Change can be scary. We know this from personal experience, but magnify change all the way up to the scale of a city and a lot of people get very apprehensive. Charlotte is in the midst of changes that will determine whether we remain competitive in the global marketplace or decline in comparison to more progressive cities. The ways we grow as a community, the ways we move about, the ways we live, and the ways we work are all changing; it’s no surprise some citizens are getting hysterical. A common flashpoint is the debate over new modes of public transportation and land use, and the recent visit of a streetcar expert from San Francisco sent local conservative media all a-twitter, filling the airwaves with misinformation and plain old misanthropy.
This spate of outrage, false logic and hostility is bred largely by fear of change. I understand this emotion, but it threatens to damage Charlotte’s future by pouring a nasty sludge of negativity over the very concepts of land use and transportation — particularly light rail and the trolley — that are this city’s lifeline.
Criticism usually focuses on cost, or on some vague concept of “social engineering” that hints at an Orwellian future where citizens will be forced to live in high-rise ghettoes to comply with planners’ plots for a dastardly dystopia.
I’ve dismissed that idiotic fantasy in previous columns. Far from being a planners’ conspiracy to subvert “American values,” urban living in mixed-use neighborhoods at higher densities (not necessarily in high-rise buildings, although they’re fast becoming popular with Charlotte homebuyers) is a free choice that is desired by fast-growing demographic sectors of the American population. These new and refurbished urban places are particularly sought after when they’re linked to transit; meeting this market trend is capitalism at work, not social engineering!
Arguments about cost imply that light rail is a waste of money because transit will never “pay for itself.” But this myopic view misunderstands the whole rationale behind transportation, land use and economic development.
All transportation is subsidized in some way, whether it’s road, rail or airplane. The critics who carp about light rail costs never complain about road costs. Where do they think that money comes from? The costs per mile of Independence Freeway, for example, rival those for the South Boulevard light rail line, and that’s without any appreciable increase in real estate values along its path to offset this expenditure. Whereas light rail attracts private development dollars, urban freeways tend to depress property values (and tax revenues) for obvious reasons: no one wants to be right next to them. There’s very little payback for that kind of massive public spending — so where is the outrage of the usual cost-conscious critics?
No public transit system in the world runs at a profit. Not even London’s, which is probably the biggest and most sophisticated in the world. Each day in Greater London, an average of 8.5 million journeys are made on public transport (4.5 million on bus; 3 million on Tube; 1 million by rail). Despite this ridership, the transit system “loses money.” But London, as a city, makes a lot more.
London’s economy supports 4 million jobs, and the city contributes in taxes nearly $30 billion more than it receives in public expenditure. In its own modest way, Charlotte’s center city “exports” to the suburbs at least three times the amount in taxes that it costs to provide municipal services inside the I-277 loop. If uptown declines, suburban taxes go up. That’s a simple equation.
London’s economic powerhouse would not be possible without the vital role of public transportation. The system itself doesn’t need to make money; there is no expectation of a profit in simplistic terms of fares covering operating costs. Public subsidies for London’s buses alone are estimated at approximately $2 billion in 2008/2009. But without buses and trains, London couldn’t operate.
Sometimes those buses run empty, a favorite complaint of Charlotte’s transit hawks. Once again the critics miss the point by a mile. As city council member Pat Mumford said recently, we all see sections of our roadway system with no cars on them for parts of the day. Would we suggest these roads be ripped up because each mile of asphalt isn’t being used every minute of the day? Of course not.
The economic equations of transit are much larger than simple operating profit or loss calculations. Charlotte’s critics never seem able to understand that they’re inextricably linked to land use, consumer choice and economic development. What’s so hard to understand here? Investment in transit is essential for sustained economic development and personal prosperity. Charlotte has to give consumers more choices, providing urban alternatives to the ubiquitous suburban formula that dominates our city. Just relying on yesterday’s model of more roads and more sprawl brands us as losers in the great game of global capitalism.
This article appears in Mar 16-22, 2005.
