Light Rail Utopia

The Economist is one of my favorite magazines. It offers the reader a weekly look at a variety of issues (mostly economic and political in nature) in nearly every area of the globe. You get details on economic development and elections in countries that would merit nary a mention in the American media, excepting the outbreak of war or a natural disaster.

But at times this worldwide scope results in stories sorely lacking in depth and local perspective. Case in point is this story touting the economic boom that Minneapolis will experience as a result of the opening of our light rail line:

But the proof of light rail's success will be as much around the tracks as in the cars. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council predicts that light rail will spur the building of more than 7,000 housing units and 19m square feet of office space, almost as much as downtown Minneapolis has already. Mixed-use buildings are now rising fast in and around the light-rail stations. It might have happened anyway; but it looks as though the return of rail has given the Twin Cities something of a boost.

Before I get to a couple of problems with these claims, let me first credit The Economist with a great title for this piece: "Onward Swedish Socialists". A new theme song for the DFL? Nah, not diverse enough.

Trying to justify the existence of the light rail line by bragging up the "economic impact" in the areas surrounding the stations reminds me suspiciously of the efforts to claim that building sports stadiums will have a positive impact on the local economy. That hogwash has been thoroughly debunked by some of the best minds in the economics field.

You also always have to consider the source. In this case the prediction for a rosy economic future for Minneapolis brought about by light rail is supplied by the Metropolitan Council. Even though the Met Council is now led by the reasonable Peter Bell rather than uber urban planner (ve know vat's good for you) Ted Mondale, it still has a vested interest in seeing light rail succeed, and will undoubtedly shill for it at every opportunity.

And, to conclude that "the return of rail has given the Twin Cities something of a boost" is ridiculously pre-mature. The line opened this month for farg's sake. If there's been a "boost", I'd like someone to please point it out to me.

It's similar to the stories splashed across the local media crowing about how many people used the light rail line in the first week, as if that was enough to call it a success and silence the critics. Keep an eye out for the stories in January about light rail ridership after six months. You'll have to look hard, as me thinks they won't be on the front pages anymore.

There is also a mention in The Economist story of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, an organization led by our AM-1280 The Patriot radio colleague, David Strom:

Supporters of the project enthused, in the usual way, about reordering the urban landscape and cherishing the environment. To its opponents, however, light rail epitomised an outdated urban liberal penchant for social control, dense living and an irrational Europhilia--all the sort of things that left-leaning Minnesota used to be proud of. The conservative Taxpayers League of Minnesota, which carries much weight with conservative Republicans (including the state's governor, Tim Pawlenty) pointed out that light rail cost far more than roads.

Keep up the good fight David. The Swedish Socialists are still marching.

UPDATE: King has much more on this topic.