It was a rare pleasure to read the lead editorial of the Richmond Times-Dispatch today about passenger rail. The piece, undoubtedly penned by Barton Hinkle, dispenses with the usual platitudes and takes a hard look at the economics of this oft-touted solution to Virginia’s transportation woes. As the writer unsentimentally observes:
When all the capital and operating costs of both mass transit and automobile travel are accounted for, rail travel is almost four times as expensive as vehicular travel. In 2002, rail cost 82 cents per person per mile; vehicular travel cost 21 cents, even after factoring in government spending on roads. Travelers might be willing to pay that higher cost in return for conveniences such as briefer commute times, diminished highway congestion, and less road rage. But passenger rail travel in most of the U.S. — and certainly in Virginia — promises few such offsets.
The problem, as the T-D observes, is that there is insufficient density in Virginia to economically support mass transit. “Mass transit works in places where people are, well, massed together.” Like New York (26,000 people per square mile), Chicago (13,000 per square mile), Washington, D.C. (9,300 per square mile). Rail does not work well in places with suburban densities of less than 1,000 people per square mile. Here’s why:
Low density rates force transit systems into an unhappy tradeoff: Either they maintain numerous stations along their routes, which slows travel speeds considerably, or — for the sake of greater speed — they maintain just a few stations separated by large distances. The latter option not only makes use of the system inconvenient to most potential passengers, it also requires them to drive to the stations — which largely defeats the point.
Impeccable logic. My only quarrel with the editorial is this: Just because average density may be too low for transit, that doesn’t mean Virginia jurisdictions can’t support rail transit. The key is placing islands of high density around transit stops, along with mixed uses, intermodal connections and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. In the absence of appropriate zoning, however, rail as a commuting option is a waste of money.