I'm generally skeptical about mass transit in the United States. Yeah, it works in Boston, New York, Chicago and -- to a degree -- in D.C.. But Americans just don't seem to cotton to it. City after city builds incredibly expensive light-rail lines, yet they don't ever seem to attract the ridership that was predicted and have barely-detectable effects on traffic congestion.
Nonetheless I'm still a fan. I went to college in Montreal, traveled extensively to Boston, and spent 2 1/2 years in London -- and I depended on the buses and trains in all of them. Although, I have to say, in 14 years in Buffalo, I've ridden the bus just once. So I was interested to read the piece in today's Buffalo News, A destination for Buffalo's train to nowhere.
It starts out pretty good. In fact it's probably the most exhaustive history of the NFTA's Metro-Rail that I've read.
When Metro Rail opened on May 18, 1985, there
was a cautious optimism in the air. It came from Buffalonians who lined
up at stations for a promotional ride on the latest endeavor for
reviving their city. After years of enduring construction
headaches, the public could finally step aboard the sleek trains or
watch them roll past Main Street's venerable landmarks. There was a
cosmopolitan confidence that went with having a rail system, and after
years of unrelenting bad news, Buffalo needed this shot of self-esteem.
Stoking the excitement at a downtown ribbon-cutting ceremony
were politicians who deemed Metro Rail a clear sign that downtown and
the region were on the rebound. Representing the federal and state
governments - which had paid for the system - were Ralph Stanley of the
Urban Mass Transit Administration and Gov. Mario Cuomo. Though their
public comments were steeped in optimism, Cuomo and Stanley also traded
barbs that revealed an undercurrent of uncertainty.
The
tension between the governor and the federal transit chief stemmed from
lingering questions about Metro Rail's future. After all, the line that
was christened on that day was supposed to be only the first leg of an
extensive regional rail network.
The writer goes on to trace from the beginning the origins of the project, the problems encountered during its construction, the inflation-caused cost overruns (I hadn't considered that -- good one) and the eventual inability of New York State to maintain its interest in mass-transit given its cyclical financial breakdowns. But what of the "destination?" How can we fix it? Here the author disappoints.
That Metro Rail has lingered in limbo for the
past 20 years has probably been for the best. The lack of regional
consensus and coordination that has stalled any local initiative to
enlarge the system would almost certainly have rendered an expanded
system irrelevant.
Yes! Excellent.
One need look only to the areas adjacent to
Metro Rail's underground stations to understand that failing to
integrate transit improvements with supportive public policies,
especially in slow-growth environments, is a recipe for wasting time
and money. Despite the 20-year presence of Metro Rail, most of the
underground stations are surrounded by little more than fast-food
joints, drive-through pharmacies and muffler shops.
OK. Another good one -- undeniably true. What do we do then? Well, in my opinion, he loses it here.
While Metro Rail has been largely
immaterial to the region's development in the past 20 years, there is
no reason why it can't play an important role in the region's future.
For Metro Rail to have an impact in the years to come, it must be an
essential part of a regional vision formed and embraced by a broad
constituency - urban and suburban.
It must be an extensive
vision, one that recognizes the short- and long-term interdependence of
all the region's neighborhoods while regarding investments like Metro
Rail not as isolated ends but as vital and strategic steps toward the
achievement of some greater objective.
I'm sorry but that's just so much new-urbanist boilerplate. I understand what he's getting at but we all knew that already. The detail he presented in his history of the metro gave me hope that he'd be just as detailed in his solution to its failure. But, alas, he provides only one. And he uses the example of booming Denver to illustrate it.
In November 2004, voters in Denver acted on
a similar idea by approving a sales tax that will help finance a
12-year plan to expand bus services and build 120 miles of new rail
transit lines in that region. More important, the Denver region has
committed itself to coordinating land-use planning with its transit
investments, thereby steering development toward well-defined and
carefully designed centers made accessible by transit to all parts of
the region.
A similar "transit improvement tax" in Erie
County, if based on a 0.5 percent sales tax, would raise nearly $50
million a year and more than $500 million over 10 years. If that
funding were leveraged to obtain federal, state and private financing,
a world-class transit system around which to synchronize future
development could be within the region's grasp.
Yikes. In an area where people are leaving in proverbial droves, he suggests a tax to encourage development? No, this isn't the answer. We can do better and so, I suspect can Mr. Lombardi. And by no means do I intend this as criticism of his writing. He's organized a huge mountain of facts into a very coherent and quite interesting article. I couldn't do it, I'm sure.
But while Buffalo could certainly do well with some sensible planning, in the end our problem goes far beyond that. How can we attract more riders to the light-rail system? How can we encourage development in the city along its route? And how can we discourage spreading fewer and fewer people farther and farther into the countryside without actually forbidding them by law to live where they wish?
We all know that population density is the key to mass transport's success. When the traffic's light, why take the train? Boston, Chicago, D.C. and New York achieved that population density without resorting to authoritarian solutions like urban boundaries. In fact, D.C.'s subways date back only some 25 years. Yet the fact that more and more people want to live there has resulted in increased ridership and increased development along its route. While Washington still sprawls, its MetroRail still grows.
Mass transit doesn't create vital and successful cities -- vital and successful cities, though, can make use of mass transit. That's an important distinction. Our first goal is to figure out how to return Buffalo to economic health. As people return, they may wish for a convenient means to get around. In their absence, we're just looking for ways to spend justify the metro, spend money and make life more convenient for a very few.
Peter Lombardi has demonstrated his ability to marshal his facts. I'll just bet -- if he thinks on it a bit more -- he can figure out a real way to make the metro prove its value.
