greater Pittsburgh marketplace, long beset with declining population, stagnant economic indicators and repeated, failed attempts (obviously) to command the economy in government’s vision.
Buses that now serve the airport are far more economically and operationally efficient than any light-rail system would be. There’s certainly not a mass of travelers in the city that would make such a link prudent. And who can imagine that suburban travelers would come to any Downtown rail hub to go to PIT when they can drive or be driven there in a far more cost- and likely time-effective manner?
There may come a time when light rail to the airport makes economic sense. But Greater Pittsburgh’s population and economy would have to grow massively to even begin considering such a move.
And do remember this: Building a light rail link to PIT won’t spark demand; it’s the demand of the market economy that would predicate the need for any such link.
Until that time, such a project would be a little-used boondoggle measured in the multiple billions of dollars.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
