Bus systems, rail transit, or roads?

Last week the Los Angeles Times hosted a debate on transportation between Bart Reed, executive director of The Transit Coalition, and Ted Balaker, policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.

On day one, Reed argues that the region needs more rail transportation.

"Some may be concerned about the expense of rail, but we never figure out that the hundreds of billions of dollars we have invested in roads over the last 125 years still cannot do the job. However, it should be noted that it would be considerably more expensive to move the same number of people through new roads, which isn't a fair value for the taxpayer." He also argues that extending rail service will increase ridership on the bus system.

In response, Balaker argues that if we are to have transit agencies, they should focus on addressing the mobility needs of the poor and handicapped, and accept "that transit usually doesn't take enough cars off the road to have much impact on congestion."

On day two, Balaker opens with the observation that "railophilia sucks up huge amounts of funds that could be used for moving people who need the only type of transit that really works for them, buses."

For his part, Reed makes the claim that rail is cheaper on a passenger-mile basis after two factors are considered: rising labor costs for a bus system, and the fact that a bus will have a much shorter service life than a rail car. Just as I was thinking that Reed was making headway, he launches the old "you're being paid to say this" arrow.

Reed launches day three, by arguing that light rail will promote a better pattern of human settlement. (Why can't these people confine themselves to helping us get move around in the patterns we choose, I wonder.) He takes the odd position that people are being "forced" to live in suburbs and endure hardship commutes because of insufficient rail. At this point, I'm thinking of FDR turning the idea of freedom on its head.

While Reed warns of the dangers of induced demand (if you build it, they will come), Balaker counters that LA hasn't exactly led the charge in adding more miles: "among the top 50 urbanized areas, LA is second to last in pavement per person and dead last in freeway miles per capita."

On day four, Balaker calls for making greater use of tolls on roads, to both manage traffic and fund new projects. And even better than tolls is telecommuting, which has grown not because of subsidies (unlike rail), but in the face of zoning laws and other government-imposed impediments. Reed responds that "exorbitant fines" are a problem. It's time to no longer hold to the "anti-choice" position that includes an "overemphasis on automobile transportation."

On the last day, Reed lays out some recommendations for specific projects (more rail), saying that an urban state requires an urban (rail) transportation system. Balaker, for his part, suggests increase the use of bus service by decreasing the farebox price, and add some road projects.

But the most telling point of the exchange may have come on this day, when Balaker observes that suburbanization is a transcultural phenomenon. After making note of Europe, he says "Suburbanization and driving increase most anywhere wealth increases, and there's little public policy can do about it."

So which way will policy turn? Will government accommodate the choices made by freely choosing citizens? Or will it take tax money from those same people, and seek to push them in the direction chosen by the people we sometimes call "public servants?"