Addressing the Arguments
There are a number of arguments that commonly come up when plans for public rail transit are introduced. While some of the arguments against rail transit are generally valid, a lot of the arguments are rooted in a misunderstanding of the details of the issue. Some of these misconceptions are addressed below.
Rail transit is a waste of public money because nobody will ride it
Although there are several instances where ridership levels have been extremely low (such as in Buffalo, Detroit, and Tampa), there are many streetcar and light rail services across the country that are proving to be extremely effective in attracting riders. Sacramento’s single light rail line has avid public support and attracts an average of 30,000 riders daily during work weeks. Portland light rail system is one of the busiest in the country and now carries 74,000 riders on an average weekday.
Sources: Bluejay n.d.; Next Rail KC n.d.
For more information about how streetcar and light rail transit has, and has not, worked in other cities in the US, see our Case Studies page.
Although there are several instances where ridership levels have been extremely low (such as in Buffalo, Detroit, and Tampa), there are many streetcar and light rail services across the country that are proving to be extremely effective in attracting riders. Sacramento’s single light rail line has avid public support and attracts an average of 30,000 riders daily during work weeks. Portland light rail system is one of the busiest in the country and now carries 74,000 riders on an average weekday.
Sources: Bluejay n.d.; Next Rail KC n.d.
For more information about how streetcar and light rail transit has, and has not, worked in other cities in the US, see our Case Studies page.
Rail is too expensive
Streetcar and light rail construction is very expensive, so are highways and roads, which are also heavily subsidized by public funding.
One of the major misconceptions here is that the city or local jurisdictions will have to pay for the entire project. For Cincinnati's project, which is typical of major transit projects, the federal government is paying for about one third of it (City of Cincinnati n.d.). Other cities around the US have been even more successful in leveraging the federal government to pay for even larger portions of their rail transit projects.
For more information on how financing rail transit works, see our Finance section.
Humans can out-walk the streetcar
The city of Cincinnati estimates that the streetcar will be able to move from ten to fifteen miles per hour, with a 6.7 mph average. Other systems, such as those in Portland and San Francisco, average about eight miles an hour. The average speed a person can walk is around three miles an hour, so you could possibly out-run a streetcar.
Source: Lopez 2013
For more information about rail transit technologies, and the differences between types of rail transit (like streetcars, light rail, and heavy rail), see our Types of Rail Transit section.
Buses are just as good as streetcars
One of the differences that makes intensive streetcar development superior to buses is actually the permanence that the streetcar tracks and routes represent. People will always know where the streetcar is and where it stops, whereas bus routes change fairly frequently. The permanence of streetcar tracks represent a long-term investment in the area it services, this boosts property values and makes businesses and residences along the tracks hot commodities.
Source: Lopez 2013
For more information on this common argument, see our Bus Vs. Rail page.
The streetcar can’t go uphill
This myth is not widely circulated, but it is nevertheless a misconception posited by some of the opponents of the Cincinnati Streetcar, due to the hilly conditions in the terrain of Cincinnati. Although higher costs may be associated with the uphill sections of the route, the streetcar can most certainly still go uphill. The San Francisco streetcars set a good example due to their very hilly city.
Source: Lopez 2013
Those who use rail transit are virtually dependent on public transit in general
While many rail transit passengers do also use other forms of public transit, it's been proven that rail transit can attract 'choice' riders who actively choose to utilize rail transit instead of their private automobiles for certain trips. For example, more than 30% of light rail passengers in Dallas surveyed use light rail systems instead of their cars and about 70% were doing the same in St. Louis. Moreover, this same group of 'choice' riders do not often use public bus transportation. For example: 79% of St. Louis’s MetroLink riders do not use the city's bus services.
Source: Bluejay n.d.
Light rail is noisy and dangerous
Since streetcars are electronically propelled, they are generally quiet because there is no acceleration roar like that of a diesel bus. Also, there is no firm evidence that streetcar or light rail cars are more dangerous than automobile traffic.
