It was in August that Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto told WTAE-TV news that should Amazon not pick the erstwhile Steel City for its second headquarters outside Seattle, mass transit could be the reason.
From the TV report:
“Limited light-rail access outside the city is poor and the Pittsburgh region is ‘woefully’ behind other cities in that regard, Peduto said.”
“If you were to look and ask if we have an antiquated transit system, sure we do, with buses,” the mayor said. “But when it comes to light-rail, we’re woefully behind other regions.”
A lack of a more expansive light-rail system “certainly” could be a detriment in landing what Amazon has called “HQ2,” Peduto said.
But for a city leader who fancies himself as the epitome of a 21st-century “progressive,” Peduto’s take on light rail is out of step with reality. More than 20 years out of step with reality, essentially.
It was in 1997 that scholar James V. DeLong, writing for the Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI), identified eight myths associated with light-rail transit – myths that too many elected and appointed public policy makers continue to insist are bogus.
First, there’s the myth that rail transit is rapid transit. But, in general, DeLong found those buses that Peduto considers to be so “antiquated” are quicker.
Then, there’s the capacity myth. Found DeLong’s RPPI study: “Bus corridors … have vastly more capacity than any single rail line. Only the most heavily used rail trunk lines have greater capacity than busways, and these have significantly higher costs.”
But surely light-rail is a champion of easing commuter congestion, right? Sorry, but no. As DeLong notes:
“Rail is not a decongestant. Support for rail voiced by drivers is based on a hope that others will use rail transit and open up the road.”
Fact of the matter is, the researcher found, “rail riders are taken out of buses, not cars.” Those supposedly “antiquated” buses.
But, of course, light-rail transit is “cost-effective.” No, it is not. Rail is “economically inferior to conventional bus service,” DeLong found.
Then there is the myth that rail best promotes the central planners’ vision of urban “superior form” (high density areas for living and work) whose advantages supposedly are manifest.
But, simply put, DeLong finds centralization runs counter to natural forces pushing decentralization.
But, but, but, surely light-rail benefits low-income people! Again, no. Given that light-rail tends to cater to more affluent neighborhoods, such routes “are poorly adapted to the needs of the low-income users,” DeLong says.
And light-rail also strips resources from bus systems that actually serve the needs of low-income riders – that is, go where those riders need to go – “because available funds must be funneled into fulfilling the extravagant promises made to satisfy the middle- and upper-class constituency that advocated the rail systems,” DeLong adds.
Then there’s the myth that light-rail creates jobs. But DeLong’s research shows not only that bus systems provide more jobs per public dollar, they lead to more local employment.
So, how about that “free money,” those federal dollars that typically cover such a huge portion of light-rail projects?
In a nutshell, DeLong notes that “the rail option is 20 times as costly as bus service in terms of demand on local capital funds.”
DeLong’s exhaustive look at light-rail more than suggests that it’s not Pittsburgh’s bus transit system that’s antiquated — though, as this institute has repeatedly found, even its costs are far and away above the national norm – but Mayor Peduto’s thinking.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
