Thoughts on Mass Transit
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, some intrepid souls have dared to suggest that the US needs better public transit. I have no idea how much longer either piece will remain available, but I wanted to call them just in case...
- Baltimore Sun Op-Ed: Transit missteps leave us trapped (registration required; the Sun is a Tribune paper if you've already got dummy accounts for Chicago or other cities).
- New York Times Op-Ed: The Little Engine That Could (registration required, of course).
There's not much I can add to the argument in terms of being able to move people efficiently within and between cities. Having lived in some places with rather limited public transit options, I definitely appreciate the impact a well (or at least decently) designed and implemented system has on a community. I support any movement to make it more convenient and acceptable to use mass transit instead of cars. The New Urbanists don't entirely capture the point, but they're clearly advocating the right kinds of changes. (I much prefer revitalization of existing resources to massive new construction that knocks down 20 square miles of forest or meadow or field to build another exurban "Towne Centre.")
------------------------------------
Railroads, subways, trolleys, and buses are vital parts of our national infrastructure. We've all seen the boondoggles, however, when the government controls all aspects of the program. I'm critical of the way the Interstate Highway System was designed to carve up cities in the name of efficiency -- there were better ways to route highways through Boston or Washington than the plans that were abandonded in the face of public outcry. Conservatives and liberals alike can agree that a "bridge to nowhere" serves no particular purpose except to make a particular politician look good at home. (Oddly enough, that phenomenon is why I may be more comfortable with Missouri's Roy Blount as majority leader of the House -- he's just a classic pork-barrel and log-rolling kinda guy, as opposed to DeLay who made every action into an expansion of ideology.)
The problem, of course, is the infrastructure. I see transportation as a natural monopoly, much like the utilities (water, gas, electric, telephone). Once someone's done the build-out, it's awfully difficult for anyone else to come into the same line of business because there often isn't a viable way to build competing infrastructures. A large part of the airline industry collapse can be traced to deregulation (any carrier can fly anywhere) in the face of a significant limiting factor (the number of gates and runways at any given airport).
At the same time, I don't see a problem with regulated private ownership -- perhaps it's my experience in telecom. Private ownership and operations can mix with government regulation and rate-setting based on "reasonable returns" on capital investment and operating expenses. Perhaps highways don't fit, but rail could revert to private ownership with public regulation pretty easily. Last time I checked, the major utilities were turning profits even while being subject to retail rate regulation -- and Enron showed much of the folly in a deregulated energy environment. Yes, there are lots of embryonic ideas here that may not work when fully developed... but is pursuing those ideas any worse than the status quo?
Leave a comment