The N&R’s Doug Clark has an interesting discussion of Max Borders’ Sunday op-ed on the Triangle’s proposed $2 billion-plus light rail system. Note UNCG economist Andrew Brod’s comment on the cost of Charlotte’s light rail system:

Doug, there are two fallacies in Borders’ column. The first derives from his discussion of Charlotte’s light-rail system in a vacuum. If that program were the only one ever proposed and implement, it might well make no sense for it to be subsidized. Charlotteans would benefit and the rest of us would help them pay for it. But the reality is that there are myriad such projects, some that Charlotteans help pay for without benefiting from, and some–like the light-rail system–that are the other way around. I’m not going to claim that all such programs average out (see below), but you can’t just look at one in isolation.

The second fallacy is that while metro areas like Charlotte and the Triad generate the bulk of economic activity in the U.S., they receive well less than their share of federal transportation funding (I don’t know if this is also true of state funding, but I wouldn’t be surprised). If anything, the subsidy of Charlotte’s light-rail system helps undo a funding imbalance.

Clark correctly responds that questions remain “cost-effectiveness of light rail as opposed to, say, special bus lanes on highways.” Or how about just plain highways? Anyone?

At any rate, Borders concludes that “rail transit is a 19th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.” That’s the perfect segue into an interesting Reason interview with author Robert Bryce regarding “the impossible dream of energy independence.” Bryce says that “efficiency is a good thing for its own sake,” but….

One anecdote that illustrates the principle: I had a friend who bought a Prius tell me the other day how he used to take the train to New York to see the opera. But now they have a car that gets 40 miles per gallon, so they just drive.

But that’s just an isolated anecdote. Bryce really provides the bigger picture on the fallacy of oil independence. It’s a must read, but for now I’ll leave you with Bryce’s response to the those who believe the U.S. is only fueling terrorism with its thirst for Middle East oil:

The idea is that if we could isolate the oil-exporting countries that in theory support terror we’d cut off its lifeline. The connections of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 terror attacks are real, I’m not denying that. But you cannot, given the complexity and enormous size and interconnectedness of the global crude oil market, separate one actor from another.

…..To say you are not gonna buy Saudi oil, or Algerian oil—it’s crazy. For example, the U.S. hasn’t purchased a dime of Iranian oil—except for a small amount in the early ‘90s, but for the most part no Iranian oil since 1979. And that hasn’t stopped Iran from supporting Hezbollah.