Rail Transit
Recommendation
Policymakers should stop supporting local rail projects and instead support cost-effective modes of transportation that meet the needs of the public.
Background
• The "romance" of rail impairs the judgment of many state and local policymakers, especially given the notion that the federal government might help subsidize rail systems.
• North Carolina has paid a significant amount for rail projects without seeing results. Consider, for example, the Triangle Transit Authority's (TTA) regional rail project, which is — for all practical purposes — dead and has been dead for some time. About $148 million in federal, state, and local funds have already been spent on the TTA project, and an additional $15 to $20 million are obligated to be spent.
Why Rail Transit is a Bad Idea for North Carolina
• Rail serves very few people. The small market share of rail is surprising. Even in markets that have far larger population densities and employment centers than any N.C. city, rail transit has a surprisingly small ridership. In urban areas that have rail systems, rail accounts for only 1.26 percent of total passenger travel. Automobiles account for 97.43 percent.
• One highway lane carries far more passengers than rail. Outside of New York, no rail transit line carries as many people as even one highway lane. Proponents of rail often make claims that rail can carry more people than four or more highway lanes. They focus on "capacity" and what rail could do in theory, not on how rail works in reality. According to the Thoreau Institute ("Federal Transit Data Show that Rail Doesn't Work"), a highway lane carries: · Six times more passengers than the most productive commuter-rail line.
· About three times more passengers than the most productive light-rail line.
· Over 50 percent more passengers than the most productive heavy-rail line.
Analyst: Daren Bakst, J.D., LL.M.
Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst
919/828.3876 • dbakst-at-johnlocke.org
|
