Tag Archives: light-rail transit

When the 2021 COVID-19 relief bill included funding for the BART expansion to San Jose, which didn’t have much to do with the coronavirus, Republicans labeled it Pelosi’s subway. Others disputed this description, saying that the BART line was 50 miles away from Speaker Pelosi’s district. Nevertheless, the earmark has apparently been removed from the bill.

$1.7 billion spent digging a hole and filling it up.

The bill still included $1.675 billion for transit capital improvement projects, which are not obviously vital considering that transit ridership is down by 65 percent. The American Public Transportation Association has created a list of 23 projects that are eligible for these funds. The San Jose BART line is not on the list. Continue reading →

Duke University’s basketball teams inspire hostility nationwide, but now the school has earned the scorn of of nearby community leaders due to its rejection of the $3-billion Durham-Orange counties light-rail project. In refusing to donate land for the rail right of way, Duke cited concerns about electromagnetic interference, vibration, and other threats to Duke research and medical programs.

$151 million a mile to take 0.08 percent of vehicles off the road.

Some argued that Duke’s decision left the project only “99 percent dead” because the GoTriangle transit agency could use eminent domain to take the land from Duke. But, nearly three weeks after Duke made its decision, the GoTriangle board “unanimously but reluctantly” voted to kill the project. Continue reading →

Duke University has until tomorrow to agree to donate land to the Durham light-rail project, or the project may die. As a result, project supporters have been trotting out advocates who claim that light rail will benefit the community.

Interestingly, none of those benefits have anything to do with transportation. In particular, some leaders of the black community think that light rail will help revitalize their neighborhoods. In fact, at best it will do nothing for those neighborhoods; more likely, it will lead to subsidized gentrification pushing black residents out.

Ironically, the neighborhood they hope to benefit is one that was previously damaged by past urban-renewal projects. Somehow, it hasn’t occurred to the black leaders that the local government’s plan to tear down existing homes and building expensive transit-oriented developments will be more likely to harm than help the current residents of the neighborhood. Continue reading →

Local officials are “astounded,” astounded I tell you, that Maryland’s Purple Line will be nearly a year late and at least $215 million over budget. The line is being built under a public-private partnership contract, which transit officials claim saves money. But apparently they forgot to write into the contract that there could be no cost overruns. (In fact, public-private partnership contracts are mainly a way of avoiding legal debt limits, since private partner borrowings don’t count against the public partner’s debt even though the contract obligates the public to pay the private partner enough to repay the debt.)

Until recently, the state of Maryland, which is overseeing the project, has claimed that the line would open on time, that is, by March 2022. But now the private partners have informed the state that it cannot possibly open before February, 2023.

The 16-mile light-rail line was supposed to cost $2.0 billion, which was a condition of getting support for the project by Maryland Governor Hogan. But the Federal Transit Administration says it will really cost $2.4 billion, which includes some costs that the Maryland Transit Authority hid from the governor. That’s at least $500 million more than it was expected to cost back in 2011. The latest overrun will increase the total cost by nearly 10 percent. Continue reading →

Having lost two light-rail ballot measures at the polls, and having built a semi-commuter-rail line that flopped, you’d think Austin’s Capital Metro would have learned its lesson. But no, twice as much to start, as originally projected, now costs nearly ten times as much per vehicle mile as Austin commuter buses, yet still only carries around 1,400 round trips a day. As the Antiplanner never tires of saying, it would have cost less to give every daily round-trip rider a new Toyota Prius every year than to run this.

On top of this, Capital Metro has lost 19 percent of its transit riders since 2012. Capital Metro hasn’t significantly cut either bus or rail service, so most of the lost riders were probably taken by ride sharing. Continue reading →

Rail advocates love to claim that light rail and streetcars increase nearby property values even if hardly anyone rides them. According to their theory, the permanence of the rail line gives developers and potential buyers or tenants a sense of security that transit will be there when they need it.

This isn’t true in the case of the Norfolk light rail, a.k.a., the Tide. According to a study by economists at the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, Norfolk’s light rail actually reduced property values.

Rail transit, notes the study, could increase values because “homeowners could benefit from increased accessibility and transit related economic development.” On the other hand, “homes in a close proximity to rail transit could experience disamenity effects from crime, noise and parking issues.” Whatever the cause, the study found that “properties within 1,500 meters experienced a decline in sales price of nearly 8 percent.” At least in this case, the study concluded, “accessibility benefits do not outweigh apparent local costs.”

Continue reading →