Source: Bluejay n.d.
Why Not Just Add More Buses? "Why can’t we just decorate a bus and paint a stripe down the street to designate the streetcar route instead of spending $100 million?"
(Alliance for Regional Transit n.d.)
Re-branding a bus service, or adding bus lines to an existing network, may attract some new users to the system. However, having a permanent solution for transportation such as streetcar and light rail transit represents a lasting investment in the community. Likewise, businesses and residents are more inclined to invest along permanent transit infrastructure than one that can easily be moved (like a bus line).
The following are a few advantages rail transit enjoys over bus transit:
Rail transit brings with it more intensive economic development and tends to significantly increase property values
Throughout the US, new rail transit systems have been generally successful in creating opportunities for economic development, while also being employed as a tool for revitalization of strategic areas.
For more information on the potential economic impact of streetcar development in Northern Kentucky, please see our Economic Impact Analysis and Effect on Property Value pages.
The operating costs of rail transit are significantly lower than bus transit
While the initial capital costs of rail may seem excessive, especially when compared to any initial bus or bus rapid transit capital costs, light rail is generally cheaper in the long term because their operating and life-cycle costs are lower (Bottoms 2014). Interestingly, there is a positive correlation between high capital costs for rail transit systems and their overall operating efficiency (measured in their comparatively lower cost per passenger mile) (Guerra and Cervero 2011). Light rail systems represent at least a fifty year investment; if the system and vehicle are properly maintained, rail vehicles can provide twenty-five to thirty years of service (Bottoms 2014).
For more information on the operating costs of rail transit and how they are funded, see our Operating Costs page.
Rail transit attracts passengers that bus systems can not
To an extent, a public transit system's success can be measured by whether or not it can attract passengers who also have private automobiles, called 'choice' riders. These riders want transit that is modern, reliable, affordable, and easy to understand (Hess 2012). These are attributes which light rail systems tend to have which bus systems may not; for example: a common complaint regarding Cincinnati's bus system is that, although its network is broad, the schedule does not run frequently enough to be relied on for commuting to work.
(Alliance for Regional Transit n.d.)
Re-branding a bus service, or adding bus lines to an existing network, may attract some new users to the system. However, having a permanent solution for transportation such as streetcar and light rail transit represents a lasting investment in the community. Likewise, businesses and residents are more inclined to invest along permanent transit infrastructure than one that can easily be moved (like a bus line).
The following are a few advantages rail transit enjoys over bus transit:
Rail transit brings with it more intensive economic development and tends to significantly increase property values
Throughout the US, new rail transit systems have been generally successful in creating opportunities for economic development, while also being employed as a tool for revitalization of strategic areas.
For more information on the potential economic impact of streetcar development in Northern Kentucky, please see our Economic Impact Analysis and Effect on Property Value pages.
The operating costs of rail transit are significantly lower than bus transit
While the initial capital costs of rail may seem excessive, especially when compared to any initial bus or bus rapid transit capital costs, light rail is generally cheaper in the long term because their operating and life-cycle costs are lower (Bottoms 2014). Interestingly, there is a positive correlation between high capital costs for rail transit systems and their overall operating efficiency (measured in their comparatively lower cost per passenger mile) (Guerra and Cervero 2011). Light rail systems represent at least a fifty year investment; if the system and vehicle are properly maintained, rail vehicles can provide twenty-five to thirty years of service (Bottoms 2014).
For more information on the operating costs of rail transit and how they are funded, see our Operating Costs page.
Rail transit attracts passengers that bus systems can not
To an extent, a public transit system's success can be measured by whether or not it can attract passengers who also have private automobiles, called 'choice' riders. These riders want transit that is modern, reliable, affordable, and easy to understand (Hess 2012). These are attributes which light rail systems tend to have which bus systems may not; for example: a common complaint regarding Cincinnati's bus system is that, although its network is broad, the schedule does not run frequently enough to be relied on for commuting to work.