|
Transit adds urban value
The "L" makes the difference between Chicago and Detroit
Dallas Hansen
August 12, 2007
Recently in the Chicago Tribune ("Such a deal for transit riders,"
August 6), writer Dennis Byrne decried the large state subsidies thrown
at CTA, Metra, and Pace, concluding that, "The next time you're furious
about your late bus or train, maybe things would be better if you paid
more of your fair share."
On the surface this anti-tax fervor seems reasonable. Why should
taxpayers throughout Illinois subsidize the movement of
automobile-adverse Chicagolanders? One reason Byrne offers is that
using transit "reduces pollution." But since buses typically spew more
hydrocarbons than would a combined number of cars or trucks equal to
the number of passengers on a full bus, there are actually much better
reasons—none of which Byrne mentioned. Unfortunately, his
argument against transit subsidy was less common sense and more typical
ignorance about how cities work.
Around suburbia and within smaller cities, public transit might indeed
be for "those who can't afford to drive," but this is Chicago, where
the CTA is more than "a sensible alternative for those who can." It was
the advent of the "L", and later the Dearborn and State Street subways,
that made possible the continuously walkable and vertically reaching
cityscape that is the Chicago Loop. Even if everyone carpooled, the
sheer amount of physical space required to store great numbers
automobiles would preclude having the built environment that Chicagoans
and visitors so enjoy today. In a nutshell, rapid transit makes the
difference between Chicago and Detroit.
And speaking of Detroit, they had a subway plan once. First proposed in
1926, it fell victim to the depression, and then came the war, and once
the city finished tearing out its streetcars Detroit hemorrhaged
population and value until a city home to 2 million in 1950 shrunk to
fewer than 900,000 today. Sure there were other factors in the Motor
City's fall from greatness. But Detroit's latter 20th century lack of a
solid, rail-based transit system left her powerless to stop the
middle-class exodus following the '67 riots.
Within the urban fabric, a rapid transit station is in effect an
economic hotspot, a magnet for commerce and living that creates the
kinds of concentrations of both that make exciting urban life possible.
For example, it is undoubtedly the presence of the Milwaukee Avenue
subway and elevated trains that have fueled the miraculous economic
turnaround of Wicker Park. Shut down the Blue Line and the corner of
Damen-North-Milwaukee would soon experience building vacancies and
ultimately demolitions until half the vicinity becomes flattened into
parking lots.
It might even be possible that, subsidized though they are, transit
fares are actually overpriced. The CTA, rather than the free market,
sets a fixed fare price that rises periodically by an arbitrary
amount—usually a quarter-dollar increment.
Looking back, however, at the history of public transit, it appears
that in real terms fares were lower when the systems were run by
private enterprise. For example, fares on New York City's Interborough
Rapid Transit system held static at a nickel from 1900 until 1948, when
the city assumed control of the subways under the Metroplitan Transit
Authority. Cars were then more expensive then, but fuel was cheaper.
Since the automobile remains transit's primary competition, it makes
sense to consider what might today be the equilibrium price for a CTA
fare. If, for example, halving fare prices could lead to a trebling in
ridership, it would make sense to cut fares to $1.
Even the most ardent free-marketer must concede that insofar as
governments are necessary they should provide a framework for a
successful economy. In an urban setting public transit does more than
just move people around. It fosters an urban environment that is
bustling, attractive, and indeed even safe.
The same can't be said for the Interstate highways eviscerating the
city, so Byrne might better direct his outraged-taxpayer shtick at the
huge subsidies going into rebuilding the Dan Ryan Expressway. Indeed,
if the urban freeways which detrimentally affect street-level vibrancy
are for the most part free to use, we might ask why shouldn't the
"L"—with all its positive effects on urban street
life—be free to use too?
Proximity to such an attractive metropolis as Chicago—whose
grandeur is possible only through the urban densities that rapid
transit brings—is an asset to citizens throughout the state
of Illinois. If world-class cities or public transit really aren't your
thing, you can always move to Michigan.
www.dallashansen.com |
|
|
|
