Light Rail Myth #6

Light rail and urbanization

Now that a commercial developer-led light rail advocate community organization is dawning on the horizon, a series of public relations myths will befall the unsuspecting public. In a weekly series, I will attempt to anticipate these fantasies and dispel them with a reality statement and supporting data.

The Myth: Light rail transit promotes superior urban form.

Follow up:

The Reality: Urban planners’ idea of superior form is high densities of both residences and places of employment. This is counter to most people’s values.

Because light rail has high costs and low benefits, some light rail pro forces have changed their tact. Instead of arguing indefensible light rail’s quantifiable effects, they have turned to qualitative urbanization arguments and supposed benefits of transit- oriented development (TOD).

This myth breaks down into two issues:

* First, what is the desired form, and why is it regarded as superior?
* Second, does rail transit actually create that form?

The first question is easily answerable.

Urban planners believe high population density is a good thing. They favor multifamily housing and small lots. Also, they favor compact retail and business areas. In other words, the ideal community is one where people walk to work and shopping.

Why do planners think these things? Living in the congested 19th century New York City tenements was not exactly heaven. High-density living and working does have some advantages. It also has some serious disadvantages. The high-density form is not compatible with the low prices and large selection that result from supermarkets, malls, and discount stores. Because most consumers place a high value conserving time and money, they rationally choose the less dense community form. Also, since urban planning carries such a negative connotation, it is now referred to as “Strategic Planning”.

Strategic planners are obsessed with the idea that “sprawl” is evil. Our region is blessed with ample land. If the derogatory word “sprawl” is dropped, and “dispersal of population” used, it is hard to understand why strategic planners are so against it.

It is fortunate that strategic planner’s high-density utopia is not really desirable. Light rail transit has no chance of producing it. High density runs counter to the realities of urban economics. High-rise buildings to produce high densities are expensive to build. The expense makes sense only if transportation costs are high enough to dominate the extra construction costs. A business can locate in the suburbs, cut its construction costs, and reduce its employees’ transportation costs. Furthermore, technological development is working against the high densities necessary for light rail transit.

Given these basic economic forces, it is not possible for light rail transit to produce the strategic planners’ vision of a high-density utopia. This is all to the good, because the vision does not correspond to the desires of the majority of Americans.

Given these basic economic forces, it is not possible for light rail transit to produce the strategic planners’ vision of a high-density utopia. This is all to the good, because the vision does not correspond to the desires of the majority of Americans.

The best minds in urban or strategic planning now have a vision of expensive rail transit facilities. When these are shown to be mistakes, the strategic planners will again walk away, while the communities of their experiments are stuck with the bill.