Uneven Rail-Transit Development

Something I've noticed about North American rail-transit development over the half-century: it is rather uneven. One city may get into it in a big way, but a nearby city may not even get started until a decade or two later. I think that it says something about the politics involved in planning and starting a system, like whether some city gets some politicians that push for such a system. Here are many of the cities with existing or proposed rail-transit systems, divided by geographical region:

Alberta:
Edmonton: 1978 -- Calgary: 1981

Pacific Northwest:
Vancouver, BC: 1985 (SkyTrain) -- Seattle, WA: 2009 (u.c.) -- Tacoma, WA: 2003 (downtown) -- Portland, OR: 1986

Northern California:
Sacramento: 1987 -- San Francisco: 1990's (expansion of old system) -- Oakland: (light rail proposed) -- San Jose: 1987
BART (SF - Oakland): 1972 (regional system)

Southern California:
Los Angeles: 1990 -- San Diego: 1981

Rocky Mountains:
Salt Lake City: 1999 -- Denver: 1994 -- Phoenix: 2008 (u.c.) -- Tucson: (proposed)

Great Lakes:
Minneapolis: 2004 -- Madison: (proposed) -- Milwaukee: (proposed) -- Chicago: (old system) -- Detroit: (proposed) -- Cleveland: (old system) -- Cincinnati: (proposed) -- Pittsburgh: (old system) -- Buffalo: 1984 -- Rochester: (proposed) -- Toronto: (old system) -- Ottawa: 2001 -- Montreal: 1966

Mid-Plains:
Kansas City: (proposed) -- St. Louis: 1993

Texas:
Dallas: 1996 -- Ft. Worth: (proposed) -- Austin: 2009 (u.c.) -- San Antonio: (proposed) -- Houston: 2004
Trinity Railway Express (Dallas - Ft. Worth): 1996 (regional system)

East Coast:
Boston: (old system) -- New York City (old system) -- Philadelphia (old system) -- Baltimore: 1983 -- Washington: 1976 -- Richmond (proposed) -- Norfolk: 2010 (u.c.) -- Raleigh (proposed) -- Charlotte: 2007 -- Charleston: (proposed) -- Atlanta: 1971 -- Jacksonville: (proposed) -- Miami: 1984

Yes, it is very much driven by local politics.

It's because the only really solid funding stream for a while has been, well, "do it yourself", which means form a political movement behind something, start a campaign, and get a bunch of people to vote to raise taxes on themselves in order to do it. So the presence of effective transit advocates, in a city where people feel positively toward urban rail, causes stuff to happen; and the absence, or general negativity towards rail or transit, causes stuff not to happen.

The mood has shifted greatly in recent years, but it's still local. It's just that there are more people thinking positively about passenger rail, and (as a consequence) more effective advocates around. It's still quite city-specific. After all, the ballot propositions (!) which just passed in many places around the US will give them various forms of rail transit; but St. Louis and Kansas City voted theirs down, so they won't get anything for another several yeas.

Yea to give you an idea of how odd the system for developing transit is.... Here in Milwaukee we've had $91.5 million sitting in a Federal account, dedicated to building new transit, for something like 15 years because the local politicians can't figure out how to spend it. The worst part is that $91.5 million would of bought you a whole lot more 15 years ago.

Reminds me of how Austinites spent something like 20 years arguing over various plans before going ahead with what they are now building.

More seriously, there have been some interesting trends.

After a drought of rail-transit construction in the 1940's and 1950's in North America, urban planners started looking for alternatives to cars and buses and urban freeways. They first decided on constructing urban-heavy-rail ("rapid transit" or "subway") systems. The first of these was the Montreal Metro in 1966. The first US one was the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, in 1972. The next ones were the Washington Metro in 1976, Atlanta's MARTA in 1979, Baltimore Metro in 1983, Miami Metrorail in 1984, and the Los Angeles Red Line in 1990.

There are various extensions of existing systems in various stages of planning and construction, but no new systems, and it is unlikely that there will be any new systems anytime soon.

There are some cities that might have gotten heavy-rail systems back in the 1970's and early 1980's, but did not.

According to Prop. 1 makes transit dream a reality, "We all know this region passed up $1 billion in federal funding for mass transit in 1970, and that money went to Atlanta."

Los Angeles politicians also passed up funding; I recall from some transit blog that LA had had some crippling transit-worker strikes back then.


But some politicians, like Jimmy Carter, thought that such systems were overdesigned for some of the places that they were built for. And in any case, such systems required rather expensive construction. So smaller-city urban planners started casting about for cheaper alternatives.

They found one in light rail, latter-day trolley/streetcar systems, and the first new North American system was built in Edmonton in 1978 and the first US one in San Diego in 1981. This was followed by several other systems, and not only are existing systems being extended, various new ones are in various stages of planning and construction. With a more transit-friendly Administration and Congress, we may see several new systems started over the coming decade.

However, even light rail is a bit expensive for many suburban areas, and a good alternative there is commuter rail. The first new North American system in recent decades is likely Tri-Rail of the Miami area, which opened in 1987. It has been followed by some additional ones, notably LA's Metrolink, and some more are in various stages of planning and construction. So as with light rail, we are likely to see several more over the coming decade.


Interestingly, some places have gotten commuter rail before they got light rail. Seattle and Tacoma got their Sounder commuter-rail system before they started getting their light-rail systems, and Nashville and Albuquerque have commuter-rail systems but no other urban-rail ones. Nashville's Music City Star cost $41 million for 32 miles of line, or $1.3 million/mile (source: Wikipedia). This is likely the cheapest new urban-rail construction in recent years; the San Diego Coaster was $94 million for 41 miles, or $2.3 million/mile, and Albuquerque's New Mexico Rail Runner was $125 million for 29 miles, or $4.3 million/mile, with others being even more expensive.

Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Madison may join the commuter-rail-only club before long, though Milwaukee and Madison also have plans for light-rail systems.